Mortuary Behavior and Social Trajectories in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete (Prehistory Monographs) [Illustrated] 9781931534741, 1931534748

Table of contents :
MR_FinalBook_5-22-14_noFigs
MR_front
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Archaeology and Death in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete: Theoretical and Methodological Issues
3 The Pre- and Protopalatial Archaeological Record
4 The Mesara Valley, the Asterousia Mountains, and the South Coast
5 North-Central and Central Crete
6 The Mirabello and the Ierapetra Region
7 East Crete
8 West and West-Central Crete
9 Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization
Appendix 1 Gazetteer of Funerary Contexts in Pre and Protopalatial Crete
Appendix 2 Dubitanda
References
Index
Tables
Figures

Citation preview

Mortuary Behavior and Social Trajectories in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete

Mortuary Behavior and Social Trajectories in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 44

Mortuary Behavior and Social Trajectories in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete

by Borja Legarra Herrero

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2014

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Legarra Herrero, Borja, 1976– Mortuary behavior and social trajectories in pre- and protopalatial Crete / by Borja Legarra Herrero. pages cm. -- (Prehistory monographs ; 44) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-931534-74-1 (hardcover : alkaline paper) 1. Crete (Greece)—Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece—Crete. 3. Tombs—Greece—Crete. 4. Cemeteries—Greece—Crete. 5. Funeral rites and ceremonies, Ancient—Greece—Crete. 6. Social archaeology—Greece—Crete. 7. Bronze age—Greece—Crete. 8. Community life—Greece—Crete—History—To 1500. 9. Social change—Greece—Crete—History—To 1500. 10. Crete (Greece)—Social life and customs. I. Title.  DF221.C8L37 2014 939’.18--dc23 2014008742

Copyright © 2014 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Chapter 1.

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2.

Archaeology and Death in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 3.

The Pre- and Protopalatial Archaeological Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 4.

The Mesara Valley, the Asterousia Mountains, and the South Coast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 5.

North-Central and Central Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Chapter 6.

The Mirabello Bay and the Ierapetra Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 7.

East Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Chapter 8

West and West-Central Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter 9.

Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Appendix 1. Gazetteer of Funerary Contexts in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Appendix 2. Dubitanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

vi

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Tables Figures

List of Tables

Table 1.

Absolute chronology of the Cretan Early and Middle Bronze Ages.

Table 2.

Tholos tomb names listed alphabetically and their references in different publications.

Table 3. Estimated populations in various tholos tombs in South-Central Crete. Table 4A. Comparison of Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A and Lebena Yerokambos 2 assemblages (based on data from Blackman and Branigan 1982, 20–39; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 57–115). Table 4B. Moni Odigitria Tholos A EM I–II ceramic assemblages (based on data from Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b). Table 5A. Summary of two ceramic assemblages from Lebena Yerokambos and Papoura (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157). Table 5B.

Lebena ceramic assemblage (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157).

Table 5C. Nonceramic assemblages from Lebena Papoura, Yerokambos, and Zervou (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–191). Table 5D. Ratios of ceramic to nonceramic items: number of ceramic vessels divided by the number in each category with the exception of the last row, which excludes EM I ceramics from the ceramic vessel figure, and the last column, which is the number of beads divided by the number of ceramic vessels from Lebena Yerokambos and Papoura (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157). Table 6.

Moni Odigitria assemblages (based on data from Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b).

viii

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Table 7. Estimated population in various tombs at Archanes Phourni in EM III–MM II. Table 8.

Estimated population in four MM I–II rectangular tombs in East Crete.

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Funerary contexts in use by period.

Figure 2.

EM I–MM II cemeteries on Crete.

Figure 3.

EM I–MM II funerary contexts by type.

Figure 4.

Classification of cemeteries according to data quality.

Figure 5.

Known Pre- and Protopalatial settlements on Crete.

Figure 6.

Principal archaeological surveys conducted on Crete.

Figure 7.

Cemeteries in the Mesara Valley, Asterousia Mountains, and south coast.

Figure 8.

Funerary contexts in the Mesara Valley, Asterousia Mountains, and south coast.

Figure 9.

EM I funerary contexts in South-Central Crete.

Figure 10.

EM II funerary contexts in South-Central Crete.

Figure 11. Hagia Triada cemetery with development through time, modified from plan in Creta Antica 4 (2003), folded map. Figure 12. Lebena Yerokambos cemetery with development over time, modified from Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 12. Figure 13. Hagia Kyriaki A, B, and C, modified from Blackman and Branigan 1982, 45, 47, figs. 15, 16. Includes Hagia Kyriaki A development through time. Figure 14.

Moni Odigitria cemetery, modified from Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, fig. 14.

x

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Figure 15.

Annexes in EM I tholos cemeteries.

Figure 16A. Selected funerary context from South-Central Crete: Hagia Kyriaki A ceramic assemblage, based on data from Blackman and Branigan 1982, 20–39. Figure 16B. Selected funerary context from South-Central Crete: Lebena Yerokambos ceramic assem­ blage, based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 57–115. Figure 16C. MM I ceramic assemblages from selected funerary contexts in South-Central Crete. Figure 17A. Number of tholoi in EM II cemeteries (possible tholoi included). Figure 17B. Annexes in EM II tholos cemeteries (possible tholoi included). Figure 18. Koumasa cemetery with development through time, modified from Xanthoudides 1924, pl. 61. Figure 19.

Platanos cemetery, modified from Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Figure 20.

Apesokari A cemetery, modified from Schörgendorfer 1951b, pl. 16.

Figure 21.

Trajectories of selected contexts in EM II–MM I South-Central Crete.

Figure 22.

Funerary contexts in use in EM III in South-Central Crete.

Figure 23.

Tholos tombs at Vorou A and Vorou B, modified from Marinatos 1931, 139, 142, figs. 2, 5.

Figure 24.

Funerary contexts in use in MM IA in South-Central Crete.

Figure 25.

Development through time of selected cemeteries in South-Central Crete.

Figure 26.

Funerary contexts in use in MM IB in South-Central Crete.

Figure 27.

Porti Tholos Pi, modified from Xanthoudides 1924, pl. 52.

Figure 28.

Kouses cemetery, modified from Hadzi-Vallianou 1989, 434, fig. 4.

Figure 29.

MM I deposits in selected funerary contexts.

Figure 30.

Kamilari A cemetery, modified from La Rosa 1992, 112, fig. 14.1.

Figure 31.

Larnax and pithos burials in South-Central Crete.

Figure 32.

Funerary contexts in use in MM II in South-Central Crete.

Figure 33.

Number of funerary contexts in use by period in South-Central Crete.

Figure 34. Number of ceramic vessels in Kamilari A by period following published material in Levi 1963. Figure 35. Funerary contexts from earlier periods in use in MM III and LM I in South-Central Crete. Figure 36.

Cemeteries in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 37.

Funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 38.

EM I funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 39.

Krasi A tholos, modified from Marinatos 1929b, 104, fig. 2.

Figure 40.

Funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete of unclear dating.

Figure 41. Funerary contexts in the Trapeza area, modified from Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and MoneyCoutts 1939, 15, fig. 3; 1940, 4, figs. 1, 2.

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

Figure 42.

Stravomyti Cave, modified from Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 29, drawing 3.

Figure 43.

Psychro Cave, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 12, fig. 4.

Figure 44.

Skotino Cave, modified from Tyree et al. 2008, 52, fig. 1.

Figure 45.

Milatos Cave, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 66, fig. 25.

Figure 46.

Eileithyia Cave, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 22, fig. 7.

Figure 47A. EM I wares by shape from the best-known contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. Figure 47B. Number of published objects from the best-known EM I–IIA contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. Figure 47C. Nonceramic assemblages from EM I and EM IIA contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. Figure 47D. Ratio of ceramic and nonceramic objects from various EM I–IIA contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. Figure 48.

EM II funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 49.

Number of funerary contexts in use in North-Central and Central Crete by period.

Figure 50.

EM IIA–IIB funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 51.

Cemeteries in the Knossos area, modified from Whitelaw 2004b, 154, fig. 10.4.

Figure 52.

Off-island materials in EM I–IIA funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 53. Archanes Phourni cemetery, modified from Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35. Figure 54.

Development of the ceramic assemblage at Trapeza Cave through time.

Figure 55. Malia cemetery, modified from van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan 3; École Française d’Athènes 1974, folded map. Figure 56A. Number of MM I–II ceramic vessels by tomb at Archanes Phourni. Figure 56B. Percentage of ceramic vessels by period in the three best-known tombs at Archanes Phourni. Figure 56C. Ceramic shapes in EM III–MM II assemblages at Archanes Phourni. Figure 56D. Nonceramic assemblage by period at Archanes Phourni. Figure 57.

EM III funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 58A. Chrysolakkos, modified from Demargne 1945, pls. 38.1, 38.2, 52.2. Figure 58B. Maison des morts, modified from van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan 3. Figure 59.

Pithos and larnax burials in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 60.

MM I funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 61. Gournes A cemetery, modified from Hazzidakis 1915, 59–60, figs. 1, 2; Soles 1992b, 150, fig. 62. Figure 62A. MM I–II assemblages from Malia. Figure 62B. Nonceramic assemblages at MM I–II Malia.

xii

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Figure 62C. Percentage of vessel shapes in EM III–MM II ceramic assemblages from Malia. Figure 63.

MM II funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 64. Tombs in the Knossos area: Mavrospilio. Modified from Forsdyke 1927, 244, 265, 277, figs. 1, 19, 32. Figure 65. Tomb in the Knossos area: Gypsades XVIII. Modified from Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 221, fig. 21; Hood 2010. Figure 66.

Tombs in the Knossos area: Ailias Cemetery. Modified from Hood 2010, 163, fig. 16.2.

Figure 67.

EM I–MM II assemblages in various funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 68.

Mirabello Bay, Ierapetra area, and East Crete.

Figure 69.

Cemeteries in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 70.

Funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 71.

EM I funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 72A. Material assemblage from Hagios Antonios. Figure 72B. Number of ceramic vessels per period from Hagios Antonios. Figure 73. Cemeteries in the Gournia area. Map on left modified from Fotou 1991, plan A. Map of Sphoungaras at upper right modified from Hall 1912a, pl. 15. Map of Gournia North cemetery at lower right modified after Soles 1992b, plan 2. Figure 74.

Pseira cemetery, modified from Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, fig. 2.

Figure 75. Various tombs from the Pseira cemetery, modified from Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 3–8, 11–14, 17–20. Figure 76.

Ceramic shapes in dated burial deposits in the Mirabello Bay.

Figure 77.

EM IIA–IIB funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 78.

Use of cemeteries and funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions by period.

Figure 79.

Tombs in use in Gournia, Pseira, and Mochlos by period.

Figure 80.

Klisidi Cave, modified from Younger 1976, 167, fig. 1.

Figure 81.

Gournia cemeteries through time, modified from Hall 1912a, pl. 15; Soles 1992b, plan 2.

Figure 82.

Gournia assemblages.

Figure 83.

Gournia North Cemetery tombs, modified from Soles 1992b, 5, 29, 35, 37, figs. 2, 11, 14, 15.

Figure 84.

Mochlos cemetery plan, modified from Soles 1992b, plan 3.

Figure 85. Mochlos tombs, modified from Soles 1992b, 44, 52, 66, 74, 79, 95, 111, figs. 16, 20, 25, 28, 31, 40, 52; Soles and Davaras 1992, 422, fig. 4. Figure 86. Similarities between tombs in Pseira and Mochlos cemeteries, modified from Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 6, 11; Soles 1992b, 74, 111, figs. 28, 52, pl. 32a. Figure 87.

Mochlos cemetery through time, modified from Soles 1992b, plan 3.

Figure 88.

Preserved height of walls at Mochlos as reported in Soles 1992b, 46–49, 51–57.

Figure 89.

Total number of objects by room in Mochlos West Terrace complexes.

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

Figure 90A. Mochlos cemetery: map on left shows number of published objects by tomb; map on right shows number of unpublished objects by tomb, not including gold. Figure 90B. Number of published objects by tomb in Mochlos cemetery. Figure 91A. Mochlos cemetery: map on left shows percentage of objects in off-island materials per tomb; map on right shows percentage of objects in off-island materials per tomb, not including gold. Figure 91B. Percentage of objects in off-island materials per tomb in Mochlos cemetery. Figure 92.

EM III funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 93.

Myrtos Pyrgos tomb, modified from Cadogan 1978, 72, fig. 5.

Figure 94.

Kalo Chorio tombs, modified from Haggis 1996, 648, 650, figs. 3, 5.

Figure 95.

MM I funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 96.

MM II funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 97.

MM III–LM I use of earlier funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Figure 98.

Pithoi and larnakes in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions (EM III–MM II).

Figure 99. Deposition of items in off-island materials in EM I–II funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions. Figure 100.

Cemeteries in East Crete.

Figure 101.

Funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 102.

Funerary contexts with unclear date in East Crete.

Figure 103.

EM I funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 104.

Tholos at Livari, modified from Schlager et al. 2002, 208, fig. 18.

Figure 105.

Shapes in the ceramic assemblages of Palaikastro area tombs.

Figure 106A. Ceramic vessels in anterooms by shape in Hagia Photia Siteias A, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225. Figure 106B. Ceramic vessels in the whole cemetery of Hagia Photia Siteias A by shape and ware, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225. Figure 106C. Ceramic vessels in tombs and anterooms by ware in Hagia Photia Siteias A, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225. Figure 106D. Ceramic vessels in tombs and anterooms by shape in Hagia Photia Siteias A, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225. Figure 107.

EM II funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 108.

Mandalia and Linares tombs, modified from Soles 1992b, 128, 159, figs. 58, 66.

Figure 109.

Tombs in the area of Palaikastro, modified from Sackett et al. 1965, pl. 64.

Figure 110. Palaikastro tombs, modified from Duckworth 1903b, 352, fig. 4; Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4; Soles 1992b, 181, fig. 72. Figure 111.

Tombs in the area of Zakros.

Figure 112.

Development of the number of tombs in Zakros and Palaikastro by period.

xiv

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Figure 113A. Material assemblages from several rectangular tombs in East Crete. Figure 113B. Material assemblages from several rectangular tombs in East Crete by percentage. Figure 114.

EM III funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 115.

MM I funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 116.

Use of tombs in Palaikastro through time.

Figure 117A. Number of funerary contexts in East Cretan cemeteries by period. Figure 117B. Number of secure funerary contexts in East Cretan cemeteries by type and period. Figure 118. Distribution of human bones and ceramic material in various rectangular tombs in East Crete. Figure 119. Tombs located at Zakros Pezoules Kephalas, modified from Soles 1992b, 196, 199, figs. 77, 78. Figure 120.

Scattergram of number of skulls and objects in best-known rectangular tombs in East Crete.

Figure 121.

MM II funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 122.

Metal and ivory objects in selected cemeteries in East Crete.

Figure 123.

Cemeteries in West and West-Central Crete.

Figure 124.

Funerary contexts in West and West-Central Crete.

Figure 125.

Number of tombs in West and West-Central Crete by type.

Figure 126.

Comparison of burial and nonburial sites found in diverse surveys.

Figure 127.

Kera Spiliotisa, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 57, fig. 22.

Figure 128.

Melidoni Mylopotamou, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 64, fig. 24.

Figure 129.

Nea Roumata A tomb. Photograph by the author.

Figure 130.

Off-island influences in EM I–II tombs in West and West-Central Crete.

Figure 131.

EM I funerary contexts and mortuary behaviors.

Figure 132.

Ceramic assemblages in different funerary contexts by period.

Figure 133.

EM II funerary contexts.

Figure 134.

Distribution of folded-arm figurines in Crete.

Figure 135.

Nonceramic assemblages in different funerary contexts by period.

Figure 136.

EM III funerary contexts.

Figure 137.

MM IA funerary contexts.

Figure 138.

MM IB funerary contexts.

Figure 139.

MM II funerary contexts.

Figure 140.

Funerary contexts reused in MM III and later periods.

Figure 141.

EM I–MM IA continuity in funerary contexts.

Acknowledgments

This book was the result of long research that started with my Ph.D. from University College London (UCL) in 2002. My first thanks are therefore to my Ph.D. supervisors, T. Whitelaw and S. Shennan, as without them I would not have been able to begin this research, or to complete my Ph.D. As part of my original Ph.D. research I must thank A. Bevan for his infinite patience guiding me through the intricacies of the use of GIS. I am also thankful to A. Stellatou, C. Broodbank, J. Soles, T. Brogan, A. Vasilakis, K. Branigan, C. Briault, Y. Galanakis, S. Todaro, T. Carter, T. Tselios, G. Vavouranakis, and H. Hall for their insightful comments and useful discussion. I am particularly indebted to D. Catapoti, Y. Papadatos, T. Campbell-Green, K. Damilati, and M. Relaki, not only for stimulating conversations, but also for providing me with their Ph.D. dissertations. G. Cadogan and R. Chapman were extremely helpful during the defense of my thesis, and this book includes most of their comments and suggestions. Also, T. Whitelaw has continued to encourage and support me during the long process of writing this work, and I am thankful to him for his constant comments and discussion. I am particularly indebted to those who have been so kind as to share some of the unpublished information of their projects. J. Driessen and I. Schoep were extremely helpful with the most interesting site of Sissi. Similarly, K. Branigan, A. Vasilakis, K. Sbonias, T. Campbell-Green, and F. Michelaki provided me with a comprehensive picture of the Moni Odigitria excavation. T. Whitelaw was kind enough to guide me through the abundant but fragmentary information of the excavations around Knossos. Y. Papadatos was very kind to discuss the information

xvi

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

from Archanes Phourni, Petras-Kephala, Livari, and Messorachi. I am indebted to A. Vasilakis for both his comments on different sites in South-Central Crete and the invitation to form part of the Trypiti Survey Project, which has enabled me to acquaint myself with this beautiful part of Crete. Also, I would like to thank J. Soles for his insightful comments regarding the cemetery at Mochlos; P. Betancourt for his clarifications on the evidence from Trapeza, Hagios Charalambos, and Hagia Photia Siteias A; and L. Girella for his help with the information from Kamilari and Hagia Triada. Finally, I am much indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their patience, comments, and advice that have helped greatly to improve this work. I would also like to thank A. Stellatou, G. Seymur, and K. Karseras for their kindness and patience in proofreading various drafts of this work. Many thanks go to Susan Ferrence, Jennifer Sacher, and the team at INSTAP Academic Press for their careful editing, general help, and in particular for their painstaking work on the gazetteer. Financial support for the original research and preparation of the monograph for publication was provided by the Basque Government through their Beca para la formación de investigadores, modalidad predoctoral AK, the Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, and the Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship at Leicester University. Also, I would like to thank UCL and the Institute of Archaeology for helping with some of my research travels. A very special mention goes to my parents, Maria del Carmen and Fidel, and my sister, Raquel, because they have helped me in so many ways that without them the mere idea not only of writing this work, but even of becoming an archaeologist, would not have been possible. Last but not least, I want to mention my wife, Anna, as without her active encouragement and help this work would never have materialized and without her love, silent support, and fine sense of humor, I would not have had the strength to write it.

List of Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this volume: BB b.c.e. BGW ca. cm CMS DGB dia. EBA EC ELU EM EN ENB FN

burial building before common era Burnished Gray Ware circa, approximately centimeter(s) Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel Dark Gray Burnished ware interior diameter in meters Early Bronze Age Early Cycladic estimated length of use in years Early Minoan Early Neolithic estimated number of burials Final Neolithic

ha hectare(s) HM Herakleion Museum km kilometer(s) Kn. Knossos L. building length, interior measurements in meters l. dagger long dagger LBA Late Bronze Age LM Late Minoan m meter(s) min. minimum MM Middle Minoan N Neolithic t. dagger triangular dagger W. building width, interior mea­surements in meters

1

Introduction

Prehistoric Crete has had a significant presence in the archaeological literature since the end of the 19th century. One important reason for such significance is the rich and relatively well-preserved archaeological record of the island from the Paleolithic and perhaps Mesolithic periods onward. The archaeological remains include a large number of tombs and cemeteries, many of which date to the third and second millennium b.c.e., also called the Pre- and Protopalatial periods or Early Minoan (EM) I to Middle Minoan (MM) IIB (for a chronological framework, see Table 1). These periods constitute a distinct cycle in terms of mortuary customs (Fig. 1). As the EM I period began, new tombs of novel types appeared, marking the beginning of the cycle. The number of known cemeteries and tombs reached its zenith in MM I and underwent a rapid recession during MM II. Most cemeteries were abandoned by the end of this period, whereas quite different mortuary customs appeared on the island during MM III and Late Minoan (LM) I. The EM I–MM II cycle was clearly defined by two significant attributes: the use of

similar types of tombs, many of them indicating a conscious effort to construct enduring structures; and the deposition of significant amounts of material in the tombs, in many cases objects that must be considered socially valuable. In other words, cemeteries and tombs held a significant relevance for Cretan communities during the EM I–MM II periods that would not be matched again until the LM III period, under very different circumstances. It is not a coincidence that this cycle in mortuary practice corresponded with a very dynamic period in the history of the island that had important implications beyond Crete. It was on Crete during the early second millennium b.c.e. that one of the inflection points in European history occurred: for the first time, a European culture underwent changes that ended in the appearance of a state society. Many of the questions about social change and state formation that structure the study of later European periods can be first approached in the case of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. Funerary rituals have the potential of being significant social arenas (arena meaning both a

2

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

place and an occasion: Hodder 1980; Pader 1980; Chapman and Randsborg 1981; Parker Pearson 1982; Hayden 2009). They are ritual spaces where the norms that organize everyday life can be challenged, bent, negotiated, or reinforced (Byrd and Monahan 1995; Cannon 1995; Pearson 1998). It is now clear that cemeteries and funerary rituals were central social arenas in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete (Branigan 1988, 1991a, 1998a; Murphy 1998, 2000; Legarra Herrero 2011a). Therefore, the study of the mortuary record represents one of the most interesting avenues for investigating the dynamic history of Cretan communities during the Pre- and Protopalatial periods. Despite the certainty of the central role of tombs and cemeteries in Pre- and Protopalatial Cretan societies, there is still no clear approach to the study of human societies through their mortuary behavior during these periods (the term “behavior” is defined here as the meaningful repetition of a conduct as identified in the archaeological record). Even though the interpretation of burial data has been proved by many archeologists to be far from straightforward (Hodder 1980; Chapman 1981; Parker Pearson 1982; Charles 2005), methodological issues have been barely explored in the study of the Cretan mortuary record. The result is that most of the models for the explanation of change on Crete rest on a very feeble understanding of the burial data. This book constitutes an effort to reach a better understanding of a key period in Cretan and European history by a clear and concise approach to the funerary evidence. Such an approach relies on the comprehensive study of the totality of the known Cretan mortuary record during the Preand Protopalatial periods, summarized in the gazetteer of burial sites presented in Appendix 1 at the end of the volume. The aim of this book is therefore two-fold. The first is to reinvestigate and update the study of funerary contexts of the island during the Preand Protopalatial periods (many of the contexts have not been reviewed since at least the 1970s). The second is to evaluate our understanding of the changes that Cretan communities underwent

during the third and early second millennium b.c.e. based on the evidence yielded by restudy of the mortuary record. The final aim is to achieve a more accurate view of the dynamics that structured Cretan history during the Early and beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, and of the role funerary customs played in these. Chapter 2 reviews the problems in the conception and characterization of Cretan communities during the EM and MM periods, and will establish the theoretical bases for their study. This will be followed by a revision of mortuary studies on Crete, beginning with the history of research concerning the Cretan Pre- and Protopalatial mortuary record. Relevant shortcomings in past research will be identified and a new approach to the study of mortuary behavior presented. In Chapter 3 the acute problems that archaeologists encounter in the study of the material record of EM and MM Crete will be assessed. A new detailed analysis of the funerary data divided by geographical region (South-Central Crete, North-Central and Central Crete, Mirabello Bay and the Ierapetra region, East Crete, and West Crete) is presented in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Finally, Chapter 9 reviews the results discussed in the data chapters and unites them within the theoretical framework developed in Chapter 2, in order to understand not only the social relevance of mortuary practices for Cretan communities, but also the Pre- and Protopalatial Cretan communities themselves during a period of crucial change. Appendix 1 presents an exhaustive gazetteer of possible and secure burial sites on Crete from the EM I to the MM II periods. Each site in the gazetteer has a unique number, and these numbers are referenced in bold throughout the book when specific contexts are mentioned. Appendix 2 contains a gazetteer of sites that are not considered funerary in this book but have been mentioned in other literature as possible Pre- and Protopalatial tombs. Readers may find also useful Table 2, which presents a relation of the different names given to tholos tombs in diverse publications and expands on the excellent work of Panagiotopoulos (2002).

2

Archaeology and Death in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Approaches to the Study of Cretan Populations The ultimate aim of this book is to gain a better understanding of Cretan communities in the Preand Protopalatial periods. To achieve this, it is first necessary to present the theoretical foundations on which this book lies, and how these address some of the more pervasive assumptions in the studies of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. The second part of the chapter engages in a more evidence-oriented discussion of how to approach the study of the Cretan mortuary record.

Theoretical Limitations in the Study of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete Over the last few years, several authors (e.g., Hamilakis 2002b; Papadopoulos and Leventhal, eds., 2003; Barrett and Damilati 2004; Parkinson and Galaty 2007) have started a comprehensive review of the long-standing theoretical assumptions that underlie most of Cretan archaeological

studies. Such explicit critiques have been matched by a more general effort to break away from the traditional theoretical ideas of linear and cumulative development (Bintliff 1984; Hamilakis 2002b; Halstead and Barrett 2004; Tomkins 2004; Whitelaw 2004a; Wright 2004; Legarra Herrero 2011a) and to move away from “palace-centered” approaches (Knappett 1999a, 620–621; Haggis 2002, 121– 122; Halstead 2004; Schoep and Knappett 2004; cf. Schoep 2006; Sbonias 2011). This profound theoretical revision deals with a wide range of aspects of past studies, and a comprehensive review of these critiques is beyond the scope of this work. Nevertheless, there is still a need to present the theoretical framework for this study, and in the process I will reconsider the main theoretical and methodological flaws in past archaeological thought that this work tries to address. The first step is to set up a robust spatial-temporal framework for the study, as such an issue has normally been ignored in the study of prehistoric Crete.

4

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

There is a lack of understanding of how spatial and temporal scales interact to create the archaeological record on the island, with the result that most studies have approached Crete as a monolithic and static spatial and temporal context. Only very recently has the assumption that Cretan prehistory was unilinear and spatially homogeneous been questioned (Hamilakis 2002b; Whitelaw 2004a; Legarra Herrero 2009).

Space In terms of spatial scales, we are just starting to move away from geographical conceptions of region, and a wave of new studies are focusing on smaller and more relevant spatial scales defined by significant social networks (Sbonias 1995; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Knappett 1999a; Haggis 2002; Relaki 2004; Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006; Legarra Herrero 2009). Unfortunately, these new studies focus on a few specific areas (SouthCentral Crete) and types of evidence (ceramic production and exchange) and fail to offer a comprehensive spatial approach to the study of Cretan populations. In order to bring out the rich diversity of prehistoric Cretan societies, this work will rely on the concept of community. Traditionally, several households that live in close proximity have been considered a community, although the concept is far more complicated, as shown by several authors in a recent book edited by Canuto and Yaeger (Marcus 2000; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). Community is a socially created concept that varies dramatically from one culture to another (Joyce and Hendon 2000; Marcus 2000) and evolves through time within each context (Pauketat 2000a). Still, regardless of the wide range of scenarios addressed by the different published papers mentioned above, the definition of community is quite similar: community is understood as the most important scale of suprafamily social organization; it is the social level in which significant social relationships are deployed more frequently. This can, in some cases, be equated with the co-residential village, but in other examples it refers to larger entities that have little to do with locality (Hare 2000; Isbell 2000; Pauketat 2000a; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). These studies have highlighted the fact that community

is a context-defined concept that, to further complicate matters, can change its social and spatial boundaries through time. Such characterization poses important questions regarding community, identity, residence, and use of landscape, which in our case need to be defined within the particular archaeological context of Crete. Given that the cemetery was an important context for Pre- and Protopalatial societies within the island, it is logical to assume that it signified a meaningful relationship among all the individuals buried in the same location, as well as those attending funerary rituals. Consequently, a community is defined in this study as the living human group that interred their deceased together in the same cemetery. In Chapter 3, we will further analyze the relationship of this definition of community with settlement, demography, and the human landscape of the island and how it affects our understanding of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. Supracommunity human scales relevant for the study of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete have been discussed recently in the literature, normally under the appellative of “regions” (Knappett 1999a; Haggis 2002; Relaki 2004; Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006; Legarra Herrero 2009). These supersede any studies that considered them without a clear definition (e.g., Branigan 1968b, 226) and any work that has focused on the distribution of material culture (Wilson and Day 1994; Nakou 1995; Sbonias 1995; Legarra Herrero 2004). Relaki suggested that the term “region” is far from ideal, as it has normally been equated with fixed geographical boundaries that limit the potential of exploring human relationships. She has proposed the use of the concept “network of relevance,” defined as “relations between people and places and the ways that such relations are expressed on the landscape. They are created and reproduced through people’s consistent engagement in specific social practices” (Relaki 2004, 172). As in the case of the concept of community, Relaki highlights that these supracommunity scales are socially defined. This means that, first, several social networks could have existed at the same time at different scales (Relaki 2004, 173), ranging from small vicinity intercommunity networks to Aegean-wide systems, depending on their aims and the types of relationships they activated. Some of these networks may have corresponded to a certain

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

degree to geographical boundaries. Second, intercommunity networks were in a constant state of change (Kramer 1994; Chapman 1996; Wandsnider 1998; Mathieu and Scott 2004; Lock and Molyneaux 2006b), with their spatial dimension being modified accordingly. Third, it is highly unlikely that such socially defined regions constituted clearly divided spatial entities (Shennan 1989; Meskell 2001; Relaki 2004, 172); they did not have distinct boundaries and overlapped with other similar networks, so it cannot be assumed that they will be found in the record as clear and discrete patterns. Within this framework, I will use here the mortuary record to provide insight into some of the most relevant supracommunity social relationships on Crete. The advantage in using mortuary behavior is that our spatial definitions are not based merely on distributions of certain materials (Branigan 1968b; Sbonias 1999b; Legarra Herrero 2004), nor on certain architectural traits (Goodison 2001; La Rosa 2001; Belli 2003; Hillbom 2003), but on a more in-depth and comprehensive aspect: the way in which communities actually did things, including the ideological and ritual aspects connected to their mortuary practices. Communities that follow a similar mortuary behavior are linked together in a far more profound way than the mere sharing of burial customs. Mortuary behavior represents a significant social activity that is intimately related to other social aspects (Binford 1971; Parker Pearson 1982), and populations with a similar mortuary behavior must also share similar social traits. While a myriad of potentially relevant supracommunity relationships may have existed in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete, given the importance attached by Cretan communities to their cemeteries, patterning in mortuary behavior can be related to significant supracommunity links. Hence, the study of funerary customs constitutes a useful avenue for identifying relevant relationships between different communities. Moreover, the careful study of mortuary behavior in relation to wider social aspects can lead us to define the nature of links between different Cretan communities. Since some of these relationships will still have a geographical focus, the term “region” remains useful (Kantner 2008) and will be used henceforward. Therefore, the term “region” in this work must be considered as shorthand for

5

a complex patterning of idiosyncratic social links with a definite, if somewhat loose, geographical focus. In each case where the term “region” is used, it will be defined through its specific geographical scale, life span, and the particular nature of the social link that characterized that individual region.

Time There are various assumptions about time that arise from the “developmental” paradigm that is traditional to Cretan archaeology (Hamilakis 2002b; Barrett and Damilati 2004). This paradigm conceptualizes Cretan prehistory as a continuous development toward a more complex sociopolitical organization. The “revolution” model put forward by Cherry (1983a, 1984) presents changes as occurring rapidly, but it left the cumulative conception of Cretan prehistory untouched. In the particular case of Prepalatial Crete, in addition to this cumulative assumption, social history is understood from a teleological point of view, as a process that culminates in the first palace societies of the Protopalatial period. Both assumptions have recently been challenged. Whitelaw has made clear that Cretan history comprises the trajectories of communities that changed continuously, not toward an objective but in accordance with various necessities and circumstances, some of them not at all connected with the dynamics that produced the early palace communities (Whitelaw 2004a). Such a model relates to the broader archaeological theory that has shown that change is not cumulative; purely in terms of political organization, movements toward hierarchical societies may easily be counterbalanced by movements away from such sociopolitical organization (Crumley 1995; White 1995; Keswani 1996; Pauketat 2000b; Wiessner 2002, 2009; Wright 2004). These cumulative and teleological assumptions have led to a simplistic conceptualization of the history of Cretan communities, and to an interpretation of the evidence that, at its deepest level, has judgmental and moral connotations, as it defines development through modern ideas about progress and improvement (Hamilakis 2002b). In contrast to these traditional views, the history of Cretan communities must be understood as the result of the aggregation of a number of processes

6

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

that range from the short-term to the long-term, along with many relevant midterm level dynamics (Bintliff 1984; Chapman 1996; Wandsnider 1998; Cherry 1999; Mathieu and Scott 2004; Harding 2005; Hull 2005; Bailey 2006; Wobst 2006; Whittle and Bayliss 2007). For example, the immediacy of a human life or of political decisions may interact with the medium-term scales of kinship relations and with long-term processes, such as subsistence strategies. This reality is reified in the archaeological record, which is the product of a palimpsest of events operating at different chronological scales (Knapp 1992; Ramenofsky 1998; Foxhall 2000; Chapman 2005; Gosden and Kirsanow 2006; Whittle and Bayliss 2007). It is this dense amalgam of different processes at several time-scales that we need to unravel in order to understand Cretan societies. This study will work within a refined chronological framework, starting with the study of the smallest periods we can define for each context and addressing increasingly larger temporal scales. The underlying objective is to be explicit about the dating and temporal scale of the patterns identified in the record. While the chronologies may sometimes be debatable, and in some cases temporal definition may be fuzzy at best, the commitment to place the evidence in a solid temporal framework will provide a more complex understanding of the changeable history of Cretan communities, as well as identify the different temporal scales in which Cretan prehistory must be understood.

Social Organization and Change in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete There has been much criticism lately of the traditional model that envisioned the trajectory of Cretan populations during the Pre- and Protopalatial periods simply as a movement toward increasing social “complexity” (Bintliff 1984; Haggis 2002; Hamilakis 2002b; Barrett and Damilati 2004; Cherry 2004; Whitelaw 2004a). It is beyond the scope of this work to re-create an extensive discussion that addresses the concerns expressed by these authors. In fact, this may not be necessary, or even possible. In this post-modern archaeological world it is difficult to see a single new paradigm that will convincingly

address each of the criticisms made by these authors. Rather, this study acknowledges the principal lesson that arises from these diverse criticisms: new research needs to state clearly its theoretical basis for the understanding of social organization and social change. Therefore, the discussion will focus on this issue for the remainder of this chapter. This may be stating the obvious, but this study is based on the principle that there is no such thing as a “simple” human society, thus rendering the concept of “complex societies” meaningless. In fact, every single human group should be considered to be “complex” regardless of its particular social organization. Even so-called egalitarian societies can be regarded as “complex,” complexity being defined as the number and levels of social interrelationships that exist within a human society (Diehl 2000; Haggis 2002; Souvatzi 2007), or, in other words, the number of different relationships that an individual or a group of individuals has to take into consideration when reaching a decision, independently of the particular nature of these relationships. Since complexity is universal to every human group, our efforts need to focus on revealing the particular ways in which the various Cretan communities were complex, the kind of relationships that marked their lives, how they managed them, and how these changed through time. Rather than use such terms as “simple” or “complex,” this work is based on the use of the terms horizontal and vertical organization. These describe different dynamics found in human societies. Horizontal organization refers to the roughly equal relationships between different social agents. The term “vertical differentiation” denominates the dynamic that leads to institutionalized unequal access to social resources (economic, political, ritual) among individuals that in theory have a similar social position (kinship position, age, gender), and the ability to transmit these privileged rights via kinship. These concepts, however, need further clarification. “Horizontal relationship” is a term (Crumley 1979, 1995; Fox 1994; Blanton 1998) that has been incorporated only recently into Cretan archaeology (Day and Relaki 2002; Haggis 2002; Hamilakis 2002a; Relaki 2004; Schoep and Knappett 2004). The implementation of the concept in the explanatory models for Cretan societies is still limited,

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

however, and occasionally even misused. We still lack a clear theoretical approach that implements the concept of horizontal relationships in a comprehensive model for explaining Pre- and Protopalatial Cretan communities. Perhaps the best way to approach the study of horizontal relationships is through the concept of heterarchy (Crumley 1979, 1995, 2001, 2003, 2007; Falconer 1994; Keswani 1996; Stein 1998; McIntosh 1999; Joyce and Hendon 2000; Pauketat 2000b; Hageman and Lohse 2003; Osborne 2007). The term has been used to define an organization in which “each element possesses the potential of being unranked (relative to other elements) or ranked in a number of different ways, depending on systemic requirements” (Crumley 1979, 144; for a slightly updated version, see Crumley 2001, 19–20), and it refers to the study of patterns of interaction and organizational principles in a society that are not covered by hierarchical relationships, such as kinship obligations, or marriage and giftexchange networks. Heterarchy was first applied to the study of state societies as a means of including organizational structures and principles that the concept of hierarchy did not cover. The main strength of the concept of heterarchy resides in the fact that it attaches importance to the complex horizontal relationships that existed between the members (individual or groups) of a community, thus also allowing the study and characterization of societies without clearly established vertical differentiation structures (Crumley 2003, 137). The terms “nonhierarchical society” or “egalitarian society” do not explain per se how a society was organized, they are simply appellations that need to be defined within the specific characteristics of each particular society. The idea of heterarchy enables the better understanding of the specific complex web of social relationships that constitute the social organization of a given society, regardless of the presence of vertical differentiation. The concept of heterarchy is not without problems; as a term it is quite vague and has been differently applied (Crumley 1979; Brumfiel and College 1995; Levy 1995; Small 1995; White 1995; Stein 1998; Joyce and Hendon 2000; Mehrer 2000). Moreover, it still retains strong links with the study of state formation (Crumley 1995; Zagarell 1995; Keswani 1996). Therefore, I would normally use

7

the less burdened term of “horizontal relationships” rather than “heterarchy.” It should be clarified here that horizontal relationships do not necessarily refer to equality. Related to the misnomer of “complex” we find the problematic idea of “inequality.” Inequality is present in every single human society (Flanagan 1989; Price and Feinman 1995; Osborne 2007; Ames 2010). Social categories such as gender or age sanction the differential access of individuals to social resources and decision-making. What horizontal conventions do not support is inequality between individuals with a similar social position. This is a theoretical principle that may not represent the reality of human horizontal relationships, however. There is a difference between a shared horizontal rule and actual social practice. Individual personalities, charisma, and skills always create differences, even between persons engaged in theoretically equal relationships (Clark and Blake 1994, 18; White 1995; Hamilakis 2002b, 14; Wiessner 2002; Crumley 2003, 137; Relaki 2003, 20; Ames 2010). Practice makes horizontal relationships suitable for negotiation and change, to be continuously created, renewed, negotiated, and challenged in the same way as vertical relationships (Crumley 2003, 138). Therefore, inequality can be assumed to be present in Cretan communities from the beginning of their history, even when those were organized strictly under horizontal rules. Inequality is not the same as vertical differentiation. In this book, vertical differentiation denotes the structural movement toward hierarchical societies with clearly stratified social groups. The term, therefore, applies to a wide range of situations, from societies undergoing embryonic changes, to the establishment of a clearly stratified society. Between “egalitarian” societies, that is, societies that enforce equal rights, duties, and access to resources for individuals within the same social position, and societies with a clearly hierarchical organization in economic, political, and ritual terms, an infinite number of types of society are possible. Indeed many different terms and definitions have been offered for societies that lie between the two extremes: transegalitarian (Hayden 1997, 11), bigman, great-man societies (Godelier 1986; Strathern 1991; Robb 1999), ranked societies (Fried 1967, 109– 184), middle-range societies (Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Rousseau 2001), group-oriented chiefdoms

8

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

(Renfrew 1972a, 2001), and network organizations (Feinman 2001). All these terms define types of organization in which certain individuals have attained some sort of status that puts them in a position of social advantage. Yet each particular term indicates different understandings of these types of “nonhierarchical” communities, with different emphases on the defining traits of these societies, and they normally rely on different ethnographic and archaeological examples. This limits the possibility of applying these concepts to early Cretan societies, as the particular ethnographic examples on which they are based do not necessarily hold much relevance for processes in other parts of the world (McIntosh 1999). Each nonhierarchical society has a distinctive combination of characteristics that makes its social organization unique (Drennan 1996; O’Shea and Barker 1996). Therefore, when vertical differentiation dynamics are identified in the Cretan record they need to be described in detail, in order to reveal the particular characteristics of the processes toward hierarchization and the specific trajectory they followed on the island. Furthermore, all these definitions of nonhierarchical societies are based mainly on measuring the different degrees of vertical differentiation dynamics that exist in a given society. But the characterization of a society on this basis alone impoverishes the understanding of such a community, as it ignores the significance of key horizontal relationships. This study avoids the constraints of such narrow typologies and their bias toward vertical differentiation processes and instead investigates Cretan societies within an open theoretical framework. Such a framework recognizes the specific realities of the Cretan record and aims to identify the particular social traits of Cretan societies, including both horizontal and vertical (the latter when present) relationships. This approach breaks away from misleading assumptions that are still present in the studies of Cretan prehistory. The implicit message in many studies has been that processes of vertical differentiation formed the backbone of the development of Cretan societies. It has been assumed that identifying and explaining vertical differentiation is the same as understanding Cretan societies. This assumption is essentially flawed in two ways. First, it leads to the illusory conclusion that identifying

and explaining vertical differentiation is the same as understanding a human society (Crumley 1995, 2–3; White 1995, 104; Haggis 2002; Schoep and Knappett 2004). This problem originates from the “developmental” assumption that the history of a society can be explained through its political and economic evolution toward stratification, that is, complexity (Hamilakis 2002b; Tomkins 2004). The main negative consequence is that in the particular case of Crete, the focus on hierarchy and complexity has left most of the archaeological record without explanation as, even in a hierarchical and regionally integrated structure, internal vertical differentiation will only apply to a restricted number of communities in the Pre- and Protopalatial periods (Haggis 2002). This leaves the social organization of most Cretan communities unexplained, as the traditional characterization of these as noncomplex or egalitarian offers no real meaning. The second problem relates to the fact that an exclusive interest in vertical differentiation dynamics does not help to explain the communities in which these dynamics can actually be identified. Vertical differentiation springs from a shared set of rules and conventions that determined common social life; it is not a dynamic set apart from the surrounding social life (Wiessner 2002; 2009; Wolpert 2004, 129; Hayden and Villeneuve 2010). Therefore, it can only be fully explained in conjunction with horizontal dynamics. Without understanding the social organization of Cretan communities holistically, how hierarchy was created, maintained, and negotiated cannot be understood. We must not fall into the trap of creating a theoretical duality between horizontal and vertical dynamics (Brumfiel and College 1995; Zagarell 1995; Iannone 2002; Drennan, Peterson, and Fox 2010). In the specific case of nonhierarchical societies, these are organized under general horizontal conventions that are malleable and that change depending on the power relationships of the different social agents (meaning an individual and a group of individuals) in order to allow emergent vertical dynamics. Although in the first instance new vertical differentiation dynamics may appear to be deeply rooted in existing horizontal social principles, and largely constrained by these, they can break free from their origins and create new rules that change the way in which a society is structured. This model

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

can account for all types of change in human societies, including the disappearance of vertical differentiation in a society, since horizontal relationships that frame vertical differentiation may overpower it given the right circumstances (White 1995; Keswani 1996; Crumley 2003; Hayden and Villeneuve 2010). Perhaps the best example of the potential and richness of such a model has been produced by Wiessner in her study of the Enga (Wiessner 2002, 2009). In her work she explains how entrepreneurs (i.e., big-men) try to develop their social power within the constant restrictions of the existing horizontal structures. The best way of doing this is to take advantage of opportunities normally offered by the creation of new social events and behaviors. Novel social arenas are not weighed down by long traditions and are more easily exploited to one’s advantage. These new social arenas, however, are always subject to the judgment of the community that ultimately decides their success. In this way, the entrepreneur has to deal with the constraining rules of horizontal organization, while at the same time managing to create a new social “territory” that supports him (the entrepreneurs are always male in the case of the Enga) in his quest for prestige. Since this particular example cannot be applied directly to the Cretan record, it is an excellent illustration of the contradictions inherent in a system, the fluidity of a community’s acceptable behavior, and the constant negotiation of shared social rules, whatever their content. Within this malleable social context, the organizational system undergoes a continuous process of adjustment. This means that vertical differentiation dynamics, when identified, must always be understood in relation to broader horizontal dynamics and our investigation must focus on how the two interacted; similarly, horizontal dynamics need to be seen in relation to vertical dynamics when the latter exist.

9

This dynamic model also needs to be fleshed out with the attributes that shaped each individual society. At first glance, the limited and static Cretan archaeological record may not appear to provide the most suitable context for implementing such an approach. This is where mortuary studies become so valuable. Postprocessual archaeology in particular has made clear the enormous potential of the funerary record for the dynamic understanding of a society, given the strong ideological, ritual, and emotive implications of death and related rituals. The prominence of cemeteries in the EM I–MM II periods, with their significant deposition of artifacts, and varying and sometimes elaborate architecture, shows clearly that the Cretan archaeological record has the potential to provide the evidence necessary for rethinking the Prepalatial and Protopalatial periods within a new complex and dynamic paradigm. Through the investigation of the mortuary record we can obtain a better idea of what materials and activities had special relevance for past communities because they feature prominently in the mortuary customs of these communities, because they are found repeatedly in the record, or because they imply considerable effort, such as the acquisition of rare materials or the construction of a building. It is therefore possible to establish what was used and what was not, or which material characteristics were widely sanctioned and which were displayed with significant degrees of variation. Such a generation of patterns can shed much light on behavioral aspects of ritual activity, and modes of consumption and deposition. Based on this information, the social organization and social dynamics of the communities can begin to be unraveled. But to achieve these pragmatic aims we need first to face the complex reality of mortuary studies and find the best way to utilize the results of study of the mortuary record.

Mortuary Studies of the Cretan Pre- and Protopalatial Period History of Research Ever since Evans addressed the Prepalatial burial deposit at Hagios Onouphrios in 1895 (103; see Fig. 2 for mentioned sites; Evans 1895), a plethora

of studies concerning the mortuary record of the Pre- and Protopalatial periods has been written. All such studies emerged in the theoretical assertions of their times, which determined their questions, methodology, and explanatory models. They

10

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

contributed different ideas to the research field, which have since opened up various interesting avenues of analysis, but at the same time they have also conveyed a series of weaknesses and biases that limit their contribution to the field. Therefore, a review of the history of research is necessary in order to explore the origin of the current ideas found in the study of burial customs and the recognition of the unchallenged assumptions or other biases hampering research. Since these approaches and their character are intrinsically linked with the archaeological paradigms of their times, they can, with a few rare exceptions, be roughly ordered chronologically into three periods.

The Buildup The first period began with Evans’s 1895 article and ended in the early 1970s. This period is characterized by a large number of excavations and the implementation of the definition of “Minoan” culture as formulated by Evans (Evans 1906, 1921; Bintliff 1984; Starr 1984; Hamilakis 2002b; Hitchcock and Koudounaris 2002; also see Karadimas and Momigliano 2004 for the history of the term “Minoan”). In the search for data to fill in the gaps of this newly discovered “Minoan” culture, many sites were swiftly excavated during the first decades of the 20th century. Among other factors (see McEnroe 2002), the poor excavation techniques of the time, compounded by a sense of urgency to understand the new archaeological evidence, led to many excavations being hastily conducted, including those of a large number of tombs (Paribeni 1904; Dawkins 1905; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908 [Harriet Boyd Hawes is cited as Boyd, H. and Boyd Hawes, H., depending on the name she used for each particular publication]; Hazzidakis 1913a, 1915; Xanthoudides 1918a, 1918b, 1924). The archaeological paradigms of the time determined the way in which the mortuary record was interpreted and how it was used to add content to the Minoan cultural label. Under the diffusionist paradigm of the early 20th century, a better definition of Minoan culture consisted in identifying the original “high” civilization from which Cretans imported their “advanced” culture. It was clear from the beginning that overseas links predated the appearance of the palaces and therefore

indicated unusually early contacts between Crete, Egypt, and the Near East (e.g., see Evans’s preface in Xanthoudides 1924). The explanation of the origin and development of Minoan culture required the identification of these original links as well as following them down to the appearance of the palaces. Since little EM material was recovered in the excavation of the palatial sites, which were mainly preserved in their Neopalatial phase, the investigation into the early influences on the island was conducted mainly through the analysis of other types of archaeological contexts. From the beginning, the mortuary record proved to be the most productive archaeological source of material of early date. This, together with other factors, such as the discovery of the rich shaft graves at Mycenae by Schliemann, made the early mortuary record a favorite subject for investigation in Crete. From these early investigations, two major works stand out as influential studies that embody the characteristics of the early approaches. The first stems from the work of American archaeologists in the Mirabello Bay area (see Ch. 6). This project, which began as early as 1901, succeeded in recovering several early tombs in the area through the work of H. Boyd Hawes, E. Hall, and R.B. Seager (Boyd 1904, 1905; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908; Seager 1909; Hall 1914; Allsebrook 1992; Becker and Betancourt 1997; Muhly 2000). These were published in short reports as they did not provide any outstanding material. It was clear to the excavators that the evidence could potentially be of major importance for the establishment of a relative chronology of ceramic wares, however, and this belief is indicated by the attention given to the publication of vessels from the small rock shelters of Hagia Photia Ierapetras (340, 341; Boyd 1904, 1905; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908). Only the EM cemetery at Mochlos was published extensively (348–381; Seager 1912). This constituted the first published monograph of a Cretan cemetery, revealing a rich collection of material including numerous pieces of gold, stone vessels with Egyptian parallels, and imports from the Near East (see Ch. 6). The publication followed the archaeological paradigms of its time, with the main point of discussion being the dating of the material reflecting Egyptian and Near Eastern influences. The fact that this discussion was presented in the

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

introduction to the volume (Seager 1912, 1–6), shows how strongly established this archaeological paradigm was. As in Hagia Photia Ierapetras, the relative chronology of EM pottery was also studied with particular care (Seager 1912, 92–99). All these themes can also be found in the second classic work of this early approach, published in 1924 by Xanthoudides and focusing on a rather peculiar type of burial context, the tholos tomb, and a different region of the island, the Mesara Valley (Ch. 4). Eight sites were included in the book, all excavated by the author between 1904 and 1915. As in the case of the Mochlos publication, much attention was paid to the identification of traits that could be linked to other cultures, and in particular the Egyptian civilization (Xanthoudides 1924, 128–132). Aside from the chronological discussion of the cemeteries, a new concern was also present in the work: the need to interpret the ritual and beliefs embodied in the tombs and their contents (Xanthoudides 1924, 134–135). This was very much influenced by an interest in studying “primitive” religion and afterlife beliefs, which had developed in anthropological approaches to death in the 19th century by scholars such Tylor and Frazer (Tylor 1873; Frazer 1890; Chapman and Randsborg 1981, 3). Ritual and systems of belief in the Cretan funerary record were subsequently explored by various European scholars (Glotz 1925; Wiesner 1938; Nilsson 1950; Pini 1968). The corpus of ideas established by these scholars about mortuary ritual and the systems of belief behind them has proven very successful, and was adopted by many later scholars to the point that some of these ideas are still present in many modern studies. The first such idea was that in the Minoan culture there existed a cult of the dead, as reflected in offerings and feasting rituals within the cemeteries, which were already thought to have involved drinking ceremonies (Glotz 1925, 277–288; Wiesner 1938, 128; Pini 1968, 29). The existence of beliefs in the afterlife was also suggested, as indicated by the evidence of rituals relating to the process of corpse decomposition (secondary burial) and some of the grave goods (Wiesner 1938, 166–177). More interestingly, under a Durkheimian paradigm and developing ideas first formulated by Glotz, Wiesner suggested that a cult of the dead in Cretan tombs

11

could serve for the renewal and preservation of social life (Glotz 1925, 131–137; Wiesner 1938, 104). The cult of common ancestors could have been used as a focal point for the cohesion of a clan in the case of a tholos tomb, and of a nuclear family in the case of the smaller house tombs. With regard to this point, Glotz also suggested that the appearance of burials in pithoi and larnakes in the MM IA period may constitute evidence for the breakdown of kinship institutions into a more individualized social organization under the auspices of the emerging palaces (Glotz 1925, 131–137; Wiesner 1938, 104–108; Pini 1968, 34). All these ideas were formulated more than 70 years ago, but feature strongly in many new publications and remain the object of current debates (see below). The excavation of tombs on Crete continued in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Most were published simply as preliminary reports and tended to describe only the most exceptional material. A few exceptions, such as Hagia Triada (29–35) and Malia (245–267), presented better-published contexts, but contained little analysis, mainly along the lines of the works discussed above (Demargne 1932, 1945; Banti 1933; Stefani 1933; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963). These three decades witnessed little if any innovative publication on Cretan mortuary data.

The Revolution That Was Not This monotony in Cretan mortuary research came to an end in the early 1970s with a new wave of studies that have had such an impact on the discipline that their main proposals still constitute the foundations for most new publications. This change was brought about by a new generation of Aegean scholars, such as Renfrew and Branigan, who introduced a new archaeological paradigm to Cretan studies: the so-called New Archaeology. Theoretically speaking, diffusionism was discarded as nonexplanatory and was replaced by models that considered internal social and economic forces in a human group. “New Archaeology” also brought along an array of methodological innovations. It maintained that through rigorous scientific excavations and data analysis, and with the help of anthropological analogies, the archaeological record could now

12

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

be interpreted in such a way that it would answer questions about the organization of a society and its internal causes of change. The mortuary record was considered an ideal archaeological field for the analysis of socioeconomic traits, and a specific corpus of theory was developed in an attempt to adapt the new archaeological paradigm to the peculiarities of the mortuary record (Binford 1971). This branch of the “New Archaeology” has become known as “The Archaeology of Death” (Lull 2000; although this term was first coined by R. Chapman and I. Kinnes in 1979 to describe archaeological approaches to the phenomenon of burial more generally, rather than to denote a specific archaeological school; see Chapman and Randsborg 1981). This was primarily established by the work of two scholars, Binford and Saxe (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; see also papers in Brown, ed., 1971). Although the two studies approached the investigation of death and burial from different angles, both established a new premise that changed the way we understand burial analyses. Both authors emphasize the idea that the socioeconomic organization of the living was reflected in their mortuary record, and that the careful study of mortuary data could help define the socioeconomic characteristics of a community. This basic corollary not only had a great potential for the understanding of past societies, but it also was easy to apply to a wide range of approaches to data analyses. Binford argued, for example, that there is a direct correlation between social structure and the nature and complexity of mortuary ceremonies. In a ranked or hierarchical society, commanding individuals would combine more dimensions in their social persona than any character in an “egalitarian society.” A more complex range of mortuary ceremonies would then take place to commemorate all the diverse roles that high-status individuals combine. In another words, mortuary rituals are expected to be more complex as the structure of a society becomes more complex (complexity was understood by Binford from an evolutionary point of view). Saxe’s most widely followed suggestion was that formalized cemeteries, or areas within a cemetery, represent agnatic groups in communities, especially in communities where there was competition for resources (Saxe 1970, 119–121, hyp. 8; Goldstein 1981; Morris

1991; Brown 1995). Another popular type of analysis that emerged from the new paradigm was the identification of rank by measuring the expenditure of work on tomb construction and the economic evaluation of grave goods (Tainter 1975, 1978; Peebles and Kus 1977; Tainter and Corby 1977; Arnold 1980). These approaches formed the archaeological paradigm for the 1970s and early 1980s and had a major influence on Cretan mortuary studies. Branigan’s 1970 monograph on the tholos tombs (Branigan 1970b), though published a little before the boom of the “Archaeology of Death,” demonstrated that archaeological conceptions in Cretan mortuary studies were already undergoing changes in the same theoretical direction. This work was the first to consider the tholos as a Cretan development needing to be understood in the Cretan context, rather than simply as a link to overseas predecessors. Branigan also showed a marked interest in the recovery of socioeconomic information about Cretan communities through the analysis of their cemeteries—for example, by examining grave goods as a means of identifying differences in social status (Branigan 1970b, 130–131). Following Xanthoudides and the European scholars (Xanthoudides 1924, 132–133; Glotz 1925; Wiesner 1938; Pini 1968), he developed further the idea that studying the tholoi may help to understand the process of occupation within the Mesara Valley. This is because each tholos potentially contained the burials of a coherent social unit—in this case, given the size and period of use of the tombs, a clan (Branigan 1970b, 125–130). Similarly, once again following the ideas of Glotz, Wiesner, and Pini, he viewed new trends of pithos and larnax burials as evidence for significant changes in social organization (Branigan 1970b, 127, 131). Despite such a promising start, the “Archaeology of Death” underwent very little development during the 1970s and 1980s within the Cretan context. Apart from further discussion of Branigan’s ideas that are mentioned above (Bintliff 1977b, 639– 641; Blackman and Branigan 1977; Branigan 1981; 1987c; Whitelaw 1983), and ongoing minor debates regarding burial architecture (Warren 1973, 2007; Pelon 1976; Blackman and Branigan 1982; Belli 1984; Baurain 1987; Pierpoint 1987; Papadopoulos 2010; Branigan 2012), very little discussion

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

took place in the literature. This was mainly due to the poor quality of data derived from excavation, which was not really improved by the scarcity of newly published excavations (Blackman and Branigan 1982). The “Archaeology of Death” relied on the “scientific” analysis of comprehensive burial contexts, for example via statistical analysis (Randsborg 1974; Tainter 1975; Hodson 1977; Arnold 1980; McHugh 1999). This could not be applied to the Cretan record, since nearly every tomb contained disturbed deposits formed by many centuries of interments that cannot be differentiated into burial packages associated with individuals (Xanthoudides 1924, 134). Under these conditions any application of the new scientific methodology was extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the “New Archaeology” approach was very successful in posing questions regarding changes in Cretan communities that led to an early “palatial” society, in which the study of the mortuary record would have had a central role (Branigan 1970a, 1985, 1987b; Renfrew 1972b; Halstead 1981, 1988; Cherry 1983a; Lewthwaite 1983; Whitelaw 1983; Cadogan 1986; Warren 1987). Despite the problems associated with direct application of scientific analyses to the study of the mortuary record, in the long term, the “Archaeology of Death” has strongly influenced the analysis and interpretation of the Prepalatial period; the identification of rank based on wealth differences in the burial assemblages has been the object of several studies (Whitelaw 1983; Soles 1988, 1992b; Branigan 1991b; Watrous 1994, 2001; Maggidis 1998; Murphy 1998; Schoep and Knappett 2004; Manning 2008; Legarra Herrero 2011a); the identification of social units using the tombs has also been a common feature of the literature (Branigan 1970b; 1987a; 1991a; 1993; Whitelaw 1983; Soles 1992b; Maggidis 1994; Murphy 1998; Driessen 2011, 358–362); finally, the study of cemeteries as a way of approaching human landscape and resource exploitation and competition continues (Whitelaw 1983; Branigan 1993, 1998a; Murphy 1998; Sbonias 1999b; Whitelaw 2000; Relaki 2003). While perhaps not so significant in terms of methodology, the “Archaeology of Death” has had a profound impact on the theoretical framework surrounding the study of Cretan mortuary

13

behavior. It has been generally accepted that processes of socioeconomic change can be identified and understood through the study of the mortuary record. Moreover, questions posed by the “New Archaeology” regarding social evolution have dominated the studies of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete.

The Feeble Counter-Revolution Although Postprocessual Archaeology has been viewed as a revolution, in the case of mortuary studies it constituted a counter-revolution, i.e., it counterbalanced the optimism of the “Archaeology of Death” in regard to the feasibility of extracting information from mortuary data. The postprocessual critique of the “Archaeology of Death” appeared in the early 1980s through the work of various authors (Hodder 1980, 1982b; Pader 1980, 1982; Parker Pearson 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1982), and essentially criticized the simplicity of the assumption that the socioeconomic organization of a community is directly reflected in its mortuary record. It maintained that a complex symbolic and ideological veil lies between the two, rendering impossible any straightforward connection between burial customs and socioeconomic organization. The socioeconomic paradigm of the “New Archaeology” was also rejected as postprocessualist authors recognized that human society is a far more complex system than one of bare social and economic necessities, in which ideas, symbols, and meanings are key factors in its constitution. Hence, in order to understand a given society and its mortuary record, its symbolic and ritual aspects must also be taken into consideration. This last corollary also concerns the use of ethnographic parallels in understanding a particular society, because such aspects may be randomly created by each human society. While postprocessualism did not completely discard the use of ethnographic comparisons, and in fact their critique of the “New Archaeology” was based on ethnographic examples, they rejected the use of these for direct comparison or for the creation of generalizing terms and typologies that were then liberally applied to different cultures (Hodder 1982b), such as “chiefdoms.” They believed that human diversity cannot be pigeonholed into categories based

14

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

simply on socioeconomic characteristics, as was done by the “New Archaeology.” Each human society is unique and must be understood on its own terms. Moreover, the distinctive trajectory of each culture challenges ideas of social evolution and cumulative change, which were the backbone of the “New Archaeology” studies. In the case of mortuary studies specifically, the whole range of new cultural elements and human dynamics means that the study of funerary data lost what were believed to be robust foundations and moved beyond the purely socioeconomic evolutionary scheme of the processual approach. One of the main theoretical advances introduced by Postprocessual Archaeology was the suggestion that material culture is an active means of human interaction (Shanks and Tilley 1987, 116– 117; Hodder and Hutson 2003), and this includes the cemetery (both architecture and grave goods). In his landmark 1982 article, Parker Pearson suggested that the cemetery was used actively for the creation and modification of social relationships (Parker Pearson 1982, 1999). This completely changed the conceptualization of the cemetery from a passive indicator of status or rank (Randsborg 1974; Tainter 1975; Arnold 1980) to a context where the elaboration of the social structure was negotiated; this included many different dynamics in the equation, not just economic and sociopolitical organization (Morris 1992; Wason 1994; Byrd and Monahan 1995; Cannon 1995). Unfortunately, this approach encounters some practical limitations for its implementation in funerary studies. One of the facts made clear by postprocessual approaches is that the role of the cemetery as a social arena differs widely (Carr 1995). It can help to create social difference (Parker Pearson 1982, 1999; Hutchinson and Aragon 2002), but it can also play the opposite role, masking or hiding social differences for the benefit of the social cohesion of the group (Kuijt 1996). It can also reveal the tensions between both these aspects (Cannon 1995) and there may even be cases where belief and symbolism are the main reasons for a specific mortuary behavior, with very tenuous links to either social or economic aspects (Ucko 1969; Tarlow 1992, 1999; Carr 1995). Once stripped of the ability to use general categories in our studies or to apply straightforward interpretations of the mortuary

data, studies have struggled to interpret the funerary record. It seems that every author applies a different approach to the study of the funerary record, depending on the particularities of the data and the research questions asked. As a direct consequence, postprocessualist critique has resulted in an array of different approaches. It is beyond the scope of this review to explore the whole range of approaches brought to the investigation of death and burial by postprocessualists, especially since many of them have failed to have any impact on Cretan archaeology; therefore, only those with application to the Cretan context will be mentioned. Unfortunately, no approach has effectively implemented the radical changes in archaeological thought advocated by postprocessualism in Cretan mortuary archaeology. For Pre- and Protopalatial studies, the research questions have remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. The explanation of the socioeconomic changes that occurred on the island during the Early and Middle Bronze Age is still very much at the core of our studies, lately perhaps implemented in a less directional, evolutionary, and palace-centered framework (Osborne 2004b, 88; Tartaron 2008). Postprocessual studies demonstrate that status and rank can be marked in many other ways besides the purely economic (Pader 1982; O’Shea 1984; Wason 1994; Carr 1995), and new studies of the Cretan mortuary data have started to explore the symbolic significance of certain objects, such as seals (Blasingham 1983; Sbonias 1995; Karytinos 1998), daggers (Whitelaw 1983; Nakou 1995; Branigan 2011), and exotica (Ferrence 2007; Colburn 2008; Phillips 2008a; Cherry 2010; Legarra Herrero 2011b), as well as their impact on group relationships. New interest in ideological and symbolic aspects has brought back into play many of the old suggestions about ritual and symbolism, as developed by Glotz, Nilsson, Wiesner, and Branigan (Glotz 1925; Wiesner 1938; Nilsson 1950; Pini 1968; Branigan 1970b; Marinatos 1986, 11; 1993, 14–31). The best example is Branigan’s update of his 1970 book (Branigan 1993), which revises many of these ideas: the concept of feasting and toasting in cemeteries as an important means of social interaction for Cretan communities, which has since proven very popular (Hamilakis 1998; La Rosa 2001; Panagiotopoulos 2001; Day and Wilson 2004; Day,

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Relaki, and Faber 2006; Haggis 2007; Macdonald and Knappett 2007; Vavouranakis 2007; Branigan 2008; Betancourt 2011b; Tsipopoulou 2012d), or the cult of the dead as an interesting approach to the life of a community (Branigan 1987c, 1991a; Murphy 1998; Soles 2001; Vavouranakis 2007; Colburn 2008; but see Whitley 2002). Only very recently have postprocessual approaches resulted in more innovative studies, with the introduction of new questions to Cretan mortuary research, such as the identification of the relationship between different cultural groups at the cemetery of Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Betancourt 2003a; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 2012; Shank 2005; Papadatos 2007b; Karantzali 2008). Some of these new approaches to funerary ritual have resulted in a fresh look at the evidence of ritual and cult in cemeteries, which departs from the framework created by Glotz, Wiesner, and Pini (see Goodison 1989, 2001, 2004, 2006; Georgoulaki 1996a, 2002; Vavouranakis 2002, 2007, 2011). Goodison, for example, has examined the tholos evidence for beliefs regarding the afterlife by focusing on the orientation of the bodies and the doorways of the tombs, and connecting these with evidence derived from certain rooms in the palaces. This type of work has yet to make an impact on the way in which the island societies are perceived, however. Finally, new studies have emerged focusing on social organization through the examination of aspects unrelated to rank or status. Authors have begun to explore other dynamics, demonstrating that the investigation of horizontal social relationships is crucial for the understanding of Cretan communities (Haggis 2002; Papadatos 2007b; Legarra Herrero 2009, 2011a).

Methodological Problems in the Study of the Cretan Mortuary Record After reviewing all these approaches, one cannot help but feel that, albeit with some variation, most of them form part of a similar line of thought. The most significant contribution of the “New Archaeology” was a new range of questions that could be asked of the mortuary record: how were societies

15

organized and what made them change? Postprocessualist approaches on the island have not significantly changed these questions, but they have refined them nonetheless, by emphasizing that wealth and rank are not the only way to approach changes in the EM and MM mortuary record, and renewing interest in symbolic aspects of mortuary behavior. What they have not changed is the way data are analyzed and interpreted. Most of the studies are based on similar methodological approaches to the data. We have not experienced a profound “rethink” of how we collect, analyze, and use data from the mortuary record. Regardless of the approach, we continue to base our ideas on superficial overviews of the evidence and simplistic, straightforward interpretations of the record that have not really moved away from those established in the early part of the 20th century. It is true that to some extent the poor quality of the Cretan data (for a detailed discussion, see below) has hampered the analyses and restricted the effectiveness of methodological tools in the examination of the record. A poor knowledge of the record cannot be used as an excuse for a lack of clear methodology, however, as is the case in most Cretan mortuary studies. Instead of trying to produce carefully crafted methodologies that overcome the data-quality issues, studies have mainly opted for a converse strategy, with the relaxation of critical approaches to the data and a broad use of the evidence in the form of overviews. Many studies nowadays are simply perpetuating interpretations first suggested by Glotz, Pini, and Wiesner, which were based on a far less known archaeological record. For example, pithoi and larnakes are still considered to be proof of a more individualized society in MM I (Vavouranakis 2007; Tsipopoulou 2008), as suggested originally by Glotz (1925, 131–137). But a careful look at the evidence does not seem to support such a straightforward interpretation (see discussion in Ch. 6; Walberg 1987). Chronological differences have generally been ignored in the literature. The use of most of the tombs for long periods of time and the particular problems encountered in the dating (see below) seem to have discouraged authors from situating funerary contexts in a detailed chronological framework, leading to much confusion in the analyses. While discussing the same mortuary record, various scholars have

16

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

proposed different dates for the first identification of ranked communities on the island: EM II (Carter 1998, 72–74; Watrous 2001, 222–223; MacSweeney 2004; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 242), EM III–MM IA (Blasingham 1983, 18; Cherry 1983a, 40; 1984; Watrous 1994, 717; Sbonias 1995, 150; 1999b, 46; Schoep and Knappett 2004), or scholars completely fail to give a clear date for such an important phenomenon (Branigan 1984; Murphy 1998). The lack of detailed discussions regarding the issues of dating impedes the opportunity for a constructive debate about the different models. Only recently have processes of vertical differentiation begun to be situated in more complex, locally relevant, and theoretically aware chronological frameworks (Whitelaw 2004a, 2011; Legarra Herrero 2011a). Another chronic methodological problem with Cretan mortuary studies has been their tendency toward compartmentalization. Tombs and cemeteries lack any comprehensive analysis that aims to integrate the different types of available evidence. Monographs have followed a specific type of material or artifact in a specific region or the whole island, normally through both mortuary and nonmortuary contexts, to produce a clearer picture of its use, chronology, value, and other aspects. Yet the information provided by these studies has not been generally considered from the specific perspective of mortuary behavior, nor have these data been linked with associated evidence. The pioneering examples of these types of corpora were Warren’s study of stone vessels (Warren 1969) and Branigan’s study of metal objects (Branigan 1968a, 1974). The results of these studies have since been applied to every single type of object found in mortuary contexts. Together, these corpora comprise an excellent body of data that has yet to fulfill its potential for the study of the Cretan record through its inclusion in more holistic and contextualized studies. Very few tombs and hardly any cemeteries have been studied as coherent units. For example, the Hagia Triada cemetery (29–35), which has been the subject of more than 40 publications since the 1930s, still lacks a comprehensive analysis and publication. Rather than focusing the analysis on certain selected features of the mortuary record, efforts should move toward the integration of all mortuary

aspects within the context of the tomb and the cemetery. The contextualized archaeological study of the varied evidence produces more information than the sum of the individual studies. This is mainly due to the evidence being situated within a relevant context; cemeteries are well-defined places, consciously created by Cretan communities, which shows that they conceptualized them as significant social arenas. Cemeteries and tombs constitute meaningful contexts in which to contextualize data. Only when the scattered material and architectural studies are brought together in the relevant mortuary contexts can the true richness of their social meanings begin to be explored.

Toward a New Archaeological Study of Death on Crete It should be clear by now that the first step in any study of the Cretan mortuary record ought to be the construction of a clear and sound methodology for the analysis of the evidence. Moreover, a precise methodological framework allows for a more productive archaeological debate and encourages connectivity between different types of studies with complementary methodologies. A new methodology must take into consideration the complexity of the mortuary data but also its strengths. In the case of Crete, it must exploit the most outstanding feature of the mortuary record— the sheer number of known cemeteries (Fig. 2). Therefore, this study constructs a “contextual” approach that makes the most of the information provided by the extensively known funerary record. The foundations for the “contextual” approach were laid primarily by Hodder, as part of his postprocessual critique (Hodder 1982b, 1987; Hodder and Hutson 2003). Contextual archaeology was created as a reaction against the generalizations of the “New Archaeology.” It proposed that the ideological elaboration of social life (in Hodder’s words: social structure; Hodder 1982a, 150) is a primary key to the comprehension of a human society. Therefore, a given human society can only be understood through the study of social structure in the specific cultural way in which it blends with the social system of a human group (the actual organization of a society; Hodder 1982a, 150). The

ARCHAEOLOGY AND DEATH IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

relationship between these two aspects develops in a unique way in each human society and must be understood within each particular cultural context. Although this does not apply to mortuary studies specifically, it can be transferred easily to this field of research: “. . . the relationship between patterns in life and patterns in death must itself be seen as specific to a wider cultural context” (Hodder 1982a, 152). The specific way in which social structure and social system (in Hodder’s terms) relate can be followed in the relationship between cemetery and community. This does not aim to create a duality between cemetery and ideology versus community and actual social systems (Härke 1994), but rather to understand that the cemetery is a relevant and powerful social arena where social structure and social system were not only created but also combined and negotiated. But the term “contextual” has more practical meanings for mortuary studies. Some authors (O’Shea 1981; Parker Pearson 1982) have emphasized that mortuary data must be contextualized with other types of information available in the archaeological record (such as settlement excavation and intensive survey). As we will see in the next chapter, the limited amount of information provided by the excavation of Pre- and Protopalatial sites and the application of intensive surveys greatly restrict such an approach. Nonetheless, in the few cases where it is possible, these sources of information will be used in combination with mortuary data. In this study, then, the term “contextual” refers to a “relational” approach. The idea is to understand each tomb and cemetery in relation to the surrounding mortuary evidence (Carr 1995, 193– 194; Hodder and Hutson 2003, 183–187). This work will examine tombs within the context of the cemetery, and cemeteries within the context of mortuary behavior from the surrounding area, and ultimately from the whole island. This study will be conducted using a detailed chronological framework that will separate the long use-history of the tombs into smaller meaningful periods, so that changes in mortuary behavior can be identified. Mortuary behavior ultimately refers to the activities repeatedly conducted in or around the tomb but, in a more practical way, these can only be recognized through the material traces they left behind. In this way, mortuary behavior refers to all

17

evidence recovered from a tomb and to the activities of which the evidence speaks. Gaining information about the ways in which communities and individuals used tombs and how these changed through time is the first step in revealing the social role of the cemetery. The comprehensive understanding of the different ways in which human activity shaped the cemetery (what kind of material was deposited, how it was deposited, the architectural features they used, and the ones they abandoned) permits identification of social choices made in the use of the cemetery (what material was thought to be important, how many people were involved, how complex the rituals were). This comprehensive approach also links funerary customs with aspects that are social (population per tomb), political (coordination in the construction of a tomb), economic (exchange and imported items), and ideological (course of the funerary activities, significant ritual acts, significant social items). The concept of mortuary behavior includes a wider spectrum of activities in the cemeteries than the purely ritual that have been the main focus of past studies. The practicalities of construction or architectural modification of a tomb activated relatively mundane relationships, such as labor organization and resource management, and drew upon other kinds of social interactions, different from ritual activities. The necropolis is shaped not only by ritual but also by more everyday activities that are intrinsic to the role of the cemetery as a social arena. In order to establish the mortuary behavior linked to the tomb for each period, traits of the tomb that were used in unison need to be identified in the archaeological record. Although Cretan mortuary evidence does not always allow for a detailed dissection of the history of a tomb, in most cases a more accurate dating of tomb features to a specific period is made possible by drawing upon the valuable information provided by the large number of monographs on material culture (e.g., stone vessels and ceramics). This normally translates into a more accurate dating of the architectural features of the tomb to which the artifacts are associated, as well as a better description of architectural variations through time. In many examples, the template established by well-published cemeteries can guide the study and dating of not so well-known contexts

18

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

and can allow us to better contextualize the scraps of information provided by the latter. A reasonably clear picture of the changing history of use of a tomb can thus be drawn with some chronological accuracy.

Conclusion While new high-quality data will be always welcome, they are not essential for the development of a new methodological approach, nor do we need to wait for new techniques to be applied to the study of human remains and material assemblages. The potential for an improved study resides within the known evidence, and in many cases a slightly more ambitious approach is all

that is needed in order to gain new information. This work responds to the challenge of creating a better-organized study that is informed of the weaknesses of archaeological approaches to funerary data and exploits the strengths of the large amount of information provided by the long history of research on Crete. But methodological and theoretical debates would be simply fruitless discussions if we could not relate them to the reality of the Cretan archaeological record and establish the exact way in which the approach proposed here can be implemented with regard to the available material. The next chapter will examine in detail the present state of our knowledge of this record, its practical shortcomings, and the ways to overcome them.

3

The Pre- and Protopalatial Archaeological Record

The Cretan Mortuary Record The poor quality of the Cretan data has been mentioned in the previous chapter, and its repercussions for our studies must be carefully considered in order to address these issues within a new methodological approach. While this section gives an overview of the most general shortcomings of the data and potential solutions, exact problems regarding mortuary data can only be examined within the particular context of each region, and the archaeological record and history of investigation of each site. Therefore, the more specific problems in data quality will be dealt with separately in each chapter. A first glimpse reveals a comprehensive picture of the mortuary record comprising more than 250 known cemeteries (Fig. 2). These are distributed fairly evenly across all chronological periods (Fig. 1), even though in some cases, such as EM III, the dating tends to be more tentative. Geographically, our knowledge is much more uneven. First, we know next to nothing about western and west-central parts of the island. Even

within the central and eastern areas of the island, there are geographical gaps in our knowledge, such as the rich agricultural plain of Pediada (Fig. 2; Panagiotakis 2006). More importantly, there are some clear biases in our understanding of the funerary record. For example, there are types of cemeteries, particularly extensive fields of pithos burials such as the one outside of the tholos tombs at Porti (127; Xanthoudides 1924), which are susceptible to damage by agricultural activity. They are also inconspicuous in the archaeological record given their lack of architectural features and poor preservation. Reports on sites such as Hagios Myronas (206; Alexiou 1967a; Lempesi 1977) or Aphendis Kaminaki (159; Iliopoulos 1996) clearly state the possibility that more cemeteries such as these may have existed, and we should be cautious when considering the distribution of this type. Similarly, the intense use of rock shelters and large caves by shepherds and refugees from the different conflicts in Cretan history have caused major

20

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

disturbances, in some cases even eradicating all archaeological evidence (e.g., Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou I, 419; Tod 1903). Additionally, built tombs may not be as representative of prehistoric funerary practices as suggested by the current archaeological record, and in some cases the known built cemeteries comprised only a part of the cemeteries of a community. Another problem arises with regard to the excavation of many contexts in the early 20th century. These early projects used techniques that may have been deemed appropriate at the time, but are unsuitable today. Moreover, some of these excavations were rescue interventions that had very tight budgets and time constraints, which severely limited what could be recovered and documented. There are also problems regarding the publication of the tombs. In some cases this was not undertaken because of a lack of time and funding, and for many sites the only available information comes from short preliminary excavation reports. In other cases, the contexts were published in a limited form; sometimes only evidence that fitted the research questions of the excavators was reported, thus giving a biased picture of the cemetery. As a result, despite the sheer number of funerary contexts on the island (Fig. 3), comparatively little information is known about them (Fig. 4). Poorly published cemeteries should not be dismissed outright, however. In many cases, even the scanty information they provide can help create a more comprehensive identification of patterns in the funerary behavior of the region. Moreover, the better-known cemeteries provide us with enough information to fill some of the gaps concerning cemeteries that are less well known. In fact, the comparison and combination of this substantial amount of data produce a far better picture of the record than is perhaps thought. Two criteria need to be fulfilled in order for a context to be included in this work: the reporting of human remains and the presence of EM I–MM II material. There are cases, particularly in caves, where the two may not be related and human remains may date to earlier or later periods. In order to reinforce the comprehensiveness of this study, unless there is an explicit statement that burial remains do not relate to EM I–MM II material, contexts that meet the criteria will be treated

as possible, even if dubious, Pre- and Protopalatial funerary contexts. Moreover, included are a small group of sites in a section of the catalog called Dubitanda (App. 2). These are mostly caves containing Prepalatial material, but with no reports of human remains. As we will see, it is likely that most caves (but not necessarily all; Tomkins 2013) were used mainly as burial grounds in the Prepalatial period (Tyree 2001), and that the presence of material from this date in caves indicates funerary activities for most of them, even though the human remains have not been preserved. Also included in the Dubitanda are tholos tombs that have been mentioned in previous studies, but which now seem unlikely to be Pre- or Protopalatial tombs (see Goodison and Guarita 2005).

Chronological Matters The necessity for a more refined dating of Early and Middle Bronze Age Crete has been argued above, in particular for the understanding of cemetery use. Unfortunately, such a task is far from simple, and problems abound. The most regrettable is damage done by looting since medieval times, or perhaps even earlier (Xanthoudides 1924, 2; Pomerance 1977; Chaniotis 1989), which has mixed contexts and removed important pieces of evidence. The collective use of almost every tomb also presents great challenges. This constant reuse is characterized by careless removal of bones, cleaning episodes, and secondary depositions. As a result, burial deposits contain mixed materials and human remains from different periods. Recent publications, however, have proved that careful excavation and investigation of the evidence can yield stratigraphical information (Maggidis 1994; Panagiotopoulos 2002; Alexiou and Warren 2004; Papadatos 2005; Branigan 2008; Schoep 2009; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011). Although such work can only define crude strata, this has already provided significant new information about tomb use and highlights the benefits of a careful examination of the record. This new information could become far more significant if we avoid stratigraphic analyses that rely heavily on traditional approaches to ceramic typology. Instead, we should embrace the collective

THE PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

nature of the deposits and treat them as interesting information sources on their own. Questions to be asked could include: Was the deposit created in a handful of short episodes, or by the constant opening and closing of the tomb? How many times were tombs opened in each generation? Were bodies left to decompose in the tomb chambers or somewhere else, and were only the bones deposited? Being able to answer such questions about deposit formation would provide essential information about burial practices and attitudes to death by Cretan communities, which may be more relevant than the reconstruction of ceramic sequences. Indeed, some of the problems concerning the dating of deposits do not originate from the record itself but have been brought about by the traditional dating techniques of the mortuary record, which are based on the presence/absence of determined ceramic wares. Chronological periods on Crete have been defined by the occurrence of particular diagnostic types of pottery. For example, Vasiliki Ware and imitations are considered to be a definite marker of the EM IIB period (even when first examples appear at the end of the EM IIA period; Betancourt 1979; Whitelaw et al. 1997). Many of these wares were regional, however, and, as such, can be difficult to identify outside the region where they were produced. The best-known example is provided by EM III White-on-Dark Ware typical of East Crete. It is both difficult to identify beyond this area, and difficult to identify at all, because the white paint fades away easily (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 57; Hayden 2004, 76). Problems such as these and lack of evidence have been taken to mean absence of EM III deposits at several sites around the island (Watrous 1994). Even worse, it has been established that this ware was in use for a longer period in East Crete than in other areas. Therefore, what is called EM III in East Crete may be contemporaneous to MM IA deposits in Central Crete (Andreou 1978; Cadogan 1983; Apostolakou, Betancourt, and Brogan 2011). Regional trajectories of ceramic wares are not actually synchronized and evade the rigid compartmentalization of the traditional chronological framework (EM, MM, and LM). Recent ceramic analyses have made clear that the presence or absence of particular wares provides at best a flawed approach to dating issues, as deposits need to be defined by the proportion

21

of different wares (Andreou 1978; Todaro 2003, 2005; Wilson 2007) and by the careful understanding of local ceramic production, exchange, and consumption patterns. Unfortunately, regional ceramic sequences are still in the process of being constructed, whereas the relationship between them has only begun to be understood (Wilson and Day 1994; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Nodarou 2011). It also compromises the dating of old excavated contexts based on ceramic wares, as only a few vases of the original deposits were ever published. This study does not aim to define EM III in the Mesara Valley; it attempts to ascertain from the mortuary evidence and the stratigraphic information available whether there is gap in the use of a cemetery and if so, how long it lasted, where it should be placed along the timeline of the tomb, and whether it coincided with similar episodes in other tombs. To do that, we do not need to rely solely on ceramic wares, and a comprehensive study of the mortuary evidence will provide ways to date certain aspects of mortuary behavior. This is a clear case of how the best-understood cemeteries can give us a good template for acquiring a better idea of lesserknown sites. Defining traits that are well understood in published cemeteries can be identified in unpublished cemeteries through reports and short descriptions, thus helping to clarify the date of their use. The second problem inherited from traditional approaches to dating is the obstructive constraint brought about by strict periodization. Processes and dynamics can take place in transitional periods that defy traditional chronological nomenclature. In recent years more authors have been obliged to use chronological frameworks such as later EM III/ earlier MM IA to situate important patterns identified in the record (Andreou 1978; Sbonias 1995; Haggis 1999), as the traditional EM III–MM IA periodization did not fit with the identified processes. Also, similar dynamics and processes did not necessarily occur at the same time in different regions of the island, and understanding of the chronology has to be flexible enough to recognize different regional rhythms and trajectories. What may characterize the late EM IIB record in Central Crete may only be recognized in later periods in other areas of the island. This does not relate to a problem in the synchronization of ceramic sequences, but to actual

22

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

chronological differences in the history of the different regions of the island. A detailed discussion of chronology will take place in the individual chapters that examine the particular characteristics of the material record, mortuary behavior, and history of research in each region. The chronological emphasis of this work does not rely on defining chronological periods in the traditional way, however, but instead on reconstructing clearer sequences for the use of cemeteries and contextualizing them within the broader history of the island.

Typology In this study, the cemetery is defined as a cluster of tombs and other spatial features (for example, open areas) closely associated in the same geographical location. A single cemetery, however, does not necessarily equate to the entire burial site of a community, which may have been divided across various locations. Cases where a community is considered to have had various cemeteries will be analyzed in a similar way to examples where all the interments of a community were made in the same location, taking into consideration, of course, that the dispersal of locations constitutes an important trait in the mortuary behavior of these communities. Tomb typologies have generally been created based on architectural traits, but this has proven to be confusing and often misleading. The diverse nomenclatures used in previous catalogs (Pini 1968; Georgoulaki 1996a; Vavouranakis 2007) have inhibited the understanding of typological variation further. Georgoulaki recently revisited the traditional typological classification of tombs to try to overcome some of the simplistic assumptions of the existing taxonomy (Georgoulaki 1996a, 23–51; 1999). She rightly points out that there seems to be a large degree of heterogeneity within each of the traditionally defined types that makes the pigeonholing of the tombs into categories problematic. Traditional typologies of the tombs is of little help in analysis, as it tends to eliminate the individuality of a tomb. Also, traditional types carry many assumptions that distort the interpretation of tombs. For example, when a tomb is called a “house tomb,” it is automatically associated with

certain characteristics (Vavouranakis 2005) that are then used as a substitute for a proper assessment of the tomb and its specific evidence. It is doubtful that the plan and exterior look of rectangular tombs would have resembled domestic architecture in any way. In this regard, Georgoulaki’s proposed classification also makes some conceptual assumptions regarding the division of tombs into “natural” and “built” (Georgoulaki 1999). Moreover, to divide the typology into subcategories makes matters more confusing. Nevertheless, some sort of typology is still needed in order to refer to the tombs, and so this study accedes to this necessity by defining tomb types in a minimal way: 1. Rectangular tombs: built tombs with rectangular plans (Mochlos cemetery [348–381]). 2. Caves: natural underground caverns (Trapeza [312]). 3. Rock shelters: small cavities in the rock, normally natural, but sometimes subject to modifications (Tombs V [329] and VI [330] at Gournia North Cemetery). 4. Pithos cemeteries: large concentrations of pithoi (large storage jars) interred in the ground and not associated with architectural features (Gournia Sphoungaras [339]). 5. Pithoi and larnakes: when burial pithoi and larnakes (large, box-shaped ceramic containers) are reported without clear contextual information (see Rutkowski 1968 for larnakes and Petit 1990 for pithoi). 6. Tholoi: built tombs with circular plans (see definition in Pelon 1976, 7; see Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A [22]). 7. Rock-cut tombs: small chambers excavated into the rock (Hagia Photia Siteias A [412]; Davaras and Betancourt 2004) 8. Cists: individual rectangular tombs excavated into the ground, sometimes lined with stone slabs (Pseira Tomb I [386]). 9. Pits: man-made cavities in the ground without a well-defined shape. The edge of the pit is sometimes lined with small rocks (Tomb

THE PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Triangulaire 1 [258] at the Malia cemetery; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963). 10. Chamber tombs: one or a system of several chambers excavated into the side of a hill (Tomb IV at Knossos Mavrospilio [228]). 11. Nea Roumata–type tombs: small built tomb with circular plan; corbelled and intended for the burial of one individual (Tomb I at Nea Roumata A [494]). This typology aims to minimize any related assumptions and to recognize the individuality of each example. In this sense, tomb typology will be continually reassessed during the course of the data analysis to identify relevant distinctions in architecture and layout. Tombs are not the only type of context found inside a cemetery. There are other contexts relevant for analysis and interpretation that do not include interment, which was the main characteristic of a tomb. This study recognizes three different types of funerary contexts that are not tombs: annexes, associated buildings, and open areas. Annexes are a type of multiroom building associated exclusively with tholos tombs (see Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A [22]). The annex represents a very clear category that can be identified by architectural traits, mainly by its close relationship to the tholos (it framed the tholos entrance). Annexes sometimes contained interments, but, given their clear subsidiary association, even such cases will be considered annexes rather than tombs. It is clear that annexes were considered a necessary addition to most tholoi, and that they had a relationship with this tomb type not duplicated elsewhere. Buildings located near or adjoining a tomb, but not encasing its entrance (see Hagia Triada Sepolcreto a ridosso della Tholos [32]), are considered “associated buildings” (or associated contexts in

23

the case of the rock shelters at Sissi [288–290]). Associated buildings formed part of the cemetery but did not contain human remains. These differed greatly in terms of plan, size, and architectural traits, and, in general, it can be suggested that they were somehow related to ritual activities. Open areas were also probably related to ritual activity, but in these cases there was no built structure. They were usually defined by some kind of pavement or delimitation, such as an encasing wall (see Court outside annex at Kamilari A [46]), though at some sites they are defined only by material deposits. The latter are treated here as open areas, although they may just represent secondary deposits of material from activities carried out in other parts of the cemetery. All these contexts appear to have been considered distinct and important elements of the cemeteries by Cretan communities, and therefore they will be treated as comparable to tombs and entitled to the same kind of analysis. Finally, there should be some reference to site names. This is a highly confusing issue, as names and their spelling can vary depending on the author and on the guidelines of the publishers. The problem is particularly acute in the case of the tholos tombs, for which many, often contradictory catalogs exist (Branigan 1970b, 1993; Pelon 1976, 1994; Belli 1984; Petit 1987; Panagiotopoulos 2002; Goodison and Guarita 2005). In order to facilitate the identification of these contexts, Panagiotopoulos’s useful table has been expanded and updated. This lists the different names attributed by different authors to the same tholos tombs (Table 2; Panagiotopoulos 2002). I have named the tholoi using what I consider to be the most common appellation. Also, gazetteer entries (App. 1) for tholos tombs include the names and references of the tomb in previous catalogs. In the few cases of nontholos sites, the different names have been included in the context entry (App. 1), along with their reference in the literature.

Nonfunerary Pre- and Protopalatial Evidence Before starting the detailed analysis of the mortuary evidence, I would like to contextualize the funerary data within the broader archaeological record of the period (Figs. 5, 6). As has been noted

above, there is little archaeological information available outside the cemeteries, but this is still interesting and therefore it will be presented here, even if only briefly. A second point that will be

24

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

addressed is the way in which the information derived from settlements, surveys, and cemeteries can be linked together in a constructive manner. Cretan archaeologists have rarely discussed the potential problems that arise when trying to relate the various types of data provided by different studies.

Settlement In order to simplify an overview of the most important Pre- and Protopalatial settlement evidence, the data have been divided into three categories based on the nature of the archaeological context. These include extensively excavated settlements; settlements known in a limited manner; and sites where the Pre- and Protopalatial evidence is buried underneath later phases. This review is not exhaustive, but presents the most interesting sites. It does not look in detail at the evidence available, as the intent is to create a general picture in order to contextualize the mortuary evidence analyzed in later chapters. The examples of extensive excavation of Preand Protopalatial settlements are rare, namely Myrtos Phournou Koriphi (EM IIA–IIB; Warren 1972a), Vasiliki (EM IIA–MM IA; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908; Zois 1976, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1993, 1994, 2006; Mortzos and Zois 2007), Trypiti (EM III–MM IA; Vasilakis 1989, 2010b), Chamaizi (MM I; Xanthoudides 1906; Davaras 1972c; Lenuzza 2011), and Hagia Photia Kouphota (MM I; Tsipopoulou 1988, 1989, 1990, 2007). Myrtos Phournou Koriphi is the best-known example of a Prepalatial settlement, laid out in a comprehensive publication and also addressed in several subsequent articles (Warren 1972a, 1983; Whitelaw 1983; TenWolde 1992; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Nowicki 2010; Vasilakis 2010b). Excavation revealed a small EM IIA and EM IIB hamlet of approximately 0.2 ha at the top of a hill by the sea. Settlements of that size are a very common feature in the record of the period and represent the bottom of the EM II settlement hierarchy (Hayden 2004; Haggis 2005). The settlement was occupied by five households, each of them composed by five or six individuals (Whitelaw 1983). The site not only provides a good example of the size and structure of an EM II Cretan co-residential community, but also documents the activities of this community. There is evidence

for local production of ceramic wares, subsistence agriculture, and storage of food, but also for active trade with their immediate hinterland as seen by the ceramic evidence (Whitelaw et al. 1997), and for connections with larger exchange networks, as indicated by the Melian obsidian and objects crafted in off-island metals that were found at the site. The settlement of Vasiliki in the north of the Ierapetra Isthmus is not known as comprehensively as Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, although new information is being published. Moreover, its preservation is not as good as that of Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, and the Prepalatial site has been disturbed by LM and Roman occupation. The site was first built on the top of a low hill during the EM IIA period and at least two houses are known from this phase. At the end of this period, the houses were abandoned or destroyed. By the EM IIB period, the site experienced a significant change; two new buildings were constructed, one of which, the so-called Red House, was unusually large. This was a two-story building located at the center of the settlement, with evidence of red painted plaster and two paved areas to the west and north. It is not yet known how this large house related to the size and structure of the overall settlement. During the EM IIB period, Vasiliki Ware emerged, a ceramic ware strongly associated with the settlement. Its mottled decoration is distinctive, requires specific firing techniques, and implies a highly skilled production process (Betancourt 1979; Pelon and Schmitt 2006). Although local imitations have been found throughout the island, none of them equal the quality of the vessels from the Vasiliki area. The vessels were exported to several parts of the island, where they are likely to have been considered valuable. It seems probable that a particular ceramic production system was linked to the settlement, specifically adapted for export of pottery. This production may have been qualitatively different in its organization from the ceramic production at Myrtos Phournou Koriphi (Betancourt 1979, 2003b; Pelon and Schmitt 2006). The estimated size of the settlement (0.32 ha; Whitelaw 1983), however, is not much larger than Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, which may indicate that the settlement was not organized under a strong hierarchical structure. By EM III, the settlement underwent further changes—most of the houses were destroyed and new buildings were erected above them. Watrous

THE PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

(1994, 719, 721) has suggested that the EM III rebuilding was of poorer quality and that it was not until the MM IA phase that the site recovered some of its significance (Seager 1905; Zois 1976). Trypiti is a well-excavated site that is now in the process of publication. There is some evidence for EM I habitation, but the data primarily relate to the EM III–MM IA periods, when a densely packed settlement was built at the narrow summit of this sharp hill, a few hundred meters from the seashore. The plan reveals five to six standardized houses, each just large enough for a family of five or six individuals. There is no central house or central area, although site location greatly limits the existence of open spaces within the settlement. Although the site may be a bit larger than Myrtos Phournou Koriphi and would have had a very different layout, it looks similar in terms of size and composition and probably can be considered a good example of a small settlement during the EM III/MM IA period. Chamaizi is a slightly different site. Also found on top of a hill, it was excavated early in the 20th century and was later restudied by Davaras. A MM IA site was unearthed over earlier remains. The site is small in size, has an uncommon oval shape, perhaps adapting to the hill summit, and had a bounding outside wall. Its plan must be understood as a unit, rather than as several contiguous structures. It has a domestic character and various households may have lived there together. Another walled compound was found at Hagia Photia Kouphota, also dating from the MM IA period. The site, however, is not situated at the top of a hill, but on a flat plateau by the sea. The settlement was enclosed by a freestanding oval wall and is composed of potentially eight different houses, arranged in an integrated design. It has an open space at the center. A larger number of smaller excavations have revealed limited information concerning Pre- and Protopalatial settlements. These include Petras (EM I; Papadatos 2007a, 2008, 2012; Tsipopoulou 2012b), Kalo Chorio (EM I; Haggis 1996, 2012), Hagia Triada (EM I; Laviosa 1972, 1975), Debla (EM I–IIA; Warren and Tzedakis 1974), Poros Katsambas (EM I–IIA; Day 2004; DimopoulouRethemiotaki, Wilson, and Day 2007; Doonan, Day, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2007; Wilson, Day, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2008; Dimopoulou 2012), Chamalevri (MM IA–IB, and traces of earlier material; Andreadaki-Vlasaki

25

1993, 1996, 2002; Andreadaki-Vlasaki and Papadopoulou 2001; Vlazaki 2010), Chrysokamino (Final Neolithic [FN]–EM III; Betancourt 2006; Catapotis and Bassiakos 2007), Apodoulou (MM I–IIB; Curti 1996; Tzigounaki 1999; Civitillo and Greco 2005), Psathi (EM IIB–MM IA; Mytilinaiou 1998, 2006), Kastelli (MM IB–IIA, and traces of earlier material; Rethemiotakis 1992– 1993; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2004), and Patrikies (MM IA; Bonacasa 1969). Petras, Kalo Chorio, and Hagia Triada show evidence of two to three EM I houses, probably forming small, shortlived hamlets. The preservation of these sites is not as good as at Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, and the excavations have been published in a limited manner. Nonetheless, results seem to suggest a case similar to Myrtos Phournou Koriphi: small, mainly autonomous communities that nevertheless have connections with the wider world, as indicated by the small-scale metallurgical evidence and obsidian found, for example, at Petras (Papadatos 2007a; D’Annibale 2008). Poros Katsambas reflects a different type of site, this time dating to EM I–IIA. Here the evidence confirms a lively trading port that was in contact with the Aegean and was a center for much craft activity. Only a small fraction of the settlement has been uncovered, rendering difficult a comparison with Myrtos Phournou Koriphi in terms of size and structure. It seems clear, however, that the nature of this settlement is quite different. It was very probably larger in size, with a different economic basis, and probably a different sociopolitical organization. The EM I–EM III Chrysokamino site in the Mirabello area is a small metallurgical workshop used for several centuries in a sporadic manner. Without the complexity of Poros, it shows that craft-specialist sites may not have been closely related to settlements, and reminds us of the complexity of the Prepalatial Cretan landscape. Similarly, at Patrikies, part of a MM IA nondomestic complex was found, although its nature remains unclear. The large ceramic assemblage, with the unusual number of teapots, has led scholars to suggest that the site was a ceramic production center or a place where group activities, perhaps ritual, had taken place. Kastelli, Chamalevri, Psathi, and Apodoulou are known in a limited way as they remain largely unpublished. At Chamalevri, the MM I site seems to be quite significant in size with a complex layout,

26

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

but the excavation traverses several separated plots and it is difficult to determine the relationship of the scattered Pre- and Protopalatial evidence. Nonetheless, it seems that a number of different industrial areas may have existed (Andreadaki-Vlasaki 1997b). At Apodoulou, the size of the site is quite substantial, but again, the dating of the different architectonical phases is ambiguous and the way in which the Protopalatial evidence comes together is not always obvious from the preliminary reports. A third type of site involves the discovery of EM and MM remains underneath LM settlements. Pre- and Protopalatial phases appear below the later phases in most Bronze Age sites, although normally in small windows that are difficult to contextualize. Given the overwhelming number of such sites, only ones with significant EM I–MM II evidence will be mentioned. These include Mochlos (EM IIA onward; Seager 1909), Palaikastro (MM I onward; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990; Driessen 2007), Knossos (Early Neolithic [EN] onward; Cadogan et al. 1993; Cadogan 1994; MacGillivray 1994, 1998; Wilson 1994; Wilson and Day 1999, 2000; Momigliano 2000b; Macdonald and Knappett 2007; Tomkins 2008; Hood and Cadogan 2011), Phaistos (Neolithic onward; Kanta 1999; Todaro 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011; Carinci and La Rosa 2007; Lenuzza 2008), Malia (EM IIA onward; Pelon 1985, 1986; Schoep 2002a, 2007; Driessen 2007), Tylissos (EM II–MM II; Hazzidakis 1934; Platon 1954b), Monasteraki Amariou (MM IB–IIB; Grundmann 1951; Kirsten 1951; Kanta 1999), Galatas (MM I onward, and some evidence of EM I–IIA use; Rethemiotakis 1999a, 1999b; Rethemiotakis and Christakis 2004), Kommos (MM IB onward; Van de Moortel 2006a, 2006b, 2006c), Priniatikos Pyrgos (EM I onward; Hall 1914, 84–85; Hayden 2004; 2005; Hayden et al. 2007), and Katalimata (MM II; Nowicki 2008a). The evidence from these sites is too great to discuss; several small contexts have been found in each site. Moreover, deposits are normally decontextualized and, as in the case of Knossos, constitute secondary deposits as a result of later building activity. Finally, only a few of these have been published in a detailed manner. All in all, these deposits have rarely provided a comprehensive picture of these sites during the periods in question and have added very little to our existing knowledge of Preand Protopalatial Crete.

Two more types of nonfunerary Pre- and Protopalatial sites should be mentioned here: caves and peak sanctuaries. Caves tend to be regarded as funerary contexts in Prepalatial Crete (Tyree 2001), though other uses should not be ignored (Tomkins 2013). From MM I onward it seems that most archaeologically known caves on Crete shifted toward nonfunerary ritual use (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Tyree 2001, 2006). The mostly disturbed Protopalatial deposits in caves provide little or no information about such cult activities (Jones 1999) and therefore the nature of this ritual use is not known. Unfortunately, this precludes use of this information in conjunction with funerary evidence. Peak sanctuaries are cult and ritual sites that have been identified on the summits of some mountains in Crete. Juktas, near Knossos, could have been in use as early as EM IIB (Nowicki 1994), and by MM IA more than 20 peak sanctuaries were in use (Nowicki 1994, 2008b). These sites are defined by deposits of ceramics and a large number of clay figurines, suggesting ritual and cult use. Architectural remains on some peak sanctuaries may date to the MM I period, though most buildings belong to LM (Nowicki 1994). The exact nature of the activities that took place on peak sanctuaries is still a matter of debate (Peatfield 1987; Haggis 1999; Zeimbekis 2001), but it seems clear that they played several roles in Cretan communities. Perhaps the most obvious is to provide a focal point for expressing the identity of a community within the regional landscape (Haggis 1999). While there is no clear connection between the material assemblages found in peak sanctuaries and cemeteries, peak sanctuaries provide a significant context that can be related to ritual activities in cemeteries during the MM period.

Settlement and Cemetery Postprocessualist authors saw the placement of mortuary evidence within a broader archaeological context as one of the most valuable ways in which to overcome the difficulties involved in the interpretation of highly symbolic funerary data (Hodder 1982b; Parker Pearson 1982; Nielsen 1997). Such an approach reflects an attempt to recover some of the analytical interests of the “Archaeology of

THE PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Death,” while also addressing the postprocessualist criticisms. Yet such studies remain highly problematic in the case of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. The lack of comprehensive excavations of Pre- and Protopalatial settlements limits comparisons at the materialrecord level. At this point in time, the much-needed assessment of settlement site against cemetery site and internal structure against cemetery layout is impossible. Myrtos Phournou Koriphi or Debla have no known related cemeteries (the round structure reported nearby Myrtos Phournou Koriphi [D12] seems unlikely to be a tholos tomb; Warren 1972a, 89–90; Goodison and Guarita 2005), and from Vasiliki we have only a very limited knowledge of the funerary record (Seager 1907; Zois 1972a). In reality, there is no single, well-known cemetery that can be matched with a comprehensively excavated Pre- or Protopalatial settlement. In many cases, the excavated cemeteries have been linked to nearby settlements when the two sites provided Prepalatial evidence, as it was assumed that such a loose chronological connection was sufficient. The best-known examples show that such a link may not exist. At Hagia Triada, for example, the cemetery was built only after the nearby EM IIA houses were abandoned (Laviosa 1975; Todaro 2003). Similar cases are found at Petras, where the rectangular tombs are not contemporaneous with the known Protopalatial settlement (Tsipopoulou 2002), nor with the EM I hamlet (Papadatos 2008), and at Trypiti, where Tholos A (Trypiti A [139]) may have not been used at the same time as the nearby Prepalatial settlement (Vasilakis 2010b). Thus, close proximity does not insure simultaneous use. Even in cases where a settlement can be associated with a nearby cemetery, there are further problems in linking them. The deceased do not necessarily come from the associated settlement, given that social norms may apply that distinguish between residence and place of interment. Rather than highlighting a flaw in the way this study approaches the concept of community, this simply encourages caution with regard to traditional models that promote a straightforward connection between community, settlement, and group identity (Branigan 1998a; Murphy 1998). A nominal settlementcommunity-cemetery relationship will be taken as

27

a starting point for the analysis of the record, but it is not assumed that such a one-to-one relationship always existed. Marriage and residential rules may have significantly affected the composition of the group that was interred in each tomb. Communal burial can represent very different social groups and collective identities (Steuer 1982). Therefore, we must be careful when linking the group of four to six individuals that comprised the typical household (Whitelaw 1983) with the social unit interred in a tomb. In cases where the tomb seems to contain a group larger than the typical household, we cannot readily assume that the burial group was composed of various households linked together by kinship ties. The idea of extended descent groups (normally referred to in Cretan literature as clans; Bintliff 1977a) has not been accurately defined. Anthropological studies have made clear that there is a varied typology of extended kinship networks (clan, lineage, unlineal, cognatic, and so on; Parkin 2004) based on biological and/or conceptual links. Therefore, the lack of a detailed definition concerning the nature of extended descent groups in the Cretan context presents many problems with regard to implementation of this concept in the study of the record. The challenge is to understand the rules that determined the place of interment and therefore the link between individuals interred in the tomb: lineage (real or fictional, matrilineal or patrilineal), locality (uxorilocal, virilocal), or other types of social links (Driessen 2010, 2011). In this regard, though this study will always take into consideration the domestic unit of four to six individuals that seems to correspond to a nuclear family, it will take care not to project this social unit directly onto the tomb. Also, it will remain flexible with regard to the meaning of collective tombs in terms of kinship, and the type of links that connect individuals in the same burial place. Although these issues can be resolved with a fair degree of certainty through DNA analysis of human remains, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. There are further problems regarding the comparison of funerary and settlement assemblages, which are extremely rare. Much of the work undertaken recently in cemeteries relies on the identification of drinking and eating activities within them (Hamilakis 1998; Day and Wilson 2004; Branigan 2008). The significant deposits of cups and jugs have been

28

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

taken to comprise principal evidence of important festivities in the cemeteries. Since no one has attempted to examine comprehensively these funerary assemblages in conjunction with domestic ones, it is not known whether there are any differences in the ceramic shapes and wares used in the two contexts. The way in which fine, coarse, and cooking wares were used in Pre- and Protopalatial contexts is not understood, or whether pottery assemblages in cemeteries are markedly different from a typical domestic one. The overall size of the deposits is not necessarily a good starting point for comparison, as the formation processes of the deposits in funerary and domestic contexts may be very different. Until a better understanding is achieved of how ceramics were used and discarded in cemeteries and settlements, such differences in the assemblage size and composition of these two types of context will remain difficult to interpret. The fact that some shapes and items were not deposited in cemeteries but found in domestic assemblages may be even more significant, but no studies have yet approached this question. An in-depth revision of ceramic deposits in domestic contexts lies far beyond the scope of this study and indeed it would require a detailed investigation in its own right. Until such a work is published, we must remain cautious when interpreting ceramic assemblages in cemeteries. Care must also be exercised when comparing nonceramic assemblages. It is important to bear in mind that domestic contexts will always yield fewer such objects compared to cemeteries, as many of them would have been recycled (particularly metals), cleared out of houses when they become useless (stone tools), or removed upon abandonment of the site. This is not the case in tombs and, therefore, these are more likely to contain metal and nonceramic objects. This bias may result in a false impression of wealth in the case of tomb deposition; care must be taken when interpreting the apparent richness of funerary deposits compared to domestic assemblages.

Survey Intensive survey (Fig. 6) is a relatively recent form of fieldwork on Crete, anticipated by Blackman and Branigan in the 1970s with a series of

extensive surveys in South-Central Crete (Blackman and Branigan 1975, 1977). Since then, intensive methodologies have been applied to a large number of projects on Crete: in the Kommos area (Hope Simpson et al. 1995), the Chania and Akrotiri areas (Moody 1987a), Hagios Vasilios (Moody, Peatfield, and Markoulaki 2000), Sphakia (Nixon, Moody, and Rackham 1988; Nixon et al. 1989, 1990), Katelionas/Lamnoni (Branigan 1998b) and the southeast coast (Schlager et al. 2002), Praisos (Whitley 1998), Malia (Müller 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996, 1998), the Lasithi Plain (Watrous 1982), Pseira (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002), Hagia Photia Siteias (Tsipopoulou 1989), Itanos (Kalpaxis, Schnapp, and Viviers 1995; Greco et al. 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), Gournia (Watrous et al. 2000), Pediada (Panagiotakis 2006; Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 97), Galatas (Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 97; Evely 2010, 187), Phaistos (Bredaki and Longo 2011), and Knossos (Whitley et al. 2006, 107–108; 2007, 108; Evely 2008, 100; 2010, 183–185; Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 94–96). Particularly interesting for the Prepalatial period are recently published surveys at Kavousi (Haggis 2005), West Mesara (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004), Moni Odigitria (Vasilakis and Branigan 2010), and Vrokastro (Hayden 2003c, 2004, 2005). Extensive discussions about the nature of archaeological surveys (Cherry 1983b, 2003; Shennan 1985; Millett 2000; Osborne 2004a) have shown that survey produces new valuable information about settlement patterns, settlement size, settlement history, demographic trends, and resourceexploitation strategies. Their limitations in the definition of sites and site function impacts their capability to discover the funeral landscape of a region, however. Cemeteries, particularly if scattered extensively across an area, are notoriously difficult to identify using intensive survey methods. Burial sites reported in survey publication have therefore been included, but will be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Cemetery and Survey There are obvious difficulties when trying to combine survey data with excavated funerary

THE PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

evidence, as they constitute very different types of information. The fact that they have been linked through a very narrow range of approaches, mainly by using a territorial model originally developed by Renfrew for the British Neolithic in the 1970s (Renfrew 1976), only exacerbates the problems. Monumental cemeteries are thought to have been used as territorial markers as well as avenues through which large kinship groups could meet and renew their ties (Bintliff 1977b, 1989; Blackman and Branigan 1977; Branigan 1981, 1991a, 1998a; Murphy 1998). Authors have drawn a direct link between kinship (some sort of clan in most cases), settlement, cemetery, and geographical region. Such a model was developed mainly in the Asterousia Mountains context, but similar ideas are starting to appear in the study of other parts of the island (Vavouranakis 2006, 2007). Serious doubts have been cast concerning the application of this model to the Asterousia Mountains area (see Ch. 4; Whitelaw 2000), which renders its validity for other parts of the island even more uncertain. New studies have also shown that there is no evidence linking the location of tholos tombs with visibility or a commanding position in the landscape (Georgoulaki 2009). While there may be a link between landscape, human groups, and territories, its exact nature needs to be defined within the particular context of each Cretan region and through the careful definition of each of the components of the relationship. Interesting approaches do exist linking cemetery analyses with survey data, and these have worked well in cases where highly intensive surveys of marginal landscapes have been combined with excavations (Watrous 1982; Branigan 1998b; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010). In such cases, a more accurate identification of the relationship between settlement and cemetery in small and

29

well-defined geographical regions has engendered a range of innovative studies. One of the most interesting approaches involves the investigation of demography, as this helps us examine changes in the size of a cemetery against a backdrop of broader demographic trends. We need to understand whether the decline and abandonment of a cemetery is related to a decline in demography and the abandonment of nearby settlements. This is particularly important, as new mortuary practices and burial types that are archaeologically silent may explain the abandonment of cemeteries by a community still living in the vicinity. Also, new mortuary behavior may have been a response to increasing demographic pressure, which could therefore shed light on the relationship between mortuary customs and other socioeconomic aspects of a community. There are other interesting connections between survey data and funerary evidence. The location of a cemetery could be indicative of particular uses of the landscape (Vavouranakis 2006, 2011). Inversely, significant or repeated deposition of particular object types in the funerary assemblage may relate to activities specific to nearby communities, such as certain agricultural activities, specialized craft production, or important exchange networks, and helps us to understand the relationship of the living community to its environment. While it may appear that the rejection of the more straightforward territorial model might limit the link between survey and mortuary studies, this in fact allows the exploration of new ways in which to combine different sets of data. As we will see in the following chapters (see Ch. 4 in particular), there is no one way of doing this and the approach taken depends heavily on the type, number, and quality of excavations and surveys undertaken in a particular area.

Conclusion This chapter has presented both the shortcomings and the potential of the archaeological record. It is now time to review the evidence, region by region. For clarity, the data will be reviewed by

geographical area in five chapters. This should be seen as a structured way of approaching the large amount of data rather than a response to patterns in the record.

4

The Mesara Valley, the Asterousia Mountains, and the South Coast

In past research, South-Central Crete has been regarded as a coherent region, in which the Mesara Valley (which includes the north slopes of the Asterousia Mountains and the south slopes of the Psiloritis Mountains) and the Asterousia Mountains (Fig. 7) have been considered in similar terms (Branigan 1970b, 74–75; 1984; Murphy 1998). It has become clear, however, that the very different landscapes that compose South-Central Crete (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 35– 36) must be taken into consideration (Sbonias 1995; Relaki 2004; Legarra Herrero 2011c). This chapter involves a study of the whole area rather than dividing it into subregions, since the research history and the proximity of the diverse areas connect the archaeological investigation of the different landscapes; nonetheless, when necessary the specific nature of each microregion will be borne in mind and its distinct characteristics explored. Since the excavation of Tholos B at Hagia Triada (31) in 1902 (see Fig. 7 for mentioned sites; Halbherr 1902, 1903; Paribeni 1903, 1904), the prehistoric burial record in the Mesara Valley and

the Asterousia Mountains has been the focus of numerous studies (see Ch. 3). As a result, the region has been the most comprehensively studied area in Crete as regards Pre- and Protopalatial burial practices. The pioneering work of the Italian School at Hagia Triada (29–35; Halbherr 1902, 1903, 1905; Paribeni 1903, 1904; Banti 1933; Stefani 1933) and Siva (131–133; Paribeni 1913), and of Xanthoudides in the east Mesara (Xanthoudides 1915, 1918b, 1924), was continued with new excavations in the 1930s (Vorou [146–150]; Marinatos 1931), the 1940s (Apesokari A [2–4]; Schörgendorfer 1951b), and the 1950s (Kamilari [44–49]: Levi 1963; Hagios Kyrillos [37–39]: Sakellarakis 1968; Levi 1976, 703–741). In the 1950s and 1960s, interest in the burial record expanded from the Mesara Valley to the neighboring Asterousia Mountains, and in particular to the area of the Hagiopharango Valley—Hagia Kyriaki (22–28; Sakellarakis 1965b; Alexiou 1971; Blackman and Branigan 1982), Megali Skini (85–89; Alexiou 1966, 321; 1967a, 482), Kephali Odigitrias (53–57; Alexiou 1967a, 483; 1971, 307), and Hagios Georgios (36;

32

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Alexiou 1967a, 483). This geographical expansion of studies reached the coastal area south of the Asterousia Mountains (henceforth referred to as the south coast) with the recording and excavation of tombs at Lebena (76–82; Platon 1958, 470–471; Alexiou 1958; 1960; Alexiou and Warren 2004), Kali Limenes (42, 43; Alexiou 1965), and Trypiti (139–143; Alexiou 1966, 322; 1967a, 483–484; Vasilakis 1989). All this evidence was synthesized for the first time in 1970 in a monograph that dealt with the burial record of the three areas (Branigan 1970b). Branigan’s work brought together all the available new information; he reconsidered these sources and reworked many of the scattered theories regarding the tholos tombs typical of these three areas that had appeared over the years (Glotz 1925; Wiesner 1938; Nilsson 1950; Pini 1968). This work was followed by the application of a new fieldwork technique to the burial record of the area, namely survey, in order to place the tombs in the broader context of the Early Bronze Age landscape. Blackman and Branigan conducted two different surveys in the area: one of the south coast between Kali Limenes and Lasaia (Blackman and Branigan 1975) and the other of the Hagiopharango Valley (Blackman and Branigan 1973, 1977), the latter complemented by the excavation of the Hagia Kyriaki cemetery (22–25; Blackman and Branigan 1982). Since this work, more research has been conducted in the area, though most of it has been limited to rescue excavations after looting episodes, such as at Kephali Odigitrias (53–57; Alexiou 1963a; Vasilakis 1996a; Saltos 2000), Kouses

(69, 70; Hadzi-Vallianou 1979, 1989), and Trypiti A (139, 140; Vasilakis 1989). Apart from these excavations, six new surveys have been conducted in the area of study: one in the area of Kommos (Hope Simpson et al. 1995), another around the Hagiopharango Valley (Vasilakis 1990), a broader one in the western Mesara Valley (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004), one around the Moni Odigitria cemetery (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b), one focusing on the area around Phaistos (Bredaki and Longo 2011), and another small one around the settlement of Trypiti (A. Vasilakis, pers. comm.). The picture is changing rapidly as two major monographs have just appeared that provide comprehensive and detailed data from excavations of cemeteries in this area. The first monograph focuses on the tombs around Lebena (76–82; Alexiou and Warren 2004), while the most recent one explores the cemetery of Moni Odigitria (92–102; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010). Significant work is also being carried out at the cemeteries of Kamilari, Apesokari, and Kephali Odigitrias, and it is hoped that new information will soon be available. These monographs are proving to be pivotal in changing perceptions of the funerary behavior in the region, as they have provided new, high-quality data that allow reconsideration of basic questions concerning these cemeteries and their changing use through history. In addition to producing a wealth of information, this long history of research has also emphasized a range of specific problems that concern the chronology of mortuary contexts in South-Central Crete; these problems in dating the tombs will require detailed consideration.

Dating the Cemeteries Looted tombs, mixed contexts, and limited publication have resulted in a very poor chronological definition of the construction and development of the cemeteries in the Mesara Valley, Asterousia Mountains, and the south coast. Only recently have new data become available, with the publication of Hagia Kyriaki (22–25; Blackman and Branigan 1982), of various tombs in the area of Lebena (76–82; Alexiou and Warren 2004), Moni

Odigitria (92–102; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010), and the restudy of Hagia Triada (29–35; Di Vita 1995, 2000, 2001; La Rosa 1999a, 1999b, 2001; Cultraro 2000a, 2003; Todaro 2001; Carinici 2003; Palio 2003). Unfortunately, apart from Hagia Triada, all these tombs are located in the Asterousia Mountains and the south coast area with little evidence of good quality coming from the Mesara Valley (Figs. 7, 8). Only the MM I period is

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

better known in the Mesara through the cemeteries of the aforementioned Hagia Triada, Kamilari A (44–46; Levi 1963; 1976, 741; Mallegni 1986; Levi and Carinci 1988, 334; La Rosa 1992; Fiandra 1995; Girella 2013a; 2013b), and Apesokari A (2–4; Schörgendorfer 1951b; Long 1959; Hood 1971, 142–143; Flouda 2011). This weak chronological framework has led to uncertainties in the study of the mortuary behavior of these areas that can be summarized in three basic problems. The first refers to the recognition of each period based on ceramic wares. This issue will be discussed in each chronological section of the chapter. The second refers to the construction dates of the cemeteries: when do they appear in the record? Are there chronological differences in the appearance of cemeteries in different areas? The third problem concerns the main period of use of a cemetery and is central to understanding the history and mortuary behavior as preserved in the archaeological record. It is essential that mortuary behavior be dated correctly and understood in the proper chronological framework. These three problems were principally addressed in the 1970s, when attempts were made to date tombs on the basis of the ceramic wares that placed the construction of most of the known tombs in the EM I or EM II periods (Branigan 1970b, 18–20; 1993, 143–148; contra Pelon 1976, 8 n. 1). Most of the ceramic ware definitions used (Hagios Onouphrios I and II, Salame Ware, Lebena Ware, and Koumasa Ware) have recently been reconsidered in terms of both their definition and their date (Warren 1972b, 240; Betancourt 1985; Wilson and Day 1994; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1997; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Todaro 2001; 2003; 2005; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 541–542; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 72–76). These new evaluations have proved wrong many of the earlier assumptions and efforts continue toward a new understanding of regional ceramic wares. Unfortunately, these new studies have seldom revised material from old excavations and the dating of many of the cemeteries still relies on old ceramic typologies. Most of the cemeteries in the Asterousia Mountains and the south coast area might indeed have been constructed in EM I (Fig. 9). Vagnetti and Belli (1978, 135) suggested a FN date for Trypiti

33

A (139) and Lebena Y2 (79), but it seems clear that the earliest pottery from these contexts is early EM I, such as the burnished pyxides at Lebena Y2 (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 123, pl. 110) and the sherds from Trypiti A (A. Vasilakis, pers. comm.). Such dating coincides with that of other published assemblages, for example, the so-called black gritty ware and Pyrgos Ware from Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A (22; Blackman and Branigan 1982, 27, figs. 9, 10) and dark burnished ware from the undisturbed deposit at Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 107). Not all cemeteries in this area are dated EM I, and examples of cemeteries constructed in EM IIA (Fig. 10), such as Lebena Papoura (76–78; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 54) and Lebena Zervou (82; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 186, no. 32), also exist. Cemeteries in the Mesara Valley are much more difficult to date, and there is almost no sound early context known in this area. The only exception is Hagia Triada (29–35; Fig. 11), which was extensively excavated for the first time in 1902–1904 (Halbherr 1902, 1903, 1905; Paribeni 1903, 1904), and subsequently published in detail (Banti 1933; Stefani 1933; Borda 1946; Platon, ed., 1969, 13–117 [CMS II, 1, nos. 16–103]). Moreover, it has recently been the object of re-excavation and study (Di Vita 1995, 2000, 2001; La Rosa 1998, 1999a, 2001; Carinici 2003; Cultraro 2003; Todaro 2003). The earliest material from the cemetery came from Tholos A (29) and was originally dated to EM II (Banti 1933, 163–171, nos. 1–32), but later dated to EM I (Branigan 1970b, 170; 1993, 144, no. 1), as was Tholos B (31; Branigan 1993, 144, no. 2), for which no date was given at the time of its first publication (Paribeni 1904). The recent excavations and analyses have dated the construction of Tholos A to the EM IIA or EM IIB period (Cultraro 2003, 310–315; Todaro 2003, 84–87) and Tholos B to the MM IB period (Carinici 2003, 113 n. 48). All the other Pre- and Protopalatial buildings in the cemetery can be dated to later periods (EM III–MM II; Carinici 2003, 99, table; Todaro 2003, 92, table). The only EM I deposits to have been found in the cemetery were underneath Room Alpha in the West Camerette (33; Di Vita 2001, 396–397, figs. 21–23; Todaro 2003, 81), and though they may represent a ritual deposit, they might not be related to the later mortuary use of the area (Todaro 2003, 81).

34

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Hagia Triada in many ways provides a good “control” for the assessment of other regional cemeteries. First, its dating may help us confirm an EM II date for the construction of the early excavated cemeteries in the Mesara Valley from which small amounts of probable EM II material were published (Fig. 10). These include Hagia Eirene Tholoi E and e (20, 21; HM 5012, HM 5013; Xanthoudides 1924, 52), Aspripetra (10; Xanthoudides 1918b, 15; Keros-Syros culture types of ceramics), Kalathiana Tholos K (40; Xanthoudides 1924, 81– 83), Koumasa Tholos B (62; HM 4188, HM 4190– 4194; Xanthoudides 1924, 9, 35, pls. I, XVIII, XXV; Wilson and Day 1994, 14–15; but see Betancourt 2009, 52, for an EM I dating of HM 4148 from Area AB [65]), Marathokephalon Tholoi A and B (83, 84; Xanthoudides 1918b, 19, fig. 4; Wilson and Day 1994, 16), Porti Tholos Pi (124; HM 5067, Xanthoudides 1924, 60, pl. XXXV), Salame (130; Xanthoudides 1924, 74, pl. XL), and Siva Tholoi N and S (131, 133; Paribeni 1913; Zois 1998d, 133; but see Betancourt 2009, 55, for an EM I dating). Still, none of these can be conclusively dated to EM II due to the limited amount of material published (Branigan 1970b, 18–19, 124– 126, 147; 1993, 140–148; Pelon 1976, 69–71). Only two cemeteries have yielded clear EM I pottery in the Mesara Valley: Phaistos Area 24/Hagios Onouphrios (103; see pyxides and round-bottomed jug in Evans 1895, 112–115, figs. 100, 106a, 107; Betancourt 2009, 17, fig. 2.2; see also Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 530), a possible mortuary deposit with no associated architectural remains that may form part of the Phaistos cemetery (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 530); and Koutsokera tomb (71), where several vases have been recognized as EM IB (Xanthoudides 1924, 74, pl. XLa; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 194; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59). Second, Hagia Triada illustrates the difficulties faced in dating a cemetery even when a good understanding of the ceramic assemblage is available. Cultraro, who has undertaken an intensive reanalysis of the data from Tholos A (29), including unpublished material and the original excavation diaries (Cultraro 2000a, 2003), has suggested an EM IIA date for the tomb based on the presence of Pattern Burnished and Fine Gray wares (Banti 1933, 165– 167, 171, nos. 4, 7, 11, 12, 31; Wilson and Day 1994,

13; Cultraro 2003, 310–315). The absence of typical EM IIA wares, such as Hagios Onouphrios or fine painted that are found in the Prepalatial houses east of the cemetery (Case Laviosa; Laviosa 1975; Todaro 2003) and have been defined as mature EM IIA wares (Wilson and Day 1994), has led Cultraro to suggest that Tholos A was constructed in an earlier EM IIA phase, abandoned when the houses were constructed, and reused when these houses were in turn abandoned (Cultraro 2003, 319–320). Todaro, however, has suggested that the vessels dated EM IIA by Cultraro, Wilson, and Day should be dated EM IIB (Banti 1933, 165, 169–170, nos. 3–5, 7, 23, 26; Todaro 2003, 84–86). Since the majority of these ceramics were found in the lower stratum of the tomb and in the corridor surrounding the tomb, contexts that might be related to its construction, these wares would establish an EM IIB construction date (Todaro 2003, 81, 84–86). Moreover, no EM IIA pottery from possible cleaning episodes has been found around the tomb (Di Vita 2000, 482–484; 2001, 397; Todaro 2003, 81, 86). Todaro therefore argues that the tomb was in use after the abandonment of the Case Laviosa in EM IIB (Todaro 2003, 87). This discussion illustrates potential problems with the dating of many other tombs in SouthCentral Crete. It shows that there are no clear chronological breaks in the typology of the ceramic wares, and that gray areas exist in the evolution of wares that do not allow for exact dating based on one or two specific vessels, particularly if we only have old publication photographs available that do not convey details about surface treatment or decoration. The dating of a tomb must be based on a comprehensive knowledge of the ceramic assemblage in light of new understanding of the ceramic sequence and not on a search for the earliest vessel among a usually very limited published sample. The case of Hagia Triada (Todaro 2003) and Hagia Kyriaki (Blackman and Branigan 1982) show that EM I material near cemeteries may be related to habitation preceding tomb construction, rather than EM I funerary use. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the presence of EM I pottery in uncertain contexts within or near a cemetery indicates EM I tomb construction. This might limit the ability to date many of the old published cemeteries since only a few complete

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

vessels were usually published; it does, however, free this study from the tyranny of chronology and opens up the analysis to new views and approaches. This being said, a discussion of mortuary behavior without reference to chronology is not valid, as mortuary behavior in the Pre- and Protopalatial

35

periods changed through time. Recent developments in ceramic studies together with comprehensive revisions of the ceramic assemblage of funerary deposits in South-Central Crete are helping achieve a finer chronological resolution, which needs to be applied to this study.

Tholoi, Community, and the Social Unit Attention must also be paid to the concepts of community and kinship, which form the basis of most models proposed for the regions under discussion in this chapter and which pervade the study of the tholos cemeteries during the different periods. From the earliest studies it has been proposed that tombs represent the burial places of a specific kinship unit (Glotz 1925, 131–137; Wiesner 1938, 104–106; Pendlebury 1939, 65). This idea was first applied to South-Central Crete by Glotz, who suggested that the tholos was used by a tribe (Glotz 1925, 131–137). Since then various authors have defined different social units for the tholoi (Table 3). They simply assumed that a count of human remains in the best-preserved contexts and an estimate of the time span involved based on ceramic phases was sufficient to establish the size of the group contributing to the tomb. Such estimations were based on ethnographic studies of the number of bodies per nuclear family per century. This was perhaps the first problematic assumption; each social group was counted in terms of nuclear families per tomb without any real knowledge of whether the nuclear family was a relevant social unit in its use. Methods of counting the deceased varied (number of skulls or total mass of skeletal material), but the logic employed was the same and the final result just depended on whether the numbers pointed to a nuclear family, to a clan, or to some other large kinship group never explicitly defined (Bintliff 1977a; 1977b, 639–641; Soles 1992b, 251– 255; Maggidis 1994, 109–113). Recognizing the problems inherent in skeletal estimates and issues of preservation, other authors have tried to approach this matter by assuming that certain items, such as seals and daggers, would belong to heads of families and, therefore, a count of

these items would permit the identification of the social unit, based on the assumption that each nuclear family would inter one head of a family per generation. This method, like the previous one, relies on estimations of tomb use based on the ceramic phases present (Whitelaw 1983; Karytinos 1998). A detailed look at the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods used by each author will not be repeated here, as they have already been discussed by others (Branigan 1987a; 1993, 81–89; Soles 1992b, 251–255; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 128– 129). The result of these calculations has been reification of two antagonistic models for the use of tholos tombs in the literature: each tholos was used by a single nuclear family (Whitelaw 1983, 334– 335; Cherry 1984, 31), or each tholos was used by a lineage composed of three to six nuclear families (Branigan 1970b, 128–129; Hood 1971, 39–40; Warren 1972a, 267; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 83–84; Branigan 1991a, 186; 1993, 84–95; Murphy 1998, 31–32). Bintliff tried to overcome problems of interpreting tomb assemblages by calculating the number of individuals living at the same time in a particular area and dividing the result by the number of known tombs (Bintliff 1989). Obviously, there are problematic assumptions with this method; we do not know how and to what extent all resources in an area were exploited, or if we have discovered the entire mortuary record of the region. The Moni Odigitria Project has proposed recently a much more refined analysis based on a similar approach (Vasilakis and Branigan 2010). This study has tried to answer the question of who used the tholos, not relying on the skeletal material, but rather by attempting to link the tholos tombs at the cemetery with the settlement patterns of the region through undertaking an intensive archaeological

36

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

survey of the valley surrounding the cemetery. The survey has confirmed the view that settlements near the cemetery in EM II times took the form of small hamlets (Whitelaw 2000). Four such hamlets were identified, each of which could have accommodated one to three houses (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b, 26). This led the excavators to argue that the cemetery was used by about 7–10 nuclear families, or two extended families, which they have likened to two small kin-groups (Branigan 2010a, 263). In MM I, the picture changed as the four hamlets were replaced by two larger settlements in the area. The Moni Odigitria Project has discarded the most recurrent assumptions of the previous calculation methodologies. It has acknowledged that study of tomb use through the burial deposit is problematic because it has not taken into consideration the dynamic nature of the cemetery, with particular histories for each tomb, including variations in intensity of use through time, different episodes of clearance and fumigation (i.e., the extensive use of fire within the tomb to “clean” it before new internments), interruptions in use, and various relationships with rooms outside the tholos (Murphy 1998, 32). Moreover, previous assumptions did not account for the varied nature of mortuary behavior. Tombs and cemeteries changed in use over time; they were used in different ways and had differing relationships with the communities that used them. In the case of Moni Odigitria, fluctuations in the use of the tombs have been identified, as well as possible changes in the people that were entitled to use the tombs (Branigan 2010a, 261–262; Triantaphyllou 2010). For the first time, it is not readily assumed that the entire population was entitled to be buried in the tholos. Different average ages of the interments in the two tholoi have been distinguished (Triantaphyllou 2010, 245), which suggest differing access to the tombs. In the case of Tholos B (93), burial in this tomb may have been the privilege of the elders only. Results of the Moni Odigitria study strongly indicate that tholoi may have been used to inter people coming from more than one nuclear family, but we should remain skeptical of the use of words such as “clan” or “extended family.” As noted in the earlier chapter, lineage and clan are terms that need to be defined in the

specific context of South-Central Crete in order to have any explanatory value. Unfortunately, data from the Moni Odigitria Project have not overcome some of the most persistent assumptions made in studies of the social use of tholos cemeteries, and this study still relies heavily on the presumed direct correlation between community, settlement, and tomb in South-Central Crete. It has been generally suggested that the tholos was the material claim to a territory by a community (Branigan 1984, 1991a, 1998a; Murphy 1998). It is assumed that the tholos cemetery was the interment place for people who lived nearby and who were structured as a distinct kin group. Although Moni Odigitria has provided the first good understanding of demography and population around a cemetery, interpretations still rely on the model described above. The problems in the datarich case of Moni Odigitria are obvious. It is not clear that all hamlets were in use at the same time. Small hamlets normally relate to survival strategies that are based on high mobility (seasonal or permanent) and fission and fusion strategies, and it is unlikely that such small settlements could survive in constant use for 500 years (the estimated duration of the EM II period, see Table 1). The point is further proved by the case of Hagia Kyriaki, where the evidence of habitation predates the construction of a cemetery (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 43–44), and Trypiti, where the known settlement postdates the tholos (A. Vasilakis, pers. comm.). These two cases show the dynamic nature of settlement in the Asterousia Mountains and on the south coast and remind us that settlement and cemetery do not necessarily accord. Even assuming constant occupation of hamlets surrounding Moni Odigitria, seven to 10 nuclear families would have produced very small, extended kin-groups that would not have been large enough to respond adequately to social and economic challenges. Marriage partners would need to be sought outside the social pool of these settlements, and social strategies dealing with subsistence crises would have depended on extended networks in diverse geographical environments (Halstead and O’Shea 1982; Horden and Purcell 2000). It is highly unlikely that the hamlets around Moni Odigitria would have formed a close and discrete kinship

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

group, and it is possible that each house or hamlet would have formed part of different kin-groups scattered across a wider geographical area. Such issues bring to the forefront the question of what kind of rules would apply to the use of a cemetery; were interment rights assumed based on local settlement or kinship identity? How did marriage rules apply to burial placement? Which was the ultimate community identity that marked interment in the tholoi? The answers to these questions are highly dynamic and dependent on the particular area and period of study. This is particularly true for the differential study of the Mesara Valley and Asterousia Mountains. The agriculturally rich Mesara Valley contrasts starkly with the arid Asterousia Mountains and their narrow valleys. A late date for the appearance of tholos cemeteries in the Mesara Valley (the first tholos of Hagia Triada [29] was only constructed in EM IIB; Todaro 2003, 86–87) indicates that the appearance of sedentary settlements and tholoi is not intrinsically linked in this area and that the relationship between settlement, population, and cemeteries in the Mesara may have had a very different character than in the Asterousia Mountains. But variability is also seen within each area. The case of Moni Odigitria shows that there are no static or straightforward links between settlement and tholoi in the Asterousia Mountains. The settlement patterns in the region changed markedly between EM II and MM I, and there is a very different link

37

between society, habitation, and tomb use for the two periods that demands very different explanations. The clearest example of this is that the use of cemeteries in the area declined in MM IB when— on the contrary—the local population appears to have grown, increasing the exploitation of local resources (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a). No explanation for the social use of the tholos cemeteries has taken into account the profound differences in the landscapes of the Mesara Valley and the Asterousia Mountains, nor for variability within each area. These landscapes are related to different types of settlement patterns and exploitation strategies. The construction and history of use of a tholos must be explained as the choice of a community, not as an automatic reflection of the settlement patterns of the area (Branigan 1970b, 122, 125–126; 1998a; Pelon 1976, 70; Murphy 1998, 27–32). A direct connection between community identities, a sedentary way of life, settlements, and tholoi in South-Central Crete cannot be assumed a priori, not even in the case of the EM II Hagiopharango Valley. Therefore, the particular relationship between settlements, communities, and cemeteries will be analyzed during each period in the three specific regions under discussion: the Mesara Valley, the Asterousia Mountains, and the south coast. This approach will provide a more dynamic interpretation of the tholos cemeteries with respect to the idea of community.

Early Minoan I There is very little evidence for EM I burials from the Mesara Valley (see above and Fig. 9), and the focus must move to the south coast with the publication of Lebena Yerokambos (79; Alexiou and Warren 2004) and to the Asterousia Mountains with the publication of Hagia Kyriaki A (22, 23; Blackman and Branigan 1982) and Moni Odigitria (92, 93, 94, 99, 100; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010). Large amounts of EM I material have been published from the first two cemeteries, while at Moni Odigitria less EM I material was recovered. Although Hagia Kyriaki and Moni

Odigitria lack the stratigraphic quality of Lebena Yerokambos due to extensive looting, they still provide interesting evidence on material assemblages and architectural features. Lebena Yerokambos was excavated in 1959 but published only recently, which has permitted an intensive and updated investigation of the material (Fig. 12; Alexiou 1958, 1960; Alexiou and Warren 2004). In EM I times this cemetery consisted only of Tholos Lebena Y2 (79). The second tholos (Lebena Y2a, 80), and the rooms east of both tholoi (Rooms A, AN, M, and east of M and D, 81),

38

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

date to no earlier than the EM IIB period (Alexiou and Warren 2004). Hagia Kyriaki A (22, 23) was first reported in 1965 (Fig. 13; Sakellarakis 1965b), excavated in 1972–1973 by Blackman and Branigan after extensive looting, and comprehensively published a few years later (Blackman and Branigan 1982; Branigan 1993, 17–32). Two other tholoi were discovered in the vicinity, Hagia Kyriaki B (24) and C (25; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 56–58), but their lack of material means they cannot be clearly dated, although an EM I–II date has been suggested (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 46). Moreover, since they were probably never finished and it is unclear whether they were ever used (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 46), they will not be included in this study of the Hagia Kyriaki cemetery in EM I. Rooms 3 and 5 (23), outside the doorway of the Hagia Kyriaki A tholos, can be dated most securely to EM I and were probably constructed at the same time as the tholos (Fig. 13; Blackman and Branigan 1982, 46). Other rooms were attached in later periods (EM IIA and MM I), as were a peribolos wall and a possible platform (23; Blackman and Branigan 1982, 44–49). There is evidence of earlier human activity before construction of the tomb, but this does not seem related to funerary practices (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 43–44). Moni Odigitria (92–102) was first excavated in 1979, following reports of looting; further looting preceded a second season of excavation in 1980. The two seasons were directed by different excavators, and this has hampered somewhat the recent analysis of the data and its detailed publication (Vasilakis and Branigan 2010). Moreover, it has been reported that much of the material in the Mitsotakis Collection originated from the Moni Odigitria area (Marangou, ed., 1992; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010, 69; Vasilakis 2010a, 52). Since there are several other tholos cemeteries in the vicinity of the Moni Odigitria monastery that have also been looted (Kephali Odigitrias [53–57], Hagia Kyriaki [22–25], Megali Skini A [85–88]), we cannot therefore assume that all the Pre- and Protopalatial material of the Mitsotakis Collection comes from the Moni Odigitria cemetery alone. Most of the EM I material comes from Tholos A (92) and its surrounding area (Fig. 14), although unfortunately most of this was recovered from the

looted earth around the tholos (groups AA and AB; see Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 85– 91), and only a few sherds were found in situ (i.e., group AR; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 107–108). Very little EM I material was found around Tholos B (Room b1 in the annex [94]; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 129, 132), and the vast majority of published sherds around the area have been dated earlier than EM IIA (groups BA, BB, BRA–BT; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 109–111, 120–125). The construction of Tholos B has been dated to EM I, based mainly on the fact that the walls were built in conjunction with the peribolos wall, which has been dated, in turn, based on an EM I deposit found in associated Room 1 (102; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 129), a context that is more than 10 meters away from Tholos B. The construction technique of Tholos B (93) seems quite different from that of Tholos A (92), and the built doorway of the former has its closest parallels with those found in late Prepalatial tholoi (Vasilakis 2010a, 60–62). Given these problems, caution is advised concerning application of the published EM IB cemetery dating to Tholos B, and this date will be treated in the following discussion as probable rather than certain. Hagia Kyriaki (22, 23) and Lebena Yerokambos (79) share similar architectural traits in EM I: a single tholos tomb with an entrance of the trilithon type on the east side (Xanthoudides 1924, 4–5; for trilithon doorways, see Branigan 1970b, 34– 36), and corbelled walls (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 5; Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 13B:i). The space created inside both tholoi is of similar dimensions, around 4.5 m in diameter at Hagia Kyriaki A (22) and 5 m at Lebena Y2 (79), although in Hagia Kyriaki A the interior space is much more irregular (Figs. 12, 13), mainly because its walls were constructed with larger boulders than those used at Lebena Y2. Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92) closely follows this description, with a similar size (4.5 m in diameter) and same trilithon entrance, although the cemetery may have looked different if Tholos B (93) was in use by the end of the EM I period. The main architectural difference between the cemeteries lies in the two rooms outside the Hagia Kyriaki tholos (23), which have no known counterpart at Lebena Yerokambos (79) or in Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92). The rooms at Hagia Kyriaki may

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

be considered a vestibule (a single room attached to the door of the tholos) or an annex (a series of rooms). These two types of structure may represent differences in the mortuary behavior within the tomb (Branigan 1970b, 93–95; Petit 1987), but they have never been clarified and we have no evidence to help us understand how the rooms at Hagia Kyriaki shaped funerary practices in this cemetery. A five-room complex (94) was constructed at an early date outside the Moni Odigitria Tholos B entrance (93; Branigan and Campbell Green 2010a, 131–132). There is little clear evidence to date this annex, but it seems that it may have been built at the beginning of the EM IIA period (Branigan 2010a, 252). This later construction date—compared to the two rooms at Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A (23)—may explain the larger size and complexity of the Moni Odigitria complex (94). So-called vestibules of this period are also found at Kali Limenes B (43; Blackman and Branigan 1975, 20–21) and perhaps at Hagia Eirene E (20; Xanthoudides 1924, 51–53), where the dating cannot be more precise than EM I–II. But there is no EM I antechamber in Lebena Y2 (79) or Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92), two of the best-known cases, and vestibules might not be found in all the tombs (Figs. 12, 14, 15; Branigan 1993, 58). Socalled annexes have been found at Siva, but these tombs were probably built in EM II (131–133; Paribeni 1913; Zois 1998d, 133). At Kephali Odigitrias, Tomb 2 (54) could have been in use in EM I (Alexiou 1963a, 398; Vasilakis 1996a; Saltos 2000), but this is detached from Tholos A (57) and differs from the traditional definition of annex and vestibule. Such a layout at Kephali Odigitrias is unique. Apart from Moni Odigitria (92, 93), Megali Skini A is the only cemetery with clear evidence for the use of two tholoi in EM I (85, 87; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 38–40; Vasilakis 1990, 39–45; Wilson and Day 1994, 16). There is a possible third tholos situated at the nearby location of Megali Skini B (89; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 37–38). Unfortunately, the evidence from Megali Skini A and B comes mainly from archaeological survey data, and it does not permit a clear evaluation of the sites. The remains of other buildings found at Megali Skini A (86, 88) may indicate a large complex, but they are of unclear date (Blackman and Branigan 1977, 38–40), and it seems unlikely that they belong to

39

the EM I period. At Kali Limenes A (42) and Kali Limenes B (43; Blackman and Branigan 1975, 19– 20), and Lasaia A (73) and Lasaia B (74; Blackman and Branigan 1975, 32–34), possible EM I material was reported, but in both locations the tholoi are placed several hundred meters apart and it is unlikely that they were part of the same cemetery. In general, the layout of the EM I cemeteries is characterized by simplicity, with one tholos tomb sometimes complemented by one or two rooms at the entrance (Figs. 9, 15). Early Minoan I rooms were not always constructed outside the tholoi, and when present they were composed of one or two spaces, which do not compare to the architecturally complex annexes found in later periods. Cemeteries containing two tholoi in the EM I period may have existed, although the case of Moni Odigitria Tholos B (93) indicates that the second tholos may have been constructed at the end of the EM I period or in EM IIA, after the first was already in use. The cave at Miamou (91) is the only burial context that is not a tholos cemetery known in the areas under discussion during the entire Prepalatial period. This was reported in 1897 with a clear stratigraphy in which a burial layer was identified (Taramelli 1897, 1899). There has been a certain amount of confusion regarding the interpretation of the stratigraphy, with some authors dating the burial stratum to EM I (Faure 1964, 49, 68; Zois 1968a, 49–50) and others to EM II (Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 150; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 237). On the basis of Taramelli’s report (1897, 289, 293, 294 and figs. 2 and 3 that depict vases without clear context, although most probably found in the funerary stratum), and Zois’s analysis of the ceramics (Zois 1968a, 50, nos. 1, 2; see also Tomkins 2007, table 1.6, for the EM I dating of the jug illustrated in Taramelli 1897, 294, fig. 7, which came from the funerary deposit), it seems more probable that the funerary activity dates to EM I. The burial layer does not seem to be very thick or rich in material (Taramelli 1897), which may perhaps indicate a short period of use. Burial caves of this period are attested in most areas of Crete, and Miamou (91) represents a link with a type of mortuary behavior shared across the island since Neolithic times. It could therefore be considered a continuation of Neolithic burial practices in the area, but represents an exception rather than a meaningful pattern. It also

40

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

highlights the rapid spread of tholos tombs in the Asterousia Mountains. Finally, in what has been identified as the Phaistos cemetery, EM I material has been reported in five different areas (103–106, 109; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, sites 24, 83–85, 99), although the sherds have not been published. Watrous has suggested individual graves (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 226), but this cannot be verified without excavation, and we must remain cautious about classifying these sites as burial places. Individual graves would indicate a very different cemetery to anything else known in the region, which, if true, could perhaps be related to the uniquely large size of the Phaistos settlement during this period (Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 230–231) or perhaps to the different nature of this site, which may have had a strong ritual character (Relaki 2004, 177– 178; Todaro and Di Tonto 2008). With respect to EM I material culture in cemeteries, Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92), Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A (22), and Lebena Yerokambos Y2 (79) provide the best evidence available, although looting may have affected the preservation of the assemblages of these cemeteries differently. At Lebena Yerokambos (79), looting affected the cemetery only in a limited way (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 15, fig. 12), while at Hagia Kyriaki A (22) and Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92) it disturbed the tombs extensively (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 49–50; Vasilakis 2010a, 48–53). It must also be borne in mind that looters target nonceramic items such as figurines, seals, and metal items; this makes a comparison of the nonceramic assemblages of these two cemeteries biased and of limited value. The study of the ceramic deposits can be undertaken more optimistically as careful excavation and study of the contexts have allowed for a good understanding of the assemblages, even though such a comparison is not straightforward (Tables 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B; Figs. 16A, 16B, 16C). In the case of Hagia Kyriaki A (22), no intact vessel has been discovered, but a large quantity of ceramic sherds has allowed a tentative reconstruction of the assemblage (Blackman and Branigan 1982). At Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92), a similar situation occurs, although here some individual sherds have been published and there is a much better understanding

of the contexts, even when disturbed (Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b). A total of 502 sherds and vases have been reported near Tholos A as belonging to EM I–IIA periods, and this compares well with the recovered ceramic assemblage at the other two cemeteries (Tables 4A, 4B; see also Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 133, table 85). The case of Lebena Y2 (79) is quite different, as most of the published ceramics refer to complete vessels and only a partial understanding of the sherd material is available (Alexiou and Warren 2004). Despite these differences, a comparison can be conducted with a degree of confidence because the study of clay fabrics has provided the ceramic chronology for a significant number of sherds in the case of Hagia Kyriaki. Also, basic information about vessel shapes has been obtained, providing data similar to that available for Lebena and Moni Odigitria. In the case of Lebena, only a small percentage of sherds has been identified by period or shape, but in general sherds follow the patterns identified in the complete vessels (Tables 4A, 5A). These factors permit a comparison of the different types of ceramic data from the three tombs. The sheer quantity of ceramics (Table 4A) is the common denominator in the assemblages of Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A (22), Lebena Yerokambos Y2 (79), and Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92). In Hagia Kyriaki the excavators uncovered sherds that account for at least 1,957 vases, of which 1,245 (63%) can be dated to EM I–II (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 40, table 3) and at least half of them can be considered EM I wares (Blackman and Branigan 1982, 37, table I; so-called Hagios Onouphrios I Ware [for a definition of this ware, see Wilson and Day 2000, 33; Betancourt 2009, 47–53] and Dark Gray Burnished Ware [henceforth DGB ware, also called Pyrgos Ware, see Wilson and Day 2000, 27– 28; Todaro 2001; for a definition of this ware, see Betancourt 2009, 56–63]). In Lebena Y2 (79), 524 whole vases were published, of which at least 314 have been dated to EM I (60%), 24 (4.5%) to EM I or II, and 82 (16%) to EM II. Of the minimum 1,700 vases identified from the sherd material, half of the sherds may represent EM I–II vessels, given the large number of pyxides and tankards of EM I– IIA date (Tables 4A, 5B). Taking the sherd material into consideration, the total number of vessels from Lebena Y2 (79) is similar to that from EM

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

I–II Hagia Kyriaki A (22). From the contexts associated with Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92), 502 whole vessels and sherds were published with an EM I–II date, but, given the disturbed nature of the contexts, it is clear that many of the 2,003 sherds recovered and dated to EM I or EM I–IIA periods (Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 132–133, table 84) may come from Tholos A, bringing the size of the assemblage to levels similar to those of Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A and Lebena Yerokambos Y2. It seems that the large deposition of ceramics was a common characteristic in EM I mortuary behavior, although it is unclear whether there was a reduction in the quantity of ceramics deposited in EM II. Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92) may suggest that this was not the case (Table 4B), although the assemblage from Lebena Y2 (79) seems to suggest the opposite (Tables 4A, 5B; a large number of vessels was found in Room AN of Lebena Y2 [81], but it is not clear how many can be dated to EM II; Fig. 16B; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 171–173). Within the broader pattern of ceramic use in funerary contexts, it seems that the total number of vessels in the tombs may reflect to a significant degree the particular history of individual tombs, as well as their differing use during the Prepalatial period. Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A (22) and Lebena Yerokambos Y2 (79) show a striking difference with regard to the composition of their assemblages. The published EM I–II material from Hagia Kyriaki A (22) shows that more than half of the assemblage is composed of cups, jugs, jars and bowls, with a very small number of spherical pyxides (Table 4A). The Lebena Y2 (79) EM I (and EM II) assemblage provides a very different picture: pyxides are the main shape, followed by tankards and lids. Cups, jugs (and juglets), and bowls are present but are few in number and do not characterize the assemblage (Table 4A). Differential breakage cannot explain these differences in the shapes represented; there is no reason why cups, jugs, and bowls should have failed to survive at Lebena Y2 (79) when many pyxides and tankards did, especially since bowls and cups were made in the same wares as pyxides (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 123) and were of a similar size, so patterns of breakage would be similar. Also, the sherd totals from Lebena Y2 (79) corroborate the pattern of a high proportion of pyxides and tankards

41

(Tables 4A, 5B). It is true that pyxides and tankards are sometimes difficult to differentiate from jars in the analysis of vase shapes, and perhaps the low number at Hagia Kyriaki is unrealistic. Even so, the disparity appears too large to be explained by this reason alone. The answer to this riddle is provided by the recent publication of Moni Odigitria. Here there is a good understanding of the contexts, and all sherds recovered have been carefully studied and dated. It is quite clear (Table 4B) that there is a significant change from EM I to EM II in the assemblages of Tholos A (92), as cups and bowls replace pyxides as the main shapes. This may indicate that the differences between Lebena Yerokambos (79) and Hagia Kyriaki (22) may be related to chronological (pyxides in EM I versus cups and bowls in EM II) and depositional differences (pyxides in tholos chamber, cups and bowls in EM II anterooms). Anterooms in Moni Odigitria (94) and Lebena Yerokambos (Room AN, 81) are dated primarily to EM II and later and contained large quantities of bowls and cups, but no pyxides. It is possible that most of the material recovered from Hagia Kyriaki comes from the annexes and not from the tomb itself and may date to the EM II period rather than EM I, while the material from Lebena comes mainly from inside the tomb and is predominantly EM I. Little can be said with certainty about ritual activities in cemeteries. Branigan suggested that the antechamber could have been used initially for primary burial, and the remains would then have been interred in the tholos in a second phase (Branigan 1970b, 94–95; 1993, 58–63, 77–79). He is right to point out that the tholos and the rooms associated with it are the only buildings in the cemetery where ritual could and most probably did take place at the burial stage (Branigan 1970b, 92–94; 1993, 79), but this does not preclude the possibility that funerary rituals took place in open areas at other places outside the tombs or even the cemeteries. This may indeed be the case in the recently published cemetery of Moni Odigitria (Triantaphyllou 2010, 244). Many of the fragmented bones showed clear indications of weathering and the investigators have suggested a long funerary process in which the body was left to decompose in an open space, and only when (almost) skeletonized would it have been buried in the tomb (Triantaphyllou 2010, 232, 244).

42

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Such a process may explain why there are so few bones in the tomb compared with the minimum number of individuals estimated (Triantaphyllou 2010, 231), as some of the bones may not have been placed in the tomb. High fragmentation of bones in Tholos A may be attributed in part to trampling and reuse of the tomb, but this was also the case with Tholos B, where many more complete bones were found. Such a high level of fragmentation therefore may be the result of other ritual processes in the funerary sequence. The demography of the tholos is consistent with a typical mortality curve in historical populations, comprising just a few less neonate remains than expected, which may be explained by the fragility of these remains (Triantaphyllou 2010, 233). A second interesting piece of information is derived from the health markers of this population. In Tholos A, there are not as many healthproblem markers as in later periods. Also, it has been suggested that nutrition of the population

interred in Tholos A was more dependent on proteins than carbohydrates (Triantaphyllou 2010, 245–246). This is somewhat surprising and it could be that these small populations were able to consume more meat through hunting or livestock and that agriculture was not as significant an activity in the area at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Another possible explanation is that people buried in the tomb possessed a certain social status, and therefore their diet may have been privileged with the regular inclusion of animal proteins. Still, it is difficult to see how the sizeable group of people buried in Tholos A (92) could form the elite of an otherwise sparsely populated landscape of the Hagiopharango Valley, where no indications of a hierarchical society have been found. The new high-quality data from Moni Odigitria present some interesting challenges to our understanding of the region in EM I, and at the moment there are no satisfactory answers.

Early Minoan II Although this section refers to the entire EM II period, it must be borne in mind that there are differences between the earlier (EM IIA) and later (EM IIB) phases of the period. The first difference is one of archaeological recognition; EM IIA wares are better understood than EM IIB wares in South-Central Crete, and the picture of the region becomes less clear the closer we get to the end of the period. New studies have started to better document EM IIB ceramic wares (Alexiou and Warren 2004; Todaro 2003, 2005, 2009; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010) and recent studies have been more aware of the need for a detailed look at the evidence that distinguishes social, economic, and ideological processes between the two phases (Wilson and Day 1994; Sbonias 1995; Day and Wilson 2004; Relaki 2004; Legarra Herrero 2011a, 2011c). This study will investigate the two separately whenever possible. A larger number of cemeteries have been identified for the EM II period (Fig. 10), including for the first time cemeteries in the Mesara Valley. The distribution is still biased toward the Asterousia

and south coast areas, however, and Branigan noticed that only a small number of cemeteries have been discovered north of the Yeropotamos River, although a possible “north–south of the river” distinction (Branigan 1970b, 124–125; Branigan 2010a, 262) seems less relevant than an Asterousia Mountains–Mesara Valley division (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 35–36). Given the large amount of evidence recovered in SouthCentral Crete, such a difference can be associated with varied patterns in the use of tholos cemeteries in each small region, but we cannot ignore the fact that the thick layer of alluvium in the Mesara Valley may have obscured some of the archaeology (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 46–48). In general, most of the EM II cemeteries seem to have quite a simple layout, similar to that suggested for the EM I cemeteries. Many of them have only one tholos (Fig. 17A), such as Salame (130) in the central Mesara Valley or the cemeteries in the south coast area such as Hagios Georgios (36; Fig. 10). Most of the one-tholos cemeteries do not

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

have annexes or other buildings (Fig. 17B), with the one clear exception of Kephali Odigitrias (53– 57; Alexiou 1963a, 398; Vasilakis 1996a; Saltos 2000). The unique layout of Kephali Odigitrias in this period is accentuated even more as Tholos A (57) and Tomb 3 (55) seem to have been built later than Tomb 2 (54), possibly in EM II (Saltos 2000). No tholos tomb in this period has such a large number of other buildings associated with it, and free-standing buildings are not known in any other tholos cemetery in the region in this period. The only sites that might contain structures comparable to these buildings are Hagia Kyriaki W8 (26– 27) and W11a (28), and Kephali Hagios Ioannes Building 1 (51). At the Hagia Kyriaki locations, square buildings have been reported that contained EM II material as well as human bones (Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58–61; Vasilakis 1990, 30–33). At Kephali Hagios Ioannes (51, 52), no human remains were reported and funerary use has been suggested based on the unusual layout of the building (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b, 22–24). These sites are only known through archaeological survey, however, and it might be possible that they do not represent funerary contexts for the Pre- or Protopalatial periods. For the first time in EM II we can identify securely cemeteries with two tholoi and, although they are not the majority, they do constitute a significant category (Fig. 10). Cemeteries with two tholoi seem more likely to have annexes than those with one tholos (Figs. 10, 17A, 17B). Only Hagia Eirene (20, 21) has not provided evidence of annexes, apart from an antechamber in front of Tholos E (Xanthoudides 1924, 51). The best evidence for annexes comes from Lebena Yerokambos (79– 81), which, however, may not represent a typical two-tholoi cemetery because Tholos Lebena Y2a (80) is much smaller than Tholos Lebena Y2 (79). Lebena Y2 is attached to Y2a and has a door orientated to the north in relation to Tholos Y2 and not to the east, which is a key feature of the tholoi probably associated with sunrise (Goodison 1989, 31–32; 2001; 2004). On the other hand, the deposition of interments and material in Lebena Y2a (80) is similar to that in other tholoi, and it even had an episode of fumigation (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 18) comparable to those at Hagia Triada A (29;

43

Cultraro 2003) and Platanos A (112; Xanthoudides 1924, 89). Three rooms in the annex of Lebena Yerokambos (81) may be of EM IIB date (or EM III; see discussion in Alexiou and Warren 2004, 117–118), namely AN, Delta, and the Room east of Delta (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 180), and these postdate the construction of Tholos Y2a (80). Room AN contained at least 643 cups, some of them deposited upsidedown, but no bones, and Room Delta contained burials and a smaller quantity of ceramic vases (at least 95), which perhaps suggests that the first room was used for mortuary ritual or cult activities and the second as an ossuary. This pattern of differential deposition counters the suggestion that both were constructed to house clearances from the tholos tombs (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 177–178). The chronology of the two-tholoi cemetery at Siva (131, 133) is uncertain at the moment, but it may have been built during the EM II period (the jug in Paribeni 1913, fig. 23, is very similar to the EM IIB jug 4039 in Hagia Triada Tholos A; Banti 1933, 169; Zois 1998d, 133; Todaro 2003, 85 n. 72), at the same time as several rooms outside the tholoi (132; Paribeni 1913). The Moni Odigitria publication has shown that at the beginning of EM IIA, the cemetery contained two tholoi (92, 93) that continued in use until the EM IIB period (Fig. 14). Also, in EM IIA, an annex composed of several rooms was built outside Tholos B (94). It seems that the peribolos wall and attached Room 1 (102) were also built in EM IIA, if not earlier, and a few of the open areas were in use in EM IIA and EM IIB (98–101). In the Outer Courtyard (101), the presence of a high percentage of cooking wares and a significant number of outsized vessels has led to the suggestion that activities including the preparation and consumption of food by large groups of people took place here in EM II (Branigan 2010a, 258). Such activities may also have taken place in the Southern Courtyard (99), mainly in EM IIB, as a large number of ceramics, cooking wares, and outsized vessels were deposited in this area (Branigan 2008; 2010a, 259–260). No material coming from the Koumasa cemetery (61–68; Fig. 18) has been dated earlier than the EM IIA period (Zois 1968a, 73–81; Wilson and Day 1994, 14 n. 46; contra Xanthoudides 1924, 9;

44

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Branigan 1993, 146). Pyxides HM 4188–4191 and HM 4294 (Xanthoudides 1924, 9, 35) were dated to EM I by the excavator but have been dated more recently to EM IIA (Wilson and Day 1994, 14). Dark Gray Burnished Ware found in the cemetery (Xanthoudides 1924, 10, pl. 18, HM 4296, HM 4297) may be EM IIA rather than EM I (Wilson and Day 1994, 14 n. 46). It seems that during EM IIA, two tholoi were constructed to form the cemetery, Tholos A (61) and Tholos B (62), together with rectangular Tomb Gamma (68). Early Minoan IIA pottery was also found in two open areas, AB (65; Fig. 18; HM 4186, HM 4294; Xanthoudides 1924, 35; Wilson and Day 1994, 14) and Delta (63; HM 4173, HM 4269, HM 4270, HM 4291–HM 4293; Xanthoudides 1924, 36). Although a large quantity of bone and other material was found in Area AB (65; Xanthoudides 1924, 33), both this area and Area Delta (63) may be termed a “recovery creation” (i.e., archaeological contexts where cleared or eroded material from the tombs was found), rather than clearly defined spaces with a conscious use in prehistoric times. Only one EM II vase from Tholos E (64) was published and it comes from the soil on top of the tomb (HM 4992; Xanthoudides 1924, 39–40), and only one kernos from this tomb has been dated earlier than MM I (HM 4999; Zois 1967–1968, 720; Karagianni 1984, 70). So it seems probable that two tholoi and a rectangular tomb (61, 62, 68) were constructed during the EM IIA period, and the discovery of EM II material in Area Delta shows intensive use of this cemetery during this period, to which paved Area Z (67; no vases were published from this area) and Tholos E may need to be added. Tholos A (61) was small, having a 4.1 m diameter, but Tholos B (62) and Tholos E (64) were quite large examples, with diameters of over 9 m. At first glance, the case of Platanos may look similar (112–123; Fig. 19; Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124), but the evidence shows some significant chronological differences from Koumasa. Platanos Tholos A (112) may have been built in EM I or EM II, although there is no material published from its lower deposit to confirm this dating (Xanthoudides 1924, 89), and Platanos Tholos B (114) and Tholos Gamma (116) cannot be dated more securely than to the EM II/III period. Xanthoudides dated the building of Tholos B (114) to EM III or later (Xanthoudides 1924, 92), as the few ceramic

vases recovered were all of EM III and MM I date (HM 6898, HM 6899, HM 6913; Xanthoudides 1924, 94–97), but a stone incised pyxis may be earlier (HM 1904a; Xanthoudides 1924, 102; Warren 1965, 13). Its plan also resembles the MM I Apesokari A tholos (2–4; Fig. 20), which could indicate an EM III or MM I construction date. No material from the annex to Platanos Tholos B (115) has a secure context and therefore cannot be used to date this building. Tholos Gamma (116) was very badly preserved and only a handful of vases were published. Long-beaked jug HM 6873 (Xanthoudides 1924, 94) resembles EM IIB shapes given the long spout, although Walberg dated it EM III (Walberg 1983, 99). The bird-shaped vessel HM 6867 is much more difficult to date (Xanthoudides 1924, 95). The annex to Tholos A (113) and the area around this tholos (119, 120) contained large amounts of material, including hundreds of stone vases (Xanthoudides 1924, 98) that are MM I in date (Warren 1969, 121; Gerontakou 2003), and the annex (113) construction may date to EM III or MM I. The lack of EM II structures in the cemetery casts doubts over the notion of a large cemetery comparable to Koumasa during this period. These doubts are further supported by the analysis of the material assemblage (see below). In summary, the general picture has been that the cemeteries do not seem to have had complex plans, mainly involving one or two tholos tombs; in some cases, especially in the two-tholoi cemeteries, these tholoi were complemented by an annex of no more than two or three rooms. The cases of Moni Odigitria (92–102) and Koumasa (61–68) give a tantalizing glimpse of activities that may have taken place in open areas around tombs in EM II, but the nature and significance of these remains unclear. Future excavation may reveal that such openair activities were a common feature of most tholos cemeteries. Not all cemeteries seem to have been the same, however. Koumasa appears to have been larger than other cemeteries during EM IIA, comprising at least two tholoi—one of these with large dimensions—as well as Tomb Gamma (68); Koumasa seems to have been made of a larger number of distinct contexts than any other cemetery. This may mean that different mortuary behavior took place here, perhaps showing unique aspects

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

of the social organization of this site. Yet, before Koumasa can be considered a special case, these factors need to be weighed against the material assemblage. Does Koumasa contain a more varied material assemblage with more objects made of imported materials? Are there differences in the material assemblage between tombs within this large cemetery? In order to answer these questions, and to assess any unique characteristics in the depositional record of Koumasa, we must first try to define the material assemblages of other EM II cemeteries. Unfortunately, the EM II material assemblage of most of the cemeteries cannot be separated from the EM I or EM III–MM IA periods; again, the best-known assemblages come from the recent publication of Lebena Yerokambos (79–81) and Lebena Papoura (76–78). Before an analysis of the depositional patterns at the Lebena Papoura cemetery can be made, two factors need to be taken into account. First, Lebena P1 (76) showed evidence of looting, while no such evidence exists for Lebena P1b (77; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 13–14). A direct comparison between both assemblages, therefore, needs to take into consideration the possibility of differential preservation. A second issue refers to ceramic breakage, which is different in the two tholoi: sherds from at least 100 ceramic vessels have been published for Lebena P1 (76), and 700 for Lebena P1b (77; Tables 5A, 5B). Although this presents difficulties for the formulation of a clear chronology of the Lebena P1b (77) deposits, a careful examination permits sound analysis of the Lebena P1b (77) ceramic assemblage. For example, only three cataloged vases were dated EM III or MM IA (nos. 1, 34, and 42; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 46, 48, 49), but sherds from at least 170 conical cups/bowls, which are most probably of EM III– MM IA date, were found in the upper level, making a stronger case for the use of Lebena Papoura P1b in this period (77; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 51, 54–55). Also, the fact that EM II sherds do not present a different picture from complete EM II vessels (Table 5A) demonstrates that a comparison between the two Lebena Papoura tholoi in terms of EM II ceramic assemblages is still possible. By comparing the whole vessels, it was found that both tombs have a similar composition with a major component of pyxides (Tables 5A, 5B). It

45

is true that both assemblages show a slightly different total number of vessels, but due to the problems in quantifying sherds and the differential incidence of looting, the fact that the assemblage of Lebena P1 (76) contained a larger number of vessels cannot be taken literally, and even if it were, the disparity does not seem large enough to be considered significant. Unfortunately, the scarce information provided about the human remains impedes verification of a similar number of interments in both tholoi. As regards the nonceramic assemblage, some general remarks can be made. In general, Lebena P1 (76) contained more nonceramic objects than Lebena P1b (77), despite having been looted (Table 5C), but can this difference be dated to the EM II period? Most of the 910 beads in Lebena P1 (76) cannot be dated, but the discovery of amulets and pendants in the lowest levels (strata “e” and “f”; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 34–35) shows that it is quite probable that many of these beads were deposited in EM II times. Only 65 beads were found in the Lebena P1b tholos (77; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 53). Lebena P1 (76) also contained 25 seals, a large quantity considering the number from other contemporaneous tholoi such as Lebena Y2 (79) and Y2a (80). Five seals come from strata “e” and “f,” which are closed EM II deposits, and nine seals also come from stratum “d,” a stratum with a majority of EM II vases (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 37–39). A type of artifact not found in Lebena P1 (76) is figurines, while two figurines of the foldedarm type (EM II) were found in Lebena P1b (77; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 52), but these objects are particularly sought after by looters and might therefore have been removed from Lebena P1 (77) before excavation. In general, it seems that the assemblage of Lebena P1 (76) contains a more varied typology of objects than that of Lebena P1b (77), although these differences cannot be considered major (Table 5C). Both tombs contained a small number of metal objects, and the same can be said about ivory. The evidence from Lebena Papoura shows that in the EM II period more seals were deposited in Lebena P1 (76) than in P1b (77), though this probably does not indicate qualitative differences between the two tholoi. If we follow the widely accepted suggestion

46

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

that seals were deposited in the tombs with individuals of a particular status, perhaps heads of families (Blasingham 1983; Whitelaw 1983, 336 n. 16; Karytinos 1998; contra Sbonias 1999a, 10), then this discrepancy may simply indicate a slightly larger community (Tables 5C, 5D). The Yerokambos cemetery (79–81) shows certain differences in its mortuary behavior that may imply a slightly different internal dynamic. Lebena Yerokambos shows a large disparity in the quantity of ceramic vessels deposited in Tholos Y2 (79) and Tholos Y2a (80; Table 5A). This is reinforced by the number of sherds identified from the lower level of Lebena Y2a (80), a closed EM II deposit (Table 5B), which constitutes a figure significantly lower than the one from Lebena Y2 (79). The significant disproportion in the number of vessels between tombs seems to parallel the subordinate position of Tholos Y2a (80) in the Lebena Yerokambos cemetery and cannot be attributed to preservation issues or differentiated clearing activities (material from annexes is EM IIB or later; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 117–118). With regard to nonceramic objects, Lebena Y2 (79) contained more items than Lebena Y2a (80) and the Papoura tombs (76–78; Table 5C), which initially would reinforce the idea of a hierarchical relationship between the two tombs in Yerokambos. But the ratio of ceramic vessels to nonceramic items (this ratio must only be taken as a suggestion because it is based on the comparison of the whole assemblage of each tomb, counting only intact ceramic vessels without taking intensity of use in different periods into consideration) shows that this rate is similar to Lebena Y2a (80) and the Papoura tombs (76–78; Table 5D). The larger number of nonceramic items seems to relate to the larger deposition of ceramics, indicating a more intensive use of this tomb, although we cannot ignore the exceptionality of some of the items found in Lebena Y2 (79), such as the folded-arm figurines (see below). Many of the nonceramic items in Lebena Y2 (79) cannot be assigned to a stratified level, and no patterns seem to emerge from the artifacts that can be assigned to levels with EM II ceramics. Thirteen seals that could date to the EM I or EM II periods were found in the tomb as opposed to the five in Lebena Y2a (80), but the presence in the lower levels of Lebena Y2 of a scarab that can only be

MM I (79; Phillips 2004; Ben-Tor 2006) warns of the possibility that some of these seals are of later date (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 133, no. 525). Four folded-arm type figurines, all of them Cretan examples, were found in Lebena Y2 (79) as compared to none in Lebena Y2a (80; Table 5C; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 37–39; Pieler 2004, 92). Four EM IIA stone vases were found in Lebena Y2 (79; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 139), as were a small number of daggers and other metal objects, including 22 gold beads and an EM I lead bead (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 129–130, 136–137). In addition, a large quantity of stone beads was found in this tomb, many of them in EM I–II levels (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 128–133). In summary, greater differences appear to exist between the two tombs at Yerokambos than between the tombs at the Papoura cemetery. Although differences in the size of the assemblage are probably related to a more intensive use of Lebena Y2 (79), qualitative differences exist, such as the 22 gold beads and the folded-arm figurines found in Lebena Y2 (79), objects rarely found in the cemeteries of the Asterousia region. The differences between the tomb assemblages is reinforced by the subordinated architecture of Tholos Y2a (80). Although the mortuary behavior in both cemeteries may be similar, the unusual layout and unbalanced assemblages could be a reflection of differences in the social organization of the Lebena Yerokambos community. Such a detailed analysis cannot be applied to the new data available from Moni Odigitria (Table 6; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010) because of two major difficulties. First, intense looting has extensively disturbed the ceramic assemblages of the two tholoi and probably skewed the recovery of nonceramic items. As mentioned above, it is not clear whether all items from the Mitsotakis Collection originated from the Moni Odigitria cemetery and therefore they cannot be added to the analysis. Second, it seems that the recovered assemblages from Tholos A (92) and Tholos B (93) had little chronological overlap (Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a). Although Tholos B (93) was in use since EM IIA, most of the ceramics securely associated with the tomb belong to the EM III and MM I periods; conversely, the assemblage associated with Tholos A (92) is mainly EM I–EM IIB (Branigan

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

and Campbell-Green 2010a). It seems that earlier material from Tholos B (93) was cleared from the tomb in EM III and dispersed around the cemetery, which precludes reconstruction of its earlier use (Branigan 2010a, 254). Basic analysis of nonceramic items is still possible thanks to the careful study and dating of stone vessels and seals, although, again, such an analysis is compromised by the looting and cleaning of the tombs, and should be used only to broadly situate Moni Odigitria’s tholoi in relation to the Lebena ones (Table 6). There are a few nonceramic items from Tholos B (93) that may be considered EM IIA–IIB. The figurine fragment F2 may have EM IIA parallels in Tholos Gamma (165) at Archanes Phourni (Papadatos 2005, 32, no. F14; Michelaki and Vasilakis 2010, 197, no. F2). Also, 11 of the seals found in Tholos B (93) have been dated as early Prepalatial or EM II (Sbonias 2010, 210–211, nos. S1, S4, S5, S7–S11, S13, S14, S16). While not all nonceramic items found in Tholos B (93) can be dated to EM II, it seems that a significant part of the assemblage may consist of EM II objects. Unfortunately the recovered remains shed little light on the relationship between the two tombs at Moni Odigitria (Table 6), and no pattern emerged that cannot be primarily explained by modern looting or differences in preservation. At most, it could be suggested that Moni Odigitria (92, 93; Table 6) assemblages do not seem to differ substantially from those of Lebena Papoura (76, 77) or Yerokambos (79, 80). It is not possible to construct a detailed evaluation of the possible internal dynamics of the Koumasa cemetery similar to the one made for Lebena. An informative general picture can still be constructed from the published information, however. Though the published vessels are too few to permit a characterization of the ceramics (Xanthoudides 1924, 34–45; Zois 1965; 1968a), and it is not always clear to which period of use the nonceramic items belong, there are two sets of artifacts that can be dated to EM II that might indicate some unique aspects of the Koumasa cemetery. In Tomb Gamma (68), in a probable closed EM II deposit (see published vases HM 4187, HM 4194, HM 4248; Xanthoudides 1924, 34–35, 38; Soles 1992b, 157–158), three silver daggers were found (HM 212, HM 213, HM 214; Xanthoudides 1924, 47). These are rare objects, found elsewhere only at the

47

possible cemetery of Teke at Knossos (234; Alexiou 1975), at Galana Charakia A (196; Branigan 1968a, 63; Vasilakis 1996b, 82–87), and at Mochlos (T. Tselios, pers. comm.). Silver is a very rare import to the island, especially for the Mesara, and it may have been imbued with high social value (Branigan 1968b; Davaras 1975, 107; Legarra Herrero 2004). Other valuable objects from Koumasa are gold ornaments in Tholos B (62; HM 386, HM 387, HM 388; Xanthoudides 1924, 29), but these cannot be clearly dated to EM II since this deposit contains a significant number of EM III vases (Xanthoudides 1924, 15) and MM I bird’s-nest stone vessels (Xanthoudides 1924, 92, 18–19). Also, the granulation in HM 386 and HM 388 ornaments suggests a later date (Legarra Herrero 2004, 40). A not particularly large number of seals was found in the tholoi: 16 in Tholos A, and 19 in Tholos B, including EM III–MM I examples (Platon, ed., 1969, 158–192 [CMS II, 1, nos. 138–169]; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 31–32 [CMS II, 2, no. 26]; Sbonias 1995). Zoomorphic and anthropomorphic vases in Koumasa Ware, typically EM IIA in date, are found in larger numbers here than in any other known cemetery, and this may reflect some level of individuality in the mortuary behavior at this cemetery during EM II (Xanthoudides 1924, 39– 41; Warren 1977, 138; Miller 1984, 28–31, 557– 558; Krause 1992, 224–227; Koehl 2006, 71, 75–76, 78). Of the six folded-arm type figurines found at Koumasa that date to EM IIA, like the ones from Archanes Phourni Tholos Gamma (165; Papadatos 2005, 29–30; 2007b), one found in Area AB (65) may be an actual import from the Cyclades (HM 122; Xanthoudides 1924, 22–23; Renfrew 1969, 19; Warren 1977, 138; Pieler 2004, 110). Without the entire assemblage, the unusual objects found at Koumasa lose some of their significance because they cannot be put into a clear archaeological context. But the totality of the material from Koumasa is unusual in EM IIA, which, when added to the peculiar architectural features of the cemetery, suggests a different picture from other contemporary cemeteries and indicates particularities in the mortuary behavior. With respect to Platanos, we will see in a later section how its material assemblage can be dated in general to the MM I period.

48

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

The EM IIB period is quite difficult to identify in the record due to ceramic recognition problems, but it is possible that some major changes in the cemeteries helped to create the confused archaeological record for this period (Fig. 21; Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 265). Various authors

have begun to acknowledge the possibility of major changes occurring in EM IIB, studying this period together with the EM III period as a transitional phase (Sbonias 1999b; Relaki 2004), and it seems logical to include the discussion of the patchy EM IIB evidence together with that of EM III.

Early Minoan III Until recently, there has been a lack of EM III evidence in the archaeological record of SouthCentral Crete. There are two possible reasons for this gap: either the EM III period has not yet been recognized ceramically in the region (chronological periods in the record are identified mainly through the ceramic sequence; Zois 1968b; Betancourt 1985, 53), or this was a period of profound change that explains the apparent gap in the record (Watrous 1994, 717–718; 2001, 223; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 251–252). It is a fact that in South-Central Crete a distinctive ceramic EM III phase has not been defined because the East Cretan wares that helped to define this period in other regions of the island were not imported to the Mesara in any significant quantity (Betancourt 1985, 53). It seems that the EM III chronological period started with ceramic wares very similar to those of the EM IIB period (Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 252; Todaro 2005, 41– 42; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 74), and that traditionally some of their features have been mistaken, resulting in some EM III deposits being wrongly dated to the MM IA period (Todaro 2005, 45). Hopefully the recent definition of the EM IIB– MM I ceramic sequence based on stratified deposits at key sites such as Hagia Triada, Phaistos, and Moni Odigitria (Todaro 2003; 2005; 2009; 2011, 212–213; Branigan 2008; Branigan and CampbellGreen 2010b) will soon be applied to the understanding of other neighboring contexts. The problems encountered in the recognition of the earlier EM III period cannot be solely blamed on ceramic recognition. There seem to have been significant changes in the mortuary behavior at the cemeteries. Some tombs may have been abandoned at the end of EM II (Figs. 10, 21, 22), such as Kali Limenes A (42) and B (43; Blackman and Branigan

1975, 17–21; Vasilakis 1990, 18–23), Koumasa Tholos E (64; Xanthoudides 1924, 89), and probably Moni Odigitria Tholos A (92; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 128; see discussion above about the identification of the material from the Mitsotakis Collection). Moreover, a series of fumigations and clearing episodes has been found in the stratigraphy of some tombs that may date to the EM IIB–III periods (Fig. 21). In Hagia Triada Tholos A (29), a gap in the evidence appears at the end of the EM IIB period (the abandonment of Livello 4) that culminates in a fumigation episode in the mature EM III period (in Livello 3; Cultraro 2003, 309, 315; Todaro 2003, 91). A similar sequence is found at Lebena Y2a (80), where the fumigation episode has been identified as a shorter-term event in the use of the tomb than at Hagia Triada, dating to the end of the EM IIB period or to the EM III period (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 145, 152, 157). Another tomb with a similar stratigraphy and fumigation episode is Platanos Tholos A (112), where two distinct layers were reported separated by a possible fire episode: an upper one of MM I date and an undated lower one (Xanthoudides 1924, 89). At Moni Odigitria Tholos B (93), a cleaning episode (Branigan 2010a, 258), probably followed by a fire episode inside the tomb (Triantaphyllou 2010, 236), seems to have occurred in the EM III period. Episodes of fire in other tombs have been interpreted as fumigation (Branigan 1970b, 108–109), but the nature of them is not clear and may be indicative of other activities inside the tholoi (Georgoulaki 1996a, 137–139). In any case, these fire episodes and gaps in the stratigraphy are not identified in all cemeteries; for example, Lebena P1 (76) was used uninterruptedly from EM II to MM I (Alexiou and Warren 2004).

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

The gaps in the mortuary deposits that occur in the EM IIB and EM III periods have normally been interpreted as episodes of cleaning to create space for new burials (Branigan 1970b, 107–109; Soles 1992b, 247). Since these episodes occur at the same time as other evidence, they suggest a broad change in the mortuary behavior in the cemeteries of South-Central Crete. Extended fumigation episodes are not attested at the cemeteries in earlier or later periods, and one might suppose that it was an exclusive activity that took place in some cemeteries at a particular point in their history. This does not necessarily mean that all these episodes occur as part of a single event, but perhaps they were related to specific circumstances that took place in a defined period of time (a few generations). The regular cleaning of tombs, better attested in MM I times, was not accompanied by the laying of sand, fires, or any other identifiable break in the stratigraphy. These fumigations might, therefore, have had a special significance and mark a unique event in the history of each tomb; a possible hypothesis is that they are related to changes in the affiliation of the group using the tomb. Such a transitional phase in the record of SouthCentral Crete defies the chronological conventions of EM IIB, EM III, and MM IA. Gaps in the tomb record may predate the EM III period, forming part of a transitional EM IIB/III period. Trying to correlate the changes with chronological periods defined by ceramic sequences may well be a source of confusion. Also, changes need not have happened simultaneously in each community during this period of time, nor need they have affected each community in the same way; therefore the explanatory models may need to be broadened to consider local histories within the regional pattern. A late phase of the EM III period may not have been clearly distinguished because wares from this period could be very similar to those of the MM IA period (as has been suggested for Knossos: Momigliano 1991; and more relevantly, for Phaistos: Todaro 2005, 45; Momigliano 2007; contra Watrous 1994, 718 n. 179). Nevertheless, EM III material is beginning to be clearly defined in cemeteries (Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 2010b), and it will soon be possible to restudy material previously reported as dating to EM III from several cemeteries, such as Drakones (16–18; most

49

finds are clearly MM I, and perhaps a bit later; Xanthoudides 1924, pls. XLI, XLII), Christos (11, 12; some of the ceramics published from Christos could be EM IIB or EM III, particularly the jug with long spout in Xanthoudides 1924, pl. XLb), Porti (124–127; six vases were reported as dating to EM III, although it is unclear from the photos and description whether they are EM III or MM I; Xanthoudides 1924, 57–58), Platanos (112–123; e.g., Xanthoudides dated cup HM 6894 to EM III [1924, 96], which coincides with the modern understanding of EM III at Phaistos [Todaro 2005, 44–45]), and Vorou (146–150; Fig. 23; see globular tumblers and goblets in Marinatos 1931, fig. 22). This link between the later EM III and the earlier MM IA periods runs deeper than ceramic affinities. New characteristics in the mortuary behavior clearly identified in the MM IA period can be traced back to the last part of the EM III period. A new period of construction started in many cemeteries in the late EM III period (Figs. 22, 24) that would continue in MM IA. The construction of new cemeteries, as in earlier periods, are defined by tholos tombs now centered in the Mesara Valley (Fig. 22), with new cemeteries at Vorou (146–150; Marinatos 1931, 155; Walberg 1983, 103), Drakones (16–18; see teapots and jugs in Xanthoudides 1924, 76, pl. XLI), and Christos (11, 12; few vases published but they seem late Prepalatial; Xanthoudides 1924, 70, 72, pl. XLb). Also, new tholoi may have been constructed in existing cemeteries, such as Platanos Tholoi B (114) and perhaps Gamma (116; see discussion above; Fig. 19; Xanthoudides 1924, 92, 94). New large annexes were also constructed during this period (Fig. 25), such as the ones at Hagia Triada Tholos A (29; Todaro 2003, 87; Cultraro 2003, 322), and Platanos Tholos A (112; Walberg 1983, 99) or the rebuilding of the annex to Moni Odigitria Tholos B (94; Branigan and CampbellGreen 2010a, 132). At Kephali Odigitrias, a substitution seems to have taken place, with Tholos B (53) replacing Tholos A (57), and Tomb 4 (56) replacing Tomb 2 (54; Saltos 2000). All these changes led to the creation of cemeteries with layouts very different from those of the EM I–II periods, ones that included a larger number of tholoi per cemetery, large and complex annexes, and several associated buildings. This trend is fully developed in MM I times, and thus will be investigated in the

50

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

section below, as there is a far better understanding of MM I mortuary behavior. Little or nothing can be said about the funerary assemblages as there are no closed EM III funerary deposits in the region. As with the architectural features, this work suggests that EM III and MM I assemblages shared similar characteristics as a result of a comparable mortuary behavior. The identified EM III ceramic vessels correspond to typical MM I shapes, such as cups and jugs

(Todaro 2003, 87–88). Similar too are the seals, which have been stylistically classified into EM III–early MM IA groups (Sbonias 1995; 1999b; see comments in Krzyszkowska 2005, 59 n. 11; 1999b). In addition, stone vase shapes that became popular in MM I emerged in EM III times (Warren 1969, 8). For these reasons and to avoid repetition, the discussion of EM III material assemblages has been incorporated into study of the next period.

Middle Minoan I The MM I period has been divided into two subperiods—MM IA and MM IB—which correspond to important changes in Crete, such as the introduction of the wheel in ceramic technology (Knappett 1999b), and the appearance of the “palaces” in MM IB, so this study tries to create a cemetery chronology that distinguishes the two subperiods whenever possible (Figs. 24, 26). The interest in new construction at the cemeteries, which first appeared in EM III, continues and intensifies in MM IA and IB (Figs. 22, 24, 25; contra Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 255) with new cemeteries in the Mesara Valley such as Kamilari A (44–46; Levi 1963) and Apesokari A (2–4) and B (5–7; Schörgendorfer 1951b, 15; Alexiou 1963b, 405). Most of the new building activity in pre-existing cemeteries also seems to occur in those of the Mesara Valley (Fig. 24). New cemeteries incorporated a variety of buildings together with the tholos tombs, such as annexes at Porti (125; Fig. 27; none of the published vases for the Annex can be dated earlier than MM I; Xanthoudides 1924, 58–63) and Drakones (17; Xanthoudides 1924, 76–77), deposits in open areas as at Vorou A (147, 148; Marinatos 1931, figs. 23, 24), and more unusual contexts such as a possible pithos cemetery at Porti (127; see vases in Xanthoudides 1924, 55, 62) or independent rectangular tombs at Vorou A (149; see MM pithoi in Marinatos 1931, figs. 11, 12) and Porti (126; Xanthoudides 1924, 55; Marinatos 1931). No new cemeteries are reported from the Asterousia or south coast areas in this period (Fig. 24), with the possible exceptions of Hagios Kyrillos (37–39;

Sakellarakis 1968, 53) and Kouses (69, 70; HadziVallianou 1989). Also, although new constructions are attested in some of the old cemeteries in these two areas, such as Rooms A and M in the Lebena Yerokambos Annex (81; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 158–159, 180), they do not seem to be part of such an intensive agenda as the one occurring in the Mesara Valley cemeteries. Kephali Odigitrias, where a tholos (53) and two rectangular tombs (55, 56) may have been constructed in EM III (Saltos 2000), is the only cemetery that was possibly restructured to the degree seen in the Mesara Valley. In terms of continuity, significant construction phases in pre–EM III cemeteries are attested only in two cemeteries in the Mesara. A complex succession of building phases took place at Hagia Triada (Fig. 11). These buildings—namely the South Camerette (34; Cultraro 2000a; Di Vita 2001, 391; Carinci 2003, 116–119), the Annex of Tholos A (30; Carinci 1999, 115 n. 1; Di Vita 2001; Todaro 2003, 87), and the West Camerette (33; La Rosa 1999a, 2001; Carinici 2003)—experience further building episodes as they are examples of agglutinative architecture. A similar boom took place at Platanos, where the construction and use of various new buildings seem to have occurred, such as the annexes of Tholos A (113; Fig. 19; Warren 1969, 8, table 2) and rectangular Tombs Alpha (121) and Gamma (122; Soles 1992b, 193). The deposits south of Tholos A have also recently been dated to MM I–II (119; Gerontakou 2003). The construction of tholos tombs in new cemeteries attests to the continuing relevance of these tombs in MM I. The new architectural program can

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

be better defined by the building of other types of structures in the cemetery, however. New annexes are constructed with much larger and more complex plans than before, while existing annexes are enlarged. New spaces are also created in the cemeteries in the form of associated buildings, such as the camerettes at Hagia Triada (33, 34). Also new are the associated tombs, such as Porti Delta (126), and large deposits of ceramic vases, such as the north (147) and southwest deposits (148) at Vorou A and the south deposits at Platanos (119). The only cemetery that remains in use from earlier periods and does not show apparent modifications is Megali Skini A (85–88; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 38– 40), which is poorly known. Regarding Kouses, we have very little information on the history of use of this cemetery, although its large annex (70; Fig. 28; Hadzi-Vallianou 1979, 384; 1989, 432) is very similar to the large MM I annexes at Moni Odigitria (94) and Hagia Triada A (30) and it was most probably built in the EM III–MM I periods. Architecturally, most of the annexes, rectangular tombs, and associated buildings have individual plans and characteristics that make them very difficult to compare and suggest a departure from the homogeneous layouts of earlier periods. Indeed, it is not clear if some of the contexts that have been defined as rectangular tombs in this region differ from the annexes in their use. The best evidence for assessing possible activities associated with different buildings comes from Hagia Triada, where at least three different spaces, including annexes and associated buildings, can be defined outside Tholos A for the MM I period (30, 33, 34; Fig. 11). The EM III annex to Tholos A (30) was the first built space outside the tholos (Todaro 2003, 87, and see discussion above). The recently published plan of this complex of rooms (Di Vita 2001, 391, fig. 11) differs from the original (Stefani 1933, figs. 1, 2) and reveals a more complex building sequence than previously thought. The annex seems to have been constructed in different phases within a relatively short period of time, as the material is dated no later than MM IB (Carinici 2003, 125). The annex may have been used as a ritual place in the first instance, as the large deposit of cups, but no human remains, in the lower stratum in Room L indicates (Cultraro 2003, 323). It may soon have also been used as an ossuary and new rooms were probably

51

built for this purpose (upper strata in Room L, Rooms D–G). In MM IA, two more buildings appear at the cemetery (Fig. 11; Carinici 2003; Todaro 2003). The West Camerette (33) is a complex constructed in at least three phases, two of them in the MM IA period. The first phase consisted of a wall where two baetyls have been identified (La Rosa 2001, 223), to which three more rooms were added to the east in a second phase. A large pit with MM IA pottery was also found in this area, as was the freestanding Room alpha, which was most probably also constructed in MM IA (La Rosa 2001, 223; Carinici 2003, 99, table). The South Camerette (34), too, is MM IA in date (Cultraro 2000a, 316; Carinici 2003, 103, 105). Three different phases of construction have been suggested for this complex (Soles 1992b, 117; Cultraro 2000a, 324, table 1), yet the latest plan published suggests that Room 1 may have been added later than Room 2, and Rooms 5–6 may be earlier than 7–10 (Di Vita 2001, 391, fig. 11), which would take the construction phases to five. The agglutinative plan of this building seems to follow a particular pattern. Rooms in this complex pair in units that have their own entrance: Room 2 and anteroom, Rooms 5 and 6, and Rooms 9 and 10. Rooms 7 and 8 and Rooms 3 and 4 may follow the same pattern. These pairs of rooms also share various features, such as pavements (in Rooms 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10) and evidence of red stucco (in Rooms 5, 7, and 9; Stefani 1933, 153– 154; Cultraro 2000a, 311). It seems possible that this complex was formed by the conglomeration of two-room units that shared similar functions (Soles 1992b, 118). The layout sets this complex apart from other buildings in the cemetery. Neither camerette was ever used as an ossuary, yet they did not have the same function. The deposit of ceramics in the pit of the West Camerette (33) might indicate that the use of this area was similar to first use of Room L in the annex (30; Fig. 16C), but in general the West Camerette (33) and the Annex (30) seem to have served different purposes. More elusive is the role that the South Camerette (34) played, although, based on its architecturally unique features, it is clear that it was not used for the same type of ritual as the previous contexts. Furthermore, it contained a peculiar deposition of material (see below) and there is evidence

52

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

of regular use of these rooms in the MM IB period when Tholos A (29), its Annex (30), and the West Camerette (33) seem to have been sparsely used (Carinici 2003, 112). All of these buildings are situated around Tholos A (29), and seem to be related in some way to the intense use of the tholos in EM III–MM IA. Yet heavy use does not explain the need for new rooms, as they were never required during previous periods of tomb use. New additions, such as ossuaries and cult areas outside the Tholos (29), are a response to new rituals and a new way of using the cemetery (La Rosa 2001, 223; Carinici 2003, 104– 105). Such logic contradicts the suggestion that the change from Tholos A (29) to Tholos B (31) in MM IB simply accommodated the need for space for new interments (La Rosa 2004). The change in focus from one tholos to the other at Hagia Triada can only be explained by profound changes in the use of the cemetery during MM IA and MM IB. The need for space does not satisfactorily explain why Tholos A (29) and its annex (30) were no longer cleared on a regular basis. Neither does it explain why Tholos B (31) and the Sepolcreto (32), an independent building constructed west of Tholos B (Fig. 11; Paribeni 1904; Laviosa 1975, 512–513; La Rosa 1999b, 178, fig. 1; Di Vita 2000, 481–483; Carinci 2003, 112–114), are spatially organized so differently from Tholos A (29) and its annex (30). Consequently, we must recognize that they represent a very different set of funerary practices. The Sepolcreto (32) may have been built in two phases, with a second room added to the east (Paribeni 1904, 692; Laviosa 1975, 513), but it never had the complexity of the annex of Tholos A (30) or the South Camerette (34). This casts doubt on whether this building had a similar use to that of the Tholos A annex (30). This is further compounded by the fact that the Sepolcreto (34) is not directly related to the entrance of the tholos, and by its material assemblage, which was more varied than those found in the annexes (Fig. 29). Hagia Triada represents the best and most comprehensively known cemetery in South-Central Crete, and similar patterns at other cemeteries may simply not have been recognized, particularly at cemeteries that are known only partially, mainly through rescue excavations or survey. That being said, better-known cemeteries such

as Lebena Yerokambos (79–81) and particularly Moni Odigitria (92–102) have no parallels with the built structures seen at Hagia Triada, nor with the busy building schedule. At Moni Odigitria, an ossuary (95) was constructed in MM IB, but this was a small and poorly constructed single room. It is probable that the MM I camerettes at Hagia Triada (33, 34) have few or no counterparts in other cemeteries. The diverse range of buildings seen at Hagia Triada (29–35) may not have been found elsewhere, but the general lines of development, the proliferation of annexes, and the enlargement through the creation of new complex spaces, are common to most MM I cemeteries, indicating a new use of space in mortuary behavior, probably related to a new diverse range of rituals taking place at most cemeteries. New paved areas also point in this direction, as they present open spaces where groups of people could meet, as opposed to the small rooms in the annexes. Such pavements have been found in earlier contexts (Hagia Kyriaki [23]; Fig. 13), but become more common in this period, for example, at Kamilari A (46), Apesokari A (4), and Apesokari B (7; Figs. 20, 25, 30; Branigan 1970b, 129; 1998a, 20–21). Boundary walls were also used to create additional defined open spaces at some cemeteries, such as Kamilari A (46; Fig. 30) and Platanos (119; Fig. 19), though the earliest may again have already been erected in the EM I (102; Moni Odigitria: Branigan 2010a, 251– 252) or EM II period, as at Hagia Kyriaki A (23; Blackman and Branigan 1982). New spaces articulate use of the cemetery in a new way, making the cemeteries more “public” or “group orientated,” a process that has also been suggested by other scholars (Branigan 1993, 129). At the same time, these changes conditioned the use of the cemetery more strongly, with different areas engineered for different activities. Moreover, the relentless succession of construction episodes undertaken during this period demonstrates an investment of time and effort by a group in the creation of new contexts, which suggests that building was an important activity per se, perhaps in a similar way to the new spaces, with the purpose of mobilizing and influencing groups of people. The MM I material assemblage in the mortuary record is better understood than that of earlier

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

periods because some cemeteries contained only MM I material, and in many others the MM I deposits were found relatively undisturbed and have been well published. The first question about material assemblages that emerges from the architectural study relates to differences between the tholos tomb and other spaces within a cemetery. Can differences in material deposition among the diverse spaces within a cemetery be recognized? From the few examples where enough material has been published to be analyzed with a secure chronology, the evidence points to differences in the assemblage between spaces (Figs. 16C, 29). In general, the tholos tombs contain a wider range of objects than the annexes or other associated buildings, as is clear from the cases of Porti (124, 125) and Vorou A (146, 149). The areas around Platanos Tholos A (113, 119, 120) yielded a great diversity of material for a nontholos complex, but these areas probably contained material eroded from the tholos (Xanthoudides 1924, 88–93). The assemblage of the Sepolcreto (32) at Hagia Triada constitutes an anomaly in this pattern, as it contains a range of artifacts that set it apart from other annexes or open areas (Figs. 16B, 16C, 29), but as noted above, the architecture of this building is also quite unique and may indicate a very peculiar use. The general narrow variety of items in nontholos contexts has been explained traditionally by the possible movement of interments out of the tholoi, at which time some of the material would have been recycled back into the community (Branigan 1970b, 107). Yet it seems striking that items such as stone vessels, which are widely found outside the tholoi, would not have been accorded the same treatment. Also surprising is the fact that small or broken objects are still not found in the annexes. Moreover, the fact that in several cases the annex assemblages consist of large numbers of complete ceramic vases that exceed the published material from the tholos, as at Apesokari A (2–4), Vorou A (146, 149), and Hagia Triada A (29–30), leads us to suggest that the assemblages in the annexes are not the result of cleaning the tholoi. With respect to differences in the assemblages between various spaces outside the tholos, the only evidence that allows for detailed analysis comes from Hagia Triada (Figs. 11, 16C, 29). Here three spaces can be identified as being in use during

53

MM IA: the Annex of Tholos A (30), the West Camerette (33), and the South Camerette (34). All three contained large numbers of ceramic vases (Banti 1933; Cultraro 2000a; La Rosa 2001; Carinici 2003), while nonceramic materials have been reported only from the Annex (30; Fig. 29). At a superficial level, the depositional patterns in these buildings look similar; large quantities of drinking wares were deposited at all three (Fig. 16C). Differences are apparent when the assemblages are examined in more detail, however. The Annex (30) contained a large deposit at the bottom of Room L that consisted exclusively of cups (Cultraro 2003, 323); the MM IA deposit in the West Camerette (33) comprised cups and jugs (Di Vita 2001, 396), whereas the South Camerette (34) shows a quite different pattern—jugs and a small number of dishes, but no cups, were found scattered among the different rooms and not in a large deposit (Cultraro 2000a, 325, table 2b). It has been argued that the South Camerette (34) replaced the Annex (30) as a place for cult (La Rosa 2001, 224; Carinici 2003, 110), but given the differing assemblages of the two contexts it seems that both complexes were destined for different activities, most probably complementary (Cultraro 2000a). This suggests that during the MM IA period, the new buildings were used for complex funerary practices and/or cult activities where different ritual aspects were conducted in different spaces. Evidence from the Lebena Yerokambos annexes (81) supports this idea; here, too, there are differences in the composition of the assemblage between rooms. The contents of Room AN parallels the assemblage found in Room L of Hagia Triada, with a large number of cups and very few jugs (Fig. 16B). Room a1 at the Moni Odigitria Annex (94) also may have contained a similar large assemblage of cups (Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 141). The standard set of ceramic vases in MM IA funerary deposits seems to be more restricted in range than that of EM II, with conical cups and jugs constituting the overwhelming majority of vase shapes (Figs. 16A, 16C; Walberg 1987, 55; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 133–134, tables 86, 87). This transformation between periods can be clearly appreciated at Hagia Kyriaki A (Fig. 16A; Blackman and Branigan 1982, 40, table 4; Hamilakis 1998, 123–124), Lebena Yerokambos

54

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

(Table 5B; Alexiou and Warren 2004), and Moni Odigitria (Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 133–134, tables 86, 87). Also, in MM IA large deposits of these ceramic types were the common depositional pattern, normally found in nonburial contexts such as the West Camerette of Hagia Triada (33; see above), the Vorou A North Deposit (147), as well as in most of the annexes, such as at Apesokari B (6; Alexiou 1963b, 405; 1971, 307– 308), and the court outside the annex at Kamilari A (46; Levi 1963, 80–91). These deposits were not fortuitous, and they shared some common features, such as at Kamilari A (46) and Hagios Kyrillos (38), where the cups were found upside-down (Levi 1963, 81, fig. 106; Sakellarakis 1968), and they constituted a very different pattern of deposition to that seen in the tholoi. In general, it is very difficult to date accurately nonceramic objects in the mixed deposits of the tombs since typological sequences based on stratified contexts are still lacking. The problem is augmented as the best evidence comes from two exceptional cemeteries, Hagia Triada (29–35) and Platanos (112–123), making it difficult to extrapolate the results to the more common cemeteries during this period. The Hagia Triada Tholos A (29) assemblage not only constitutes a unique case within the Hagia Triada cemetery, but also within the Mesara Valley, due to its large and rich nonceramic assemblage (Fig. 29). Although a simple stratigraphy has recently been reconstructed for the tomb, based on evidence from the excavation (Cultraro 2003), excavators did not record exactly where the nonceramic assemblage was found in relation to the stratigraphy of the tomb. Many of the seals have been dated stylistically to EM III–MM I (Platon, ed., 1969, 13– 117 (CMS II, 1, nos. 16–103; Sbonias 1995; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 146), and the possibility of triangular daggers being associated with EM III– MM I material has been suggested elsewhere (Xanthoudides 1924, 107; Legarra Herrero 2004; contra Branigan 1968a, 26–27). The only objects that can be dated to EM III–MM I with a little more accuracy are a few stone vases, four of them Egyptian copies and one an actual Egyptian import (HM 654, HM 655, HM 660, HM 663, HM 666; Warren 1969, 111; Bevan 2004, 113). Egyptian vessels (copies or actual imports) are not common and imported

vases of Pre- and Protopalatial date have only been found at Knossos (Phillips 2008b). Most of the figurines from Tholos A (29) probably also date to EM III–MM I (Branigan 1971, 72–75, fig. 2; SapounaSakellaraki 1983, 72). The stone vessels, together with a significant number of EM III–MM I seals, figurines, and metal objects, may indicate a varied MM I assemblage at Hagia Triada Tholos A (29) that also included rare imported materials. Platanos shares similarities with Hagia Triada; it most probably underwent an intensive building phase during the EM III–MM I periods, although its precise extent cannot be accurately assessed (Tholos B [114] and Gamma [116] may date to EM II or EM III; see discussion above). Around Tholos A there is an annex (113) that mainly contained MM I vases (such as the polychrome vases HM 6890 and HM 6862 in Xanthoudides 1924, 97, and hundreds of typically MM I bird’s-nest stone vases; Xanthoudides 1924, 99–101; Warren 1969). Some small rooms in the southern part of the annex (south rooms, 120) are more difficult to date (only lamp HM 6893 was published from this context; Xanthoudides 1924, 97), but their construction and use may belong to MM I (Fig. 19). Rectangular Tombs Alpha (121) and Gamma (122) were dated to the LM period by the excavator (Xanthoudides 1924, 93), although Soles suggested a MM I date based on parallels at Koumasa for the clay phalloi in Tomb Gamma (Soles 1992b, 193). There are features in the cemetery, such as the annex to Tholos B (115) and other walls shown in the original plan, which are not clearly datable. Based on the description provided by Xanthoudides, it can be assumed that most of the published material from Tholos A (112) came from the upper level and can be dated to EM III–MM I (Xanthoudides 1924, 89; Walberg 1983, 99). This date coincides with the dating of material from the South Deposits (119; Gerontakou 2003) and the dating of the stone vases found in the annexes (113; Warren 1969, 8, table 2). The assemblage of Platanos Tholos A (112) and its surroundings shows a quantity of material unparalleled in any other cemetery for the period (Fig. 29). Many gold objects were found, as were extremely large numbers of stone vases: around 300 in Room Alpha of the annexes (113; Xanthoudides 1924, 98) and another 64 in the South Deposits (119; Gerontakou 2003). Around 60 daggers

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

came from the upper stratum of Tholos A (112), as opposed to the 14 found in the lower one (Xanthoudides 1924, 106–107). The Tholos B (114) material may be mainly EM III–MM I in date, although an early stone pyxis (HM 1904a; Warren 1965) and possible EM II–III seals were also found in the assemblage (e.g., Platon, ed., 1969, 294, 296, 299 [CMS II, 1, nos. 257, 259, 262]; Sbonias 1995). The Tholos B (114) assemblage also contained large quantities of nonceramic objects: in this case 80 seals and 33 stone vases, as well as a Babylonian cylinder seal (HM 1098; Platon, ed., 1969, 354 [CMS II, 1, no. 306]; Ward 1971, 75; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 243) and three scarabs (HM 1058, HM 1075, HM 1124), two of them Egyptian imports (Ben-Tor 2006; Höflmayer 2007; Phillips 2008b, 231–233). Only one gold object was found, but the tomb is known to have been looted and many of the gold objects may have been removed. Although comparison between the two tombs is complicated by looting episodes, it may be possible that the contents of Tholos B (114) were similar to those of Tholos A (112). It seems that a major building phase at Platanos coincided with the exceptional deposition of material during MM I. Hagia Triada may have followed a similar pattern, but here the use of the two tholoi overlapped only briefly and the Tholos B (31) assemblage and tomb size cannot be compared with that of Platanos Tholos B (114). Koumasa Tholos B (62) may also have had a striking MM I assemblage, with 80 stone vessels of which several are MM I bird’s-nest bowls (Xanthoudides 1924, 17–19; see also kernos HM 678 dated recently to EM III or MM I; Bevan 2007, fig. 5.13). Tholos B lacked Egyptian imports, however, and the gold objects had no clear context and could be of earlier date. At Porti Tholos Pi (124), the assemblage resembles the composition of the Platanos tholoi, but here the amount of material found was much smaller (Fig. 29). The bottom of the scale is more difficult to define as extensive looting may have stripped many cemeteries of valuable materials. Nevertheless, Apesokari A (2) and Vorou A (146) seem to have contained very little material apart from ceramic vessels (Fig. 29). The character of the MM I nonceramic assemblages of these sites differs from that suggested for the EM II period. Although the EM II assemblage

55

of Koumasa was dominated by Cycladic imports and influences such as folded-arm figurines, silver artifacts, and obsidian (Karantzali 1996, 235–256; Carter 1998; Pieler 2004), the MM I cemeteries of Hagia Triada and Platanos contained an assemblage of a different nature; “Cycladica” were absent, but there were significant numbers of seals (Sbonias 1995), stone vases (Warren 1969; Bevan 2007), and Egyptian-influenced objects (Carinci 2000; Pini 2000; Phillips 2008a). Some authors have suggested that more valuable objects were deposited in the cemeteries during the MM I period (Watrous 1994, 730–731; Cultraro 2001, 114–117), but this does not seem to have been the case. The general tendency seems to have been toward a new but narrower range of objects being deposited in the MM I period, which in many cases do not seem to have represented highvalue items. Seals and stone vases now make up most of the nonceramic assemblage, although metal objects and ornaments are still deposited (Fig. 29). These objects may have played a significant role in the communities, but were not what has traditionally been defined as high-value, such as gold or imports. It may be that their production and use made them socially valuable. The only exceptions to this general pattern in the funerary assemblages are Platanos (112) and Hagia Triada Tholos A (29). We must note, though, that within each category of items deposited in the tombs, there was a wider range of types than ever before. Explicit changes can be identified in MM I ritual activities at the cemeteries. The clearest of these was the appearance of larnakes and pithoi as containers for burials. The appearance of such containers may be as early as EM III, but it was during the MM I period that they became common in the burial record (Fig. 31; Rutkowski 1968; Petit 1990; Christakis 2005, 55). Larnakes and pithoi have been found in tholos tombs, annexes, and rectangular tombs (Apesokari B [5], Drakones Tholos D and associated annex [16, 17], Porti [124–127], Vorou A [146]; Figs. 23, 27) and did not replace the custom of burying bodies in the ground, which is still attested in contexts such as Vorou B (150; Marinatos 1931). Different explanations have been given for this new burial rite: the interment of individuals in containers might have marked some special status (Branigan 1970b, 131; 1993, 140–141),

56

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

or, conversely, might have marked the burial of the poor (Seager 1916; Soles 1992b, 255–256). The most successful theory has suggested that the introduction of larnakes and pithoi may be related to a process of individualization in Cretan society as communities developed sociopolitically (Glotz 1925, 131–137; Pini 1968, 34; Branigan 1993, 141; Tsipopoulou 2008), but none of these theories is based on sound material evidence. The analysis of the ceramic vases shows no appreciable differences between burials in containers and burials in the ground (Walberg 1987, 59–60). Also ignored is the varied appearance of larnakes and pithoi in the cemeteries of the Mesara and the Asterousia area (Fig. 31), including cases such as Lebena Yerokambos (79–81) and Papoura (76, 77; Alexiou and Warren 2004), where they have not been found at all, thus rendering no meaningful pattern. The new use of larnakes and pithoi needs to be assessed as part of the broader changes in mortuary behavior taking place in MM I, but this new use cannot be directly associated with vertical social differentiation dynamics or with any specific type of social change toward individualization. Large deposits of ceramics and the new “public” architectural features seem to indicate a shift toward communal ritual (Branigan 1995, 38; contra Georgoulaki 1996a, 333). These activities involved the use and deposition of large quantities of cups and jugs and other shapes related to the consumption of food and drink. Animal remains have been found in the best-studied contexts, that is to say at Lebena Y2 (79) and Y2a (80; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 16, 157), and evidence of cooking has been found at Moni Odigitria (Branigan 2008; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 137–141). This type of evidence may have been overlooked in most publications (Marinatos 1929b, 132 n. 8). Public toasting, communal feasting, dancing, and libation rites have been suggested for these new communal rituals, although their exact nature is not known (Glotz 1925, 277–288; Wiesner 1938, 128; Pini 1968, 29; Branigan 1993, 78–79; 1998a, 21; Hamilakis 1998; Murphy 1998, 33; Cultraro 2000a; Carinici 2003, 104). It is unclear which group was the focus of the rituals. Branigan has suggested that the small

rooms in annexes and related buildings only allowed small groups to be involved (Petit 1987, 40; Branigan 1993, 78), and in the case of Hagia Triada, Carinci has suggested that privileged groups may have been the only ones allowed to access some areas of the cemetery (Murphy 1998, 38; Carinici 2003, 105, 110). The evidence from the South Camerette (34) suggests the possibility that small similar groups (e.g., families) may have been the relevant ritual units. At the cemetery of Moni Odigitria (92–102), the evidence for large-scale cooking and eating activities in open spaces is limited to the EM II and EM III periods, and evidence for drinking is mainly found inside the annex to Tholos B and dates to MM I (94; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 138–139). Still, ritual activity involving larger groups also may have taken place in the open areas found in many cemeteries (Walberg 1987, 57; Georgoulaki 1996a, 74–75). It would seem that ritual in cemeteries included a complex group of activities carried out by both small and large groups. The details of the ritual may evade us, but it is clear that these new rituals represent a more complex and structured liturgical body, as demonstrated by the differentiated deposition of material and the complex architecture now associated with the tholos. This new complexity in ritual did not seem to follow a clear or universal plan, however. Annexes were constantly modified and had agglutinative plans, and the same can be said of the associated buildings and open areas. The new conventions involving a more complicated ritual directed and restricted use of the cemetery by groups in a way not seen before, but this does not seem to have been carefully planned or obviously controlled by a central authority. All in all, MM I mortuary behavior in the Mesara displayed a clear change from that of earlier periods. Although some EM II cemeteries continued to be used and the tholos tombs were still at the heart of the cemetery, factors such as layout, architectural features, and the material assemblage show that the cemetery now had a dramatically different use and was the place of a new range of activities.

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

57

MM II and Beyond During the MM II period, use of the cemeteries began to decline (Figs. 32, 33; contra Watrous 1994, 744–745; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 277). This trend may have started as early as MM IB in the Asterousia Mountains, as the Moni Odigitria cemetery (92–102) seems to indicate (Blackman and Branigan 1977; Branigan 2010a, 252), but this is difficult to prove in the Mesara Valley due to the unclear distinction between MM IA and MM IB wares in reported MM I deposits. Only one cemetery, Kamilari B (47), was constructed in MM II (Levi 1963; Walberg 1983, 95), and the Northeast Court (35) and the open area in the West Camerette (33) at Hagia Triada were the only new features constructed in South-Central Cretan cemeteries during this period (La Rosa 1999a; Palio 2003; Carinici 2004). The Northeast Court (35) is located quite far from the core of the cemetery (Fig. 11), and it may have related to palatial cult activities rather than funerary ones (Carinici 2003, 126). The south deposits at Platanos (119) may indicate the creation of a similar space at this cemetery in MM II (Gerontakou 2003), as they contained a similar MM II assemblage, although it lies much closer to the cemetery than the Hagia Triada Northeast Court (35). During the MM II period many cemeteries were abandoned and only a few continued to be used (Fig. 32). The number of those used may in fact be even smaller if the poor chronological understanding of many of the cemeteries is taken into consideration; for example, the MM II date of Hagia Kyriaki W8 (26, 27), W11a (28), and Kalathiana (40, 41) is based on little evidence (Zois 1967–1968, pl. B2; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58–61; Vasilakis 1990, 30–32). Similarly, use of Vorou A (146) in MM II is attested by little material (some of the carinated cups may be of this date; Marinatos 1931, fig. 18; Caloi 2009, 431); the same is true for Platanos (119; Gerontakou 2003) and Koumasa (66 [jug HM 4973]; Xanthoudides 1924, 43; Caloi 2009, 431). The best evidence for MM II use comes from Hagia Triada (32, 35; Carinici 2003, 113, no. 48; 2005; Palio 2003), Porti (125; HM 5120, HM 5121; Xanthoudides 1924, 61; Caloi

2009, 431), and cemeteries constructed in MM I, such as Kamilari A (44, 45; Levi 1963) and Apesokari A (2, 3; Schörgendorfer 1951b, 22, pl. 22.2). In most cases there were significant changes between MM I and MM II (contra Watrous 1994, 744–745). At Hagia Triada, Tholos A (29) and its associated buildings (30, 34) were abandoned; the activities moved to Tholos B (31) and the Sepolcreto (32). At Platanos, the opulence noted in Tholos A (112) and the south deposits declined (119; Fig. 19), and while some of the ceramic and stone vases might be of MM II date (Warren 1969, 8–9; Gerontakou 2003, 324), they did not represent such a distinctive assemblage as in MM I. Kamilari A (44, 45) was still used, probably in a way similar to that of MM I times (Levi 1963). Beyond these differences, there seems to have been a general trend toward simplification of layout; many areas fell out of use and the cemeteries were now made up of only one tholos accompanied by a set of annexes or one related building (Fig. 32). This picture is matched by the understanding of the material assemblage. Although no closed MM II deposits are known and therefore no clear material assemblage can be defined for this period, the glimpses of ceramic wares show that little material was deposited in the tombs, and the same can be suggested for nonceramic items (Fig. 34). This decline is surprising as it was not paralleled by a decline in population or by changes in the settlement pattern; on the contrary, the region seems to have been in a period of demographic boom (Hope Simpson et al. 1995, 395; Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 277; Van de Moortel 2006c). Nor did the decline coincide with the destruction of the palace of Phaistos, which took place at the end of MM IIB (Fiandra 1962; La Rosa 2002, 72); most of the cemeteries were already out of use by that time. The gradual disappearance of the funerary domain from the archaeological record needs to be explained in terms of specific aspects of mortuary behavior. It is quite possible that this behavior became invisible, since there was still a need to dispose of corpses. But an explanation must be given as to why no more effort was

58

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

made regarding the construction of archaeologically visible monumental architecture or the significant deposition of material. Some of the cemeteries, such as Kamilari A (44– 46), B (47), and C (48, 49), remained in use during the MM III period (Girella 2004), and many were

later reused in LM times, though normally to only a limited extent (Fig. 35). It is probable that the cemeteries used until a late date remained in the communal memory and were later reincorporated in some way into the cult and ritual activities of the community in an archaeologically visible way (Soles 2001).

Conclusions Before a comprehensive review of the analysis begins, some spatial issues regarding SouthCentral Crete need to be clarified. Although diverse authors have partitioned the region geographically in different ways, such as the Kommos and Phaistos regions (Hope Simpson et al. 1995; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004), the Hagiopharango Valley within the Asterousia Mountains (Blackman and Branigan 1977), the south hills of the Idean Mountains, the Mesara Valley and the Asterousia Mountains (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 35–36), the regions north and south of the Yeropotamos River (Branigan 1970b, 124–125), or the south coast (Blackman and Branigan 1975), this study has only found relevant a division between the Mesara Valley and the Asterousia Mountains (which includes the coast to the south of them), and these are the two areas on which this review focuses. This distinction, however, cannot be regarded as clear cut, and there are many cemeteries, such as Koumasa (61–68), which lie in territories that could be considered transitional between the two areas. Furthermore, this spatial reference is not regarded as paramount and must be considered along with other relevant microregional scales.

Early Minoan I–II The Asterousia Mountains constitute the focus of study in the EM I–II period, and in particular in EM I–IIA, as there is little evidence for cemeteries in the Mesara Valley at this time (Figs. 9, 10). Surprisingly, the first tholos cemeteries known appeared in a developed form across the mountains in the earliest EM I period. Their sudden appearance has at times been explained by the arrival of

new populations in the area (Alexiou 1966, 322; 1967a, 484), based on the similarities the tholoi share with other contemporary tombs elsewhere. Both North African–Egyptian (Xanthoudides 1924, 128; Evans 1928; Pendlebury 1939, 74) and Cycladic (Hutchinson 1962, 152–153; Branigan 1970b, 143–146; Karantzali 1996, 239–240) parallels have been suggested. But this explains little regarding why it was considered necessary to invest so much effort in the construction of tholos tombs. A simple transposition of the tombs by new populations from the place where they were originally developed cannot be argued. The tholos cemetery was intrinsically related to the Asterousia Mountains during this period and needs to be explained in terms of its role in the social organization of communities in these mountains. The homogeneity of mortuary behavior in the cemeteries is also striking, and suggests that some clear and tight rules governed the burial customs. It can also only be explained by a highly integrated landscape where intense communication between the various communities took place. In their survey of the Hagiopharango Valley, Blackman and Branigan (1977, 69–71; Murphy 1998) suggest that there was a correlation in the Early Bronze Age between a tholos and an extended family that lived in a nearby nucleated settlement or nearby scatter of small hamlets. This view has been contested recently, as no correlation exists between tholos cemeteries and archaeologically identifiable settlements in EM I–II Hagiopharango (Whitelaw 2000, 150–151). This led Whitelaw to propose that a mobile population living in seasonal hamlets might explain the disjunction between cemetery and settlement in the valley. A new twist has been added recently as the Moni Odigitria Survey has confirmed that the settlement of EM I–II

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

Hagiopharango was formed by small hamlets (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a). The debate does not continue to focus on the type of settlement, but on the relevant social unit that used the tholos tombs and how it relates to settlement, kin networks, and resource exploitation in the region. Branigan has argued that the hamlets were occupied at the same time, and they would have represented one or two large kinship groups of at least 25 individuals (Branigan 2010a, 263). The small size of these hamlets makes them quite unlikely to have been used for long periods of time. Given the landscape of the Asterousia region, pastoralism and agriculture would have involved a mobile way of life and may have been organized around farmsteads that were occupied for only a few generations (Whitelaw 2000, 150– 151; Todaro 2003, 90; for the modern transhumant use of the Valley, see Bintliff 1977b, 630, and Watrous, Hatzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 197–199; for an opposing view, see Bintliff 1977b, 619–620, and Blackman and Branigan 1977, 67). Fission and fusion may have been basic strategies for the survival of these communities, enabled by the flexibility of small domestic units. This debate seems somewhat misguided. There is no proof that a particular tholos relates to the immediate group living near it. Communities have to expand over larger geographical areas to be able to survive. New genetic influx is necessary to maintain a family. Furthermore, risk-buffering strategies work better when they are formed by populations that occupy different geographical areas, as it allows them to obtain help in case of localized catastrophic events, such as floods. While the tholos may well be the symbolic center of a community, this community may not have lived near it, but expanded over larger areas. The tholos may have been used by such a community as a meeting point, as deaths would have comprised regular occurrences. This also means that we cannot readily estimate the size of the community using the tombs based on surrounding settlements, and until we can define the structure and geographical reach of the group using the tombs, we will not be able to identify what kind of social unit was entitled to tholos burial. The social units might have used ritual and nonritual practices at the tholos as a means of

59

maintaining, asserting, and renewing a certain identity that was key to accessing basic social, economic, and ideological structures, such as rights to exploitation, kinship networks, or marriage arrangements. The construction of the tholos itself required the units to exercise social links in order to gather the labor necessary to move the large boulders used in tomb construction. Social links had to be exercised continuously to maintain social obligations that might prove essential for the survival of the community (Halstead 1981, 2008). The funerary ritual at the tholos could have represented a focal event that articulated the gathering of a community dispersed into small social units and provided an opportunity to negotiate personally important economic and social relationships necessary for the survival of small groups. Such needs may have been exacerbated by more intensive utilization of this landscape by the growing population of FN/EM I South-Central Crete (Blackman and Branigan 1977, 67; Hope Simpson et al. 1995, 393; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 226). The communities in the Mesara Valley may have been organized in a way better adjusted toward optimal exploitation of the fertile valley, and thus did not need an arena that would serve as a social hub. A similar scenario could be argued for the EM IIA period, although some new developments emerged. First of all, second tholos tombs appeared in some cemeteries, indicating new relationships between community, tomb, and cemetery. In addition, changes in the material assemblage can be detected, with the presence of artifacts with offisland connections, such as folded-arm figurines and metal daggers, becoming popular in the cemeteries. These developments can be traced in most of the cemeteries, which suggests a change in the basic conventions that regulated the composition of burial assemblages that all the cemeteries in the region shared. Such alterations in mortuary behavior may reflect not only the availability of these items, but also broad changes in value systems and perhaps deeper transformations in the social organization of the communities in the area. An increasing demographic pressure in such a marginal landscape may have changed interactions between individuals and communities.

60

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Stronger off-island influences in South-Central Crete were arriving via the north coast and producing modifications in the social intra- and intercommunity relationships (Whitelaw 1983; Nakou 1995). The introduction of off-island material would have produced some important changes in the horizontal relationships within the communities and could have permitted the further development of some latent dynamics, such as vertical differentiation, in some particular cases. This work has suggested that the very particular layout and material assemblage at Koumasa (61–68) could have set this community apart. Although poor preservation at this cemetery impedes clear assessment of such particularities, it seems that the EM IIA assemblage and layout of Koumasa could contradict the commonly held opinion that no established vertical differentiation existed in EM II South-Central Crete (Cherry 1983a; 1984; Watrous 1994, 717; Sbonias 1995, 150). Koumasa (61–68), however, seems to have been an exception in the EM IIA period. Platanos (112– 123) has produced no material that can be compared with the Koumasa EM IIA assemblage and it is probable that Tholos A (29) at Hagia Triada was not constructed until the EM IIB period. Only the deposit at Hagios Onouphrios (103; Evans 1895) contained material comparable to the Koumasa assemblage (61–68), but the lack of detailed information for this context does not permit its introduction into this model (Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 530). The assemblage and architecture of Lebena Yerokambos (79–81) are not as outstanding as those of Koumasa, but an incipient differentation dynamic may have played out using the two tholos tombs. If it is accepted that dynamics of vertical differentiation existed in the Koumasa cemetery (61–68), then this must mainly have had an intracommunity impact, as most of the other cemeteries were not affected by such changes. Furthermore, Koumasa still falls within the parameters of the mortuary behavior of other cemeteries in the area, and in many ways it represents an elaboration of the characteristics of common mortuary behavior rather than a break from the surrounding cemeteries. For example, architectural features follow the layouts of other cemeteries but incorporate larger tombs and perhaps more areas in use around them.

Additionally, the material assemblage is drawn from the same categories as the objects found in other cemeteries, but there are larger quantities and rarer examples. It is interesting that the Koumasa assemblage shows a particular preference for off-island material, which may give us the ideological and material justification for the interpretation of vertical differentiation in this particular community. Interpretation becomes more difficult by the end of the EM II period, as the EM IIB ceramic wares have not been as readily identified in the cemeteries, but perhaps this is also because some important changes were beginning to take place. Some gaps in the history of use of the cemeteries, sometimes marked by fumigation episodes, could be placed at the end of the EM IIB period (Fig. 21). A period of change is more clearly recognized in the early EM III period.

Early Minoan III–Middle Minoan II The unclear picture of the EM IIB period continues into EM III. While problems in the identification of EM III ceramics clearly contribute to the inability to characterize the EM III period of South-Central Crete, this study shows profound changes in the mortuary behavior. Many have argued that the population nucleates into the largest settlements during the EM III–MM I period (Manning 1994, 234–236; 1997, 162–163; Branigan 1995, 35; Sbonias 1999a, 12–15; Todaro 2003, 91; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 267), in particular at Phaistos during the EM III and earlier MM IA periods (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 265–269). Relaki has suggested a very different model in which Phaistos only acquires regional importance during the MM IB–II period and where the settlement pattern is not affected by nucleation in a substantial way during the EM III and MM I periods (Relaki 2004, 183; see also Haggis 1999, 64–65; 2002). This study has identified a significant transition in late EM IIB–early EM III, indicated by the interruption in deposition reported in many tombs, in some cases marked by a fumigation episode. These gaps do not necessarily represent breaks in the habitation of the related settlement, however.

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

Although gaps in occupation may have occurred at certain sites, breaks in the deposition may in fact indicate profound transformations in the social organization of a community or changes in its networks of affiliation rather than abandonment. The limited number of tombs with a clear gap in deposition and the fact that most cemeteries are back in use in the later EM III period does not support the idea of a general break in habitation. The later EM III and MM IA periods in SouthCentral Crete were a time of booming construction in the cemeteries. This was coupled with a completely different mortuary behavior from that identified for the EM II period. It was in the Mesara Valley at this time and not in the Asterousia Mountains where many new cemeteries appeared and where the innovations of the new mortuary behavior were most apparent. Such innovations involved more complex layouts where annexes and associated contexts acquired much more importance in the cemetery; changes in the ceramic material deposition toward a limited range of ceramic shapes, mainly cups and jugs, with the appearance of large deposits of ceramics outside the tombs; and a nonceramic assemblage dominated by seals and stone vessels that was marked by off-island influences coming from Egypt and the Near East rather than from the Aegean. Although these innovations were also seen in the cemeteries of the Asterousia Mountains, there they seem to have had less of an impact. Indeed, in the mountains the cemeteries started to decline in MM IA (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 267), leading to their abandonment at an earlier date than the cemeteries in the Mesara Valley. The geographical shift and the changes in mortuary behavior were undoubtedly connected. The fact that the tholos was still at the heart of the cemetery should not mislead, since mortuary behavior had a completely different set of characteristics that adhered to the new demands of the social organization of the Mesara Valley communities, rather than that of the Asterousia communities. This scenario can be further defined. First of all, it should be pointed out that while the situation in the MM I period was not as homogeneous as in EM I–IIA, it still exhibited a striking degree of similarity. The nature of the changes differed at each cemetery; the annexes had plans and architectural features changed, as did the particular material

61

deposited, but these only represented variations in the general rules of mortuary behavior. These rules were completely different from those of the EM I– IIA period, and reflected a major emphasis on the controlled mobilization of groups through ritual (Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006) and the organization of building activities and other practical tasks such as the cleaning and maintenance of the cemetery. Taking the intrinsic relationship between mortuary behavior and social organization in SouthCentral Crete into consideration, it is logical to think that profound transformations in mortuary behavior accompanied dramatic changes in social organization. Furthermore, the fact that changes affected the most basic understanding of mortuary behavior and spread to every single burial site indicates that social organization in the area must have changed at its most basic level. The spread of tholos cemeteries into the Mesara can only be explained by the adaptation of mortuary behavior to answer new social concerns in these communities. These new problems of social organization are probably related to an increasing population (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 277) that led to competition between communities in the Valley. Sbonias has suggested that such a dynamic between communities acquired much importance during the later EM III period (Sbonias 1999b, 2010). This suggestion is based on the study of seals found in mortuary contexts, but the new architectural features and material deposits indicating large-group ritual also suggests supracommunity competition. Relaki’s recent work has suggested a similar model of development for the region, based on the combination of communal ritual, consumption activities, and competition dynamics between communities (Relaki 2004, 2011; Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006). These rituals were first housed in the cemeteries before being moved to regional centers in MM IA, such as the site of Patrikies and to the central building at Phaistos in MM IB (Relaki 2004; Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006). Such an hypothesis involves one of the issues in the study of MM I cemeteries in the area, that is, the indiscriminate use of feasting (which would possibly include dancing, as well as food consumption and toasting) in the explanation of funerary rituals (Branigan 1993; 2010a, 258–261; Hamilakis 1998;

62

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Murphy 1998). Undoubtedly, the cemetery was a significant social arena where important communal practices took place, as recently demonstrated by the Moni Odigitria (92–102) evidence in EM II, but in many places the feasting ceremonies are assumed rather than proved by a consistent range of data. They also tend to be seen as static, while the changing architectural environment of the cemeteries suggests that funerary activities changed dramatically through time. The evidence from Hagia Triada (29–35) shows that rituals may have been far more complex than initially thought and, moreover, that important phases of these were organized around social units that involved neither a whole community, nor drinking. The depositional pattern of ceramics at Hagia Triada (29–35) casts doubt on the simple equation of funerary ritual to communal drinking ceremonies. Even when large deposits of vessels are found, these do not necessarily imply toasting or drinking rituals. First, we have little understanding of formation processes for large ceramic deposits; these may have been created by a single large deposition or by a series of smaller ones. Second, cups may not have been used for drinking necessarily but for libations, and the hundreds of bird’s-nest bowls found in the annex of Platanos Tholos A (112) are not suitable for drinking, given their thick lips. Also, evidence from Moni Odigitria (92–102) is interesting as it demonstrates different patterns in the deposition of vessels in EM II and MM I. While the EM II evidence of large vessels, cooking wares, and their abandonment in open areas fits better with the idea of communal cooking and eating, the deposition of MM I material seems more focused on the annex, which indicates that the types of rites may have had a very different character. Until more details concerning the nature and practice of ritual in cemeteries are obtained, the exact social transformative role of ritual for the communities of the Mesara cannot be understood. Although this study agrees that the new mortuary behavior placed much more importance on the integration and mobilization of people through ritual, a detailed understanding of the practical character of these rituals must more closely follow the available evidence. Given the interest in the mobilization of people identified in the cemeteries, this competition might be based on the control of individuals and

their inclusion in the identity of the community. At a more practical level, a more complicated, hence longer, funerary ritual, as evidenced by the new architecture, would permit people from other communities to attend the funeral (Oestigaard and Goldhahn 2006; Hayden 2009) and could indicate an interest in locating funerary rituals within a large regional scale. This could be connected to socioeconomic aspects, as it represents the control of a work-force, but also to socioideological aspects, as the construction of a strong community could strengthen the position of individuals, both within the community and within supracommunity social networks. Beyond this assessment of horizontal relationships in the social organization of the region, vertical differentiation dynamics appeared at the EM III–MM I cemeteries that also need to be explained, as they represent a major break from EM II mortuary behavior. As noted above, variations occurred within the shared framework of mortuary behavior, and at certain cemeteries these variations acquired such an extreme character that they must be understood as evidence for vertical differentiation dynamics. Platanos (112–123) must clearly be considered different from other cemeteries in the region given its two large tholoi with uniquely large depositions of material. Hagia Triada (29–35) may be considered in a similar way but on a different level, not only because the deposition of material did not parallel that of Platanos (112–123), but also because such a depositional pattern occurred in only one tholos (Tholos A [29]), thus creating a totally different internal dynamic within the community that used the cemetery. Other cemeteries, such as Porti (124–127), Koumasa (61–68), and Kalathiana (40, 41), contained more modest architectural features and material assemblages, and Apesokari A (2, 3), with its simple layout and humble assemblage, may have represented the bottom end of such a range. It should be noted that the number of stone vessels is the most variable characteristic between cemeteries, and this evades easy explanation by looting. As such, it may provide a good indicator of the regional position of each cemetery. Many authors have suggested that the deposition of objects at Platanos Tholoi A (112) and B (114), and Hagia Triada Tholos A (29), attests the interment of individuals of a privileged status

THE MESARA VALLEY, THE ASTEROUSIA MOUNTAINS, AND THE SOUTH COAST

(Blasingham 1983, 18; Watrous 1994, 730–731; Sbonias 1995, 47; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 260–261). The simple characterization of the entire mortuary behavior of SouthCentral Crete based on this idea does not accord with this review of the data, however. The substantial deposit of stone vessels around Tholos A (113, 119, 120) at Platanos indicates that the tomb was the focus of lavish group rituals, and a similar scenario can perhaps be posited for Hagia Triada (29–35) and Koumasa (61–68). Funerals and related activities may have been used to communicate the status of an individual, a small group related to the interred, or the whole community to which the individual was attached (Hayden 2009). It must be borne in mind that these aspects of the funeral are not exclusionary and that funerary practices can mark the status of an individual and a group at the same time. Evidence from South-Central Cretan cemeteries suggests, though, that funerary rituals may have been more focused on the community (or at least a large group) related to the interred, rather than on the deceased. The communal tombs and the emphasis on group ritual dwarf the significance of particularly valuable items deposited in the tombs, which is the only evidence for individual status. Also, we should not forget that such items may mark significant social roles (heads of family, religious figures), and not necessarily “elites” or “chiefs.” As well as negotiating community ascendancy, funerals could have been used by certain living individuals to gain a particular status (Georgoulaki 1996a, 338; Murphy 1998, 38–39; Carinici 2003). This hypothesis follows logic identified by anthropologists in “Big-man” societies, in which individuals gain social status and economic power through the organization of group rituals (Godelier 1986; Robb 1999). Such “Big-man” dynamics, however, cannot be readily identified in the record, nor have we evidence of how such dynamics may have been deployed. The loose notion of feasting makes such an approach even more difficult, as we have no understanding of how such activities might have marked Cretan communities in the MM I period. It seems clear that vertical dynamics must be understood within wide social relationships. Both group ritual and individual interments may have

63

been engineered to manipulate vertical differentiation dynamics in favor of particular groups within a community and perhaps the whole community in their quest for regional ascendancy. Within these processes some individuals may have found ways of boosting their personal position. In any case, the traditional scenario in which an individual marked her or his status through a lavish interment is not found in the Cretan record. No tomb can be considered a royal or principal one, as sometimes seems to be assumed in the literature (Cultraro 2001). Vertical differentiation in MM I cemeteries in the Mesara Valley seems, therefore, quite different from the possible dynamic suggested for Koumasa in EM IIA, as in MM I they may have had supracommunity relationship networks as main targets. The presence of only one rich tholos at Hagia Triada hints that the regional scale rather than the community may have been a major focus of these dynamics of differentiation in the cemetery. Furthermore, the fact that these dynamics are found in various cemeteries in the valley suggests that vertical differentiation dynamics had an impact on the supracommunity organization of the region. This is not to say that all social groups forming part of a community benefited equally from the same privileged regional position, nor that it affected every single community in the region. The development of such a process is difficult to track on the basis of burial data, and while it seems that such a situation may have continued in the Mesara Valley into the MM IB–II periods, it is not clear what impact the appearance of the central building at Phaistos had on regional relationships and supracommunity negotiation. The evidence from Hagia Triada is difficult to assess. The shift in the cemetery in MM IB from one tomb to another resulted in less distinctive architecture and material assemblages, but such a change does not necessarily represent evidence for the submission of the Hagia Triada community to Phaistos (Carinici 2003, 113–115; Relaki 2004; Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 267–269). Mortuary behavior is a complex phenomenon that responds to a myriad of variables and cannot be linked directly to political history. By the MM II period, a more integrated regional landscape could explain the gradual disappearance of the cemeteries in the area. A new, more

64

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

centralized regional social organization made intercommunity competition obsolete, a turn of events that would have affected the social importance of the cemeteries. In addition, the central building at Phaistos and other new contexts, such as the Kamares Cave, may have taken over most of the ritual importance from the individual community cemeteries, or new social arenas at a local level may have taken over the social role of cemeteries. New ritual contexts may have better suited the new social negotiation. In any case, the decline

of the cemeteries in MM II preceded the destruction of the palace at Phaistos in MM IIB, and this can only be explained by the weakening of the social importance of the local cemetery. Interestingly, this decline seems to have started earlier in the Asterousia Mountains, where most cemeteries were abandoned by the end of the MM I period, and this may indicate a particular development in the relationship between cemeteries and communities in the area for this period, further distinguishing this area from the Mesara Valley.

5

North-Central and Central Crete

North-Central and Central Crete includes a variety of regions and landscapes that span the area between the Dictaean Mountains west of the Mirabello Bay and the Psiloritis Mountains west of modern Herakleion (Fig. 36). This chapter focuses mainly on sites located near the north coast of the designated area, as generally these sites have been more intensively investigated and offer the best-available evidence. The few known sites located farther inland are included in this chapter as they are more significantly related to NorthCentral Crete than to any other region in the study. They represent only a handful of sites, none producing detailed evidence, but they do provide sufficient information to use as comparanda in order to obtain a better understanding of the whole area. Even though they do not have a common history of research, which in some other Cretan regions creates an underlying link between a varied range of sites, Central Cretan sites share a similar set of archaeological questions and problems that unites them in a more coherent analytical group than a first glance at the map may indicate.

The investigation of North-Central Cretan sites has recently been dominated by questions regarding exchange networks, both in relation to overseas links and to the importation of materials, finished objects, and ideas into Crete (Hood 1990; Karantzali 1996, 2008; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Dimopoulou 2000, 2012; Betancourt 2003a, 2005; Carter 2004; Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, Wilson, and Day 2007; Ferrence 2007; Galanaki, Bassiakos, and Perdikatsis 2011; Papadatos 2007a, 2007b; Wilson, Day, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2008), and to internal trade networks of off-island materials, items, and ideas within Crete (Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1997; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Carter 1998; Day and Wilson 1998; Sbonias 1999b, 2000; Betancourt 2003b; Schoep 2006). This predisposition in the studies toward exchange is closely related to a second, longstanding bias in Central Cretan studies, namely the site of Knossos. Although the case for Knossos’ political domination over Central Crete cannot be made in the Prepalatial period, as it is for later periods (Cadogan 1994; Driessen and Macdonald 1997; Warren 2004), it has been explicitly or

66

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

implicitly assumed that Knossos exercised considerable economic control over a good part of the island, mainly through channeling off-island materials and ideas (Warren 1981; Cadogan 1994; Wilson 1994, 39–44; Haggis 1997, 296–297; Day and Wilson 1998, 356–357; Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, Wilson, and Day 2007; Bevan 2010). Recently, the possible ritual authority of Knossos over the region (Soles 1995; Day and Wilson 2002; Wilson 2008) has been added to this assumed dominant position for Knossos. The analysis of the mortuary record, however, defies this “Knossocentrism,” as knowledge of burial practices at Knossos before the very late

MM II period is almost nonexistent. Moreover, the excellent quality of the data from some of the cemeteries brings the focus of analysis to other communities (Fig. 37) and provides a comprehensive framework of specific social and cultural dynamics rather than fairly context-less models of exchange. While off-island influences cannot be ignored in the mortuary record of Central Crete, this study aims to contextualize these within the social organization of Cretan communities. The off-island influence should be envisioned as a means of social mediation that North-Central communities were able to exploit (Papadatos 2007b), rather than as an external factor for change.

Early Minoan I Central Crete contains the largest number of known EM I burial sites on the island (Fig. 38). Some of these sites, such as the Pyrgos Cave (282; Xanthoudides 1918a) or Krasi A (238, 239; Marinatos 1929b), despite having been excavated early in the 20th century, provide some of the finest quality data for EM I burial contexts. Unlike other areas of Crete, in North-Central Crete the EM I contexts can be clearly identified through their ceramic record, mainly due to the clear understanding of the ceramic sequence at Knossos (Wilson 1985, 2007; Momigliano 1991, 2000a, 2000b, 2007; Cadogan et al. 1993; Wilson and Day 1994, 1999, 2000; Faber et al. 2002; Macdonald and Knappett 2007; MacGillivray 2007; Tomkins 2007; Hood and Cadogan 2011), which serves as the template for the study of the area. The known EM I cemeteries are primarily grouped in two areas: a small stretch of the north coast east of modern Herakleion, and the Lasithi Plateau and the surrounding mountains (Fig. 38). Outside these areas, good evidence comes only from the caves at Kyparisi A (243; Alexiou 1951) and Partira (274; Béquignon 1931). Most of the other sites provide such poor evidence that in some cases it is not completely clear whether or not they constitute EM I burial sites. Early Minoan I burial contexts in Central Crete are almost exclusively found in caves, the only confirmed exceptions being the tholos tomb of Krasi

A (238, 239; Fig. 39; Marinatos 1929b; Karantzali 1996, 58) and the rock-cut tomb cemetery at Gournes B (203; Fig. 38; Galanaki 1999, 2006). Of the uncertain contexts, only three sites are not caves (Fig. 40), namely Gorgolaini (200; Platon 1955, 566), Kalergi (207; Pendlebury, MoneyCoutts, and Eccles 1934, 81), and Krasi B (240, 241; Platon 1959, 387). All three are reported to be EM tholos tombs, but without specification as to whether they contained EM I material. As happens in other parts of the island, identifying the exact use of a cave in a particular period is not a simple task. There are three caves that were clearly used for burial purposes in EM I, namely Partira (274; Béquignon 1931, 517), Pyrgos (282; Xanthoudides 1918a; Wilson and Day 2000, 55), and Kyparisi A (243; Alexiou 1951, 286– 287). Early Minoan I material has been reported from the Trapeza Cave (312; Fig. 41; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 23; Karantzali 1996, 53) and the Stravomyti Cave (311; Fig. 42; Marinatos 1950, 256; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 30), but they may not have had a funerary use during this period. Recently, it has been suggested that Arkalochori (189) was used for burial in the EM I–II periods (Tyree 2006) as the DGB ware found there is very similar to that found in well-known EM I burial caves (see below; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 264–265), but this suggestion cannot be confirmed given the unclear

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

understanding of the context (Marinatos 1962). Early Minoan I funerary use is a likely possibility at Psychro (281; Fig. 43; Hogarth 1900, 96; Boardman 1961, 5), Skotino (307; Fig. 44; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 36–37; Whitley 2004, 68; Tyree et al. 2009), Skaphidia (306; Fig. 41; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 5), Milatos (271; Fig. 45; Platakis 1978; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 65–67), Vitsilia (318; Faure 1964, 56 n. 1; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 30), and Eileithyia (194, 195; Fig. 46; Marinatos 1929a; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000, 188; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59). The caves providing sufficient data for analysis are Kyparisi A (243), Eileithyia (194), Partira (274), Pyrgos (282), and Trapeza (312). Eileithyia Cave (194) is best known for its use as a cult place from the MM period onward, but Neolithic and EM I material has also been discovered inside it (Fig. 46; see vases in Marinatos 1929a, 95, fig. 6, and Renfrew 1964, pl. E:2, 3; also see discussion in Wilson 1984, 264–265; Wilson and Day 2000, 56 n. 100; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000, 188; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59). Although no human bones have been reported, the discovery of a small rock shelter burial 50 m from the mouth of the cave (195) may indicate its use for burial purposes during the EM period (Marinatos 1930, 98–99; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000, 232). Human remains may not have been preserved due to extensive use of the cave in later periods. With respect to the material assemblage in the rock shelter, three silver objects were recovered together with human remains, but from the Eileithyia Cave (194) only ceramic items were reported and published. In fact, EM I ceramics from the cave show an interesting pattern in shapes between the different EM I wares (Fig. 47A). The DGB ware consists predominantly of chalices and goblets and does not contain jugs. The small assemblage of non-DGB ware (this term refers to vessels with dark-on-light linear painted decoration and burnished wares; see Wilson 1984, 237–245, and Wilson 2007, 54, for discussion) published from this context shows a very different set of shapes, with a large number of jugs and no goblets or chalices. As we will see below, such a pattern seems to exist in other contexts and gives a tantalizing insight into EM I mortuary ritual. A significant amount of material from Kyparisi A rock shelter (243; Alexiou 1951), including

67

six copper objects, four pieces of obsidian, and approximately 40 vessels, was dated mainly to EM I (Alexiou 1951, 286–287; Zois 1968a, 55–58; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 298–299), but contained some possible EM IIA ceramics (Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 134; Karantzali 1996, 70). Here both DGB and non-DGB wares were found together and although it is not always clear from the publication to which ware a specific vessel belongs, the evidence suggests a similar correlation between wares and shapes as at Eileithyia (194). Non-DGB ware dominated the assemblage (Alexiou 1951; Zois 1968a, 56–57; Karantzali 1996, 70), with a range of shapes (Fig. 47A) consisting primarily of jugs, followed by bowls, and a shape that will be called a tankard (a tall deep bowl with two handles; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 105). The few identified DGB-ware vessels follow shapes already recognized at Eileithyia (194), such as chalices. Examples of Cycladicinspired bottles were also identified (Karantzali 1996, 70; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 138–139). Partira (274) presents a similar context to the ones described above. Little is known about the interments in the rock shelter, but 32 vessels have been published from this context. These can be dated to EM I (Mortzos 1972, 387; Karantzali 1996, 71), although the group shows strong Neolithic connections and may date to the very beginning of the EM I period and a bit earlier than the Kyparisi A (243) assemblage (Béquignon 1931, 517; Mortzos 1972, 402; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 133; Tomkins 2007, 46). These ceramics did not contain any DGB ware and the shapes of the non-DGB wares do not coincide with the material from Kyparisi A (243; Fig. 47A), as bowls dominate. Perhaps the earlier date of the context may explain the discrepancies with other EM I deposits. From Pyrgos Cave (282) and the rock shelter next to it (283), a varied material assemblage was recovered including both nonceramic and ceramic objects (Xanthoudides 1918a; 1922–1924; Platon 1941, 270). The published ceramics from the excavation are mainly EM I in date (Xanthoudides 1918a, 170; Wilson 1984, 245; Karantzali 1996, 59; Wilson and Day 2000, 55), with a few EM IIA examples (Wilson and Day 1994, 12, 34; 2000, 55, no. 85). No pottery later than EM IIA was published, even though the later funerary use of the cave is attested by the presence of larnakes, which in Crete

68

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

are not found earlier than EM III (Rutkowski 1968, 220; Preston 2004, 179). The reported ceramics include approximately 150 vessels (Fig. 47B; Xanthoudides 1918a), and follows patterns already identified in other EM I contexts (Fig. 47A). The non-DGB ware vessels have similarities with the Kyparisi A (243) and Eileithyia (194) assemblages, with a significant proportion of jugs, pyxides, and tankards. The DGB ware assemblage is similar to the burnished ware found in the Eileithyia Cave (194), with the characteristic large chalices and goblets dominating. The assemblage, as at Kyparisi (243), also included Cycladic bottle-shaped vessels (Xanthoudides 1918a, 152–153; Stucynski 1982, 57). The Pyrgos Cave (282) nonceramic assemblage included a fair number of gold and copper objects as well as folded-arm figurines probably dating to EM II (Xanthoudides 1918a, 163; Renfrew 1969, 19; Branigan 1971, 60–65; Pieler 2004, 114). These objects set Pyrgos Cave (282) apart from the other EM I caves in the variety of types and the amount of imports, but this may be, at least partially, the result of a more significant EM IIA use of this cave (see below). Two interesting cemeteries do not fall within the cave/rock shelter category for the EM I period: the Gournes B (203) cemetery and the tholos at Krasi A (238, 239). The cemetery at Gournes B (203) was discovered and excavated only recently and has been published in preliminary reports (Galanaki 1999, 2006). The cemetery is of exactly the same type as the Hagia Photia Siteias A cemetery (412–415; see Ch. 7) and consists of 36 known rock-cut tombs, although the number may be significantly larger as only a portion of the cemetery has been excavated (see the plan in Galanaki 1999, 854, fig. 20). It could compare to those at Hagia Photia Siteias A (412) and the tombs at Epano Kouphonisi in the Cyclades (Zaphiropoulou 2008). As a rule, this cemetery type has been found around the Aegean (Cultraro 2000b) and represents a clear variation from the typical communal burial found on Crete. Very little information is available about human remains or material (see Galanaki 2006 for the preliminary report that includes the discovery of a silver necklace, obsidian, and stone vessels), and the discussion of this type of cemetery will be undertaken in Chapter 7,

since much more information is available for the similar Hagia Photia Siteias cemetery (412–415). The tholos tomb at Krasi A (238, 239) is unusual in the context of North-Central Crete, as tholos tombs are not very common outside South-Central Crete (Figs. 37, 38), particularly in EM I when they were concentrated in the Asterousia Mountains (see Ch. 4). The possible presence of four other tholos tombs in the vicinity of Krasi A (238, 239; Fig. 40; see also Goodison and Guarita 2005)—Krasi B (240, 241; Platon 1959, 387), Kalergi (207; Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 81), Potamies (280; Branigan 1993, 148), and Siderokamino (286, 287; Faure 1969, 180 n. 2)—could indicate that the use of the tholos was a specific characteristic of this small mountainous region, but without clear data from these contexts, this possibility cannot be explored further. The small tholos tomb of Krasi A (238, 239) has an area marked with large stones that in Marinatos’s plan resembles a paved walkway into the tholos and it can be dated to EM I (Fig. 39; Marinatos 1929b, 107–108, 114). Material and interments were found outside the tholos, although these possibly date from the EM III–MM, when pithos burials were interred (Marinatos 1929b, 112–114). Marinatos suggested around 50 interments based on the recovered skeletal remains, which represent quite a small number considering the long history of use of the tholos (Marinatos 1929b, 110). The later use of the tomb did not completely obliterate the earlier burials and Marinatos reported a lower stratum. Zois identified only four vases of possible EM II date (Zois 1968a, 67–68, vases a–d) and Karantzali (1996, 58) suggested that only one of the vases is as late as EM IIA (the footed cup in Marinatos 1929b, pl. 4:2) and that the context is most probably EM I, which seems to be corroborated by the opinions of other scholars (Marinatos 1929b, 111–113; Zois 1968a, 66–68; Wilson 1984, 237– 245, 269). In general terms, the published ceramics from the tholos follow the patterns described for non-DGB ware in other EM I assemblages, although the proportion of jugs is probably inflated because some EM IIA and EM III–MM I examples were counted together with the earlier material (Fig. 47A). Typical DGB-ware chalices were also found in the tomb. The nonceramic assemblage is

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

quite rich and interesting: two bronze cutters were found 20 cm above the bottom of the deposit, suggesting deposition in the early period of use of the cave; and one lead pendant, four silver items, three gold beads, three long daggers, one triangular dagger, and three copper pins were found in the lowest stratum of the tomb (Marinatos 1929b, 111). All these objects are most probably EM I, EM IIA at the latest, and provide some of the earliest evidence of metallurgy on the island, evidence that comprises a surprisingly rich variety of objects and metals for this early date. The presence of metal objects in such early burial contexts follows a pattern already observed in Kyparisi A (243), the Eileithyia rock shelter (195), Pyrgos Cave (282), and also in Gournes B (203; Galanaki 2006), and it is further supported by evidence in the nearby settlement of Poros Katsambas (Doonan, Day, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2007). Krasi A (238) contains a rich and varied assemblage that is only paralleled at Pyrgos (282) during the EM I period (Figs. 47B–47D). The fact that the Krasi tholos (238) represents a different interment custom, however, does not permit a

69

one-to-one comparison of this tomb with the caves typical in Central Crete during EM I. Even though Krasi (238) is a small tomb, it probably housed more bodies than the rock shelter at Kyparisi (243) or the cave at Pyrgos (282). This study has tried to avoid some of these shortfalls using the ratio between ceramic vessels and nonceramic items to compare the assemblages of the different tombs, rather than the total figures (Fig. 47D). The results could still be biased by problems in the recovery and publication of the ceramics that would significantly modify the ratios and preclude definitive conclusions. But overall, similar figures emerge for the diverse contexts; more nonceramic objects correspond directly with a large number of ceramics, showing that in general Krasi (238) and Pyrgos (282) may have been more intensively used or better preserved than the other burial sites, and this would explain their varied assemblage. It is true that there are more objects made of imported materials in Krasi A (238) than in most of the other EM I tombs, but this may not signify a qualitative difference from the funerary assemblages of other cemeteries (see next section).

Early Minoan II More burial contexts are known from EM II than in the previous period in Central Crete (Figs. 48, 49). Many of the dubious contexts in EM I can now definitely be identified as cemeteries. The use of caves during EM II on Crete is almost exclusively funerary (Faure 1964, 71; Tyree 2001, 40), therefore caves with EM II material are treated here as burial caves. The comprehensive ceramic studies at Knossos and also elsewhere in Central Crete have produced considerable detail about the EM II chronological sequence, which at some sites permits a separation between EM IIA and EM IIB use (Fig. 50; Cadogan et al. 1993; Pelon 2006; Pelon and Schmitt 2006; Wilson 2007). The sites of Knossos Teke (234; the Teke area lies at some distance from the EM II site of Knossos [see Fig. 51], and it is possible that this deposit was associated with another community in the area; Marinatos 1933, 298–304; Alexiou 1975;

Hood and Smyth 1981, 35, no. 23; Pieler 2004) and Zinta (320; Branigan 1972, 22; 1974, 11; Pieler 2004) are contexts known only through material acquired by the Herakleion Museum. At both sites, folded-arm figurines and metal daggers were discovered, which are objects typically found in burial contexts, and even though there is no information about the archaeological contexts in which these objects were found, it seems safe to consider that they come from cemeteries. The folded-arm figurines are most probably contemporaneous with those found in the EM IIA stratum of Archanes Phourni Tholos Gamma (165; Papadatos 2005), and although the daggers are difficult to date on a typological basis, the use of silver for the examples from Teke (234) would also suggest an EM II date. While the material from Zinta (320) is similar to other known EM II assemblages, the Knossos Teke (234) assemblage is unique. The number

70

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

of folded-arm figurines at Teke (234) is matched on the island only by the EM IIA deposit in Tholos Gamma at Archanes Phourni (165), and the number that are actual imports finds parallels only in the large EM II–MM deposit of the Area of the Rocks at Archanes Phourni (187; Fig. 52; Papadatos 2005, 52–53; see discussion below). These figurines, together with the silver daggers, point to Teke being an unusual EM II (probably EM IIA) deposit with a large number of off-island materials, but it remains impossible to situate it clearly within the framework of the analysis without clear contextual information. Early Minoan IIA material has been found only as a small proportion of the assemblages of the Kyparisi A (243), Eileithyia (194), and Pyrgos (282) Caves (Karantzali 1996, 58–62, 70; Wilson and Day 2000, 55), and all three caves seem to have been abandoned by the end of EM IIA (Fig. 50). At Eileithyia (194; Karantzali 1996, 62), recent study of the pottery indicates a gap in the use of the cave between EM IIA and MM I (Betancourt and Marinatou 2000; contra Karantzali 1996, 62). A similar gap in use of the site occurs at Krasi A (238; Sbonias 1995, 58; Karantzali 1996, 178), and none of the published pottery can be dated EM IIB. At Arvi (190), only one EM IIA pyxis been identified, probably coming from this site (Evans 1895, 17, 112, 117; 1896, 464–465; Wilson and Day 1994, 13). The dearth of the characteristic but relatively scarce EM IIB Vasiliki Ware in some of the contexts and the similarities between EM IIA and EM IIB wares raises the possibility that in some of these cemeteries, especially in the disturbed caves, EM IIB use has failed to be recognized (Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 383; Wilson and Day 1999, 40– 41), and that the gap in the record after EM IIA is somehow fictitious. The ceramics from these sites have been reviewed by different authors who possess a modern understanding of the wares, however, and it is unlikely that EM IIB vessels would have passed unnoticed at all the sites. The best example comes from the well-studied site of Archanes Phourni, where EM IIB pottery has been identified, but reported only from the area between Burial Building (henceforth BB) 18 (179) and BB 19 (181; Fig. 53; see below for discussion of the Archanes Phourni cemetery; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 383).

At Kyparisi B (244), a rock shelter with larnakes and pithoi has recently been found (Serpetsidaki 1994, 2006). A large amount of material was reported from the rock shelter, including 60 ceramic vessels, stone vessels, and as many as 19 seals and 17 amulets, including one silver one, five folded-arm figurines of the Koumasa and Hagios Onouphrios types, and obsidian. The material has mainly been dated to EM III–MM IB, although two vessels have been described as probably dated to EM IIB (Serpetsidaki 1994, 700), but the presence of Cycladicstyle figurines seems to illustrate an EM IIA use of the deposit. At Trapeza Cave (312), the heavily disturbed deposits did not permit as detailed an account of the use of the cave as the careful excavation aimed to provide (Fig. 41; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939). As a result, even when some EM I and EM II wares were identified by the excavators (see burnished and gray wares and the EM II cups in Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 39–40, 57–58), many vessels could only be dated EM I–II and EM II–III on a stylistic basis (Fig. 54; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and MoneyCoutts 1939). The detailed excavation did allow the authors to suggest that no less than 100 individuals were buried in the cave, mainly in EM II (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 127– 128). The cave also yielded a significant number of nonceramic items, including 21 gold objects, one silver blade, one lead vessel, copper tools including daggers, seals, and figurines (Figs. 47B, 47C), and many more objects were probably deposited in the tomb but have been lost to plundering (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 14–17). The nonceramic material, depending on the publication, has been dated to different periods: the figurines were dated from EM I (Porti style) to EM IIB–III or later (Trapeza style; Branigan 1971, 67– 68, 70–71), and the seals were dated from EM II/ III to MM I (Sbonias 1995, 74, 90). The excavators suggested that most of the metal should be dated EM II–III, contemporary with the main body of ceramics recovered from the tomb (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 102–107). Yet this was based on the assumption that no metal on Crete could be dated earlier than EM II, a supposition that has been proved wrong (Papadatos 2007a), so it is possible that some of the metal items could

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

be EM I. It is, therefore, impossible to date the nonceramic assemblage more accurately than EM I– MM, but the suggestion made by the excavators that most of it comes from the EM periods still seems the strongest possibility. The cave also contained EM items with Cycladic stylistic links, such as a stone vessel that may be an actual Cycladic import (Stucynski 1982, 57), which supports the idea of a rich EM assemblage that included many objects with off-island connections. The ceramic assemblage as published (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939) offers a good opportunity to analyze trends in ceramic deposits through time, and indeed some interesting patterns emerge (Figs. 47C, 54). The development of ceramic shapes seen in the Trapeza Cave follows a blueprint already identified in SouthCentral Crete, in which in early contexts pyxides, and chalices/goblets are dominant. From EM III onward cups and jugs become the predominant shapes. By EM IIB, with the appearance of Vasiliki Ware (Betancourt 1979; Pelon and Schmitt 2006) and its new repertoire of shapes, the change was probably already underway. The excavators considered the cave to have been used as a communal, primary tomb, where the deposits have been heavily disturbed due to the continuous use of the cave until modern times. The work by Davaras and Betancourt in the nearby cave of Hagios Charalambos (205), however, casts some doubts on this interpretation (Betancourt et al. 2008a). At Hagios Charalambos (205), a large number of human bones and Pre- and Protopalatial material was found together, but the deposit seems to be secondary and may have taken place in MM II, when bones and other material were carefully arranged in the different chambers of the tomb, and the cave was then sealed. It is possible that a similar history may have occurred at Trapeza (312), although this is difficult to assess given the disturbed nature of the deposits, which may indicate that this cave was never sealed or was used mainly for primary interment. At Malia (245–267), the earliest evidence of burial is documented during the EM II period, most probably EM IIB. This evidence comes from only two contexts in the extensive area that was used for burial in later periods (Fig. 55). The Premier Charnier (245) is a deep fissure in the rocks

71

near the coast (Fig. 55), where an uncertain number of bodies was deposited (Chapouthier 1928, 502–503; Béquignon 1929, 525–527; Demargne 1945, 1–12). Only ceramics were recovered, of which a few vases can be dated to EM IIB (e.g., the teapot 8525 or globular goblet 8679 in Demargne 1945, 4, 6, pls. 27, 28; see also Zois 1969, 42– 44; Andreou 1978, 124–125; Betancourt 1979, 34; Pelon and Schmitt 2006). The Western Ossuary (251) is a rectangular tomb where a large number of interments was made (Rédaction 1921, 536; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 70–72). An ossuary is defined as the secondary communal storage of human remains. Only five vessels were published from this building, one of which has recently been dated EM IIB (goblet 7795; van Effenterre 1980, 238). It is quite possible, though, that this vessel does not mark the construction of the ossuary and it may have been deposited later, after the material cleared from other areas in the cemetery was collected in this building. At Sissi (288–305), near Malia, one rectangular tomb comprising three rooms (Spaces 1.11, 1.12, and 1.24; 297) has been recently dated to the EM IIA period (Schoep 2009, 54; Schoep et al. 2011, 41). The preliminary report indicates that two jars of coarse wares each contained the remains of a fetus. This find introduces a fresh perspective to the interpretation of cooking ware inside tombs, as this ware may be associated with burial rites rather than food preparation. The fragile fetal and neonate remains may have been missed in the excavation of other sites. An EM IIB pithos burial of an infant has been reported from Nopigeia (497; Karantzali 1992–1993) and another infant burial inside a tall vase was also discovered in Palaikastro Tomb VIIa (435; Bosanquet 1902a), but this dates to the MM I period. Neither of these two interments can be linked sincerely to the burials discovered at Sissi. Although caution is needed when interpreting the evidence from Sissi as the cemetery is still under study, the picture of a single EM IIA rectangular tomb with two rooms is similar to one presented by the Gournia North Cemetery (324–332) and the Mochlos cemetery (348–381) in the Mirabello area (see Ch. 6) during this period. The rich EM IIA deposits associated with the tombs on the west terrace at Mochlos (348, 349) and the pit in Tomb I at the Gournia North Cemetery (324) are not paralleled

72

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

here, but the heavy erosion suffered by the Sissi tombs may have emptied the rooms of most of the material assemblage (see, e.g., the discussion concerning Tomb I [324] and Tomb III [327] at Gournia North Cemetery in Ch. 6). Currently, no EM IIB has been reported from the cemetery, even though EM III use is well documented (Schoep 2009, 49, 52). Archanes Phourni (162–187) is the best-known Pre- and Protopalatial cemetery in the whole of Crete thanks to careful excavation and extensive publication (Maggidis 1994, 2000; Deligianni 1995; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997; Karytinos 2000a, 2000b; Lahanas 2000; Panagiotopoulos 2002; Papadatos 2005; Papadopoulos 2010). Early Minoan II material has been found at Archanes Phourni in six different areas (Fig. 53), although many of these do not provide much evidence. Burial Building 25 (185) and BB 26 (186) are both the remains of EM tombs underneath later EM III burial buildings, but little or nothing is known about them. It has already been mentioned that EM IIB material has been reported only from the area between BB 18 (179) and BB 19 (181). Tholoi Gamma (165) and Epsilon (166) offer the best evidence in terms of archaeological context and understanding for EM II, in particular the EM IIA period. Both tholoi have a similar stratigraphy: a closed EM IIA deposit sealed by an EM III–MM I stratum (Panagiotopoulos 2002; Papadatos 2005), which permits a direct comparison between the two tombs as they seem to have undergone a very similar history of use. The human remains recovered in the two contexts were in a very bad state of preservation and gave no clear evidence about the type of interment and the population buried in the tholos during this period (Panagiotopoulos 2002, 111; Triantaphyllou 2005). The ceramic assemblage (Figs. 56A–56C) was, unfortunately, not well preserved in either context, and most of the sherds in both tholoi could not be identified as belonging to specific shapes, which precludes a comparison of these two contexts with the EM I assemblages (Panagiotopoulos 2002, 31–43; Papadatos 2005, 13). As regards nonceramic items, the two tholoi had quite different assemblages (Figs. 47B, 56D). Tholos Gamma (165) produced a variety and richness of material unmatched by Tholos Epsilon (166) or any other

tomb during this period, although the total quantity of gold should be considered carefully, since many of the gold items are beads that could have been deposited together in necklaces (Papadatos 2005, 38–39). The difference is clearer in the deposition of objects that have overseas links, either because they were made of imported raw materials such as gold, silver, or ivory, or because they are similar to Cycladic objects, such as the foldedarm figurines (Papadatos 2003, 2005, 2007b). But before a conclusion is drawn about the significance of the differences between the tombs in the cemetery based on nonceramic assemblages, we must first consider the finds found in the last area with EM II material, the Area of the Rocks (187). Here, objects similar to those in Tholos Gamma (165) were discovered, such as gold and silver items, folded-arm figurines, some of them actual imports from the Cyclades (Pieler 2004), and approximately 1,000 pieces of obsidian (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 232–236, 583; Papadatos 2005, 52–53). It is possible that some of these were deposited with interments made inside the fissures in the rocks (Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 234). The discovery of these objects in the part of the Area of the Rocks (187) near Tholos Gamma (165), however, and the affinities of the material assemblage in both contexts (including a gold strip that seems to be part of the same item that was found in Tholos Gamma; Papadatos 2005, 58), support the idea that the assemblage originated in Tholos Gamma (165) and was redeposited after the tholos was cleaned out for renewed use in EM III–MM IA (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 235–236, 583; Papadatos 2005, 53). Hence, the EM IIA Archanes Phourni cemetery (165–187) seems to consist basically of just two tholoi: Tholos Epsilon (166) and Tholos Gamma (165), both of which have a similar architecture but very different assemblages. It would be logical to think that the similar architecture represents two equivalent social groups of similar structure and size that probably belonged to the same community (Papadatos 2007b, 438–439), and it therefore marked a subdivision in the horizontal social organization of the Archanes community. The material assemblage and, in particular, the finds with off-island connections show that there were differences between the two groups in terms of access to

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

socially valuable items, so it can be suggested that these represent a vertical differentiation dynamic (Papadatos 2007b). The group in Tholos Gamma (165) demonstrated a privileged position over the group in Tholos Epsilon (166), marked through deposition with the deceased of off-island materials. The selection of the material is highly revealing. It shows that off-island links were important social material. This not only applies to EM IIA Archanes Phourni but to the whole of NorthCentral and Central Crete. The presence of offisland links in different burial contexts in Central Crete during the EM II period (Fig. 52) suggests that these items were valued by the different communities of the region, even when the communities were unable or decided not to hoard the quantity of items found in Tholos Gamma (165). It is clear that this material played an important role in the negotiation of horizontal intra- and intercommunity relationships in Central Crete, and it is probably

73

because of its widespread social value that in Archanes Phourni imports were chosen as a means of pursuing vertical differentiation dynamics. As has already been pointed out, EM IIA use of most cemeteries ceased in EM IIB (Fig. 50) and, as discussed above, problems in ceramic recognition may limit our understanding of the period, but this alone cannot explain such a conspicuous gap in the record. It seems that the abandonment could parallel the disturbances identified in EM IIB–III South-Central Crete, but here the situation is a bit different. First, because the data gap starts earlier, probably at the beginning of the EM IIB period, and second, because the abandonment seems to affect most of the sites at the same time, marking a much more homogeneous phenomenon than the disturbances in South-Central Crete. The present reality is that almost no evidence is available from the EM IIB period in the mortuary record of North-Central and Central Crete (Fig. 50).

Early Minoan III Although the ceramic sequence in Central Crete is well known, the identification of EM III ceramics is still the subject of considerable debate (Zois 1968b; Momigliano 1991; 2000b; 2007; Watrous 1994, 717–720; Lahanas 2000, 156–157; Branigan 2010b). Consequently, in many contexts it is not possible to securely identify wares as EM III or MM IA and even in the cases where this is possible, EM III mortuary behavior cannot be explored independently as the EM III material is found mixed with MM IA assemblages. This seems to be the case at Hagios Charalambos (205; Betancourt et al. 2008a, 2008b), Hagios Myronas (206; Orlandou 1968a), the tombs at Galana Charakia A and B (196–198; Platon 1956), Pigadistria (277; Watrous 1982, 61), Sabas (284; Faure 1958, 515 n. 3), Stravomyti (311; Dimopoulou 1996), and the Trapeza Cave (312; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939). Therefore all these contexts will be analyzed in the MM I section, as the evidence from this period tends to be more comprehensible. Clearer information about the EM III period has been recovered from Kyparisi B (244), Archanes Phourni (165, 168, 169, 175–177, 179,

180, 181, 184, 185, 187), Yiophyrakia (319), Krasi A (238, 239), Sissi (291, 294–297, 302, 304), Pyrgos (282), and Malia (245–247, 251, 263), which permits an exploration and characterization of EM III mortuary behavior. After the dearth of evidence in the EM IIB funerary record, the EM III period represents a period of expansion both with the appearance of new tombs and cemeteries and with the reuse of some of the EM IIA tombs (Fig. 57). At Kyparisi B (244) mainly EM III wares were reported (Serpetsidaki 1994, 2006), and it is most probable that the evidence for mortuary use in this tomb primarily refers to EM III. Remains of a wall suggest that differentiated spaces existed in this cave, one of them perhaps intended for nonburial activities, as attested by the presence of burned animal bones (Serpetsidaki 1994, 700). Pithos and larnax burials are reported from this site, which could have been deposited in the cave as early as EM III. Likewise, pithoi and larnakes within rock shelters have been found at Pyrgos Cave (282) that could also be dated as early as EM III (Rutkowski 1968, 220; Karantzali 1996, 58; contra Lambrou-Phillipson 1990,

74

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

247) and at two rock shelters at Galana Charakia A (196, 197), near Ano Viannos, although these are probably MM I–LM I (Platon 1954b, 512; Warren 1969, 194 n. 2). At Krasi A (238, 239), it is not clear whether there was any EM III material inside the tholos (Sbonias 1995, 178; Karantzali 1996, 58), but EM III/MM I material reported outside the tholos (239; see jugs in Marinatos 1929b, 112, fig. 9 top row), together with human remains, indicates that the tomb may have been in use during the EM III period. At Hagios Myronas (206), EM III pottery was found, but the larnakes and pithoi discovered seem to have been deposited in the MM periods (Alexiou 1970; Walberg 1983, 105). At Yiophyrakia (319), an EM III closed deposit has been suggested (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 387), which is supported by a significant number of globular goblets and squat tumblers with white-on-dark decoration (Marinatos 1933–1935, 51, fig. 4). The “sheepbells” may be dated to MM IA (Marinatos 1933– 1935, 50, fig. 2), however, and while a significant EM III deposit may be suggested, it could include MM IA material. Also, it is not clear if this deposit represents material related to funerary activities. No human bones were recovered and no architecture is known (Goodison and Guarita 2005, 200), making it difficult to assume that it was a tomb, as originally suggested (Marinatos 1933–1935). The mortuary record at Malia (Figs. 55, 58A, 58B) in EM III exhibits a considerable expansion with at least four new tombs. Together with the Premier Charnier (245; see, e.g., cup 8656 and jar 8528 in Demargne 1945, pls. 29, 30), two new similar tombs began to be used in EM III, the Second (246; see decoration on anthropomorphic vase 8665 in Demargne 1945, pl. 31) and perhaps the Troisième Charniers (247), from which van Effenterre and van Effenterre (1963, 60–62) reported only MM IA material, but they considered it contemporaneous with the Second Charnier (246). These are situated near the Premier (245) on the rocky headland north of the town, and they too are crevices in the rocks where bodies and other material were deposited. Finds mainly consisted of ceramic vessels with a small number of stone vessels. Early Minoan III material was also reported in the Western Ossuary (251; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 70). The main innovation in

the cemetery appears with the construction of a large and complex building in the area of Chrysolakkos (263; Fig. 58A; Demargne 1930; 1945, 25– 69; Pierpoint 1987; Soles 1992b, 162–171; Poursat 1993; Treuil 2005, 211–214). The EM III–MM I phase of this building, which was mostly destroyed by later rebuilding, will be called here Chrysolakkos I (see Soles 1992b, 163). Although there has been some discussion about the date of the construction of the first building, there seems to be a consensus that the first material associated with the building dates to the EM III period (Demargne 1945, 67–68; Zois 1969, 77; Soles 1992b, 166; Poursat 1993; contra Stürmer 1993; Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011). Finds are primarily located west and east of the later building (Chrysolakkos II), with some walls surviving inside it (Fig. 58A), and they provide evidence of a building unique in the Cretan Preand Protopalatial mortuary record. The remains found do not resemble any other tomb or associated building on Crete and are composed of a series of paved areas, benches, porticos, and kernoi that suggest public ritual and cult rather than burial. In fact, some authors have suggested that Chrysolakkos I did not have a funerary purpose (Muhly 1984, 114–115; Pierpoint 1987; Treuil 2005). Although this is possible, it seems unlikely that such a nonfunerary building existed in an area otherwise restricted to burials (van Effenterre 1980). The finds located to the west and east could suggest areas intended for cult and ritual associated with the tomb (or tombs) similar to the EM III annexes in SouthCentral Crete. The use of kernoi like the ones found in Chrysolakkos I (263) is attested in a MM I tomb at Gournia (326; Soles 1992b). Unfortunately, the human bones found inside the Chrysolakkos building cannot be securely associated with any phase of the structure and the suggestion that the burial chambers of Chrysolakkos I were situated underneath the later building remains just a possibility (Soles 1992b, 166). Chrysolakkos I (263) establishes two interesting facts about mortuary behavior at Malia. First, the architecture demonstrates features unique to this site. Although some of the characteristics seen in Chrysolakkos I (263) correspond to broader trends in funerary ritual, such as associated ritual buildings or the use of kernoi, the unique way these were

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

combined at Malia shows a local elaboration. Second, and related to the first point, is the fact that Chrysolakkos I (263) represents a very large investment of effort in mortuary ritual, which is not only interesting within the development of mortuary behavior at Malia, but also in relationship to other cemeteries where such large complexes have rarely been found. This effort should be measured not only by the construction of such a large building, but more importantly by the interest in creating such a distinctive facility. The different features, such as open areas, pavements, and corridors, seem to have been planned before construction began, as opposed to most of the other cemeteries where an accumulative architecture marks the aggregate design. Chrysolakkos I (263) is unique not only because it represents a rare large complex, but also because it was a carefully planned one. Chrysolakkos is famous for the unique pieces of jewelry found in it (Demargne 1930), although these were most probably deposited during the second phase of use of the building (Demargne 1945, 52–53; Effinger 1996, 240). Such unclear dating extends to other items found in the tomb, which could belong to either phase of the building. With respect to the pottery, a few EM III ceramic vessels were described (Demargne 1945, 43–44), enough to suggest a construction date, but not sufficient to allow any detailed analysis of building function during this period. At the nearby site of Sissi, at least several rectangular tombs may have been built during the EM III period after the EM IIB gap (Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009; Schoep 2009; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011; Schoep et al., forthcoming). Some of the features, such as the pebble floor in Space 1.2 (291), the small number of interments, and particularly the use of a room mainly for interments (Space 1.2; 291) and another mainly for the deposition of ceramics and perhaps cult activities (Space 1.3; 291), have clear parallels in the contemporaneous Tomb II (441) and Tomb VI (443) at Palaikastro (Dawkins 1904). The Sissi data also show that bodies were primarily deposited in the tombs and disturbed by later burials and general reuse of the tomb. Archanes Phourni is another cemetery that documents significant changes in EM III (Fig. 53), even though securing a definite EM III date for

75

some of the tombs at Archanes Phourni (165, 168, 169, 175–177, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 187) has sometimes proved to be problematic; for example, the construction of BB 19 (181) has been dated EM III or MM IA, depending on the publication (Maggidis 1994; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 218, 387; Lahanas 2000, 156 nn. 5, 6). Despite such problems in particular contexts, the published evidence makes it clear that during EM III a period of expansion began at the Phourni cemetery that reached its zenith in MM IA (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 396). The cemetery shows a very different picture from the one in the EM IIA period. Although reused, the tholoi are no longer the dominant feature in the cemetery and, with the exception of the possible MM I construction of Tholos B (162), each new construction is of the rectangular tomb type. The exact nature of every new building is not known, but the excavators suggested that the rectangular structures were originally ossuaries for the cleaning of material from the tholoi and perhaps from BB 19 (181) and that only later did they become tombs in their own right (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 249–250). Although this is a plausible scenario, it is also true that some of these buildings do not appear to be related to the tholoi and could have been constructed to be tombs and not ossuaries. Also, the number constructed in the cemetery seems illogically high if they were intended only for secondary deposition of remains from the tholoi. The number of interments per tomb provides some insight into the nature of the new buildings. Despite the different estimates proposed by various authors (Table 7; see discussion above for the difficulties of estimating populations using tombs), there are some discernable patterns at EM III/MM I Phourni. While Tholos Gamma (165), Tholos Epsilon (166), and BB 18 (179) generate similar numbers, BB 19 (181) and the east rooms of BB 6 (169) show a significantly larger number of interments. This could indicate that the different buildings at Archanes Phourni were intended for different uses, such as tombs and ossuaries, or even intended to house different types of burial groups. The lack of a comprehensive publication of BB 18 (179) and BB 6 (169) makes it impossible to reach any conclusion about the nature of these two contexts. Conversely,

76

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

the discovery of both primary and secondary interments in Tholos Epsilon (166), Tholos Gamma (165), and BB 19 (181; Maggidis 1994, 66–75; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 111–114; Papadatos 2005, 57– 61) indicates that the use of these three contexts may have been similar despite the disparity in the number of interments. Also, it seems that the tholoi possibly housed a similar number of interments to burial buildings (BB 18 [179]), but without more detailed evidence this cannot be clarified. It is difficult to determine whether a context was used as an ossuary or a tomb. It may actually not be in our interest to attempt to define contexts in such stark terms, as the function of these buildings may have varied throughout their history. The cemetery must be seen as a combination of the individual histories of use of each tomb, in which the utilization of the building as tomb, ossuary, and ritual place developed or was combined in a unique way. Tholoi and the burial buildings in Archanes Phourni were probably ever-changing, following short-lived dynamics within the history of use of the cemetery. The quick construction of tombs also suggests rapid change in the way the cemetery was used. What cannot be denied is that the new buildings represent a considerable rise in the number of contemporaneous tombs, an increase perhaps reflecting a boom in the population in the related settlement. More interestingly, they present a new layout, which is now set out with many more, smaller tombs, perhaps reflecting changes in the scale and nature of the social groups that were interred together. The appearance of larnakes also marked a new mortuary custom in the interment of the bodies

and adds complexity to the scenario. Larnakes and interments in the ground seem to be combined in the different funerary contexts, again following individual fashions in each building. The different explanations suggested for the appearance of larnakes and pithoi have already been discussed (Ch. 4), and while it is still suggested that the use of burial containers (Fig. 59) cannot be clearly understood, they undoubtedly relate to a wider set of changes in the burial customs and the way the interment of the deceased was practiced and presumably understood. Some of the new spaces in the cemetery, both inside and outside burial buildings, seem to have been intended for ritual activities rather than burial, such as the open areas, some of which were paved like the area outside BB 12 (176; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152). All this evidence makes it clear that within the EM III Archanes Phourni cemetery there was a significant new level of complexity in mortuary behavior that reflects more elaborated ritual activities. In the case of Archanes Phourni it is not possible to separate the EM III material assemblage from the MM I one, hence analysis of this material will be left for the next section because MM I material dominates the burial record and also because the evidence provided by Tholos Gamma (165) and the south rooms of BB 18 (179) show that the EM III and MM I assemblages are very similar (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 215– 218; Papadatos 2005).

Middle Minoan I During the MM I period, the number of cemeteries and burial contexts exhibited another significant increase (Figs. 49, 60), with small cemeteries appearing throughout the study area. Together with this filling-in of the mortuary landscape, the cemeteries of Archanes Phourni (162–187) and Malia (245–267) witnessed major developments (Figs. 53, 55).

Only a few tombs used in EM IIA continued to be used in MM I (Figs. 50, 60). The majority of these were caves and in general they cannot be confirmed as burial contexts in MM I. The Eileithyia (194) and Milatos (271) Caves seem to have become cult places in MM I (Tyree 1974, 9–10; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000, 232–233), suggesting that many caves could have followed a

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

similar development. There are exceptions, such as Sabas (284; Faure 1958, 515 n. 3), Sokaras (308; Rethemiotakis 1998b), Pyrgos (282; Xanthoudides 1918a), and perhaps Hutchinson Tomb at Knossos (227; this tomb could be a collapsed rock shelter or chamber tomb; Payne 1935, 168), where larnakes attest to mortuary use of the caves in MM times. Lasithi is the only area where caves continued to be the main type of burial site in MM I. Hagios Charalambos is well documented as having been used as a burial place in MM (205; Betancourt et al. 2008a), and this was probably also the case for the caves of Pigadistria (277; Watrous 1982, 61), Seli (285; Iliopoulos 1995), Meskine (270; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 6), and Trapeza (312; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and MoneyCoutts 1939, 23). Psychro Cave is the only example in this area where MM I burial use is unlikely (281; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 11; Watrous 1996, 47–48; 2004). Two types of tombs that have already been noted in the EM III period became particularly popular during MM I. The first is the rectangular tomb, which apart from the cases of Archanes Phourni (167–169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177–179, 181, 182), Malia (249–252, 254, 255, 263), and Sissi (291– 298, 300, 302, 305) appears in isolated examples at Bairia Gazi (193) and Gournes A (201, 202). Bairia Gazi (193) seems to have been in use only during the MM IA phase (Rethemiotakis 1984), a short period of time. This one-room building contained two larnakes, one burial pithos, around 40 ceramic vessels, one stone vessel, obsidian, and a few figurines. The Gournes A (201, 202) cemetery is similar, although in this case the rectangular tomb was found associated with a nonburial deposit that the excavator named the Ieros Lakkos or sacred pit (Fig. 61; Hazzidakis 1915; 1918, 45–58). Tomb A (201) was badly preserved, but at least three rooms could be identified that represented a building just a little larger than Bairia Gazi (193). The Ieros Lakkos (202) was found a few meters from Tomb A (201) and was described as a pit surrounded by a rectangular wall, similar architecture to that of the pit tombs at Malia, although in this case no human remains were found. The two buildings were in use during the same period, mainly MM IA (see goblets with white decoration and proto-barbotine decoration in Hazzidakis 1918, pl. 3; Zois 1969, 23–24;

77

MacGillivray 1998, 99), although there also seems to be a significant amount of MM IB ceramics (Zois 1969, 23–24; MacGillivray 1998, 99; 2007, 112, 116, 122). In Tomb A (201), burials were found in the north and central rooms, but only one interment was reported from the smaller south room. At the Ieros Lakkos (202), no human remains were found, but many hundreds of ceramic vessels were discovered (Hazzidakis 1915, 62), which indicates that the two areas had very different uses. The cemetery contained other items apart from ceramics, including eight seals, clay figurines, and two scarabs (Pini 2000, 109; Phillips 2008b, 46), although the exact context of these items was not provided, which precludes further interpretation. It is possible that the known tombs at Bairia Gazi (193) and Gournes A (201, 202) were part of larger cemeteries, though the investigations of Hazzidakis only discovered additional LM III tombs around Gournes A (Hazzidakis 1915, 63; 1918, 62– 87). Anticipating some of the analyses in the Mirabello area and East Crete (see chapters below), it is suggested that many of the new small cemeteries composed of rectangular tombs, like these two examples, may have constituted only part of the burial domain of a community, which may have included tombs at different locations around the settlement, thereby making the tombs appear isolated in the archaeological record and biasing the understanding of the mortuary record. A picture is starting to emerge from Sissi (291– 305) due to the detailed report provided by the excavators (Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009; Schoep 2009; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011; Schoep et al., forthcoming), even though the cemetery is still under study and new evidence may change the current picture. Here at least eight rectangular tombs were in use during the MM I period (291, 295–298, 300, 302, 305), but possibly many more were built and used during this period, if we take into consideration the poor preservation of the cemetery (Driessen 2009). As at Archanes Phourni (162–187), Malia (245–267), and Gournia (324–339), there seems to be an intense period of building during the MM I period in the Sissi (288–305) cemetery, including not only new tombs (Spaces 1.2/1.3, 291), but also the addition of a third room to preexisting tombs (Space 1.1 next to Spaces 1.2/1.3 [291]; plan in Schoep 2009). Added third

78

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

rooms are clearly identifiable at Mochlos I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) tombs in MM I (see next chapter). Unfortunately, the scanty information provided by the disturbed tombs at Sissi does not shed much light on the reasons behind such new additions. Nonetheless, the high-quality data from Sissi show the dynamism of this cemetery during the MM I period and it is a rare window into the ebbing nature of burial customs. Some of the tombs found seem to have been used for the primary interment of a limited number of people (Spaces 1.7, 1.8 [295]; Schoep 2009, 51–52), while others were used as ossuaries (Spaces 1.9, 1.10 [296]; Schoep 2009, 53). Interestingly, it is the ossuary that seems to be better constructed, with large blocks of limestone, roughly dressed. Also their history of use is far from uniform, and some of the tombs seem extensively used in MM II times (Space 1.2 [291]; Schoep 2009, 46–47), while others do not seem to have been reused after the MM I period (Space 1.6 [294]; Schoep 2009, 52). The second type of interment that became quite popular during MM I was the pithos and larnax buried in the ground. Pithoi and larnakes have been found in a wide variety of burial contexts: outside and inside tholoi, rectangular tombs, and rock shelters. But there is a new category of cemetery composed of pithoi and larnakes simply buried in the ground without any associated architecture (Fig. 59). Such cemeteries have been reported in many places in Central Crete, such as Aphendis Kaminaki (159; Iliopoulos 1996), Aphrati (161; Alexiou 1963c, 313), Aitania (157; Rethemiotakis 1998a), Anopolis (158; Hazzidakis 1918, 68), Arkalies (188; Platon 1956, 417), and Meliskipos (269; Watrous 1982, 64, no. 70). These could be the remains of pithos cemeteries similar to those at Pacheia Ammos (385) and Gournia Sphoungaras (339) in the Mirabello area (see next chapter). The best examples of possible pithos cemeteries come from Hagios Myronas (206), outside the Trapeza Cave (313), and Malia Ilôt du Christ (268). At Hagios Myronas (206), remains of pithoi and larnakes were reported together with EM III and MM I material (Alexiou 1967a, 486; Orlandou 1969, 192– 193). The only architectural feature found in the cemetery is a wall that was probably built to delimit the area (Lempesi 1977), a feature that has parallels at the pithos cemeteries in the Mirabello

area. At Trapeza (312, 313), pithoi dated to MM I were found inside the cave and also buried outside the entrance to the cave in an area that resembles pithoi cemeteries (Fig. 41; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 87–93; 1940, 3, 15, 23; Watrous 1982, 42, no. 11). At Malia Ilôt du Christ (268), what seems to have been a pithos cemetery was found, from which only five pithoi were published (Rédaction 1925, 473–474; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 103–113; Olivier, Treuil, and Vandenabeele 1970; Becker 1975b). The scant evidence published from the site defines well the characteristics of pithos cemeteries found around the island: the deceased were normally buried with little material, normally ceramic vessels, and on many occasions the pithoi were placed upsidedown (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 107–110). Although this cemetery is associated with Malia, it is possible that it did not form part of the burial record of that site and is distant enough to constitute the cemetery of another community. The appearance of this last cemetery coincided with the expansion of the Malia cemetery (245–267) during MM I (Fig. 55). This expansion materialized at Malia in an unplanned way that resulted in very different types of tombs, many of them small, scattered around a large area. Interments were still made in rock fissures and four different charniers have been documented (245– 248), but there were probably more in use (Demargne 1945, 1–24; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 60–62; Olivier and McGeorge 1977b). Similar to these tombs were the pit tombs (256–260), which are a type peculiar to Malia. These are pits in the ground that were delimited by a low wall around them. The wall corresponds to the shape of the pit, resulting in tombs of a triangular or round plan, the latter type represented by a tomb called La Tholos (260), although it shared no similarities with a tholos tomb apart from its round plan (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 72–82). These tombs occurred on the west side of the cemetery together with other deposits that did not contain human remains, but which may be linked to funerary use, such as the Terrases Occidentales (261) and the Fosses aux Trompettes (262; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 77–85). At the Terrases Occidentales (261), the deposit of material was found together with remains of walls and

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

it has been suggested that these were used to delimit the cemetery (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 77). The Fosse aux Trompettes (262) is a strange deposit with some peculiarly shaped vessels that gave the name to the context (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 82–85). The deposit has been dated MM IB–II and it has been suggested that it was not related to any activity of funerary character, nor were the Terrases Occidentales (261; Pelon and Stürmer 1989, 109–111; contra Picard 1948, 205–206). This suggestion, though, does not preclude the possibility that these deposits are the remains of ritual activities related to the cemetery. The east part of the cemetery is much more complex. Although the area between the seashore and Chrysolakkos is badly preserved, many burial buildings have been identified here. At least two ossuaries existed west of Chrysolakkos, called Eastern Ossuary I (249) and II (250), but the scanty information published, which comes only from the first one, indicates that it was used for primary burials (Demargne 1945, 61–62; Soles 1992b, 172). The Maison des Morts (254) was, after Chrysolakkos (263, 264), the largest and most elaborate building in the cemetery (Fig. 58B; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 85–102; Soles 1992b, 173–176). It consisted of nine rooms and in LM III times it was employed again for burial purposes with the construction of cists and the reuse of some of the pithoi. The building was constructed during MM I times (see, e.g., MM I pithos and pyxis no. 8526 in van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 97). The deposition of pithoi, placed upside down, which matches the description of other pithos burials, suggests a burial use for the building in this period. This does not refute the suggestion that the building was originally intended for other purposes, although an original domestic use seems unlikely (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 100–101; Treuil 2005, 218). The latter hypothesis is based on the fact that the plan of the building does not resemble a typical rectangular tomb. Also, three of its rooms were stuccoed, which finds parallels in known habitations of the period (e.g., the Red House at Vasiliki; Zois 1976), and the complex consists of two different buildings, Rooms I to III and IV to IX, which again resemble agglomerative domestic architecture (Fig. 58B). All these features are not uncommon in cult architecture in

79

MM cemeteries, however, and all of them can be found at the South Camerette at Hagia Triada (34). Indeed, this represents the best parallel for the Maison des Morts complex (254). It seems more probable that this building was initially intended for cult and ritual activities connected with the cemetery and was later reused for burials, which is a change also documented at other cemeteries. North of the Maison des Morts (254), another rectangular building, the Western Ossuary (251), was located near the seashore. A deposit immediately outside it was designated the Deposit Bord de Mer (253; Rédaction 1921, 535–538; 1928, 502; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 62–72; Olivier and McGeorge 1977a). The Western Ossuary (251) has already been described and little else can be added, as only five ceramic vessels were published. Child burials were reported outside the building, but it is not clear whether they were part of this deposit (253), which contained a large quantity of fragmentary ceramic vessels, from which only a small number were published, together with 15 stone vessels. It is reported that many of the ceramic vessels imitate stone vessels and some ceramics are of very fine quality (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 63). This material most probably comes from the cleaning of burial contexts (van Effenterre 1980, 238–239), although Soles suggests that the vases were primarily deposited at this location and subsequently broken by the action of the sea (Soles 1992b, 173). Tombs were also found in the eastern part of the cemetery area, on the little island of Hagia Varvara (265, 266). Here human remains were located on the coast opposite the island and also on the island itself (Rédaction 1921, 536; 1928, 502; Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 9–11; Müller 1992, 747). In both areas human remains were found inside cracks between the rocks, paralleling the deposition of human bones in the charniers (245–248). Chrysolakkos (263, 264) still dominated the cemetery, and its significant use in this period is attested by a large MM I deposit found outside the north side of the building (Demargne 1945, 66–69; Poursat 1993), which has always been thought to indicate a cleaning episode prior to the construction of Chrysolakkos II (264; Demargne 1945, 60– 61; contra Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011). Unfortunately, little can be added concerning the

80

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

MM I period that has not been discussed above, in the section dealing with the EM III period. The present knowledge of the Malia cemetery (245–267), although comprehensive, must not be considered complete, as a recent survey in the area identified previously unknown walls in the cemetery area (Müller 1991, 1992), indicating still unknown contexts. Nevertheless, the information has been sufficient for several authors to put forward different models that explain the idiosyncratic nature of the cemetery. Demargne was the first to suggest a difference in wealth between the interments in the charniers (245–248) and those in the building of Chrysolakkos (262, 263), and he argued that the former were the tombs of poor people while Chrysolakkos was a prince’s tomb (Demargne 1945, viii, 2). This division of the tombs between poor and rich was followed by van Effenterre’s examination of different materials, such as fine ceramics, to identify the status of the interred in each tomb (van Effenterre 1980, 238–239, 246–250). Apart from the fact that this simplistic model encounters many theoretical problems, it is actually difficult to discern such a distinction based on the material assemblages of the tombs (Figs. 62A–62C). A clear example comes from the Western Ossuary (251) and the Deposit Bord de Mer (253), where fine ceramics and a large number of stone vessels were found in two contexts that, according to the number of bones and architectural features, should be grouped together with the charniers (245–248) as places for “poor” individuals. Material from Chrysolakkos (263, 264) cannot be dated specifically to the first or second building, hampering any possible comparison, and the presence of a large building in MM I in this location does not necessarily signify a royal tomb. Although the idea that Chrysolakkos I (263) was used for the interment of individuals of a privileged status cannot be rejected, a simple scenario in which Chrysolakkos represents a “rich” tomb as opposed to the other “poor” tombs in the area ignores the evidence for public cult and ritual spaces that signals a much more complex role for this structure (see below). These debates also move the focus of the analyses away from some of the most interesting features at EM III–MM I Malia. An explanation is required with regard to the explosion in the size of

the cemetery in EM III–MM I, which occurred in a period when the first evidence of a central “palatial” building appeared in the settlement (van Effenterre 1980, 33–41; Pelon 1983, 700; Poursat 1988, 71–74; contra Driessen 2007), and to its heterogeneous character with a variety of interment types appearing at varied locations. While the location of the tombs in a common but extensive area may have parallels at other sites, such as Gournia (324– 332; see Ch. 6), the degree of heterogeneity in the Malia tombs is unique. The rectangular tomb type that was popular in other cemeteries during this period is absent at Malia, and neither the Maison des Morts (254) nor Chrysolakkos (263, 264) can be compared with these rectangular tombs. Also the expansion of the cemetery during EM III–MM IA times and its reorganization in MM IB, with the reconstruction of Chrysolakkos (264) and the abandonment of some of the tombs, is quite unique. Such reconstruction may be related to the modification of the first central “palatial” building in the settlement during MM IB (Poursat 1988, 71–74). The Archanes Phourni cemetery (162–187) paralleled Malia in its MM I expansion, but differed from it in the materialization of this expansion. Here a tightly clustered cemetery with a number of similar rectangular tombs developed in a short period of time, mainly in MM IA (Fig. 53). During the MM IA period, Archanes Phourni experienced a frenetic construction phase that in some cases led to the building of a MM IA structure over slightly earlier MM IA building, as in the case of the Annex of Tholos B (163) over BB 7 (171). Older tombs were cleared out and reused in MM IA, such as Tholos Epsilon (166; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 7–8). In addition, it was probably during this period that the most monumental complex in the cemetery, Tholos B (162) and its annex (163), was built (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 169). This sudden transformation is recognizable not only in the construction sequence, but also in the new ceramic depositional pattern that included large MM I ceramic deposits both inside and outside the tombs (Fig. 53; Lahanas 1993; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 203–205, 262, 403–404). The MM IA cemetery at Archanes Phourni basically involved two types of tomb: the tholos type (165, 166), where all the interments were

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

deposited in a single room, sometimes inside larnakes and pithoi (Panagiotopoulos 2002; Papadatos 2005); and the rectangular tomb type, which normally consisted of a varied number of rooms, in many cases expanded agglutinatively, such as BB 3 (167) and BB 6 (169; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 194, 202). In most cases these also contained burials in larnakes and pithoi (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 466, 473– 474). Burial Building 19 (181) is an example that sits between the two types, having a single large room where larnakes and pithoi were found, but an oddly square plan and roofing solution (Maggidis 1994, 9). Architecturally, the cemetery did not present large differences between buildings in size and quality of construction apart from the obvious tholos–rectangular tomb contrast. Tholos B (162) and its annex (163) are the exception to this in that they constitute a larger building, more monumental in construction and quite central. Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess this complex as it has not yet been published in detail and it was heavily disturbed in LM III. Although the underlying BB 7 (171) provides a MM IA terminus post quem (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1997, 206), and the stratified MM IA–II deposit outside BB 6 (170) a terminus ante quem (Lahanas 1993) for the building of the annex (163), the tholos (162) construction is more difficult to date (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 169). It may have been built in MM IA times, but an earlier construction date cannot be rejected. In any case, it seems clear that Tholos B (162) and its annex (163) were the focus of the cemetery in MM I. The annex was not only a burial place but also probably a cult and ritual space; some of the features of the building, such as the pillar room or the stairs leading to a second floor (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 173–179), suggest a complex range of activities in this building. Apart from the fact that larnakes and pithoi were widely used in MM I in the cemetery, little more is known about the interments in the tombs (see the discussion in Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 246–251). In many cases burials were placed on the surface of the ground, as in the south rooms of BB 3 (167; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 198), sometimes near

81

larnakes and pithoi (Maggidis 1994, 66–67; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 111–112; Papadatos 2005, 57). It seems clear that the burial process was complex and involved various stages of manipulation of human remains and material (Maggidis 1994, 69–75; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 111–114; Papadatos 2005, 57–61). The proliferation of spaces with varied characteristics marked new relationships between people, spaces, and activities. The changes seem oriented toward a more complex set of ritual activities and social gatherings. The paved areas, such as those outside Tholos B (170), were suited for the gathering of groups and the large deposits of ceramics associated with them point to communal consumption activities (Lahanas 1993). Rooms inside the buildings may also have served ritual purposes, but the later reuse of most of them for burials renders any attempt at analyzing such nonburial use difficult prior to a detailed publication of these contexts. The best evidence for such indoor ritual areas comes from the Annex to Tholos B (163), where various spaces have been identified as ritual areas not intended for burial, in particular the pillar crypt. A large part of the carefully excavated material at Archanes Phourni has yet to be published in detail, and this hinders a comprehensive analysis of the material assemblage of the cemetery. The exceptions to this are Tholos Epsilon (166), Tholos Gamma (165), BB 19 (181), and the deposit outside BB 6 (170), which have been published recently and allow a comparison of the EM III–MM I assemblages from these three contexts (Lahanas 1993; Maggidis 1994; Panagiotopoulos 2002; Papadatos 2005). Information from assemblages in other areas can be added to this comparison, always bearing in mind that the reported data from these contexts does not encompass the entire material assemblage recovered and that a very detailed chronology for most of these contexts is not yet available (Figs. 56A–56C). There are major differences in ceramic depositional patterns between contexts (Figs. 56A, 56C) and although the figures may be biased to some extent by the different publication of contexts, it seems clear that the nonburial contexts, such as outside BB 6 (170), contained abnormally large deposits of ceramics (Fig. 56A). This fact reflects a different set of activities for this building from

82

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

those that determined the deposition of material in the tombs. With respect to the specific ceramic assemblages, interesting evidence comes from BB 19 (181) and outside BB 6 (170). In BB 19 (181), Maggidis has pointed out that there was a change in the number of vessels and in the shapes deposited in the tomb from MM IA to MM IB–II. In MM IB more vessels were deposited when the number of interments diminishes, and the vessels tend to be of a larger size (Table 7; Fig. 56C; see Maggidis 1994, 78, 147). Detailed data are also found in the area outside BB 6 (170; Lahanas 1993). This is not a funerary context, but a large secondary deposit probably coming from ritual activities around Tholos B (162). The number of ceramic vessels is much larger than in any other published context from the cemetery (Fig. 56A). Most of the ceramics come from the MM IA (494 vessels) and MM IB (320 vessels) periods and this represents an opposite trend to that identified in BB 19 (181), as the number of vessels diminishes from the MM IA period onward. What is similar between the two contexts, even if the pattern is not so clear in the deposit outside BB 6 (170), is that the number of drinking vessels, such as cups and goblets, is proportionally smaller in the MM II period. Although the two contexts have a different character, changes in the ceramic assemblage from the MM IB to the MM II periods in both deposits may be connected, marking a wider change in mortuary ritual and consumption patterns in the cemetery during the MM IB and MM II periods. With respect to the nonceramic assemblage, a quite homogeneous picture emerges. Very similar categories and quantities of objects appear in the record of the different tombs (Fig. 56D). These are mainly seals with a small number of metal objects and a few stone vessels. A significant difference appears only between nonburial and burial contexts. Outside BB 6 (170), and in between BB 8 and BB 9 (173), only a few nonceramic objects have been found compared with what has been recovered in burial strata. Although it is always possible that nonceramic objects were recycled when the tombs were cleaned, while the ceramic objects were just thrown away, it is more probable that the ceramic vessels in these exterior deposits derive from cult or ritual activities and therefore

consisted of different shapes than those deposited with the deceased, as in the case of Hagia Triada (29–35; Ch. 4). These regularities in the use of tombs (Fig. 56D) are modified to a degree if the individual history of each context is taken into consideration, with BB 7 (171) and perhaps Tholos B Annex (163) appearing somewhat anomalous. Burial Building 7 (171) is a building underneath the later Tholos B Annex (163) that was built and destroyed within the MM IA period and was in use for a much shorter period of time than the remainder of the tombs. As many nonceramic items have come from this briefly used context as have come from tombs with a longer history (Fig. 56D), however, including some rare objects such as a scarab or various pieces of gold (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 207–208; Phillips 2008b, 34–35) that have no other parallels in the cemetery. Tholos B Annex (163) may also have had a distinctive assemblage, but this is more debatable as this context was heavily disturbed in later periods. The silver pin with a Linear A inscription and the gold signet ring found in the Pillar Room of the Annex probably date to MM II–III (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 177, 333, 651). Some authors have tried to identify the different status of some individuals within the context of each tomb based on depositional patterns. Maggidis has argued that in BB 19 (181) some of the material can be associated with particular human remains, and therefore provides information concerning the status of those individuals (Maggidis 1994, 83–84; 1998, 87–95). In addition, he suggested that the location of interments in relation to important features inside the tomb, such as a stone that has been tentatively identified as an altar, emphasizes the special status of some individuals within the group interred in the tomb. Karytinos has approached the same contexts and questions from the analysis of the sealstones in the tombs (Karytinos 1998) and reached similar conclusions to those of Maggidis in respect to BB 19 (181), where the number of sealstones found and the number of burials support the suggestion that seals may have been deposited with heads of families (Karytinos 1998, 83–84). Some of the arguments of these two authors are open to debate, but their main conclusions are quite reasonable, if unsurprising. Within any type of kinship

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

group there will always be differences in status, duties, responsibilities, and rights. These will be determined by differences in age, gender, and other social categories that define each individual and these were marked in different ways in the interment of the deceased. Until now it has been very hard to identify these differences given the difficulty of associating individual artifacts and treatment with individual skeletons, but the detailed excavation of Archanes Phourni is beginning to allow such insight into individual identity. Indeed, if this new evidence is not seen from the “obligatory” point of view of vertical differentiation, it sheds some light on the particularities of the social organization of the Archanes Phourni community. For example, Karytinos’s suggestion that in the MM I period sealstones became a main method of marking the head of a family implies the growing importance of control and administration of material goods for the Archanes Phourni community. Maggidis has also suggested that different types of evidence from the cemetery support the idea that Archanes was a stratified community and that Tholos B (162) was used by a royal lineage (Maggidis 1998, 99). It has already been pointed out that possible differences exist in the quality and variety of artifacts found in the MM I tombs at Archanes Phourni, and in the architectural dominance of Tholos B (162) and its annex (163). Caution must be applied, though, as the evidence derives from very different, heavily disturbed contexts that do

83

not offer a straightforward comparison with the rest of the tombs at Archanes Phourni. On this basis, this study disagrees with many of the criteria that Maggidis identifies for interpreting the Archanes burials as reflecting a stratified community. In the majority of tombs, differences in architectural complexity and construction are negligible. The variety of tombs, plans, and sizes does not necessarily document a local social pyramid, but instead different functions for the buildings and different histories of use. The difficulties of linking the appearance of burial containers (pithoi and larnakes) with processes of individualization have already been considered, and the lack of a significant pattern in the use of pithoi and larnakes is particularly clear at Archanes Phourni, where burial containers are found in most of the contexts alongside simple burials placed on the ground. Although it is possible that by the MM I period Archanes was a ranked or stratified community, it is difficult from the current evidence to identify processes of vertical differentiation in the mortuary record of the cemetery (Panagiotopoulos 2002, 129–132). Although Tholos B (162) could represent the tomb of individuals of privileged status, as the distinctive material assemblage may indicate, this complex is better defined by its monumental architecture and complex use of space, which seems related to complex group rituals. Tholos B (162) seems to have had a strong focal public character.

Middle Minoan II and Beyond Two different dynamics appear to be at work in the MM II cemeteries of Central Crete (Fig. 63). The first is a process similar to that recognized in other parts of the island, in which cemeteries in use in earlier periods were gradually abandoned during the MM II period. The second is a dynamic recognized in the area of Knossos that is defined by the appearance of new cemeteries in MM II that were extensively used during the MM III and LM periods. The majority of cemeteries in Central Crete can be included in the first category. Cemeteries such as Hagios Myronas (206; Alexiou 1967a, 486) and Gournes A (201, 202; Zois 1969, 23–24;

MacGillivray 1998, 99) were abandoned during the MM II period. Most caves were probably now used as cult and ritual rather than burial places, as is attested in the Eileithyia (194; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000, 232–233) and Trapeza Caves (312; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 23). An interesting case is provided by the cave of Hagios Charalambos (205) in Lasithi. This burial cave, which contained funerary material from the Neolithic period onward, experienced a major reorganization during MM IIB just before the cave was sealed, perhaps with a celebration that marked the end of its use as a burial site (Betancourt et al.

84

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

2008a, 2008b). This could indicate that at Hagios Charalambos there was a conscious termination of the old mortuary customs in MM IIB. This site may document the cessation of the use of cemeteries in MM II as a conscious choice on the part of the communities rather than a gradual abandonment, and may be a good indication of the general feeling about old cemeteries during this period. At Archanes Phourni, a decline in the use of the cemetery can also be identified. Middle Minoan II material is reported only from Tholos B (162), Tholos Gamma (165), BB 9 (174; the probable annex of Tholos Gamma), Tholos Epsilon (166), BB 18 (179), BB 19 (181), and in the large ceramic deposit outside BB 6 (170; Figs. 53, 56B; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 171, 177, 411; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 55–57; Papadatos 2005, 49–50). Middle Minoan II deposits probably constitute a minor element when compared to the extent of the MM I material, as seen in the best-known assemblages of BB 19 (181), outside BB 6 (170), and Tholos Epsilon (166), which indicate a clear decline in the deposition of items in these contexts (Fig. 56B). Some of the tombs were abandoned as early as MM IIA, such as BB 19 (181; Maggidis 1994, 63), and by MM III the use of the entire cemetery ceased, although it experienced a phase of reuse in the LM I and LM III periods (Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997). The only discordant pieces of evidence in this scenario are the silver pin with Linear A inscription and the gold seal ring found in the Tholos B complex (163; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 332–333, 651–653), but without clear archaeological contexts it is difficult to interpret such a small quantity of material and accurately date it to the MM II period. The large Pre- and Protopalatial cemetery at Malia likely suffered a decline during the MM II period. Middle Minoan II evidence at Malia has been found in only a few contexts, and in most of these cases the material was found in small quantities. Only at the Fosse aux Trompettes (262) did MM II material dominate assemblage (Pelon and Stürmer 1989). The Ilôt du Christ (268) was also in use during the MM II period, but it was abandoned at the end of this period (van Effenterre 1980, 240; Poursat 1988, 73). This view of the Malia cemeteries is counterbalanced by the construction of a completely new building at Chrysolakkos (264), probably

in MM IB times, which appears to have been in full use during MM II (Shaw 1973; Pierpoint 1987; Soles 1992b, 170–171; Poursat 1993; Stürmer 1993; Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011). The building was modified again in MM III to become what Soles has called Chrysolakkos III, but it is believed that this last building did not have a funerary use (Shaw 1973; Soles 1992b, 171). The new building, Chrysolakkos II (264; Fig. 58A; Soles 1992b, 166–171), was characterized by its large size and its careful and monumental construction (Demargne 1932, 1945; Shaw 1973; Pierpoint 1987; Treuil 2005). It was founded on a course of massive, carefully worked orthostats, on top of which a wood and mudbrick structure was probably constructed (Shaw 1973, 329), which may or may not have supported a roof (Shaw 1973, 329; Soles 1992b, 170). Inside the large square formed by these walls, the space was subdivided by a series of perpendicular walls that created different rectangular rooms. These rooms had different features: some of them did not have an entrance at ground level, and in two rooms kernoi were discovered. This has led to a suggestion that some of these rooms were not intended for burial but for cult activities (Demargne 1945, 33–38). All these features identify Chrysolakkos II (264) as a very important building that was carefully built not only for burial purposes, but also as a center for ritual and cult activities during the MM IB–II periods. The importance of the building is reinforced by the material found inside, which included stone vessels, ivory (Figs. 62A, 62B; Demargne 1945, 50–59), and some gold objects (the name Chrysolakkos, “gold pit,” suggests that this building was looted of gold items long before excavation), among them the famous wasp pendant (Demargne 1930; Bloedow and Björk 1989). None of these items had a clear archaeological context and so cannot be securely dated to Chrysolakkos II (264; Demargne 1945, 53–57). Chrysolakkos II, therefore, represents an opposite development to the general trend at the Malia cemetery and may indicate that the cemetery was still an important place for this community. The peculiar history of the Malia cemetery did not develop much further, however, and the cemetery was abandoned in MM III in accord with the common pattern of abandonment of Protopalatial cemeteries. Malia represents a variation of the first dynamic,

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

that is, abandonment, rather than a case for the second dynamic, the appearance of a new cemetery. At Sissi, use of the cemetery during MM II is attested by a pithos in Space 1.2, and several vases in Space 1.1 (291) and Spaces 1.7/1.8 (295). Given that Space 1.1 (291) is an addition to an extant MM I tomb, it is possible that this room was constructed during the MM II period. There is no evidence for use of the cemetery after MM IIB. It is unclear how significant the MM II material is in relation to that of earlier periods, and therefore use of the Sissi cemetery cannot be determined during the MM I and MM II periods. In antithesis to the declining dynamic, a few new burial sites were constructed during the MM II period and continued in uninterrupted use during the MM III and LM periods. These sites displayed totally new funerary practices that matured during the LM period, and they have few connections with the mortuary behavior of the Pre- and Protopalatial periods studied here. Although they are included in this work for chronological reasons, they may be better understood in relation to the mortuary behavior of later periods. Apart from a couple of probable pithos cemeteries at Aitania (Rethemiotakis 2004a) (157) and Anopolis (158; Hazzidakis 1918, 58–60), which are believed to have had their main use in MM III–LM I times, this trend is mainly observed around Knossos. New cemeteries were created around Knossos in MM II that were to continue in use during the different LM periods. Included among these are the two tombs with MM II material found at Poros (278, 279), a coastal community in the area, which was probably under the direct influence of Knossos and which followed its development in mortuary behavior (Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 1987; Dimopoulou 1999). Of these new cemeteries at Knossos, only tombs that do contain MM II material, or are believed to have contained MM II material, have been included in this study, but it is possible that many other tombs in these cemeteries were constructed in MM II and the relevant evidence destroyed by later

85

use. New MM II cemeteries at Knossos were established at Ailias (211–219), Mavrospilio (228–233), and Gypsades (220–226). Hutchinson Tomb (227) on the Acropolis area and Sites 148 (236) and 295 (237) could indicate other cemeteries in use in MM II (Fig. 51; Forsdyke 1927; Hood and Smyth 1981; Alberti 2001, 2006; Preston 2007; T. Whitelaw, pers. comm.). The city was suddenly surrounded to the west, south, east, and north by cemeteries. It is difficult to assess these new tombs as very little material corresponding to their MM II use has been preserved, but their distribution pattern and architectural features contain traits very different from the mortuary behavior identified in MM I in the area and in MM II in other Cretan cemeteries. At Knossos, significant numbers of tombs were constructed at each location, producing a very specific cemetery pattern with no parallels in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete (Figs. 51, 64, 65, 66). The types of tomb were also new, consisting of modified rock shelters and large chamber tombs carved into the rock with innovative layouts (Figs. 64–66; Forsdyke 1927; Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 221– 222; Alberti 2001). The only exception is the tholos found at Lower Gypsades (220) and its probable annex (221; Hood and Boardman 1956, 33–34; Hood 1958a, 22–23; 1960b, 169; Hood, Huxley and Sandars 1959, 220–224; Alberti 2001, 171–172). In the absence of further publication, however, it is impossible to understand the significance of this tomb and it remains an unexplained exception to the general mortuary behavior of the period at Knossos and in Crete. It may simply have constituted the last vestiges of the Pre- and Protopalatial mortuary behavior. To summarize, the MM II mortuary record in Central Crete shows features similar to those of other areas of the island, with the progressive termination of the long cycle of mortuary behavior that started in Prepalatial times. It also shows that this dynamic occurred in somewhat different ways at different sites, in particular at the palatial centers with the late developments at Chrysolakkos (263, 264) and the Tholos B complex (162).

86

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Conclusions Early Minoan I–IIA There is clear continuity between the EM I and EM IIA mortuary record in Central Crete, as most of the cemeteries with EM I material were also in use during the EM IIA period. Archanes Phourni Tholos Epsilon (166) and Tholos Gamma (165) are exceptions, perhaps as new settlements were founded in the area (Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 377–379). The EM IIB period seems to mark a break in the mortuary record, and even though issues of ceramic recognition may affect the understanding of this period, it seems clear that most of the cemeteries used in EM IIA were abandoned or suffered a gap in their histories during EM IIB (see below). With respect to EM I–IIA mortuary behavior, no major differences between the periods have been detected. The tombs and cemeteries had similar architectural features and interment characteristics. The few closed EM I contexts that have been analyzed, such as Partira (274), or contexts with mainly EM I material, such as the Pyrgos Cave (282), contained comparable material assemblages to the EM IIA strata in both tholoi at Archanes Phourni (165, 166; Figs. 47A–47D), and they show similar characteristics to EM IIA mortuary behavior. Caves and rock shelters are the main tomb types found. It is probable that some of the small caves and shelters, such as Partira (274) and Kyparisi A (243), did not constitute the only place of interment for a community. At Pyrgos (282, 283) and Eileithyia (194, 195), the rock shelters near the caves suggest a similar scenario even for these larger caves. In the Lasithi Plain, the caves seem to have housed a larger number of interments and the examples of Trapeza (312) and Hagios Charalambos (205) may have been the focal place of interment for the community in each area. In the well-explored area around Trapeza, no EM I–II burials have been discovered in other caves or rock shelters (Skaphidia [306] was most probably a FN burial site; see Fig. 41; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 4–5; Watrous 1982, 42). This may be considered a pattern peculiar to the Lasithi region, as there seem to be some local aspects to the use of caves as tombs, such as the continuous use of these contexts for burials into the Protopalatial period.

During the EM I–IIA periods, the tholos at Krasi A (238) probably housed a whole community and represented a relationship between tomb and cemetery different from that of the cave sites. To this must be added the cemetery at Gournes B (202), with its 36 known tombs, which represents a very different relationship between the number of interments and a tomb (see discussion of the Hagia Photia Siteias A [412–415] in Ch. 7). Apart from the uncertain case of the larger caves, it seems reasonable to assume that different types of tombs and different types of cemeteries illustrate the different ways in which EM I–IIA Central Cretan communities considered the relationship between social units and tombs, and they could indicate variation in social organization between communities in North-Central and Central Crete. Although there are significant differences in terms of interment units and architecture between cemeteries, material assemblages illustrate a rather homogeneous pattern among the different cemeteries, with the probable exception of Gournes B (203), which could be expected to contain large quantities of Cycladic material given its other similarities with the Hagia Photia Siteias A cemetery (412–415; Davaras and Betancourt 2004; Galanaki 2006; Betancourt 2008). The deposition of material in EM I–IIA can generally be described as rich and varied, since many objects were deposited in the burials, including significant quantities of ceramic vessels, a variety of metal objects, a few ivory objects, and figurines (Figs. 47A, 47C, 52). Such homogeneity demonstrates that the deposition of material was regulated by similar conventions common to the different cemeteries, irrespective of their type. These shared ritual regulations can also be traced in the deposition of ceramic vessels. As has been noted, there is a correlation between types of wares and vessel shapes in different burial contexts that suggests a widely sanctioned pattern of deposition (Fig. 47A). Such associations appear to be exclusive to funerary contexts (Wilson and Day 2000), which suggests that each ware had a particular use, probably connected to different aspects of the funerary ritual. Although the haziness of the evidence does not permit us to follow this pattern into the EM IIA period, the disappearance

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

of typical DGB large chalices suggests that such a distinction between wares may have lost significance after the EM I period. The nonceramic assemblage in the different cemeteries has a definite Cycladic element, mostly identified in the use of imported raw materials such as metals and ivory that arrived on the island most probably through the Cyclades (Krzyszkowska 1983; Stos-Gale 1998; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003). There is also a second type of influence marked by objects with Cycladic cultural links, such as the folded-arm figurines and the Cycladic-inspired ceramic bottles found at Pyrgos (282) and Kyparisi A (243). This type of material represents a less frequent feature and its distribution is more restricted (Fig. 52). Both types of material with Cycladic links, raw material or finished form, have been found in significant quantities in most funerary EM I–IIA contexts near the north coast, such as Knossos Teke (234) and Pyrgos (282), and also at inland sites, such as Kyparisi A (243), although here the quantity seems somewhat smaller. Particularly interesting is the case of Archanes Phourni: while Tholos Epsilon (166) followed the pattern of interior sites with a small number of imported objects and raw materials, Tholos Gamma (165) contained the largest number of imported objects in the entire region (Figs. 47B, 52). The concentration of objects in Tholos Gamma (165) is abnormal and should be explained by a particular dynamic within this site. The assemblage differences between the two tholoi at EM IIA Archanes Phourni indicate that there was some kind of competition between the groups interred (Papadatos 2007b). The fact that objects manufactured in imported materials and Cycladic-style figurines mark the difference between the tholoi tombs at Archanes Phourni shows that these were socially valuable items in EM I–II, and therefore a good medium for communicating a message. But also, as exotica, they were categories of objects that were suitable for hoarding and controlling, and therefore able to be used in the dynamics of social negotiation. Beyond these basic notions, it is impossible to assess the specific way in which the hoarding of this material marked social differences at Archanes Phourni. Was it displayed just for funerary purposes or were objects acquired throughout a lifetime (Papadatos 2007b) and then deposited together

87

with their owner in the tomb? What social category of individuals could hoard it? We can suggest that the interment of an individual with valuable grave goods in the tholos would mainly benefit the burying group attached to that particular tholos rather than the interred individual, and EM IIA Archanes Phourni cemetery should be understood as the negotiation of an asymmetric relationship between two groups within the community. For other contexts in North-Central Crete, as at the cemeteries of Pyrgos (282), Knossos Teke (234), Krasi A (238), and Trapeza (312), competition between social groups within a community does not readily explain the significant deposition of off-island materials in the tombs. Here we have found no multiple tombs of roughly equal size that may indicate similar burial groups. A degree of variation in the characteristics of mortuary behavior in the wide range of sites in Central Crete should be considered normal. The differential deposition of off-island material at each cemetery could be explained by the individual history of each site to some degree; for example, its particular geographical situation in relation to trade routes. Yet this should not be considered the only reason for the deposits at Pyrgos (282), Knossos Teke (234), Krasi A (238), and Trapeza (312). Incipient vertical dynamics are likely to have existed in most Cretan communities, and in Central Crete these are easier to identify due to the use of metal and stone items with off-island links. It is possible that these types of items were used in a dynamic way to emphasize particular forms of social status and to gain social ascendancy. These dynamics do not seem to have had a profound effect on the horizontal organization of these communities, however, and the most characteristic feature of Archanes Phourni, that is, the clear difference in material assemblage between two otherwise similar tombs, does not exist at these cemeteries. Early Minoan I– IIA North-Central and Central Crete should not be viewed in starkly dualistic terms as stratified versus nonstratified, as a wide range of social situations may have existed in between. In general, vertical differentiation dynamics do not seem to have affected intercommunity relationships. The internal differentiation dynamic and the strategy of hoarding off-island material at Archanes Phourni could, to some extent, have changed

88

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

the position of this community in the intercommunity networks. When looking at the regional scenario for EM IIA, however, this does not seem to have constituted a major change in intercommunity relationships. Even when settlement patterns are needed to investigate regional integration of communities, the fact that the cemetery of Archanes Phourni differs little from other tholos cemeteries in terms of architecture and monumentality suggests that Archanes did not need a hegemonic position in the landscape to develop its internal dynamics. The different organization of Archanes Phourni probably had little impact on other communities or on supracommunity relationships. Detailed knowledge of some cemeteries indicates that a gap occurred in the occupation of most of them just after the EM IIA period. The best settlement evidence comes from Knossos, where EM IIB material is found in several contexts showing no gap in the habitation of the site (Momigliano and Wilson 1996; Wilson and Day 1999; Whitelaw 2001). Also Malia does not demonstrate a gap in occupation during the EM IIB period (Whitelaw 2004a; Driessen 2007). Unfortunately, there are no published intensive surveys in Central Crete to provide a wider picture of the settlement pattern (the recently published Pediada Survey is not of the intensive type and lacks chronological definition; Panagiotakis 2006). Knossos and Malia may not represent typical sites and may not follow more general settlement trends that may be reflected in the mortuary record. It is possible that a gap in cemetery use may be caused by abandonments of settlements or a period of strife that made the regular use of cemeteries difficult. The alternative is that the gap in the funerary record has to do with a change in mortuary behavior during the period. Cemeteries may have fallen out of use and other types of burial might have been used that left little archaeological signature (such as exposure). This last possibility would raise the question of why in EM III the old cemeteries were used again. Finally, we must take into consideration that these changes seem to predate the ones suggested for EM IIB–III South-Central Crete. In NorthCentral Crete, this uncertain period did not seem to have continued into the EM III period, which would imply that changes in this region occurred earlier than in other parts of the island, a

characteristic that may give us some insight into the nature of the disturbances.

Early Minoan III–Middle Minoan I By EM III the mortuary record was already changing and this was to continue in MM IA times. New cemeteries and new tombs appeared all over the region and the cemeteries of Archanes Phourni (162–187) and Malia (245–267) grew to a significantly larger-than-average size. This new building activity shows many differences from earlier cemeteries. Most of the new tombs were of the rectangular type and even the new EM III rock shelter at Kyparisi B (244) showed a layout characteristic of a rectangular tomb rather than that of a rock shelter. All the tholos cemeteries known in the area seem to have been in use during EM III–MM IA, whereas, by contrast, only a few caves and rock shelters remained in use. With regard to Archanes Phourni (162–187), it has been suggested that the rectangular tombs were not all constructed as ossuaries for the cleaning of tholoi, but several represented new tombs. Also new isolated rectangular tombs in MM I, such as Bairia Gazi (193), indicate that rectangular tombs had an identity of their own and were not simply ossuaries housing redeposited material. The rectangular buildings, seen as ossuaries or as tombs, represent a new layout of the Archanes Phourni cemetery (162–187) that was now segmented into multiple spaces, suggesting change in cemetery use. Such a change in the mortuary behavior is further demonstrated by the first appearance of burial pithoi and larnakes. The use of funerary containers altered the way interment was conceptualized and introduced new ways of using the cemetery. Cemeteries now seem to have been divided into smaller tombs and spaces, as at Malia, which may indicate that smaller social units used each tomb than in EM I–IIA. They contained more spaces for ritual activities, as at the Ieros Lakkos at Gournes A (202), although this evidence is less clear than in the case of the Mesara, and it is to be found mainly in the large cemeteries of Archanes Phourni (162– 187) and Malia (245–267). Overall, it seems safe to suggest that the innovations in tomb size, cemetery layout, and cemetery architecture relate to changes

NORTH-CENTRAL AND CENTRAL CRETE

in the way the communities used the cemetery and ultimately to changes in their social organization. Changes in the material deposited in tombs were also apparent by the EM III period. It is difficult to be precise about whether more or fewer ceramic vessels were deposited in the tombs than in previous periods, but a new pattern of deposition is evident from the appearance of large ceramic deposits, normally not inside the tombs but associated with them, such as outside BB 6 in Archanes Phourni (170), the Deposit Bord de Mer (253) at Malia, or Ieros Lakkos (202) at Gournes A. These changes from the EM IIA depositional patterns can also be observed in the ceramic vessels deposited, which were now predominantly cups and jugs (Figs. 47C, 56C, 62C). Interestingly, changes observed in Phourni BB 19 (181) during MM IB indicate that the depositional patterns associated with burials continued to develop during the Protopalatial period (Fig. 56C). Similarly, the nonceramic assemblage now exhibited new features. Although metal objects were still deposited in the tombs, other new materials, such as seals and stone vessels, became dominant in the assemblages. Also, by EM III the Cycladic influence had disappeared. While objects in imported materials such as copper, gold, or ivory were still deposited in the tombs (Figs. 56C, 67), there was a lack of visible Cycladic influence in their manufacture. It is revealing that seals were now deposited in larger numbers in the mortuary record, perhaps showing the growing social importance of administration and the control of staple goods (Blasingham 1983; Karytinos 1998; Whitelaw 2004a). All these trends are visible at Archanes Phourni (162–187) and Malia (245–267), particularly since they developed in a quantitatively different way from the rest of the cemeteries: the number of burial buildings constructed during this period at both sites was larger and the cemeteries were clearly sectioned, with the appearance of many new tombs and new ritual spaces, such as the paved areas outside BB 6 (170) and BB 12 (176) at Archanes Phourni and the cult areas at Chrysolakkos I (263). Similarly, the assemblages at these cemeteries seem larger, with large numbers of seals deposited at Archanes Phourni and several particularly substantial ceramic deposits found in both cemeteries. But there is

89

also evidence of a qualitative difference in these two cemeteries with the appearance of two central buildings, Tholos B (162) and Chrysolakkos I (263), both of which possibly contained rich material assemblages. This study would suggest that the diversity of tombs and spaces in both cemeteries indicates particular processes of social negotiation between numerous small groups within these two communities, perhaps related to unequal relationships, as the probable large size of both communities is consistent with vertical differentiation dynamics. In this framework, the two central buildings may have helped in the negotiation of a privileged social position by the most successful groups. It cannot be ignored, however, that these two buildings were surrounded by a range of cult and ritual spaces and they both represented focal places for group ritual and cult. It is difficult to assess whether this ritual was restricted only to the group that was interred in the tomb or open to the whole community. The rooms used for ritual purposes inside both complexes support the first suggestion, but the open paved areas at Archanes Phourni and the large deposits of ceramics seem to support the second. It would appear that both types of ritual, public and restricted, may have coexisted in these complexes. The two buildings could, then, address particularities in the social organization of these two settlements, housing activities that combined vertical differentiation and horizontal integration dynamics. The exact way social dynamics were played out in these contexts is not apparent from the present evidence, but they seem to have had very different characteristics from the dynamics in EM I–IIA mortuary behavior. For example, it seems that EM III–MM I mortuary behavior had a regional scope that it did not have before. The similar history of use and characteristics of the cemeteries at these two sites indicate that they could have been part of an integrated regional organization in which central sites acquired major relevance (Sbonias 1995). The growing interest in the control and administration of the subsistence economy, illustrated by the developments of seals, further supports this regional model. In this sense, the central buildings at Archanes Phourni and Malia cemeteries could signify an effort to mark the regional importance of these communities, both through lavish burials of high-status individuals and through

90

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

strong community integrative rituals. Both dynamics may have had some kind of positive feedback that rendered their joint deployment in the same social arenas logical, in this case, the central buildings at the cemetery. The MM IB period is more difficult to assess, but it seems that the building expansion phase ended or at least lost impetus. The best evidence comes again from Archanes Phourni (162–187) and Malia (245–267), where good chronological resolution shows that during MM IB most of the MM IA tombs continued in use but no new tombs were constructed (Figs. 53, 55). During the MM II period many tombs were abandoned at Archanes Phourni and Malia, and, with the exception of the Knossos area, the rest of the cemeteries began a decline, leading to their abandonment within

this period. Against this trend, the construction of Chrysolakkos II (264) and perhaps the rich deposition of material in Tholos B (162) at Archanes Phourni could mark a different development for these two larger-than-average sites, perhaps related to the persistence of the intra- and supracommunity dynamics outlined above. While from present evidence it is impossible to assess the MM II history of these two sites, the decline of small tombs in the cemeteries and the presence of lavish material in the central buildings may indicate a greater stress on vertical differentiation dynamics in these two communities, which continued to develop palatial status during this period. The evidence at Knossos belongs to a different funerary dynamic and marks the first steps toward the MM III–LM approach to death.

6

The Mirabello Bay and the Ierapetra Region

The area around the Mirabello Bay may at first appear to be a distinct and geographically welldefined region (Fig. 68), but the immediate environs of the bay must be considered in tandem with the area around the modern town of Ierapetra on the south coast of Crete, as the wide valley connecting them meant there was quick and easy acess between the two. This close association can also be argued through the Pre- and Protopalatial mortuary records of both areas. In a similar vein, two cemeteries that do not lie geographically within the Mirabello area, but rather on the stretch of coast northeast of the bay, are included here: Moch­ los (348–381) and Myrsini (382). The coastal locations of these sites near the bay connect them strongly to the Mirabello area rather than to the eastern part of the island (Fig. 68). Apart from their geographical settings, there is another factor that brings together most of the cemeteries studied in this chapter, namely their research history (for detailed accounts of the history of research in the Mirabello area, see Allsebrook 1992; Becker and Betancourt 1997; Muhly 2000).

Most of the cemeteries flanking Mirabello Bay and some near Ierapetra were discovered, studied, and published by three American archaeologists: Boyd Hawes, Hall, and Seager, during the first two decades of the 20th century (Boyd 1904, 1905; Hall 1905, 1911, 1912a, 1912b; Seager 1905, 1907, 1912, 1916; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908). These archaeologists began various lines of archaeological research in the region that are still manifest in new studies. One of these lines focuses on the study of Prepalatial cemeteries in the Mirabello area, a study that since the 1970s has been taken up by a new generation of scholars that has reviewed the earlier excavated cemeteries. This study coincides with an effort by the Greek Government to clean and reinvestigate these sites (Silverman 1974; Davaras 1975; Davis 1977, 1979; Betancourt 1983; Soles 1992b; Soles and Davaras 1992). This interest is still very much alive and many of the cemeteries in the Mirabello area continue to be under investigation today (Haggis 1993, 1996; Davaras and Soles 1997; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 2003; Soles and Davaras 2010). Research into the burial

92

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

record of the Mirabello area has been complemented by archaeological investigation of a variety of sites in the region, including the Prepalatial settlements at Vasiliki (Seager 1905, 1907; Zois 1976, 2006; Mortzos and Zois 2007), Mochlos (Soles and Davaras 1992, 1994, 1996), and Myrtos Phournou Koriphi (Warren 1972a; Whitelaw 1983; TenWolde 1992; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Kourou 2005; Cadogan 2010; Nowicki 2010; Vasilakis 2010b). In addition, recent surveys at Vrokastro (Hayden 2003a, 2003c, 2004, 2005), Gournia (Watrous et al. 2000; Watrous 2012), and Kavousi (Haggis 1992; 2005; Haggis and Mook 1993; Betancourt 2006, 193–280) have created a clear and comprehensive picture of settlement patterns in the Mirabello area. This region offers the richest evidence for Prepalatial settlement and provides the opportunity to situate burial sites within the broader human landscape. As happens in other parts of the island, the specific history of research has led to a particular archaeological understanding of the burial record of the area, focused, in this case, on some specific sites and on specific research questions. Although many cemeteries are known within the broad Mirabello and Ierapetra region (Figs. 69, 70), most of the evidence comes from a small area southeast and east of the bay, a region stretching from Gournia to Mochlos, which includes the cemeteries at Gournia (324–339), Pacheia Ammos (385), Chrysokamino (321), Hagios Antonios (343), the island of Pseira (386–406), and Mochlos (348–381). This geographically restricted view is counterbalanced by the amount of material recovered and by the long history of investigations in these cemeteries, which

have produced a high-resolution picture of this small region. This provides us with a unique opportunity to evaluate local mortuary behaviors within the framework of microregional relationships. Furthermore, mainly because of the rich burial deposits found during the first excavations, the mortuary record has been the object of analyses centered on issues of social differentiation, which have resulted in the positioning of Gournia (324–339), and more particularly of Mochlos (348–381), in the middle of many theoretical discussions and explanatory models of social development in Prepalatial Crete (Soles 1988; Branigan 1991b; Watrous 1994, 2001, 2005, 2012; Whitelaw 2004a; Vavouranakis 2007; Colburn 2008). It must be pointed out that the definition of the Mirabello region for this study does not coincide with some of the latest archaeological literature. Mirabello is generally included in a broader geographical region that is called East Crete. This normally represents a loosely defined region that stretches from the Malia area to the east coast of the island, matching the modern jurisdictional area of the Lasithi prefecture (Fig. 68; Vavouranakis 2007). Geographical boundaries and the history of research together with recent studies show that the Mirabello area can be considered independent in terms of ceramic production and development (Andreou 1978; Haggis and Mook 1993; Whitelaw et al. 1997; Pelon and Schmitt 2006). This advocates for the separation of the Mirabello area from the most eastern part of the island, which in this study will be called East Crete, and which will be treated separately in the next chapter (Fig. 68).

Early Minoan I The study of EM I cemeteries in the Mirabello Bay and Ierapetra regions is marked by problems in the recognition of EM I wares. Haggis has pointed out problems in the definition of EM I wares in Hall, Boyd, and Seager’s work and has argued for the redating of some of the earliest deposits in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions, including some burial contexts (Haggis 1993, 27–31; 1996, 675– 681). Fortunately, much recent research has been

done in the area with a modern understanding of the ceramic sequence, which has allowed the secure identification of EM I wares and EM I cemeteries (Fig. 71; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 124–126; Hayden 2003b, 402–409; 2005, 1–3; Betancourt 2009). Despite these adjustments, which have shown the need to redate some of the “former” EM II tombs to the EM I period, the number of known

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

EM I cemeteries still remains low. Only five possible cemeteries have been identified: Gournia Sphoungaras (333–339), Hagios Antonios (343), Hagia Photia Ierapetras Rock Shelter I (340), Chrysokamino (321), and the cemetery at Pseira (386–406). Although the settlement patterns show a sparsely occupied landscape during the EM I and EM II periods at Vrokastro, Kavousi, and Gournia (Watrous et al. 2000, 474; Hayden 2004, 36–52; Haggis 2005, 62), five cemeteries still represent a very low number of burial sites. The large proportion of rock shelters in use during EM I may offer an explanation for this low number, since these contexts suffer badly from denudation and other ancient and modern disturbances, such as herding. Proof of this poor preservation is the fact that the identified burial shelters in the Mirabello area were always near other empty crevices that may have constituted nonpreserved tombs. At Hagios Antonios (343), the whole face of the rocky hill offers spaces for interment (Haggis 2005, 62), a similar situation to Hagia Photia Ierapetras (340–342) and Gournia Sphoungaras (333–335), where only a few of the many reported crevices in each area contained archaeological material (Boyd 1904, 21; 1905, 182– 184; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56). In other words, many EM I cemeteries that used rock shelters for interments may have been lost, and the ones known may represent only a part of the original cemetery. Only four ceramic vessels were recovered from Hagia Photia Ierapetras Rock Shelter I (340) and another four from Rock Shelter II (341; Boyd 1904, 21; 1905, 183–184; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Zois 1968a, 88–89, 222–225). Boyd suggested a FN first use for Rock Shelter I (1905, 183–185), but it may be dated to EM I (Haggis 1993, 14–15 n. 10; Zois 1998b, 173). The cave of Chrysokamino (321; also known as Theriospelio) has been the object of archaeological investigations for a century (Mosso 1910, 289– 290; Betancourt 1983, 14; 2006, 215–216; Haggis 1992, 172). Recent investigations have confirmed the first use of this cave in the FN and EM I periods with the publication of fragments of chalices in patterned burnished ware (Zois 1990, 340; Betancourt 2006, 215–220). The cave has a small entrance and a large chamber where the ceramic remains were found. Human bones have been reported (Betancourt 2006, 261–262), which seems

93

to confirm its use as a burial place. Mosso reported pieces of slag from this context (Mosso 1910, 290), which suggests that in addition to burial, the cave could have been used in connection with the nearby EM metalworking station (Betancourt 2006). Better known is the rock shelter at Hagios Antonios (343), north of Chrysokamino (Hall 1914; Haggis 1993; 2005, 98–99). Here, animal bones, shells, and fragments of cooking pots were found on a wide terrace extending in front of the rock shelter; this led Haggis to suggest that this terrace was used for funerary rites that involved food preparation and consumption (Haggis 1993, 15), although these possible activities lack clear dating. A pot with suspension handles and a tripod excavated by Hall and published by Betancourt have been dated recently to EM I (Hall 1914, 183; Betancourt 1983, 5; Haggis 1993, 17), a dating that has been confirmed by surface material in the shelter (Haggis 1993, 18–19), suggesting an EM I to MM IA date for its use (Haggis 1993, 16–19). The nonceramic assemblage includes 10 items made of imported raw materials (Fig. 72A), which represent a surprising amount for such a small context. The tomb was probably related to a modest EM settlement (around 0.13–0.18 ha; Haggis 1993, 20; 2005, 62), similar in size to Myrtos Phournou Koriphi (Warren 1972a; Whitelaw 1983). This is also consistent with other local evidence, as the most common EM I–IIA type of settlement in the neighboring Vrokastro area measured an average of 0.13 ha (Hayden 2004, 47). The ceramic sherds recovered recently from the surface suggest that the main use of the shelter occurred during the EM I–II periods (Fig. 72B; Haggis 1993, 19; 2005, 98– 99), and it is probable that most of the nonceramic material was deposited in the tomb during these periods, perhaps some of it as early as EM I. At Gournia, tombs were found at Sphoungaras (333–335), a location between the LM town and the sea (Fig. 73). It has sometimes been argued that this cemetery was not related to the settlement at Gournia, but to a group of EM II–MM houses on the top of the Sphoungaras hill (Fig. 73; Boyd 1905, 179; Fotou 1993, 98–99; Watrous 1994, 713 n. 130). This is certainly possible during EM I and II times, when Gournia and Sphoungaras may have represented small independent settlements. Of the various rock shelters excavated at Sphoungaras, only

94

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

three (333–335) yielded material, although others may originally have held interments (Boyd 1905, 179–182). Rock Shelter I (333) contained EM I as well as EM IIA pottery (Hawes et al. 1908, 56 n. 2, fig. 37; Zois 1968a, 51–52; Haggis 1993, 30–31; Wilson and Day 1994, 17, fig. 91; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 132; Hayden 2004, 42 n. 42). Rock Shelter II (334) was found near the first and contained only two ceramic vessels (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56 n. 2), only one of which is probably EM I (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, fig. 37:10; Zois 1968a, 53; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 132). Rock Shelter I (333) was the best preserved of all the crevices and contained human remains in a disordered condition. Pseira (386–406) is the largest of the known EM I cemeteries and was a very different cemetery from the rock shelters. Pseira is an island where a Pre- and Protopalatial cemetery was excavated in the early 20th century but never published (Boyd 1904, 21; Seager 1910, 7; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 9–11). This cemetery has recently been reexcavated and published (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 2003), and even though the evidence from the original excavations has been lost, enough is available to attempt an assessment of its mortuary behavior. Seager reported 33 EM II– MM I tombs (Seager cited in Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 9), but the new investigations have found only 19 tombs and have shown that the cemetery was founded in the FN/EM I transitional period and was already in full use during EM I (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 133–134, 138). Betancourt and Davaras identified at least 10 tombs belonging to this period (386, 387, 389–392, 394, 398, 400, 401), plus another two possible ones (388, 395). In addition, two open areas at the northwestern and eastern fringes of the cemetery may have been in use as early as EM I (405, 406; Fig. 74; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 115–117). It is almost certain, though, that more tombs existed but have been not preserved. Of the 12 tombs, seven have been defined by the excavators as cist type (386–388, 390–392, 398), three as house tombs (394, 395, 401; i.e., rectangular tombs) and two as rock shelters (389, 400). Beyond this formal classification, the cist and the rectangular tombs are not very different from each other in terms of building techniques and external

aspect (Fig. 75); only the larger size makes them comparable with other rectangular tombs on Crete. At one end of the range of EM I built tombs at Pseira lie Tombs III (388) and VII (392; Fig. 75), both small and constructed inside a trench in the ground with slabs placed vertically, creating a small square space very similar to a cist (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 126). The other end of the range is occupied by Tombs IX (394), X (395), and XVI (401). These are larger and were constructed using larger stone blocks in regular courses that form walls clearly visible above the ground (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 125). Tombs I (386), II (387), V (390), VI (391), and XIII (398) can be situated between the two extremes. Pseira probably shows the first step in the evolution of the tomb type that in EM II can be clearly defined as a rectangular tomb and that spread throughout the Mirabello area and other parts of Crete in later periods (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 126). Little, however, can be said about the exact use of these tombs. The human remains were in such a bad state of preservation that no information could be extracted from them apart from the certainty that more than one individual was interred in each tomb (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 153–163). A clear picture of the material deposited in the tombs is also not available. Seager reported that they were full of ceramic vases (he counted around 100 vases in the cemetery) and stone vessels (around 70 vases) and contained only a small number of metal objects or jewelry apart from stone beads (Seager 1912, 11; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 9). Unfortunately, this material was never published and even though the recent excavations have been very successful in identifying the exact chronological span of the tombs using the ceramics recovered, they have discovered little evidence concerning the composition of the material assemblage of individual tombs (Fig. 76). Nonetheless, some information can be extracted from Pseira about EM I mortuary behavior in the Mirabello region. First, Pseira may be considered an atypical cemetery for the EM I Mirabello region due to its Cycladic characteristics. Its architecture has strong links with Cycladic cist tombs, both the examples with upright slabs and those with built walls (Doumas 1977, 37–47; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 124–126). It would be tempting

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

to suggest that Pseira documents the movement of Cycladic people into Crete, especially since its location as a peripheral space could make it a suitable beachhead for new populations (Watrous 1994, 704). Although the cists (Tombs III [388] and VII [392], Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 126) are very similar to their Cycladic counterparts with upright slabs lining the pit (Doumas 1977, 41– 44, type A), the built tombs of Pseira (e.g., Tomb I [386] and II [387], Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 124), which are contemporaneous with the cists, show variations from typical Cycladic cists with built walls (Doumas 1977, 46–47, type D), mainly because the Pseira examples are built to rise above the ground. In addition, no material from the cemetery seems to have shared Cycladic traits, which gives the cemetery a very different character from the Cycladic rock-cut tomb cemetery of Gournes B (203) and Hagia Photia Siteias A (412– 415; see Ch. 7). Pseira contained a mixture of Cycladic and Cretan elements, and the cemetery may indicate a more complex scenario than a simple Cycladic “colony” (Karantzali 1996, 242; Broodbank 2000, 282, 289–293, 300–305; Hayden 2004, 50 n. 144). Second, the size of the cemetery must be considered. At Pseira, 12 tombs have been identified as in use in EM I, but this number was probably higher originally. Tombs XVII (402), XVIII (403), and XIX (404) are three rock shelters that could not be dated but may already have been in use in EM I, paralleling the burial rock shelters described above. Also, taking into consideration the ratio of EM I tombs to the number of discovered tombs in the recent reexcavation of the cemetery, and applying it to Seager’s reported 33 tombs (probably not a complete number as Betancourt and Davaras excavated two tombs not discovered by Seager), it can be estimated that 22–26 tombs, if not more, were in use at Pseira in EM I. If the suggestion of a single nuclear family per tomb is accepted (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 134–135), it would imply

95

that as many as 22–26 families lived in the Pseira community, which would have constituted an unusually large settlement (intensive survey on the island suggested an EM nucleated settlement; Betancourt, Davaras, and Simpson, eds., 2005, 286). Such large settlements during the EM I–II periods have been identified in the recent Vrokastro Survey area, where the largest settlements (approx. 1.3 ha) could have contained as many as 60 families (Hayden 2003b, 372–380; 2004, 46–48; but see Haggis 2005, 63–64). Also, a total of 50 families estimated for the LM I settlement at Pseira (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 135) demonstrates that such a large community could have survived on the island. There is a second possible interpretation, however. Given the Cycladic links of the Pseira cemetery in terms of architecture, its size and structure of use may be related to two other cemeteries with EM I Cycladic links: Hagia Photia Siteias A (412– 415) and Gournes B (203). Although a straightforward comparison between these three cemeteries is not achievable, as they comprised different types of tomb, there may still be similarities in the social unit intended for the use of each tomb. At Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415), the evidence does not support the view that a single nuclear family used each tomb since more than 200 tombs were found, and a settlement with an equivalent number of nuclear families is highly unlikely, neither has it been identified in the recent survey of the area (Tsipopoulou 1989). It is possible, therefore, that at Pseira the Cycladic type of tomb was associated with typical Cycladic customs in terms of burial group and that each tomb in EM I was used for the interment of one or two individuals rather than being the burial ground of a nuclear family. This would imply a significantly smaller settlement at Pseira, which would be consistent with a nonintensive exploitation of the island in this period (Betancourt, Davaras, and Simpson, eds., 2005, 286).

Early Minoan II During EM II the number of tombs and cemeteries increased in the Mirabello region (Figs. 77,

78, 79). This pattern is not only the result of better archaeological preservation, but corresponds to

96

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

a larger number of settlements in the area (Haggis 2005, 63–64). Much EM II burial evidence still comes from rock shelters such as Hagia Photia Ierapetras (340– 342) and Hagios Antonios (343), including three new ones: Klisidi (347), Vardoiani (408), and Vasiliki B (410; Fig. 77). Little can be added to what has already been noted about Hagios Antonios (343), Hagia Photia Ierapetras (340–342), and Chrysokamino (321), except that they continued in use during the EM II period (Mosso 1910, 290; Haggis 1993, 27–28; Betancourt 2006, 216–218). With regard to Klisidi (347), Vardoiani (408), and Vasiliki B (410), the last two cannot be identified securely as burial sites (Faure 1956, 100; 1964, 60, 70; Zois 1972a, 282–283; 1992b, 102). The cave of Klisidi (347; Faure 1964, 48–49, 60; Younger 1976) consists of three chambers, the first of which was full of human bones in disarray, which led Younger to suggest that it was used as an ossuary (Fig. 80; Younger 1976, 168). Faure reported Neolithic and LM III wares and human bones of at least 40 individuals in this cave (Faure 1956, 100). Younger was more precise and in the first chamber described EM II and other probable EM wares associated with the bones of at least 20 individuals (Younger 1976, 168), confirming the use of the cave for funerary purposes during EM II. Apart from the uncertain tholos tombs at Pedino (444, 445) and at Hagia Photia Siteias C (417, 418; see Ch. 7), and the recently discovered ones at Livari (426) and Messorachi (433), Myrsini (382) is the only tholos tomb found in Crete east of the Lasithi Plateau. Unfortunately, it has not been published and only the preliminary report (Platon 1959, 373– 374; Belli 1984, pl. XXXII) is available. The excavator reported at least 60 skeletons, some of them deposited in burial larnakes and pithoi. He also suggested a complete stone-corbelled vault, given the large number of stones found inside the tholos (Branigan 1970b, 39, 54). Although the EM II wares in the assemblage indicate that the tomb may have been constructed during this period (Warren 1969, 195 n. 2), the presence of pithos and larnax burials suggests that the material in the tomb may date mainly to its EM III–MM I use. As is the case with the tholos tomb at Krasi A (238, 239) on the north coast (see Ch. 5), it is very difficult to assess the peculiarity of this tomb in its regional environment.

At Pseira, the architectural development seems to indicate that no major changes occurred in EM II, apart from the possible construction of two new tombs, VIII (393) and XII (397; Fig. 77), where the earliest material dated to EM II (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 72, 97). Excavators have not rejected the possibility that the two tombs were built in EM I (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 97), however. The cemetery seems to have continued in use in a similar manner to that of the EM I period, and thus poses the same questions about its size. Yet a Cycladic logic in the use of the cemetery seems more difficult to prove, as the clearly Cycladic rockcut tomb cemeteries of Hagia Photia Siteias A (412– 415) and Gournes B (203) disappeared in EM IIA. It seems logical to suppose that the use of the tombs at Pseira became more similar to that of the surrounding EM II cemeteries, which were probably based on the relationship of a nuclear family to a single tomb (see below). If this possibility is accepted, it would mean that the EM II Pseira population could have been larger than average, given the number of tombs in use. Few finds survive from the EM II use of the cemetery, with the most interesting evidence coming from Tomb VII (392), a FN–EM IIB context where no later pottery has been found and from which one strip of gold and six pieces of obsidian, one core among them, were recovered. During the EM II period, Gournia experienced a significant increase in the number of tombs, with the appearance of rectangular tombs in a new cemetery (Figs. 73, 79, and 81). At Sphoungaras, Rock Shelter I (333) and II (334) were used in EM IIA times (Wilson 1984, 272; Wilson and Day 1994, 17; Hayden 2004, 42 n. 42). Two new deposits were used in this cemetery in EM II: Deposit A (336) and Deposit B (337; Figs. 73, 81; Hall 1912a, 46–55). Deposit B (337) was found outside the entrance of Rock Shelters I (333) and II (334). No bones were reported from it, but Hall suggested that the material came from the cleaning or plundering of EM II–III tombs (Hall 1912a, 55). Four clay polishers were discovered in the deposit, a type of object that may be more usual in funerary deposits than we realized (Michelaki and Vasilakis 2010, 194–195). Hall dated the published pottery to EM II (Hall 1912a, 53 n. 2), although the described mottled schnabelkanne (spouted jug) that seems the best-datable piece was not illustrated

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

(Hall 1912a, 54, no. 6); Betancourt also dated to EM IIB the material from this deposit in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia (Betancourt 1983, 47–48, nos. 116, 117), apart from a MM I stone vessel (Betancourt 1983, 51, no. 136). Deposit A (336) was found in the south of the Sphoungaras area and may have represented a badly preserved burial context, given the human bones and architectural remains recovered (Figs. 73, 81; Hall 1912a, 48). The assemblage from this deposit included more than 40 EM IIB vessels (see the wide range of typical Vasiliki vessels in Hall 1912a, 48, figs. 20–22; Betancourt 1983, 46–48), and around seven EM III vessels (see next section); therefore, Deposit A (336) should be considered a closed EM IIB–III context. Deposit A (336) is the most varied and rich deposit of all the EM II Gournia contexts (Fig. 82), and includes an ivory figurine, a bronze tool, two ivory seals, and six fragments of gold. The two green steatite stone vases (EM III– MM I) located by Hall in this deposit were found on the periphery and they might be related to the MM I Deposit (338) that was found next to Deposit A (Hall 1912a, 51–52, 56). The contents of Deposit A (336) should not be compared directly with that of Deposit B (337) or Rock Shelter I (333) because Deposit A contains much more material, which makes it likely that a larger variety of objects was deposited. Also the formation processes of the deposits are not clear and the material may come from very different contexts. In EM IIA a second cemetery appeared near the Gournia settlement in what has been called the Northern Spur (Fig. 73), which gave the cemetery its name: the North Cemetery (324–332; Fig. 73; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Davaras 1973a, 588– 589; 1974, 48–49; Soles 1992b, 1–40; Fotou 1993). As noted above, this cemetery and Sphoungaras may not have belonged to the same settlement in EM II (Fig. 73; Soles 1979, 151; Watrous 1994, 713 n. 130). Of the eight tombs found in the North Cemetery, three can be dated securely to EM II: Tomb III (327) and Rock Shelters V (329) and VI (330). Tomb I (324) contained EM IIA ceramics in a pit in the northwest corner of the north room (Fig. 83) together with MM stone vessels (Soles 1992b, 13–16), and the EM IIA material may not mark the date of construction of the tomb but a

97

cleaning of the area of material eroded from Tomb III (327) in order to prepare for the construction of Tomb I in MM I times (Soles 1992b, 9). From Rock Shelters V (329) and VI (330; Fig. 83; Boyd 1905, 182–183; Soles 1992b, 36–38; contra Fotou 1993, 100), Boyd published just two ceramic vessels from the former and another two and a bone amulet from the latter, all dated to EM IIA (Zois 1968a, 53–54; Wilson 1984, 272–273). Tomb III (327) is the only built tomb, of the rectangular type, found in the Gournia area in EM IIA (Fig. 83; Davaras 1974, 48–49; Soles 1992b, 28–34). It is situated two meters west of Tomb I (324), and it consisted of at least four rooms, although the poor state of preservation impedes a clear understanding of the architecture. No walls were preserved at the east end of the tomb, where the entrance was probably located, and bones together with material were reported on the west side of all the rooms, which indicates that the east part of the tomb was heavily eroded, perhaps at an early stage, as the material in the pit of Tomb I (324) may also indicate. The published contents consist of five ceramic pyxides, a jug and a bowl, one bronze awl, and two fragments of copper sheeting (Soles 1992b, 31–34), which seems to indicate that Tomb III (327) can be considered a closed EM IIA context (Soles 1992b, 31; Wilson and Day 1994, 17). Tomb III (327) represents one of the largest tombs found in the Mirabello area during this period, only comparable with Mochlos I/II/III (348) and IV/V/ VI (349; see below), although it does not seem to share the architectural quality or the material assemblages of the latter. Unfortunately, its bad state of preservation prevents any further investigation. Interestingly, no EM IIB material appears to come from the Gournia North Cemetery. Mochlos (348–381) represents one of the most important cemeteries on Crete due to two factors: first, a well-preserved and published assemblage that is rich in objects made in off-island raw materials (Seager 1909, 1912; Davaras 1975; Foster 1979; Pini 1982; Aruz 1984; Soles 1992b; Davaras and Soles 1997; Watrous 2005). Second, this assemblage has secured a central position for the site in the discussion of social organization in Prepalatial Crete (Whitelaw 1983, 2004a; Soles 1988; Branigan 1991b; Manning 1994; Watrous 1994,

98

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

2001, 2005; Karantzali 1996; Vavouranakis 2007; Colburn 2008). The cemetery is situated on the west side of a small island facing the modern village of Mochlos, on a steep slope overlooking the sea (Fig. 84). In ancient times, the island seems to have been connected to the mainland by an isthmus (Seager 1909, 274; Soles 1992a, 188–189; 2004, 155; Watrous et al. 2000, 474; Hayden 2004, 72–73) that could also have provided a natural harbor. The early settlement lies on the south slope of the island no more than 100 meters from the cemetery, although only the most eastern tombs would have been visible from the settlement. The cemetery can be divided into two zones (Fig. 84): the West Terrace, a flat, rocky shelf facing west where Tomb I/II/III (348) and Tomb IV/V/VI (349) are situated (the original Roman numerals of Seager and the Greek letters given to each room in excavations of the 1970s and 1980s will be followed in this study; complexes with more than one room will be labeled based on all the constituent rooms); and the so-called South Slope, a steep slope facing southwest, where all the other tombs are located. The cemetery consists of 26 built rectangular rooms, including three tombs that combine rock shelters with built walls (Tombs VII [351], Zeta [372], and Iota [375]), six rock shelters, and another two associated buildings, namely Nu (379) and Xi (380; Soles and Davaras 1992, 424). It is very possible that some tombs were not preserved and that the cemetery was originally larger than the one known to us. Seager reported tombs similar to Cycladic cist tombs in the cemetery (Seager 1912, 13–14). This characterization, however, is not very precise and the only tomb that he clearly defined as a cist was Tomb XII (356), for which there is no plan or photo. By cist, Seager probably referred to tombs that can now be defined as rectangular tombs following the evidence provided by the Pseira cemetery (386–406; Soles 1992b, 42 n. 5). The rectangular built tombs were constructed with walls of rubble, many of them combined with upright slabs forming the inner wall face (Fig. 85). The rectangular tombs at Mochlos share many similarities with what have been called built tombs and cist tombs at Pseira (386–388, 390–398). The tombs at Mochlos can easily be understood as an evolution of the tomb types found at Pseira (Karantzali 1996,

239; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 126). Indeed, some of the tombs in the two cemeteries look very similar (Fig. 86). The Mochlos cemetery has some unusual architectural features (348–381), such as distinct doorways, sometimes with a stone slab as a threshold (Room IV [349] and Tomb XXIII [366]), or two piers used as doorjambs (Rooms I [348] and IV [349] and Tombs IX [353] and Beta [368]). Some doorways may have been further marked by a monolithic slab used to close them, such as the ones reported by Seager for Rooms III (348), IV, V (349), and Tomb XII (356; Seager 1912). Finally, some of the rooms are paved (Tombs XI [355], Eta [373], and Theta [374]). Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) on the West Terrace stand out as they integrate all of the elaborate characteristics described above. They are larger and more carefully constructed than any of the other tombs. Upright slabs appear in the inner face of the rooms in these tombs and both have a room (I [348] and IV [349]) with a defined doorway for entering the tomb. In addition, both had a third room added sometime after the initial construction (Rooms III [348] and V [349], respectively) that did not communicate with the other two rooms, and which may have been used as an ossuary (Soles 1992b, 50, 60). This layout of three rooms with distinct specific uses is not paralleled in any of the other tombs at Mochlos. Some other unique features can be seen in the area in front of Tomb IV/V/VI, such as a paved area with a possible altar on its raised east side (350; Fig. 85). Tomb I/II/III (348) may also have had a paved area in front of it, as suggested by two steps, but the area is not preserved well enough to confirm this feature (Soles 1992b, 43). The architectural distinctions apparent for these two complexes could be explained by chronological differences. At Mochlos the majority of the tombs seem to have been built in EM IIB. Early Minoan IIA cremation burials from beneath Tomb Lambda (377) have been reported (Soles 1992b, 422– 423), as well as an EM IIA complex of buildings and walled terraces (381) that may have been used mainly for cultic and ritual activities related to the cemetery (Soles and Davaras 2010), but this unusual evidence cannot be properly assessed until the detailed publication of these contexts. Based on this evidence, Soles suggested that the construction

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

of the majority of the tombs in the cemetery dates to the beginning of the EM II period (Soles 1992b, 41), but it seems more accurate to date the tombs on the South Slope to the EM IIB phase as only one ceramic vessel found in this area, which contains over 20 tombs, could be dated to EM IIA (vessel XXI.11; numbers from Seager’s publication [1912] unless stated; Soles 1992b, 82). Seager described vessels XIII.a, b, and c as burnished, which would suggest an EM IIA date, although their shape indicates a later date (Seager 1912, 63, fig. 32; Soles 1992b, 91). The earliest stone vases and metal objects are most likely EM IIB in date (Warren 1965, 22; Branigan 1991b, 97). The case for dating the two west terraces to EM IIA is stronger than that for the other tombs, as the EM IIA material was found in securely stratified deposits (Soles 1992b, 49–50, 57–60). A FN/EM I deposit was reported underneath Room V (349; Seager 1912, 92– 93; Wilson 1984, 246), which was thought to mark the terminus post quem for the construction of the tomb, but it may not represent a closed deposit as originally thought (Zois 1973, 101–104). Seager claimed that the EM IIB and EM III periods constituted the main periods of use of the cemetery (Fig. 87; Seager 1912, 13), and that by MM I there was a decline as fewer tombs were in use and less material was deposited (Seager 1912, 98; Soles 1992b, 41). This view was generally accepted until recently, when Watrous challenged it, arguing that Seager’s chronology of the cemetery was biased by problems in the differentiation between EM III– MM I wares (Watrous 2005, 108–110). Watrous has suggested that many of the items in the assemblages, including high-value materials, date to MM I, and that the cemetery was still extensively used in MM I times (Watrous 2005, 108). Watrous’s critique raises important questions about the dating of the Mochlos assemblage that need to be addressed before an assessment of the mortuary behavior in the cemetery can be made. In order to do this, the problems emerging from a differentiated postdepositional history of the complexes on the West Terrace and the tombs on the South Slope must also be examined. First, the Neopalatial disturbances affected tombs differently, for example Tombs XII (356) and XX (364) contained mostly MM III material (Seager 1912, 61, 74) while others seem not to have been affected by

99

Neopalatial reuse. Second, many of the tombs were the object of looting, a process difficult to recognize, let alone assess (Soles and Davaras 1992, 420). Third, denudation processes in the cemetery affected tombs to different degrees. This is especially relevant as the tombs with larger assemblages were situated on a naturally sheltered terrace, while the rest were located on a steep exposed slope (Fig. 88, following measurements in Soles 1992b). From the tombs on the South Slope, Seager only mentioned the depth of the deposits of Tomb XIX (363; 0.10– 0.40 m; Seager 1912), one of the best-preserved tombs according to the number of items recovered, which contrasts with the depth of the deposits on the West Terrace as reconstructed by Soles (1.50 m in Rooms I/II [348] and over 0.50 m in Rooms IV/V [349]; Soles 1992b, 49, 57, figs. 18, 22). When data are plotted on the cemetery plan, the number of objects in the tombs, though quite high overall, can be seen to differ widely among tombs (Figs. 89, 90A–91B). The results show that, apart from the complexes on the West Terrace (Fig. 89), only two groups of tombs preserved sufficient quantities of items to indicate good preservation (Fig. 90A, areas circled), and thus provide a valid basis for comparison with the West Terrace tombs: namely the tombs toward the west of the South Slope—XXII (365), XIII (357), XX, XXI (364), and XIX (363)—and tombs toward the east of the South Slope—XV (359), XVI (360), XVII (361), XI (355), and XVIII (362). The tombs in the middle of the slope (Alpha [367], Beta [368], Gamma [369], Delta [370], Epsilon [371], and XXIII [366; totals in this tomb must be considered carefully as about 100 tiny gold beads were found, probably deposited together, and they do not necessarily denote a well-preserved assemblage; see Figs. 90B, 91B]) and the ones discovered in the 1970s and 1980s, mostly on the eastern side (Zeta [372], Eta [373], Theta [374], Iota [375], Kappa [376], Lambda [377], Mu [378], and Nu [379]), produced almost no material. The dearth of items in these tombs cannot be explained by a very limited deposition of grave goods with the interments. Small tombs such as XVIII (362), a rock shelter with room for no more than one body, produced nine items, indicating that the mortuary behavior in the cemetery involved significant depositions of material regardless of the type and architectural

100

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

quality of the tomb. Based on the number of items in their respective contexts and given the grouping of the tombs in a pattern perpendicular to the slope gradient (Fig. 90A, circled areas), this study suggests that a difference in the preservation of the tombs and their assemblages can be explained by taphonomic processes affecting the tombs to different degrees, depending on their position on the slope. Given these circumstances, the assessment of every single tomb seems of limited value and the present investigation will focus only on tombs with well-preserved assemblages. From the eastern group of tombs, Seager reported two different deposits for Tomb XI (355): one containing EM II pottery and eight stone vessels (Seager 1912, 58), and the other MM I pottery and seven stone vessels (Seager 1912, 58–59). He suggested that the first deposit was a closed EM II context, but some of the stone vessels may date to the EM III and MM I periods (Warren 1969, 39– 91). During the cleaning of the tomb in the 1970s, EM III pottery and three more EM III–MM I stone vases were found (Davaras and Papadakis 1976, 376–377; Soles 1992b, 94–97). Most of the ceramic vessels (XI.11, 13, 14, 16, and 18; Zois 1968a, 214; Andreou 1978, 80–81) and the stone vessels (XI.2, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 21; A. Bevan, pers. comm.) from this tomb can be dated to MM I. Tomb XV (359) seems to have been extensively reused in Neopalatial times, as much of the material can be dated to this period (XV.h, i, e, and f; Seager 1912, 65–66). Tomb XVI (360) contained EM II (XVI.10 and XVI.11; Seager 1912, 67–68; Soles 1992b, 92–93; Wilson and Day 1994, 18) and EM III ceramic material (XVI.8; Seager 1912, 67; Zois 1968a, 164). Only one vase has been dated to MM IA (XVI.9 in Soles 1992b, 72), but it could easily date to the EM II–III periods (Zois 1968a, 87). Though difficult to date, the stone vases are similar to the ones from the EM I–II tholos at Krasi (238); a stone goblet resembles the shapes of typical EM IIB Vasiliki Ware (XVI.1 in Soles 1992b, 93), and none can be later than EM IIB– III in date (A. Bevan, pers. comm.). Furthermore, a gold armlet (XVI.13) is very similar to one from the EM II–III stratum in Room II (II.18; for a discussion of the dating of this stratum, see below; contra Watrous 2005, 111). Therefore, Tomb XVI (360) may be considered an EM II–III deposit.

Tomb XVII (361) is difficult to date as only four items were found. The sole ceramic vessel has been dated to MM IA (XVII.1 in Soles 1992b, 92–93), and three stone vases, two of which parallel those in Tomb XVI (360), can be tentatively dated to EM II (Soles 1992b, 92 n. 107). Tomb XVII (361) may represent a context used during the EM II–MM IA periods. Tomb XVIII (362), a small rock shelter, contained nine items. The ceramic vessels are EM II in date (XVIII.c, e, and f), except for one (XVIII.h), which is dated to EM III (Seager 1912, 69–70; Soles 1992b, 106 n. 122). Only one stone vase was recovered here, and it bears similarities to a vessel from Tomb XVI (360). It would seem that this is an EM II–III deposit. Out of the groups of tombs toward the west of the south slope, Tomb XIX (363) seems the best preserved; from it four EM II ceramic vases, six stone vessels, 20 gold items and 11 copper objects were published and EM III ceramic sherds were reported (Seager 1912, 70–74; Wilson 1984, 274; Soles 1992b, 71). The only objects that could possibly come from later periods are a stone vase (XIX.3) datable to EM IIB–MM I/II (Warren 1969, 22–23) and a bronze arrowhead, a rare object in Crete with parallels only at MM II Knossos (Branigan 1968a, 29). Other copper objects, such as a triangular dagger (XIX.26) and a long dagger (XIX.27), cannot be dated more securely than to EM II–MM I (Legarra Herrero 2004). Tomb XIX (363) most probably contained a significant EM II–III deposit. Watrous has recently dated some of the goldwork, two of the stone vases, and two of the copper objects from this tomb to MM I (Watrous 2005, 112–113), but this need not be the case. Stone vessel XIX.7 lacks the properly defined rim of Egyptian cylindrical jars and may not represent the imitation of an Egyptian stone vessel, although given the shape it may date to MM I or MM II (A. Bevan, pers. comm.; Warren 1969, 183). With regard to the gold items, the redating of them to MM I is much more problematic. We cannot rely on an evolutionary typology, as Watrous suggested for the gold pins (XIX.11; Watrous 2005, 113), since it is not supported by stratigraphical evidence. This is particularly true for the gold jewelry, as it shared simple decorative techniques and a limited range of decorative motifs throughout the entire Prepalatial period (Branigan 1974, 89–95;

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

Vasilakis 1996b, 59–74). Also, the eastern Mediterranean parallels flagged by Watrous may not necessarily be relevant. The dating of gold bands XIX.13 to MM I by drawing parallels to material from Byblos seems to ignore closer parallels. Perforated gold strips are a very simple design known in the Aegean since the Neolithic (Dimakopoulou 1998, 63, no. 59), and on Crete are attested since at least the EM IIA period (Effinger 1996; Papadatos 2005). These appear to be more likely comparanda than those presented by Watrous. Furthermore, the most elaborate gold items from Mochlos follow a local decorative style that is difficult to compare with other goldwork (Davaras 1975, 105). The gold-foil leaves dated by Watrous to the MM I period based on parallels at Chrysolakkos (263, 264) in Malia could equally be dated to EM III (as we have seen Chrysolakkos [263, 264] was first constructed in EM III; see Soles 1992b; Poursat 1993), and the Mochlos examples could be considered precursors of the ones at Malia. The unusual socketed arrowhead is known only from a MM II context at Knossos (Branigan 1968a, 29), and it may illustrate the use of the tomb in the MM II–III periods rather than MM I (Seager 1912, 74). Watrous’s work has raised the possibility that some objects in the tomb belong to the MM I period, but while there are clear examples of EM II items, not a single object can be dated to MM I and it seems that the assemblage, as known to us, better corresponds to EM II–III mortuary behavior than to that of the MM I period. Ceramic vessels in Tomb XIII (357) have primarily been dated to EM III (XIII.g, XIII.k, and XIII.l in Seager 1912, 74; XIII.1 in Soles 1992b) and MM I (XIII.h, XIII.i, XIII.j; Seager 1912, 63–65; Soles 1992b, 91–92), although three EM II vases have also been identified (XIII.a, XIII.b, XIII.c; Seager 1912, 63; Soles 1992b, 91). Two knives (XIII.m, XIII.n) are most probably MM I in date. It seems, therefore, that this tomb represents a mixed EM II–MM I deposit. Room XX (364) probably formed part of the same tomb as Room XXI (364), with which it shares an entrance (Fig. 85). A spearhead and a bronze knife from Room XX (364) can be dated to the MM III period (XX.11, XX.12; Seager 1912, 74; Soles 1992b, 82). Stone vase XX.2 is of the bird’s-nest type and therefore possibly of MM I date (for the type, see

101

Warren 1969, 8). The ceramics can be dated to EM II and EM III (Wilson 1984, 274; Soles 1992b, 82). Like Tomb XIII (357), Room XX (364) can only be described as a mixed EM II–MM I deposit with Neopalatial reuse. Room XXI (364) has produced some gold items as well as stone vases and bronze objects. Only three ceramic vases were recovered, one datable to EM IIA (XXI.11) and another to EM III (XXI.5), with the third (XXI.12) of unclear date (Seager 1912, 76; Soles 1992b, 82). Eight stone vases were found in this room, some of which may be EM IIB–III. These include a cup with a hook handle, a cover, and a goblet (XX.3, XX.6, XX.7; Warren 1969, 38–39, 70, 73), although most cannot be dated more closely than to EM IIB–MM I (XX.1, XX.2, XX.3, XX.4, XX.9; Warren 1969, 39, 70, 77, 92, 95). The same applies to a triangular dagger (XXI.22). Watrous dates stone vase XXI.2 and the gold tubular beads (XXI.19) to MM I on the basis of Egyptian parallels (Watrous 2005, 113). Although the shape of vase XXI.2 has some similarity with Egyptian stone vessels, the material used, probably local steatite, may indicate an EM IIB or EM III date (Bevan 2007, 86–92). Again, with regard to the gold tubular beads, it is not clear whether the Egyptian links are relevant for their dating, since closer examples exist in the EM IIA burial context of Archanes Phourni Tholos Gamma (165; Effinger 1996, 30; Papadatos 2005, 38). This tomb can tentatively be dated to the EM II–III periods, although the stone vessels could indicate use into the MM IA period. Providing a precise date for Room XXII (365) is difficult. It contained some gold items that appear to date to EM IIB, a period to which some of the ceramic vessels can also be dated (XXII.b, XXII.5; Soles 1992b, 82). But a necklace made of stone, crystal, and gold beads was dated to the Neopalatial period by Seager (Seager 1912, 78), a dating supported by the presence of signet seal XIII.4. The ceramics could indicate a Prepalatial date for some of the gold items, but this cannot be established securely. Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) on the West Terrace were regarded by Seager as closed EM II–III contexts (Seager 1912, 15, 17; Zois 1968a, 86–87; Soles 1992b, 49–50, 57–60), with the exception of Room III (348), whose assemblage dates mostly to MM I (Zois 1968a, 149, 160;

102

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Soles 1992b, 49–50). Watrous recently challenged this dating, arguing that many objects from these two tombs are of MM I date (Watrous 2005, 110– 112). The only two ceramic vessels from Rooms IV and VI (349) that Watrous believes belonged to the MM I phase (IV.2, VI.6; Watrous 2005, 111– 112) were dated by Zois to EM III (Zois 1968a, 86, 160). None of the vases makes a clear case for an exact dating, and, without a comprehensive understanding of the ceramic assemblages in the rooms, an accurate dating of the pottery to either of the periods is impossible. Some of the goldwork has been dated by Watrous to MM I based on parallels from Byblos and Kultepe, but the gold diadems have clear EM IIA parallels found in the lower stratum at Archanes Phourni Tholos Gamma (165; Papadatos 2005, 39–42) and at Pyrgos Cave (282; Xanthoudides 1918a; Effinger 1996, 6, 293). The only gold object with a clear MM I parallel is the triangular pendant at Archanes Phourni BB 6 (169; EM III–MM I context; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 639), but the closest parallel was found in the lower stratum of Platanos Tholos A (112; HM 484, Xanthoudides 1924, 111), a context that could be earlier than EM III, perhaps as early as EM II (Xanthoudides [1924] dated the tholos construction and first use earlier than the EM III period; Zois 1998d, 155). Stone vessels II.k, II.o, and VI.7 resemble Egyptian vessels only very vaguely and a connection is dubious; they could date to any time from EM IIB to MM II, but the use of steatite for II.k suggests an EM IIB–III date (A. Bevan, pers. comm.). Stone vessel VI.9 is the only stone vessel with clear Egyptian parallels. Watrous has emphasized the evidence offered by the seal in Room II (348); it was found together with a large number of gold items at the base of the tomb, hence, it could be used to date this deposit. Yet the seal, dated by Watrous to MM IA–II (Platon, ed., 1969, 563 [CMS II, 1, no. 472]; note that Watrous 2005, 111, incorrectly referred to it as CMS I.ii 272), belongs to the Lionspiral Group that Sbonias has recently dated EM III/MM IA (Sbonias 1995, 87). This, together with the fact that the deposit was found in a rock cavity at the bottom of the tomb in a clearly stratified position, points to an early dating (Seager 1912, 23– 24). Although some material could be dated as late as MM IA, it seems clear that most of the deposit

from these tombs belongs to EM II–EM III, and the deposition of material illustrates mortuary behavior from these periods rather than MM IA use. Early Minoan IIA material was found in Rooms I, II (348), IV, and VI (349; Soles 1992b, 49–50, 59). Room III (348) may have been constructed in EM II–III (Seager 1912, 37) or MM IA (Seager 1912, 37–38; Soles 1992b, 50) and Room V (349) contained EM IIB pottery and seems to have been constructed during this period (Soles 1992b, 59), which leaves Rooms I, II (348), IV, and VI (349) as the only rooms in the cemetery demonstrably in use in the EM IIA period. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make an assessment of the EM IIA and EM IIB assemblages from the tombs on the West Terrace, just as it is to date the deposition of off-island objects more accurately. The stone lid with a dog-shaped handle (Seager 1912, 20; Warren 1965, 8–9) indicates that high-value objects were already being deposited in the tombs during EM IIA. The lowest deposit in Room II may also illustrate this, but, as mentioned above, it contained a seal that could be post–EM IIA in date, which casts doubt over whether this was a closed EM II A deposit (Seager 1912, 23–24; Soles 1992b, 49; Sbonias 1995, 87). This, together with the silver cup full of gold items found in 1970 in a closed EM IIB–III deposit outside room VI (349; Seager 1912, 58–59), could indicate that the majority of off-island materials were deposited during these periods. In summary, apart from the best-preserved Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) on the West Terrace, only a few tombs seem to have wellpreserved EM II–III deposits: XVI (360), XVIII (362), XIX (363), and XXI (364). These are, therefore, the only tombs that can be included in the analysis of EM II–III mortuary behavior in the cemetery, and the only ones that can be compared to the West Terrace tombs on a chronological basis. Although the tombs on the south slope seem in general to date to the EM IIB–III periods, we must leave open the possibility that new evidence may modify the present dating, particularly as new data from the cemetery will be available soon (Soles and Davaras 2010). Only Tomb XI (355) can be considered a well-preserved MM I context in the cemetery, and the only one that can offer

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

unambiguous evidence for understanding this period in the cemetery. Little can be said about the interments in the cemetery during this period; the bones were reported to have been found in disorder and no primary interment was reported. The tombs seem to have only one room, where the bodies were interred, with the exceptions provided by the tombs on the West Terrace (348, 349). These tombs consist of two rooms; one that was used for burials (Rooms II and VI) and that contained most of the material (Fig. 89), and another used as an entrance and as ritual space. The latter (Rooms I and IV) had some distinctive common characteristics, such as a well-constructed doorway marking the entrance to the tomb and a wall dividing the room into two spaces. The different character of these rooms was further marked by a particular deposition of objects, low in number in Rooms II and VI (Fig. 89). Interments in these two rooms were found (Seager 1912, 18, 44), but these were probably made only after the burial room was full, and it seems that care was always taken to leave free space in this room, perhaps for ritual purposes (Seager 1912, 44). Rooms III and V probably had a different use; they were constructed later and they have their own entrance. The exact use of these is unclear; Room III did not contain bones but MM I and III material (Seager 1912, 37), while Room V contained bones and EM II–III pottery and it has been suggested that it was an ossuary (Seager 1912, 42). This differentiated use of space is not identified in EM II–III in any other part of the cemetery, including Tomb XX/XXI (364), where both rooms seem to have been used for interments. Together with the distinctive architecture, differences in the material assemblage of the two complexes have been used by scholars to argue that the cemetery marked social differentiation within the Mochlos community during the EM II period (Soles 1988; Branigan 1991b; Manning 1994, 238; contra Watrous 1994, 713; Karantzali 1996, 225; Whitelaw 2004a, 236; Colburn 2008). The above analysis, however, shows that a straightforward comparison between the assemblages of the West Terrace tombs and the rest of the cemetery cannot be made. Most of the tombs on the South Slope have been affected much more severely by denudation than Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI

103

(349; Fig. 88), and the Tomb XVIII (362) assemblage and the large quantity of material found in Tombs XI (355), XIX (363), and XXI (364) suggest that most of the tombs originally contained large deposits that have not always survived (Fig. 90A). While differences between the West Terrace and the South Slope tombs existed, such variation must be understood within a much more fluid and dynamic socioeconomic context than a simple dualistic model that situates the two areas in opposition. Tomb XVII (361) is excluded from this analysis of the tombs identified here with EM II–III deposits because of its small quantity of objects, four items, which indicates that it has been heavily eroded or looted. Of the remaining tombs, Tombs XXI (364) and XIX (363) stand out as they contained a large quantity of material (Figs. 90A, 90B) and their assemblages contain a large proportion of off-island material (Figs. 91A, 91B), resembling those of the West Terrace complexes (348, 349). Tomb XVI (360) contained 14 objects, including one gold item; and Tomb XVIII (362) had little material, but this might be explained by its small size rather than by taphonomic processes. The evidence from these tombs, especially XIX (363) and XXI (364), which appear to be the best preserved, suggests a rather fluid picture. During EM IIB and perhaps EM III (see below), all the tombs seem to have contained a significant amount of grave goods, which in some cases included a large number of imports (Figs. 91A, 91B). This can only be explained by the ritual sanctions a burial must have conformed to, that is, items created from imported material were considered necessary to accompany the deceased or a certain category of deceased individuals, and was a norm that applied to all the tombs at Mochlos, and, hence, to the whole community. At the same time, there appears to have been a scale in the amount of imported material deposited in the tombs. Tombs XIX (363) and XXI (364) contained the largest deposit of this material, apart from the West Terrace complexes (348, 349; Fig. 91B). Tomb XVI (360) may represent an intermediate position as some gold and some stone vases were found. At the bottom of the scale is Tomb XVIII (362), which contained only one stone vase. This differential deposition of material could express socioeconomic distinctions

104

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

between the groups that used the different tombs (see discussion below). Unfortunately, at Mochlos there are no contexts with well-preserved human remains, which would aid estimation of the number of individuals interred per tomb and thus provide a better definition of the dynamics within the cemetery. Soles attempted to calculate the number of burials in Mochlos Room I (348) based on the 30 skulls reported in this tomb (Seager 1912, 18). Considering the number of years that the tomb was in use, Soles suggested that 30 skulls might account for 10 to 15 interments per century, which was about half to three-quarters of what a nuclear family would contribute (Bintliff 1977b, 639; Soles 1992b, 252– 253). Bearing in mind that some of the bones were probably not preserved, especially those of children and infants, he suggested that the human remains were likely to account for one nuclear family. There are some problems with this calculation, however. First, Room I (348) was probably intended for ritual activities rather than for burials in the first instance, and it may have housed an overflow of human remains from Room II (348) rather than representing a coherent social unit. Second, Room I formed part of a larger tomb that contained a large number of human remains in its other rooms (Seager 1912, 23). Does this mean that the entire tomb was intended for use by more than one nuclear family? It is possible that Tombs

I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) were utilized in a different way than other tombs, as their location, layout, and the differentiated character of their rooms have no other parallels at Mochlos. Yet the idea of one nuclear family per tomb is supported by the evidence from the South Slope tombs. Assuming that each tomb related to one nuclear family, the resulting estimate for the number of families roughly matches the figures extrapolated from settlement size. While Whitelaw’s Mochlos community-size estimate, based on the limited data available, does not match the data from the cemetery exactly (Whitelaw 1983, 339; Soles and Davaras 1992, 424–426 n. 30), the data from both lines of investigation can be reconciled approximately (a 0.6–0.8 ha settlement with around 40 families and a population of more than 200 individuals), if it is accepted that some tombs in the cemetery have not been preserved and if some of the uncertainties about the extent and density of the EM settlement population expressed by Soles and Davaras are taken into consideration. Recent survey studies support this figure, as they have shown that other settlements of a size similar to Mochlos may have existed in the EM II Mirabello area (Watrous 2001, 221; Hayden 2004, 46– 48; Haggis 2005, 63–64). Thus for Mochlos it can be suggested that each tomb was used by one nuclear family in EM IIB, with the possible exception of Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349).

Early Minoan III Early Minoan III wares in the Mirabello region were clearly identified in Boyd, Hall, and Seager’s excavations (Hall 1905; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 57). The traditional identification of EM III in the area is not without problems, however, as it relies on the presence of White-on-Dark Ware, which is not readily found in all contexts. In addition, while it is widely accepted that White-on-Dark ware marks the EM III phase in the Mirabello area (Zois 1968a, 117–119; Andreou 1978, 55–56; Betancourt 1984, 1–4; Apostolakou, Betancourt, and Brogan 2011), it is not the only ware in use (Betancourt 1977, 351; Andreou 1978, 55–56; Hayden 2005, 4), and EM III contexts may exist without the presence

of this ware, making identification more difficult and creating confusion about the dating of some of the burial contexts (Watrous 2005, 108–110). Also, it seems that the white paint does not survive well on vessels, which in many cases may have rendered the identification of EM III White-on-Dark Ware almost impossible (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 57; Hayden 2004, 76). Enough EM III White-onDark Ware from burial contexts has been recorded, however, so that an attempt can be made to document EM III mortuary behavior in the Mirabello Bay and Ierapetra region (Fig. 92). It seems that roughly as many cemeteries were in use in EM III times as had been during the EM

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

II period, which represents a deviation from the pattern documented in other parts of the island (Fig. 78). While most of the EM II cemeteries seem to have remained in use, new ones appeared in the record, such as Kalo Chorio (345, 346; Haggis 1996) and Myrtos Pyrgos (383; Cadogan 1978, 2011b). Interestingly, the number of tombs inside the known cemeteries shows little variation, as at Mochlos (348–381), and probably also at Pseira (386–406). At the latter cemetery, EM III wares have not been recognized in all the tombs, but here the small number of sherds recovered from most of the tombs has made difficult the preservation of the elusive White-on-Dark Ware. Contrary to this trend, at Gournia North Cemetery (324– 332) no tombs were in use during EM IIB and EM III; however, there is evidence of EM III occupation at the main site (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 57; Soles 1979, 151). The rock shelter and cave types of tomb appear to have declined in popularity and outside the cemeteries of Pseira (386–406) and Mochlos (348–381) there is secure evidence for only one rock shelter having remained in use during EM III, namely Hagios Antonios (343), which was abandoned during this period (Betancourt 1983, 5; Haggis 1993, 16–17). At the Myrsini (382) tholos, Platon reported that the tomb was in use during the last phases of the Prepalatial period and Warren reported EM III wares from it (Platon 1959, 374; Warren 1969, 195 n. 2). The exact history of use of the tomb is unknown, but both larnakes and pithoi were reported in this context (Platon 1959, 374) that could have been as early as EM III, contemporaneous with the first appearance of pithoi and larnakes in other cemeteries in the region. Three new and very different cemeteries appeared in EM III at Myrtos Pyrgos (383, 384; Cadogan 1981, 58), Pacheia Ammos (385; Zois 1968a, 167–168; Betancourt 1977, 347), and possibly at Kalo Chorio (345, 346; Haggis 1996, 653–654). At Myrtos Pyrgos (383, 384), a settlement known mainly for its Neopalatial occupation (Cadogan 1978, 1981, 2011a, 2011b; Knappett 1997), a single peculiar EM III/MM IA–LM IB rectangular tomb was found (Fig. 93; Cadogan 1978, 70–74; 1981; 2011b; Hankey 1981; 1986; Soles 1992b, 176–179). If the size of the MM–LM settlement can be used as a reference, the tomb was atypically situated just

105

at its perimeter. Moreover, the tomb was linked to the settlement by a paved road, a unique feature. The tomb comprises an exterior paved court, where a kernos was placed; a main rectangular chamber with a central pillar, probably supporting a second floor; and two other rooms: one between the paved area and the main chamber, and the other a small elliptical room in the southwest corner of the main chamber. The main chamber was entered directly from its north corner; the north room has its own entrance and the southwest room has no recognizable entrance. The partition of the rooms has some similarities with Mochlos I/II/III (348), and especially IV/V/VI (349), and the outside courtyard, paved area, and kernos have parallels at Chrysolakkos (263, 264) in Malia and the MM I Gournia North Cemetery (326). The plan and layout of the tomb are unique, however, and do not parallel any of the known rectangular tombs. The pillar in the main chamber as well as the possible second floor are unusual features, for which the only EM III– MM I parallels come from Apesokari A (3; see Ch. 4) and Archanes Phourni Tholos B (163; see Ch. 5), both annexes to MM IA tholos tombs (for a discussion of pillars in tombs, see Soles 1992b, 217–219). It is always possible that the pillar and second floor were MM III/LM I additions to the tomb in a period when the tomb had an important use, and it is in this period that features such as the pillar room were widely found in Crete (Hankey 1986). The two adjacent rooms are considered to have been ossuaries, but no clear evidence for their use is yet available, and their relationship with the main chamber has yet to be clarified. The tomb seems to have been constructed in EM III or the very beginning of MM IA (Pyrgos II phase; Cadogan 1978, 71, 73; 2000, 169; 2011b), but the main chamber only contained material from its MM II–LM I use (Cadogan 1978, 73), rendering any assessment of the EM III use of the tomb impossible. At Kalo Chorio (345, 346), two tombs were found in a very bad state of preservation (Fig. 94; Haggis et al. 1993; Haggis 1996), and it can only be suggested that the architectural remains belong to two rectangular tombs (Haggis 1996, 647–649). Neither the number of rooms nor the exact dimensions of Tomb I (345) are clear, though it seems that it was roughly similar in size and perhaps in plan to Tombs I (324) and II (325) at Gournia North

106

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Cemetery (Figs. 82, 94; Haggis 1996, 651). Tomb II (346) was badly preserved and only the remains of a wall were discovered. Only the ceramics from Tomb I (345) were published and they seem to indicate a first use of the tombs in EM III/MM IA times (see discussion in Haggis 1996, 653–655), but the larnakes found probably represent a later use of the tomb (see the next section). Although there is no discussion concerning the material from Tomb II (346), it seems that it can be roughly dated to the same period as Tomb I (345; Haggis 1996, 653). At Gournia, no EM III pottery has been identified in the North Cemetery (324–332), but it appears in three different deposits at Sphoungaras: Deposits A (336), B (337), and the MM I (338) Deposit (Figs. 73, 81). Deposit A (336) contained EM III material (see fig. 23 in Hall 1912a, 51; Zois 1968a, 173–175; Andreou 1978, 62; Betancourt 1984, 17) and has already been described above. A deposit north of Deposit A and slightly overlapping it was named the “MM I Deposit” (338), and it contained mainly MM I material (see vases in Hall 1912a, 56–58, figs. 28, 30; Betancourt 1983, 49, nos. 125–127), but may have included earlier material, perhaps from a transitional EM III/MM IA phase (Walberg 1983, 125). No other features were reported from this context. At Pseira, possible EM III wares have been found in only seven tombs (386, 387, 389–391, 394, 400; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003), a low number compared with the tombs in use in EM II and MM I (Fig. 79). As we noted, this may not be due to a meaningful pattern, but to preservation issues and even if fewer tombs were in use at Pseira during EM III, it appears that this did not represent a dramatic change in the use of the cemetery. At Mochlos (348–381) there is enough evidence to suggest that the cemetery followed the patterns of use recognized in EM IIB, including the number of tombs in use (Figs. 79, 87). Although Watrous has suggested that much of what was considered EM III at the Mochlos cemetery should be redated to MM I (Watrous 2005, 108–110), it seems that Seager’s original suggestion that EM III was a significant phase in the use of the cemetery could be generally correct (Seager 1912, 97, 104; Zois 1968a, 146–165; Branigan 1991b, 97–98; Whitelaw 2004a, 242). There were no major changes in the

cemetery and a similar number of tombs to the EM IIB period (Fig. 79) were in use; indeed, even a new tomb, XII (356), may have been constructed in EM III (Seager 1912, 61–63; Zois 1968a, 161). The disturbed condition of the tombs at Mochlos led Seager to consider the EM II and EM III mortuary behavior in the cemetery together, contrasting it to what he thought was a very different pattern in MM I. Seager suggested that a large number of objects, including many valuable ones, were still being deposited in the tombs during EM III (Seager 1912, 104). According to Seager, this pattern changed in MM I with the disappearance of highvalue objects (Seager 1912, 101, 104). It is not clear, however, whether the EM III assemblage at Mochlos is similar to that of the EM II phase. There were almost no closed EM III contexts in the cemetery, which makes the characterization of a typical EM III assemblage very difficult. In Tombs I/ II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349), where the stratigraphy can be tentatively reconstructed (Soles 1992b, 49, 57), the EM III wares do not appear to have been associated with the jewelry found in these deposits and, in general, only a few EM III objects come from these tombs (Seager 1912, 24; Soles 1992b, 61, cups MVI-3); moreover, the stone vases and gold jewelry associated with a possible EM III burial found in Room IV (349) were considered by Seager to have been deposited in EM II (Seager 1912, 44–48). The rich assemblage in Tombs XIX (363), XX/XXI (364), and XXII (365) cannot be broken down into distinct periods either. Therefore it cannot be affirmed whether high-value material continued to be deposited in the cemetery during EM III or not. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the pattern of deposition of imported and other high-value objects might have changed through time with the particular contingencies of the history of the community and its different groups, and that the rich assemblage from some tombs may have belonged to EM IIB while in other tombs it belonged to EM III, obscuring the general trends in material deposition in the cemetery. Pacheia Ammos (385) presents a completely new type of cemetery in the area in EM III, the pithos cemetery (Seager 1916; Platon and Alexiou 1957, 339–340; Alexiou 1963b, 405; Apostolakou 1986; Pariente 1993, 886). The cemetery, found on the beach of Pacheia Ammos, did not contain any

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

architectural features, and comprised 222 pithoi and six larnakes buried in the sand, with dates ranging from EM III to LM I (Seager 1916, 9). Individuals were interred in pithoi that were buried upsidedown in the ground, accompanied by a small number of objects inside the container, usually ceramic vessels (Seager 1916, 9–13). The appearance of a cemetery so different from anything seen until this period is surprising, not so much because of the introduction of a completely new type of burial, but because it represents a departure from the idea of group burial, which had been the common denominator of all the Cretan tombs to this date. Pithos burials appeared in other parts of the island during this period, the majority inside built tombs, but some perhaps following this new “pithos cemetery” pattern (Porti [127] in South-Central Crete, Hagios Myronas [206] near Herakleion, and Ilôt du Christ [268] near Malia are similar cases). These cemeteries are also associated with built tombs nearby, and this raises the possibility that a cemetery with built tombs may have existed in Pacheia Ammos near the

107

beach; we should be careful before considering this cemetery as an entity on its own. Pacheia Ammos (385) shows a new relationship between the burial customs and affiliation rules within a Cretan community. For the first time, the individual seems to be the focus of the burial rather than a larger social group. Authors have suggested that this change may reflect a breakdown of kinship-based institutions into a more individualized social organization under the auspices of the newly formed palaces (Glotz 1925, 131–137; Pini 1968, 34; Branigan 1970a, 177–178; Tsipopoulou 2008). Others have suggested that the pithos burials may mark the interment of poor individuals (Soles 1992b, 256). While all these theories encounter problems when confronted with the archaeological evidence (Walberg 1987, 58–59; Petit 1990, 40–43), they rightly stress that Pacheia Ammos constitutes a clear deviation from the group burial typical until this point, even if it had an association with a nearby built cemetery.

Middle Minoan I During MM I the funerary record did not change significantly in terms of the number of tombs and cemeteries in use in the Mirabello Bay and Ierapetra region. Only two new burial sites appeared (Figs. 78, 95)—Evraika (322, 323; Pariente 1991, 940; Haggis 2005, 141; Tsipopoulou 2008, 132) and Vasiliki A (409; Seager 1907, 114–115; 1916, 20; Hall 1912a, 73; Soles 1992b, 194–195)—and there was no major increase in the size of the cemeteries, with the exception of Gournia North Cemetery (324–332) where the cemetery saw new use marked by various newly constructed tombs (Figs. 79, 81). However, this general picture of continuity does not parallel other aspects of the mortuary behavior, which experienced important changes during this period. At Evraika (322, 323), the first evidence of burial use of the rock shelter dates to MM I (Haggis 2005, 141). The crevice has some architectural features that set it apart from earlier rock shelters. It has two chambers separated by a screen wall and both have been modified, one with a built entrance and the other with a little dromos (Haggis 1992,

216). The partition of the space into two and the built features are traits typical of rectangular tombs rather than of EM rock shelters. This parallels the EM III/MM I rock shelter at Kyparisi B (244; see above), Mochlos Tomb VII (351), and Pseira Tomb IV (389) and, like these, it may have been an attempt to modify the rock shelter in order to make it look like a rectangular tomb. Little can be added to what has already been noted about the cemeteries constructed in earlier periods. At the Myrsini tholos (382), 25 larnakes and pithoi were found, most probably documenting the MM I use of the tomb. Interments were also made in the ground and the remains of at least 60 individuals were recovered (Platon 1959, 373–374). At Myrtos Pyrgos (383, 384), almost nothing of the exact use of the tomb in MM I times is known, just that the outside paved area and the road (384) were covered with a layer of earth during MM IB (Cadogan 1978, 71–73), perhaps marking a gap in the use of the tomb. At Kalo Chorio, the six larnakes found in Tomb A (345) were dated to MM I–II (Haggis

108

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

1996, 652). Larnax 2 was placed on top of Larnax 7, which indicates a renewal of the larnakes, as well as little concern for earlier interments. Larnakes 4 and 5 were also probably deposited in the tomb later than Larnakes 1 and 3 (Haggis 1996, 649). In Larnax 3, human remains were found clustered toward the east side of the larnax, and the bones in Larnax 5 were arranged similarly at one end of the larnax (Fig. 94). The state of the bones indicated secondary burial and Haggis suggested that the larnakes were used as ossuaries, based on the space kept empty in these two larnakes (Haggis 1996, 650). Only one body was found in each larnax, however, and this was a conscious choice, since more larnakes were added to the tombs rather than reusing the existing ones. The space in the larnakes may not have been left with the purpose of making room for new interments, but perhaps for depositing perishable objects with the body; shells found in Larnax 3 indicate such activities. Burials located in the ground were also found inside the tombs, leaving unclear the relationship between these and the bones inside the larnakes, although they could represent different stages of the funeral ritual rather than a different type of interment. At Pseira (386–406), the wide representation of MM I pottery implies that the cemetery was in full use during this period (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003), but little or nothing can be said about the exact characteristics of this use. Indeed, the most interesting trait is the absence of modifications in tombs that were designed and constructed in EM I. The only feature that the excavators suggested may have been created in MM I is a retaining wall outside Tomb IV (389) that served to create a little terrace in front of this rock shelter (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 40–41, 49; Betancourt 2011b). At Mochlos, Seager suggested that the MM I period was a phase of decline in the cemetery before its abandonment at the end of this period (Seager 1912, 101–102; Soles 1992b, 254). He did not recognize tombs constructed in MM I times and argued that high-value materials were deposited in very small quantities compared to earlier periods. Watrous has recently challenged this view, dating to MM I some of the high-value materials and arguing that during MM I Mochlos was still a thriving community (Watrous 2005, 114). But none of

his claims are based on a comprehensive assessment of the tombs, and an accurate evaluation of the MM I use of the cemetery cannot be made unless the record is considered in detail. As pointed out by Seager, no new tombs appear to have been constructed at Mochlos in MM I (Figs. 79, 87). Tomb Gamma (369) was the only tomb that did not contain EM pottery, but only one sherd was published from this context and Soles, purely on architectural grounds, suggested an EM date for the construction of this tomb (Soles 1992b, 77, 83–85). In general, most of the tombs in the cemetery appear to have contained MM I pottery, and Seager reported “many good examples of the contemporary geometrical dark-on-light M.M. I ware” (Seager 1912, 98). Looking at the evidence in detail, it can be suggested that the cemetery seemed to witness a change in its mortuary behavior that affected the tombs differently, rather than the cemetery as a whole being affected by a simple general decline. Both Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) seem to have had very little MM I material. Seager identified MM I finds in Room III (Seager 1912, 37–38), but in Tomb IV/V/VI, little if any material can be considered MM (Soles 1992b, 57–60; contra Watrous 2005, 113), apart from one seal that could be as late as MM IA (Sbonias 1995, 85). Even if the tomb contained MM IA material, this would be a small deposit compared with the EM II and EM III evidence. The paved area outside the tomb (350) is not datable on ceramic grounds, as some of the items found here by Davaras may have come from the cleaning of the rooms or Seager’s excavations (Davaras 1975, 101). It could be argued that a few fragments of stone vases lying on top of the small altar in this area may have been found in situ; these probably date from the MM I period (Soles 1992b, 62). The pithoid jar IV/V/VI.1 has many MM I– II parallels at the Pacheia Ammos cemetery (385; Seager 1916). Vase IV/V/VI.2 has clear MM I parallels (this is Type 36C in Warren 1969; MacGillivray 1998, pl. 1:P 42). Soles’s drawn section of the area shows that some of the features outside the tomb may have been constructed at the same time as the tomb (see stone from the paved area wedged underneath the wall of the tomb, Soles 1992b, 53, fig. 21), but given the close EM III–MM I parallels, such as the altar outside Gournia Tomb II (326) or the paved area outside the Myrtos Pyrgos tomb

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

(384), it seems feasible that these areas could have been modified in the EM III–MM I period to create the tripartite form known to us. On the South Slope, there are a few tombs that seem to have contained little or no MM I material, such as Tombs XVI (360), XVIII (362), XIX (363), or XX/XXI (364). This supports the suggested decline of the cemetery in MM I. Recent excavations in the settlement also point to a recession in the occupation of the site in the Protopalatial period (T. Brogan, pers. comm.). Other evidence indicates that the MM I use of the cemetery was more complicated than Seager’s model, however. At Mochlos, only Tomb XI (355) can be considered a well-preserved MM I context (see discussion above), and its MM I assemblage was quite different from that suggested for EM II. No jewelry was found, and the only object made in off-island raw material is a long dagger (XI.22). Despite the lack of items in off-island materials, the ten MM I stone vessels and the seven MM I ceramic vessels indicate a significant MM I deposit in this tomb. It is probable that changes in the mortuary behavior dictated a change in the type of deposits placed in the tombs and moved toward the noninclusion of objects made in imported materials, but continued the deposition of ceramic and stone vessels. This change in the assemblages has been well documented in other MM I tombs reviewed in the Mirabello area and other parts of the island (Figs. 76, 82). At Mochlos, this change may give the impression of decline or impoverishment of the cemetery after the EM II depositional pattern. The recently discovered cylinder seal in Tomb Lambda (377; Soles and Davaras 1992, 420–424), which can be dated to MM I (Davaras and Soles 1997, 40), shows that a limited number of high-value objects were still finding their way into the cemetery. Interestingly, the seal was not found in a tomb that yielded large amounts of EM II–III pottery and the same can be argued for Tomb XI (355), which indicates that the use of the cemetery also changed in accordance with the particular history of the groups using each tomb. Material was deposited in different tombs in MM I, perhaps as the sociopolitical balance in the community shifted from one group to another. While a decrease in the number of tombs in use in the cemetery seems to have occurred in

109

MM IA, a heavily disturbed record and a change in the mortuary behavior in the cemetery may have helped to create too extreme a picture, in which the Mochlos cemetery seemed to have a far lower profile in MM IA than it actually had. Only for the later MM IB period can such a picture be suggested, as almost no MM IB evidence has been recovered from the cemetery. Gournia is the only site where major expansion can be clearly identified in its mortuary record during MM I. After an apparent gap in the use of the cemetery in the EM IIB and III periods, a new group of tombs was built in MM I both at Sphoungaras (339) and in the North Cemetery (324, 325, 328). Tombs from the earlier periods were not reused, marking a clear break in the burial record of the community between EM and MM. In addition, both cemeteries were now most probably related to the site at Gournia, which seems to have experienced an episode of expansion in MM IA (Soles 1979, 151). There is a clear break in the mortuary record at Sphoungaras. Although MM I material appears in two of the old rock shelters, II (334) and IV (335), in Deposit B (337), and in the so-called MM I Deposit (338), the cemetery changed its personality completely as these contexts seem to have been related to the new pithos cemetery (339) found at this location. At Rock Shelter IV (335) fragments of a larnax were reported. The MM I material in Deposit B (337) and in the MM I Deposit (338) also may have come from destroyed pithos and larnax burials, though the possibility of cultic areas around the cemetery, as has been suggested for Pseira (405, 406; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 115–117) and for Buildings Nu (379) and Xi (380) at Mochlos (Soles and Davaras 1992, 424), cannot be ignored. The pithos cemetery at Sphoungaras (339) is very similar to that at Pacheia Ammos (385); here 150 pithoi and one larnax (not including the Rock Shelter IV example) were found, all of them buried upside-down and dated from the MM I to the LM I period (Hall 1912a, 45–46). Little can be said about the MM I use of the cemetery apart from the fact that not many MM I pithoi seem to have been deposited and that in general these did not contain many objects (Hall 1912a, 66–67). Pottery was found mainly outside the pithoi and mostly consisted of conical cups (Hall 1912a, 66).

110

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

At the North Cemetery, important changes occurred. Two, and another possible three, new rectangular tombs were constructed: Tombs I (324), II (325), IV (328), VII (331), and VIII (332; Figs. 81, 83). Tombs VII (331) and VIII (332) were mentioned by Boyd in her reports and their exact location is unclear (observe the differences between the plan of the area and the plan of the North Cemetery in Fig. 73; Boyd 1904, 42; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Soles 1992b, 39–40; Fotou 1993, 99). These two tombs plus extant Tomb IV (328) seem to be quite simple rectangular tombs (Fig. 83), and since they did not yield any objects, their MM I date is based on their location and architectural traits (Soles 1992b, 34–36). Tomb I (324; Fig. 83; Boyd 1905, 186–188; Davaras 1973a, 588–589; Soles 1992b, 3–28) has two small rooms, and no entrance seems to have existed, nor was there an internal doorway between the rooms, suggesting an entrance from above. The main feature of the tomb is a bench in the south room. The type of interment is not entirely clear; Boyd in her notebook reported broken casella (referring probably to larnax fragments), but these sherds have never been published. The published human remains come from a pit in the north room, where fragments of eight skulls were found. This pit exclusively contained EM IIA ceramics (Soles 1992b, 8–9; Wilson and Day 1994, 17), three MM I stone vessels (Soles 1992b, 9) as well as 10 silver beads, sea shells, and 15 ivory pieces. Soles has suggested that apart from the stone vessels the material might be dated to EM II, perhaps eroded from Tomb III (327) and buried in the pit when the terrain was prepared for the construction of Tomb I (324; Soles 1992b, 9). A silver vessel dated to MM IB–II was found in the tomb (Andreou 1978, 93; Davis 1979; Cultraro 2006), together with 11 ceramic vessels, nine stone vessels, two copper objects, and two seals. Although MM IA pottery was found in the tomb (Soles 1992b, 10–11, vases G I-4, G I-5), most of the ceramic vessels indicate a later MM IB–III use (Silverman 1974; Andreou 1978, 106; see the discussion of vessels in Soles 1992b, 9–12). Tomb II (325) also has two rooms, and it is slightly larger than Tomb I (324; Fig. 83). This tomb had some interesting architectural features outside its east and south walls (326). At the southeast corner

of the tomb, two steps lead to what seems to be a bench or stone buttress that runs outside the eastern wall of the tomb. Just west of the steps, two large leveled stones may have served as an outside altar. The significance of these two stones is manifested by a kernos stone just south of them. These external features may be compared to those outside Tomb IV/V/VI (349) at Mochlos, Chrysolakkos I (263) at Malia, and perhaps Myrtos Pyrgos (384), and they may have had a similar cultic purpose. A broken casella was reported from this tomb and larnakes may have existed here together with burial pithoi (Soles 1992b, 23). The construction of the tomb can be dated to EM III/MM IA, as a deposit of ceramic sherds of this date was found underneath the east wall (Soles 1992b, 23). Twenty-one ceramic vessels, 11 stone vessels, three sealstones, and three copper tools were found, and although Soles suggested that the tomb was not used later than MM IB (Soles 1992b, 21–23), some of the material may date to MM II and III (Boyd 1904; Kenna 1960, 37; Silverman 1974, 14; Sbonias 1995, 179). Gournia may be a unique window on a type of burial practice during MM I that has not been clearly identified before. Gournia clearly shows a two-part cemetery, with one section composed of communal built tombs (324, 325, 328, 331, 332), and a second sector composed mainly of pithoi buried in the ground (339). Such a cemetery may have existed at Pacheia Ammos (385), where the built cemetery, probably under the modern village, may not have been discovered as it did not lie immediately next to the pithos cemetery. Larnakes found in the Area of the Rocks at Archanes Phourni (187) may represent a similar layout (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 234). The description of Porti (127) and Vorou (148) could also be interpreted similarly, with areas outside the tholos tomb used for pithos burials (Xanthoudides 1924, 54–55; Marinatos 1931). Even the case of Trapeza Cave (313) may have followed a similar pattern, in this instance the cave representing the communal tomb and the pithoi interments located outside the entrance (Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 3, 15, 23). Such a bipartite pattern may have been more common than previously thought. The two parts of the cemetery might not have been close to each other, making them difficult to identify during excavation. Pithos burials are particularly

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

difficult to identify due to their small archaeological footprint and may have passed unnoticed near excavated cemeteries. Soles has suggested that individuals of high rank were interred in the built tombs in the North Cemetery (324, 325) as opposed to the poor interments represented by the pithoi at Sphoungaras (339; Soles 1988, 51–56). There is some evidence that supports this point of view: the silver kantharos and the high number of stone vessels in Tombs I (324) and II (325) suggest certain qualitative differences in the material assemblages of the North Cemetery rectangular tombs. The difference between the two types of cemeteries should not be

111

judged simply in terms of richness, however, as it may express more profound divisions, particularly as the built tombs are group tombs and the pithos cemeteries are individual tombs. They may indicate a difference in the type of social relations and networks that determined the social belonging of the deceased. Individuals in the pithoi may have represented people that found themselves outside kinship networks (outcasts, slaves, foreigners). The possibility that the pithos burials and the rectangular tombs constituted different stages of a common funerary ritual cannot be discarded either, although there is no evidence presently that supports this suggestion.

Middle Minoan II and Beyond As in many other parts of the island, by MM II the number of cemeteries and tombs in use had declined drastically in the Mirabello area (Figs. 78, 96), and a limited amount of MM II material has been found in the tombs that remained in use (Haggis 1992, 217; Zois 1998b, 174). At Myrtos Pyrgos (383), the tomb was in use during Phase III, which has been dated to MM II–IIIA (Andreou 1978, 142– 143; Cadogan 1981, 59; Knappett 1999a, 627), and the earliest bones and material preserved inside belong to this period (Cadogan 1981, 58; Hankey 1986, 135). Charcoal and fallen stones were reported with the MM II–III material (Hankey 1986, 135), which raises the possibility that the tomb suffered some kind of collapse at the end of this period. Kalo Chorio Tomb A (345) was still in use in MM II (Haggis 1996, 653). At Pacheia Ammos (385), only a small amount of MM II material has been identified when compared to the other periods of use (Walberg 1983, 125). At Pseira, MM II material was found in various tombs (386–401, 405, 406; Fig. 79; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 123), and the last use of the cemetery dates to MM IIB, coinciding

with a substantial change in the settlement (Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 138–139). At Gournia, the North Cemetery seems to have experienced significant use during MM II. In Tomb I (324), the silver vessel and two similar lobed kantharoi date to MM IB–MM III (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, pl. C:2, 3; Andreou 1978, 106; Davis 1979; Soles 1992b, 9–10, nos. G I-2, G I-3; Cultraro 2006). At Sphoungaras (339), only a little material has been dated to MM II (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56). During the MM III–LM I periods, only four cemeteries remained in use (Fig. 97). At Myrtos Pyrgos, the tomb was heavily used (383), and more than 1,000 vessels found in the tomb date to this period (Cadogan 1981; Hankey 1986). The pithos cemeteries at Pacheia Ammos (385) and Sphoungaras (339) were also intensively used during these periods. At Mochlos some of the tombs were reused during MM III for burials, but only in a limited way (Dawkins 1908, 327; Seager 1912). At Pseira, even though the settlement thrived during MM III, the cemetery was never reused, and the same can be argued for Gournia North Cemetery.

Conclusions Prior to a definition of the changing mortuary behavior patterns in the Mirabello Bay and

Ierapetra areas, issues of uniformity in the record as well as chronology need to be addressed.

112

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

In previous chapters, patterns were seen to follow a certain chronology, such as a significant difference between the EM IIA and IIB subperiods. Yet Pseira (386–406), Gournia (324–339), and Mochlos (348–381) seem to have witnessed different individual trajectories that elude the general divisions drawn for other regions. While this could be a characteristic of Mirabello communities, it is not surprising that more accurate data reveal differences between local trajectories and the larger regional and longer-term chronological trends, and the Mirabello example may suggest what more detailed data could document for other regions. In this particular case, the developments of these three cemeteries are interlaced in a small regional dynamic, and the fact that the Mochlos cemetery (348–381) seems to blossom in a period when the Gournia cemeteries (324–339) lose significance, and that the opposite is true in MM I, cannot be considered a coincidence. Consequently, while the following review will be roughly divided into periods, it will have as a framework the comparison between these three cemeteries, drawing on the wider regional context when relevant.

Early Minoan I–II In general, the EM I period reveals a familiar funerary picture with the use of rock shelters as burial places, grouped to form cemeteries. This picture has an important exception, the Pseira cemetery (386–406), which had a particular type of tomb, the cist, and a particular layout, with possibly as many as 20 tombs, a number much larger than the estimates for the rock shelter cemeteries. Whether this reflects an unusual number of nuclear families in a particularly large community or a Cycladic influence in the social unit using each tomb is presently not clear. But more interesting is the fact that Pseira supported a unique blend of Cretan and Cycladic burial practices not encountered in any other community on Crete. The cist tombs at Pseira were not a direct translation of Cycladic mortuary behavior, nor did they contain a Cycladic-style assemblage. It is probably the strong Cretan component that permitted this cemetery to continue in use in EM IIA when the other Cycladic-style cemeteries in Crete were abandoned, as the community

using the cemetery could have aligned itself with other Cretan communities when direct Cycladic influences on Crete weakened. During EM IIA, the EM I rock shelters continued in use while the Pseira cemetery (386–406), Gournia North Cemetery (324–332), and Mochlos cemetery (348, 349) were founded. Although both Gournia North Cemetery (327) and Mochlos (348, 349) represent a development of the tomb type at Pseira with the appearance of rectangular tombs, neither of them had as many tombs as Pseira. One EM IIA rectangular tomb has been identified at Gournia North Cemetery (327) and two at Mochlos (348, 349). All three are large examples with more than one room, and while the Gournia Tomb III (327) assemblage has not been sufficiently well preserved for assessment, Mochlos I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) seem to have contained a large number of objects made in imported raw materials. These form part of the typical assemblage found in tombs in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions, as observed at Hagios Antonios (343), but never appeared in such large quantities as in the Mochlos tombs. Various questions arise from this EM IIA scenario. The first one concerns the social unit that used the tombs. The number of rock shelters found at Sphoungaras (333–335) and Hagia Photia Ierapetras (340–342; three found at each site, with various other crevices probably not preserved) may represent the minimum number of tombs per community in the widespread rock shelter cemeteries. On the one hand, this number matches data from the EM I–II settlement patterns, in which the most common settlement would house five to six families (Whitelaw 1983, 336–337; Hayden 2004, 47, 71–72; Haggis 2005, 63), and it could be suggested that each rock shelter represents the interment space for one nuclear family. On the other hand, rock shelters seem in general to have been lightly used, and may not have had a direct relationship with a clear burial group. Any particular area with more rock shelters may have been utilized as a burial place, and the interments located there because of the availability of this feature. Although Gournia North Cemetery is difficult to assess as it incorporates a rectangular tomb (327) and rock shelters (329, 330) and may represent a mixed bag of burial practices, EM IIA

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

Pseira, with its numerous tombs (386–406), and EM IIA Mochlos, with possibly as few as two tombs (348, 349), present a very different scenario. Even though the identification of social units in tombs can only be taken as a suggestion, it seems clear that in EM IIA discrepancies exist in the relationship between social unit and tomb, as reflected in differences between the rock shelter cemeteries and the built tomb cemeteries. This poses questions about the use of the cemeteries by these two communities and about how their social organization compares to that of communities using the rock shelter cemeteries. A second question arises from the suggestion that vertical differentiation can be identified in the EM II cemeteries of Gournia (327, 329, 330) and Mochlos (348, 349; Seager 1912, 17; Whitelaw 1983, 337–339; 2004a; Soles 1988; Branigan 1991b; Carter 2004; Vavouranakis 2007; Colburn 2008; contra Cherry 1983a, 40; Watrous 1994, 713; 2005). These authors have argued that the individual assemblages in Tomb III (327) at Gournia and Tombs I/II/III (348) and IV/V/VI (349) at Mochlos, together with their particular architectural traits, show that groups with a privileged status within the community used these. This view is supported by evidence coming from recent survey work, which has recognized a settlement hierarchy in the EM II Mirabello region, in which Mochlos could be equated to the largest sites, suggesting vertical differentiation (Whitelaw 1983, 337–339; Watrous 2001, 221–223; Hayden 2004, 76; Haggis 2005, 64). The detailed analyses of the burial evidence, however, show a much more complex situation than the one that the majority of authors have assumed. In EM IIA Mochlos, the cemetery seems to have consisted only of two large tombs (348, 349). Although an internal competition dynamic between the groups interred in both tombs based on the presence of off-island material can be suggested, it does not represent the picture generally invoked of the West Terrace complexes as opposed to the South Slope tombs. The similar construction and layout of the two complexes point to a similar idiosyncrasy for both, perhaps related to use of the tombs by two similar social groups. Competition between the groups may be reflected in the deposition of off-island material, which could explain the

113

notable deposits in both tombs. This scenario has obvious links with the dynamics identified at EM IIA Archanes Phourni (165, 166). The architecture of Tomb III (327) at Gournia North Cemetery, and its dominant location over Rock Shelters V (329) and VI (330) during the EM IIA period, may hint at differentiation between the tombs, although the principal material means of vertical differentiation in EM IIA, namely artifacts in off-island materials, cannot be incorporated into this picture given the poor preservation of the tomb contents. A key feature at Mochlos, namely a second equivalent tomb, is missing, however, and it is possible that Rock Shelters V (329) and VI (330) do not represent “poor” social groups, but groups still preferring the traditional rock shelter for secondary burial. The Gournia North Cemetery evidence therefore does not represent a clear situation in which EM IIA social differentiation can be identified. By EM IIB the funerary scenario in the Mirabello Bay region had changed again. Gournia North Cemetery seems to have been abandoned and at Sphoungaras the EM IIB material comes only from the ill-defined Deposits A (336) and B (337). But Mochlos experienced a period of expansion, and the Pseira cemetery continued to have a similar use to that in earlier periods. In general, although in some of the cemeteries there is no clear identification of the EM IIA–EM IIB sequence, it appears that earlier cemeteries continued in use in EM IIB (Fig. 77). In fact, the EM IIB period seems to have been a period of growth in the area as indicated by the appearance of large settlements such as Vasiliki (Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 50; Zois 1976) and perhaps Kavousi and Tholos (Haggis 2005, 64). The abandonment seen at the Gournia cemeteries opposed the general trend in EM IIB. It is in this period that the Mochlos cemetery experienced a major expansion with the appearance of several new tombs on the South Slope (351– 380). Though the dating of the evidence is still debatable, in several cases there are tombs containing material that dates to EM II–EM III only; several of these tombs contained significant deposits of off-island materials. But rather than being a simple expansion, the changes demonstrate profound transformations in the mortuary behavior in the cemetery, especially in its internal dynamics.

114

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

The way the cemetery was used was altered completely: from two large tombs to more than twenty. This indicates that the relationship between social group, community, and tomb changed, and in EM IIB Mochlos there was probably a direct correlation between tomb and nuclear family. Together with this change, a whole new range of dynamics between tombs within the cemetery appeared, probably to manage the relationship between the newly defined intrasettlement groups. The two tombs on the West Terrace (348, 349) were constructed in EM IIA, probably in a very different social situation and with a different pattern of use related to them, which would explain their peculiar plan and architectural features. Their use and significance may have evolved, however, particularly when most of the tombs on the South Slope were constructed in EM IIB–III. The West Terrace tombs could have been claimed by two particularly powerful groups to ascertain their ascendancy. Being attached to the older and distinctive tombs may have been seen as prestigious. Still, the space in front of tomb IV/V/VI (350) could indicate public ceremonies in this area, and these two tombs might have maintained a different character to the rest. The claim of a particular group over the two tombs on the West Terrace does not preclude additional roles for these buildings in the cemetery, perhaps as focal buildings in community identity. Objects in off-island materials were deposited in most if not all the tombs, indicating that their deposition as grave goods formed part of the common funerary customs in the cemetery. It is only within these general rules of behavior that different tombs show differential success in the accumulation of these items, creating a range at the Mochlos cemetery from the “richest” tombs on the West Terrace (348, 349) to the “poorest” Tomb XVI (360) on the South Slope. The number of tombs encountered at Mochlos finds a match only at Pseira, but the different histories of the cemeteries and the different contexts of the appearance of the tombs make clear that their similar layouts have very different explanations. Moreover, the general competition dynamic between the social units that has been suggested for Mochlos has no parallels on Crete during this or any other period. Cemeteries organized around small social units can be argued for different EM

III–MM I communities such as Archanes Phourni (162–187), Malia (245–267), or Palaikastro (434– 443), but in none of these cemeteries did the different units engage in such a clear strategy of competition as at Mochlos. An explanation for its exceptional character must be related to unique circumstances in the EM IIB Mochlos community. The most relevant insight into these particularities comes from the most characteristic trait in Mochlos EM IIB mortuary behavior: the extensive deposition of objects manufactured in off-island materials. The fact that off-island materials were found in most EM II cemeteries around the Mirabello and Ierapetra region shows that their deposition was not exclusive to Mochlos, but was part of the common mortuary behavior in these regions during EM I– II, perhaps related to certain categories of individuals common to the social organization of every community in the area, such as heads of families or individuals with specific social or ritual positions. The high social value of this material in the area made it a suitable means of stating differences in the Mochlos cemetery, but its prominence here, including an exceptional amount of obsidian (Carter 2004, 293), shows uniqueness in access on the part of Mochlos to this material and in the understanding of its social value within this community. Based on the amount of this material in the cemetery, on the surprisingly low presence of items with Cycladic stylistic traits, and on the discovery of various boat models in EM IIB contexts in the settlement (Seager 1909, 290; Soles 2012), it is argued here that this community had an active and important role in Aegean trade networks bringing raw materials to the island (Carter 2004, 296). Various authors have already suggested the importance of off-island trade in understanding the socioeconomic organization at Mochlos (Branigan 1991b; Whitelaw 2004a; Colburn 2008), and this study agrees with these authors, emphasizing the proactive trade role of Mochlos and its direct access to the material, which would have set this community apart from others on the north coast of Crete that probably had a more passive role in the trade networks. This would explain why Mochlos thrived in EM IIB when Crete seems to have been excluded from the Aegean trade networks (Broodbank 2000, 317), as it was in a position that guaranteed its access to off-island materials, even when

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

Cycladic traders were no longer reaching Crete. While the disruption of off-island trade in EM IIB might have impacted negatively on other communities, it boosted the position of Mochlos as a major supplier of trade goods to Cretan communities. In this model, active trade might have been articulated around similar trade units that, given the structure of the cemetery, could well be based on a group similar in size to that of a nuclear family. The active competition in the cemetery could relate to the need to acquire a privileged social status that permitted each entrepreneurial group to obtain an advantageous position in trade activities. Less successful groups could have found themselves subordinate to the most powerful ones in the organization of trade and, consequently, with restricted access to its benefits. The strong economic position of Mochlos is perhaps related to the prosperity that communities flanking Mirabello Bay witnessed in EM IIB. Vasiliki possibly thrived as an important link in the networks that connected Mochlos with the interior of the island and may have used its position to move its own wares, particularly the mottled ceramics typical of this area. Such a scenario would explain why EM IIB disruptions in the mortuary record identified in other regions of Crete, especially on the north-central coast, are not easily found here.

Early Minoan III–Middle Minoan I Though EM IIB in general was a period of development, EM III in the Mirabello area seems to mark a point of inflexion; it is during EM III that significant changes appeared in mortuary behavior. Change, however, seems not to have been a traumatic event in the Mirabello region. There are no obvious gaps in the mortuary record except at Gournia, and a similar picture comes from the settlement pattern evidence (Hayden 2004, 76; Haggis 2005, 65). Changes in the mortuary record, though, have been matched by settlement excavation evidence that has exposed significant alterations at the end of the EM IIB period, such as the abandonment of Myrtos Phournou Koriphi and major transformations at Vasiliki (Seager 1905, 218; Warren 1972a; Watrous 1994, 717–718).

115

The clear changes identified in the mortuary behavior of the EM III period are very similar to the ones identified in other parts of the island. Pithoi and larnakes are used for interment for the first time, both in exclusively dedicated cemeteries and inside built tombs (Figs. 95, 98). In this period, rectangular tombs become the most popular type of tomb, over rock shelters and caves, a trend that culminated in the MM I period when the EM rock shelters largely ceased to be used. It is only in MM I that open focal spaces outside tombs become clearly visible: at Tomb II in Gournia North Cemetery (326), at Myrtos Pyrgos (384) and at Tomb IV (389) on Pseira. Neither the terrace in front of the Hagios Antonios rock shelter (343) nor the open area outside Tomb IV/V/VI (350) at Mochlos are datable, but they may represent spaces similar to those used in MM I. It seems that spaces for ritual outside tombs became popular in the cemeteries during this period, although they affected only a restricted number of tombs. Open spaces at Sphoungaras (338) and Pseira (405, 406), and buildings Nu (379) and Xi (380; see also the newly reported building 381) at Mochlos might mark ritual places that would have been related to the whole of the cemetery rather than to single tombs, but the disturbed state of these contexts does not allow for a clear interpretation. With respect to the material assemblage, a new set of grave goods was found in EM III–MM I. These assemblages became smaller with a more limited variety of items, mainly ceramic vessels, seals, and stone vessels (Figs. 82, 99). High-value objects or imports were rare in the tombs and those found come in the form of the new popular seals and stone vessels depicting new eastern Mediterranean links rather than Cycladic ones (Figs. 82, 99). Apart from the items at Mochlos, the only other truly high-value object found in the Mirabello tombs is the silver vessel from Gournia North Cemetery Tomb I (324). It may be significant that important numbers of stone vessels have been found in well-preserved MM I deposits in Mochlos Tomb XI (355) and Gournia Tombs I (324) and II (325). At Kalo Chorio (345, 346), no stone vessels were found, and even though this context was not well preserved, fragments at least could be expected to have survived. At Gournia Sphoungaras (336–339), only a few stone vessels were found. At

116

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Myrsini (382) only three EM II–MM I stone vessels are known (Warren 1969, 120). Seventy stone vessels were reported from Pseira (386–406), although this figure included an unknown number of EM II vessels. No stone vessels were found at Pacheia Ammos (385; Seager 1916). The role of stone vessels in the MM I assemblage is difficult to assess. The high concentration in some of the tombs may indicate differences between tombs. Unfortunately, Tomb I at Gournia (324) and Tomb XI (355) at Mochlos are the only well-known MM I tombs in their respective cemeteries, and it is not possible to discern whether the stone vessels indicate a difference between these two tombs and other MM I tombs within the cemeteries, or the presence of stone-vessel workshops at these communities, which would have made this type of object easily available to burial groups at Mochlos and Gournia. Until new evidence is available for a more detailed assessment of the role of stone vessels in MM I mortuary behavior, the suggestion that the concentration of stone vessels might indicate inequalities within a cemetery represents only an interesting possibility. With respect to ceramic types, comparing MM I vases from the three best-documented cemeteries (Fig. 76), it is clear that MM I patterns differed from EM I–II ones and that ceramic vessel shapes followed trends identified in other parts of the island, with cups and jugs being the main shapes deposited in MM I burials. This change may have begun as early as EM IIB, when Vasiliki Ware brought a new range of shapes more specific for the serving and consumption of liquids (Betancourt 1985, 43–46; Wilson and Day 1999, 40–42), something that may be evidenced in the Gournia totals (Fig. 76). The evidence here does not parallel the patterns seen in Central Crete, however. Large deposits of ceramics are more difficult to find outside tombs or associated with open areas or paved courts. In general, the ceramic assemblages do not have the same depositional patterns as in Central Crete, and we have less clear evidence for group ritual outside the tombs. By MM I, the EM II social stratification suggested by different authors seems to have disappeared from the record and from the archaeological evidence. Only recently, Whitelaw put forward a model that not only explains EM II social ranking

at Mochlos, but also the collapse of this organization in MM I (Whitelaw 2004a). Watrous has recently argued against this, suggesting that MM I Mochlos was still an important community accessing off-island material (Watrous 2005). This study shows that this is, in fact, probable, and that the significance of the Mochlos community in MM I may have been deceptively downplayed. Tomb XI (355) and the cylinder seal show that deposits of significant materials were still being made in the cemetery. Still, it cannot be denied that the general picture of the cemetery is one of decline. The reason for this decline may actually be found within the cemetery itself. A lower interest in offisland material as seen in the burial assemblages in MM I, but more importantly, a shift in the origin of this material that now came from Egypt and the Near East, as the cylinder seal and the absence of Aegean materials demonstrate, might have left Mochlos without its main economic basis. Other communities, better positioned geographically, or larger settlements, such as Knossos or Malia, could have benefited from the general geographical shift and organizational changes in off-island trade in the Aegean (Manning 1997; Broodbank 2000, 320–349), contributing to decline at Mochlos. It is revealing that the metallurgical workshop at Chrysokamino fell out of use in EM III, perhaps as a result of these changes (Betancourt 2006). By MM II, the cemeteries have lost importance in the archaeological record. While some, such as Mochlos, were abandoned by the end of MM I, others, such as Pseira (386–406) and Gournia North Cemetery (324–332), lasted until the end of MM II. At Gournia, the deposition of high-value items in Tomb I (324) indicates that this tomb had a significant use during this period, and it may mark a variation in the development of this community. Kalo Chorio (345, 346) also seems to have been abandoned sometime in MM II. Myrtos Pyrgos (383) could have been in use, although by MM IB it had undergone modifications. Pithos cemeteries were extensively used in MM III–LM I, but their use during MM II is unclear and this may represent a gap in their history. Their use also changed, as they were no longer associated with built cemeteries. The number of interments in MM III rose exponentially at Sphoungaras (339) and Pacheia Ammos (385), suggesting that the use of this

THE MIRABELLO BAY AND THE IERAPETRA REGION

cemetery type followed very different funerary practices in later periods. As in other parts of the island, MM II represents a period of expansion in settlement numbers and size in the Mirabello region (Hayden 2004, 99–100; Haggis 2005, 69–70), which poses questions about why there is a decline

117

in the mortuary record. Similar reasons to the ones suggested in earlier chapters seem again to offer the best explanation: the social role of the cemeteries seems to fade away, perhaps replaced by new social arenas.

7

East Crete

As noted in the previous chapter, in this study East Crete is defined geographically as the area situated east of the two valleys that cut the island from north to south, from the Siteia coastal plain to the south coast at Koutsouras (Figs. 68, 100). It has been argued that this separation is not only geographical but is also related to particularities in the mortuary behavior and the history of research in the region that conditions the understanding of mortuary behavior in East Crete. The history of research of the mortuary record in East Crete can be characterized by a strong focus on two sites: Zakros and Palaikastro, which have attracted much investigation due to their “palatial” nature (Palaikastro is likely to be a palatial site, although no palace has yet been discovered). Apart from the cemeteries found during the investigations at these two sites, few other Pre- and Protopalatial cemeteries have been identified in East Crete, and in most cases, those that have are poorly known and have been only partially published (Figs. 100–102).

The first archaeological investigations on the east coast of Crete were conducted early in the 20th century by a group of British scholars led by Bosanquet and Hogarth, who investigated various sites searching for new Minoan palaces similar to the one then recently unveiled at Knossos by Evans. Remarkable intuition took them to explore two sites: Palaikastro and Zakros, which would later actually be recognized as palatial. In the course of their explorations they came across various Early and Middle Bronze Age cemeteries at both sites. At Zakros (464–478), the mortuary record in the area was discovered and outlined in a rough but fairly comprehensive early study (Hogarth 1901). This set a trend for archaeological investigations in the Zakros area, which explains the interest N. Platon took in investigating the mortuary record during his excavations at the site (Platon 1961, 1962, 1963, 1967, 1971a, 1971b, 1972; Orlandou 1963). By 1905 all the presently known burials at Palaikastro (434–443) had been excavated and published (Bosanquet 1902a; Dawkins 1903, 1904,

120

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

1905; Duckworth 1903b; Hawes 1905; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923), as well as the neighboring cemetery of Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou (419– 421; Duckworth 1903a; Tod 1903). Outside these sites, a number of possible burial caves have been found that, as in other parts of the island, are difficult to confirm as EM–MM tombs. Hagia Photia Siteias A cemetery (412–418) falls outside this pattern, as it represents a very different type of cemetery that has been the subject of extensive discussion in the literature (Karantzali 1995; 1996, 46–48, 238–239; 2008; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Betancourt 2003a; 2008; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003; Shank 2005; Papadatos 2007b).

Similarly, the recently discovered tholos cemetery at Livari (426, 427) is the best example of a rare tholos cemetery in this region (Schlager et al. 2002, 207–212; see also Messorachi, 433). Although the general picture of the known mortuary record in the region seems poorer than that analyzed for other areas, extensive evidence from the sites of Palaikastro and Zakros allows an interesting comparative investigation into the use and development of the cemeteries at these two sites. Furthermore, these sites will permit the drawing of parallels with poorly known sites in order that we may obtain a better understanding of the latter and, in general, of the mortuary behavior of the whole region.

Early Minoan I Eight sites have been identified as certain EM I or possible EM I cemeteries in east Crete (Fig. 103). Three of them are briefly mentioned in the literature and very little evidence is available for assessment: Karydi (422) and Mertydia (432; Peristeras and Myrtidia in Faure 1964, 67), and Perivolakia (446; Touchais 1985, 845). Early Minoan–Middle Minoan burial use in Skalais Cave (462; Bosanquet 1902b) remains difficult to confirm. Different scholars have offered a disparity of dates for the material in the cave (Bosanquet 1902b, 236; Schachermeyr 1938; Faure 1964, 60), and new excavations only very recently have shown that most of the EM and MM material may not have been related to funerary use (Papadakis and Rutkowski 1985, 134). Marinatos reported ceramics similar to DGB ware from a rock shelter in the vicinity of Maronia (Maronia Spiliara I [430]; Marinatos 1937), which could be one of the rock shelters in this area later visited by N. Platon (429, 431; Platon 1954a, 1954b). The best-known object from Marinatos’s investigations is an incised stone pyxis that was dated to EM IIA (Warren 1965, 8). Recently a new EM IB– IIA rock shelter, Petras Kephala (459), was found at the Kephala hill, opposite the “palatial” site of Petras, near Siteia (Whitley et al. 2007, 97). This rock shelter is still in the process of study and publication, and little information is available apart from

the fact that Cycladic-style pottery was found in it together with the remains of 97 skulls (Tsipopoulou 2008, 2010; Triantaphyllou 2009). Also recently, a tholos cemetery was discovered at Livari (426, 427) on the south coast (Schlager et al. 2002, 207–212; Triantaphyllou 2009; Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 81). The cemetery contains a tholos and at least seven other contexts (Fig. 104). Fine gray ware and so-called Hagios Onouphrios I sherds (EM I) were found on the surface (Schlager et al. 2002, 211), and the cemetery has been reported to have been in use since EM IB (Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 81), but the ceramics cannot be associated with any particular context in the cemetery, making it difficult to determine its history of use. At Messorachi, another EM I tholos has been recently excavated (433; Papadatos and Sofianou 2012) In contrast to this series of poorly known and unsecured EM I contexts, two sites present an invaluable insight into EM I mortuary practices in East Crete: Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou (419–421) and Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415). The cemetery of Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou (419–421), as known, is composed of three rock shelters (Duckworth 1903a; Tod 1903; Mortzos 1972; Zois 1972b; 1973, 92–96; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 137). Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou I (419) has a wall built near its entrance and contained seven or eight skulls (Tod 1903, 339), but no dating or

EAST CRETE

any other type of information is available. Even less is known about Rock Shelter II (420), where one skull was found together with a bronze buckle, probably Byzantine (Tod 1903, 340). Better known is the third and last rock shelter, Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou III (421). This shelter seems to be a bit larger than the other two (see plan in Duckworth 1903a, 345, fig. I) and has a narrow ledge in front of it. Several human bones, including remains of 10 skulls, were found together with EM I material. Duckworth investigated the human remains, identifying individuals of both sexes aged from 6 to 50 (Duckworth 1903a). Five intact ceramic vessels and fragments of another five were published from this rock shelter, as well as a small silver or lead bead and a bone instrument (Tod 1903, 341–343). There has been some uncertainty about the exact date of the assemblage as it has links with both FN and EM I wares, but it seems to date to the beginning of the EM I period (Evans 1921, 60; Zois 1972b, 430; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 137; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6) and to have been in use for a short period of time as is suggested by its homogeneous deposit. The ceramic assemblage follows shapes that have been identified elsewhere on the island in EM I burial contexts, mainly pyxides and bowls (Fig. 105). The most interesting item is the silver/lead bead, which may represent one of the earliest securely dated metal objects identified on the island. New data from the Petras settlement has confirmed such an early date for the first metallurgy in the area (Papadatos 2007a). It has been suggested that silver and lead represented highly valued materials on the island (Branigan 1968b, 225; Davaras 1975, 107). Yet no other characteristic from this cemetery suggests a “rich” context; indeed, quite the contrary, which poses questions about material assemblages and mortuary behavior within a small community. The cemetery at Hagia Photia Siteias A (412– 415) presents a rare context on the entire island. The cemetery is located in a rocky coastal patch on Siteia Bay and consists of 260 preserved tombs, although more than 300 may originally have existed (Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7). There are two main types of tomb in the cemetery: pit tombs (413; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 232–234); and tombs that in the recent publication of the site have

121

been defined as built tombs, which in this work are called rock-cut tombs (412; Doumas 1977, 49; also known as chamber tombs, Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 17). Only one tomb (415), defined as a rock shelter, evades this typology (Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 224). Very similar rock-cut tombs have been found in the Cyclades at Epano Kouphonisi (Karantzali 1996, 238–239; Cultraro 2000b, 481; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 238; Zaphiropoulou 2008); at Manika in Euboia (Papavasileiou 1910, 1–19; Sampson 1987; 1988); and at Corinth, Elaphonisi, and other sites on the mainland (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 17). This means that the tomb type may not necessarily be Cycladic, although the Aegean seems to have been at the center of its distribution (Cultraro 2000b, 490–491). In Crete, similar tombs have been found in the cemetery at Gournes B (203) near modern Herakleion (see above). Rock-cut tombs (412) normally consist of two rooms: a burial chamber and an anteroom in front of it. The anteroom is a shaft rarely deeper than 1 m, paved in some cases, and hardly ever containing any material or bones. From the bottom of the shaft the burial chamber is excavated sideways, normally creating an underground cavity where human remains and associated material were found. The size and form of the chamber and the anteroom vary in the cemetery, but chamber dimensions are normally around 1 by 1 m and have an elliptical or trapezoidal shape (Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 232–233). The two rooms were usually separated by a large slab or built wall that closed off the burial chamber. It is unclear how many people were intended to be buried in each tomb since there is no information about human remains in many of them, and from those where information is available, the number of interments varies. Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi (1998, 146) suggested that the tombs may have been intended for a single body, but Davaras and Betancourt have been less definite about the number of intended interments per tomb (Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 240). It seems possible that in some of the tombs only one interment was made, but in general they contained more, reaching five or six in some cases. More than six interments were found only in tombs where two strata documented at least two different occasions of use. One individual per tomb, therefore, is not supported by the evidence,

122

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

unless the tombs were reused to save time, effort, and space; but this does not seem to match the fact that many of them were sealed off. One tomb per nuclear family would mean that the cemetery corresponds to a large community, up to 300 families, which is unlikely. The settlement seems to have been situated nearby, at the location of the MM I domestic site, and appears not to have been particularly large (Tsipopoulou 1989). A burial group between the individual and the nuclear family, while the most likely possibility, is difficult to define. It is always possible that the deceased interred together were not linked by close kinship ties. In addition, the exact period of use of the cemetery is far from clear, which further hampers the estimates of the population using the cemetery. Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi suggested that the cemetery may have been in use for no more than 100 years (1998, 146). Davaras and Betancourt, though, have identified several EM IIA ceramic vessels in some of the tombs, which would indicate a longer period (2004, 232; 2012, 108–109). According to the estimates of Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi, the cemetery would have been used by at least 15 nuclear families (300 individuals, 100 years, 20 bodies per family and century; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 146). The size could double if it is assumed that more than one individual was interred in each tomb, and it would shrink if it is accepted that the cemetery was in use in EM IIA and therefore for longer than 100 years. It seems, then, that a safe middle-ground assumption could be between 15 to 20 families. This estimate, though, surpasses the threshold of a typical EM I Cretan community (Whitelaw 1983, 333; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 146), and situates Hagia Photia as an uncommonly large settlement. But this is not the only distinctive characteristic of this cemetery. The material assemblage in each tomb varies in the number of objects but not in composition. Ceramic vases are the most common material found in the tombs (Figs. 106A–106D), and more than 90% of the published vessels can be identified as Cycladic wares (defined by their typology and technology), some of which were imported from the islands, and others made locally (Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 136–137; Betancourt 2003a, 4; Davaras and Betancourt 2012, 98–104). There is a slight preference for selected shapes, mostly

pyxides and bottles (Fig. 106B). Many other shapes appear in the tombs, but in very small quantities. Only a few vases represent Cretan ceramic types. Forty-three of the tombs (16.5%) contained Cretanstyle ceramic vessels that, interestingly, represent shapes different from those of the Cycladic wares, mainly jugs and chalices (Figs. 106B, 106C). This is particularly strange, as shapes such as globular pyxides have been widely found in Cretan EM I funerary contexts, including the nearby Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou cemetery (419–421), but they are conspicuously absent here. It seems that there was a conscious selection of shapes of Cycladic and Cretan wares deposited in the tombs (Davaras and Betancourt 2012, 111–114). Another interesting pattern comes from the small number of vessels found in the anterooms (Figs. 106A, 106C, 106D). Here too there seems to have been a choice of shapes deposited in the anterooms, as indicated by the popularity of the Cretan chalices and the low number of pyxides and bottles. This may illustrate some specific use of these vessels in the mortuary ritual that we have not been able to identify in the typically Cretan communal deposits. Pyxides were intended to be grave goods deposited with the deceased, though some specific consumption vessels, namely chalices, may have been used in an associated ritual before being deposited in the tombs (see Day and Wilson 2004 for a discussion of the use of chalices in funerary rituals). This pattern, though, is not clear cut and may indicate a trend rather than a rigid norm. Also its suitability for comparison with other Cretan cemeteries is limited, given the differences in burial practice. Obsidian blades were found in almost every tomb, varying in number but not in their typology. Only four tombs contained stone vessels (1.5% of the tombs), and another 15 contained bronze items (6%). One tomb contained a lead pendant and another a silver one. In every single respect, the Hagia Photia Siteias A cemetery (412–415) represents a conscious choice for deploying differences in the architecture and material assemblage from other contemporaneous Cretan cemeteries. It represents a clear effort by this community to indicate a difference from surrounding Cretan communities through a completely different mortuary behavior (see the conclusions of this chapter for further discussion; Davaras and Betancourt 2012, 113).

EAST CRETE

123

Early Minoan II The EM II period brings a shift in the investigation focus toward Palaikastro and Zakros, as most of the evidence comes from these two sites (Fig. 107). Elsewhere, EM II mortuary contexts are found at Maronia Spiliara II (431) where at least three burials were reported with ceramic material described as Vasiliki and Mochlos wares (both EM II), two ivory seals, and one gold bead (Platon 1954a, 364–365; 1954b, 511). Maronia Spiliara I (430) was probably also used in EM IIA as the aforementioned stone pyxis indicates (Maronia Kolibos [429] may actually refer to this cemetery; Marinatos 1937, 224; Platon 1954a, 364–365; Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 191). The reported sites at Lamnoni (424) and Katelionas (423; Branigan 1998a), where 20 or so niches in the rock were discovered, may represent a series of burial rock shelters, but there is no information to define them accurately in terms of type of tomb or chronology. The tholos cemetery at Livari (426, 427) was probably in use during the entire EM II period (Schlager et al. 2002, 211; Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 81), although its specific history of use remains unclear. The rock shelter at Petras Kephala (459) was also used in the EM IIA period. Reported Cycladic figurines from the area of the rectangular tombs (447–458; Whitley et al. 2007, 97) may indicate a larger cemetery at this location in EM II that has not been preserved. First reports suggest that some of the rectangular tombs in the Petras cemetery may have been first built in EM IIB (Tsipopoulou 2012b, 58). The Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) cemetery seems to have been abandoned during EM IIA, though a few examples of Cycladic Kastri Group Wares were found that postdate the main use of the cemetery (EM IIB–III in Cretan chronological terms; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 232; 2012, 88–89). From the published evidence it is not clear whether there was a gap in the use of the cemetery between its main use and the EM IIB–III deposition of Kastri Group ceramics or not, but in any case, it is exceptional that Cycladic pottery was deposited in this cemetery in a period when Cycladic imports had disappeared from the island (Renfrew 1972b, 451–455; Karantzali 1996, 236; Broodbank 2000, 309–319; Papadatos 2007b). It seems that the

Cycladic character of Hagia Photia Siteias A was preserved through time despite more general trends in the Aegean. At Linares (425), a single rectangular tomb was partially excavated (Davaras 1972a, 45–46; 1973b, 81–82; Soles 1992b, 158–160), consisting probably of three rooms (Fig. 108), with the third remaining unexcavated. It is larger and better constructed than the rectangular tombs at EM I Pseira (Soles 1992b, 160) and can be considered a developed rectangular tomb. It contained many “tens of burials” (Davaras 1972a, 45) and probably a fair amount of material, but only one EM II–III seal has been published (Davaras 1973b, 81–82; Pini, ed., 1975, 18 [CMS V, 1, no. 21]; Sbonias 1995, 74). An EM II–MM I date looks likely for this tomb (Soles 1992b, 158–160). The first clear evidence of mortuary practices at Palaikastro and Zakros appears in EM II. At Palaikastro, EM I material from a rock crevice was reported at Kastri (Fig. 109), but the evidence seems to point to nonburial use (Sackett et al. 1965, 250). Two rectangular tombs contained EM II pottery: Tomb I (434) at the Gravel Ridge and Tomb II (441) at Ta Ellenika (Figs. 109, 110). The architecture of Tomb I (434) was badly preserved at the time of excavation (Bosanquet 1902a, 307), but from the excavator’s description a plan similar to that of other rectangular tombs in the cemetery may be suggested (Fig. 110). Only four ceramic vessels (a fine gray ware EM IIA pyxis and a spouted jug, possibly EM IIB Vasiliki Ware, were among them; Bosanquet 1902, 290, figs. 3, 4), four stone vessels (the green schist with incised decoration is probably EM II; Bosanquet 1902, pl. XVII; Bevan 2004), and obsidian blades were reported in this tomb, all of which have been dated EM IIA and IIB (Warren 1965, 8; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398; Soles 1992b, 180; contra Dawkins 1905, 272). At Ta Ellenika, Tomb II (441) is rectangular, composed of two rooms, and situated very near Tombs III (442) and VI (443; Figs. 109, 110; Dawkins 1904, 197–198). Bones were found only in the smaller of the two rooms and they included one skull. The material came exclusively from the larger room and consists of around 25 ceramic vessels, one stone vessel, and a dagger of the long type. This published material belongs to the EM IIB period (see

124

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

long-beaked jugs and globular goblets in Dawkins 1904, 197, fig. 1) but some vessels may date as early as EM IIA (dark-on-white decorated jug; Dawkins 1904, 197, fig. I:i; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398; Soles 1992b, 182 n. 169). Middle Minoan I pottery was also reported from the tomb but not published (Dawkins 1904, 198). The published ceramic assemblage consists mainly of pouring vessels: six jugs and a teapot (Fig. 105), but other vessels were found, including a clay boat model similar to ones found at EM II Mochlos in settlement contexts (Seager 1909, 290; Soles 2012). It has been suggested that the tomb was intended for only one individual, who was buried in the small room and to whom all the material found in the large room was dedicated (Dawkins 1904, 197). Given the long use of the tomb and the significant amount of material deposited, it is possible that more individuals were buried here and that the bones were washed down the hill (Soles 1992b, 182). This suggestion does not refute the material deposition pattern; preserved human bones in the small room indicate that no taphonomic processes can explain the complete absence of artifacts from this room. Conversely, it is possible that bones were lost from the large room, but it is unlikely that it ever contained a significant number and the differentiated deposition in this tomb is a meaningful pattern. At Zakros, five different tombs in three different locations could have been in use in EM II (Figs. 111, 112): Zakros Acherotripa, (464; Platon 1971a, 274); Zakros Mavro Avlaki (474; Platon 1971b, 235; contra Petrakos 1991, 116); and three caves in the Gorge of the Dead, Zakros Cave I (465; Hogarth 1901, 142–143; Zois 1997, 42), Cave II (466; Hogarth 1901, 143–144), and Cave IV (468; Orlandou 1963, 176; Platon 1963, 187–188; 1971b, 66–68, 235). At least five burials were found inside Zakros Cave II (466) in what were described as cists in the ground, one containing an undisturbed interment in flexed position (Hogarth 1901, 143–144). Here, around 23 ceramic vessels were found together with stone tools and two pieces of obsidian, which have

been dated EM IIA–IIB (see EM IIA incised pyxides in Hogarth 1901, 144, fig. 52; Zois 1997, 43). This cave, however, due to its distance from the settlement, was most probably not used by the Zakros community, but by another situated at the inland end of the Gorge (Fig. 111). In Zakros Cave IV (468), six burials were found and the description of the material by the excavator suggests that the cave was a closed EM II deposit (Platon 1971b, 68–69). This date was confirmed by a stone pyxis with a lid handle shaped like a dog that has an EM II parallel at Mochlos (Seager 1912, 20; Warren 1965, 8). At both Zakros and Palaikastro, a similar situation is found for the EM II period, with tombs appearing in various locations around the settlement at the same time. Unfortunately, there is no complete understanding of any EM II cemetery in East Crete outside Zakros and Palaikastro, so it is not clear whether this dispersed pattern is specific to these two sites. Data from Zakros and Palaikastro indicate that the tombs did not contain many burials or large quantities of bone fragments, and this shows similarities with the evidence from the Maronia (431) and Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou rock shelters (419, 421). Zakros and Palaikastro also exhibit significant differences between their mortuary records during this period. While at Palaikastro rectangular tombs were built (434, 441), at Zakros all the evidence comes from caves (468) and rock shelters (464–466). It may be argued that no caves existed in the vicinity of Palaikastro, and rectangular tombs therefore had to be constructed, and the preparation and effort involved in construction of the tombs at Palaikastro represent a significant difference in mortuary behavior. Furthermore, the understanding of EM II grave goods is at best poor. Only the badly preserved assemblage in Palaikastro Tomb I (434) and that in Tomb II (441) allow any kind of study (Figs. 105, 113A, 113B), but without any other comparative material outside Palaikastro, they provide little information.

Early Minoan III Because White-on-Dark Ware identifies the EM III/MM IA period in the eastern half of the island,

at least seven different tombs can be identified as being possibly in use in East Crete during EM III

EAST CRETE

(Fig. 114). As in the last period, most lie in the vicinity of Palaikastro and Zakros. At Mandalia (428; Hagios Georgios), one rectangular tomb has been discovered (Fig. 108; Platon 1959, 372; Soles 1992b, 128–129; Georgoulaki 1996b). The tomb is composed of at least one Lshaped room together with two other spaces: one badly preserved at the eastern end of the room and a second one between the tomb and the rock wall against which the tomb was built. Material was found in all three spaces and bones were reported from the main room and the space between this room and the rock. Although the pottery from the tomb was not published, it has been reported to range from EM III to MM III (Georgoulaki 1996b, 148). At Linares (425), EM wares were reported in a rectangular tomb, but the assemblage remains unpublished and an EM III use of the tomb cannot be confirmed (Davaras 1972b, 651). At Petras Kephala, the first construction of the large rectangular Tomb II (448) may have taken place in the EM III period (Betancourt 2012a, 109), although many of its contents date to the MM I and MM II periods (Krzyszkowska 2012, 150; Tsipopoulou 2012a). At Palaikastro, the EM III contents published from Tomb III (442) at Ta Ellenika (Figs. 109, 110) as yet presents the only EM III material found in a tomb at Palaikastro. Tomb III (442) is the most complex in plan of all the tombs at Palaikastro, with six rooms and a seventh space outside the building (Fig. 110). Of these, the two southern rooms may have been added to the building at a later date (Soles 1992b, 183). In contrast to earlier tombs, a mass of bones and ceramic vessels was found in the central two rooms, but very little in any of the other rooms. In the outer seventh space a group of vessels was also discovered. A remarkable number of vessels (42) were published from the tomb (Fig. 105) considering that the preponderance of EM III material seems to indicate a short period of use (see vases in Dawkins

125

1905, 271, fig. 5; Soles 1992b, 184). Walberg redated some of the pottery to MM IA (Walberg 1983, 133–134), but this constitutes a minimal part of the assemblage and it would represent only a brief use of the tomb during MM IA, if at all (Soles 1992b, 184). The tomb architecture and assemblage demonstrate that although only one EM III tomb has been found in the area, there was still an investment of effort and interest in funerary activities at Palaikastro during this period. At Zakros, Cave I (465) in the Gorge of the Dead contained EM III pottery (Fig. 111; Hogarth 1901, 142–143; Zois 1997, 42), but no human bones have been reported from this cave to identify it securely as an EM III burial place. Such doubts have also been expressed for the cave of Mavro Avlaki (474), where EM III pottery was also found (Platon 1971b, 235; Petrakos 1991, 116). At Rizes (477, 478), two rectangular buildings containing human bones were reported, but the material was described simply as dating to the “Final Prepalatial period,” which may or may not include the EM III period (Platon 1971a, 274–275). Little analysis can be done based on the scarce information available and it is difficult to situate the EM III mortuary behavior in relation to the previous and subsequent periods, but it seems that burial practices were no less a concern for Cretan communities during this period, nor is there a gap in the mortuary record, although it is true that there was a smaller number of tombs in use in EM III than in EM II (Figs. 112). In general, the EM III picture is similar to that of MM I, rather than to the previous periods. Indeed, some important changes can already be observed in the mortuary record that were to become more significant in MM I, for example, new rectangular tombs were created not only at Palaikastro but also at other locations; more interments were made in the tombs; and the composition of the ceramic assemblage consisted mainly of jugs and cups.

Middle Minoan I A surge in the number of tombs and cemeteries is evident in MM I at Palaikastro and Zakros (Figs. 109, 111, 112, 115–117B). Besides Zakros and Palaikastro, only four other cemeteries in

East Crete have yielded evidence for possible MM I burial use. At Katelionas (423), MM I pottery was reported from site KS3, where a row of manmade niches in the rock, some described as built

126

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

cists, could have been used for burial purposes (Branigan 1998b, 63, 73–74). A similar cemetery was described by Branigan at Lamnoni (424), containing material ranging from FN to LM III (Branigan 1998b, 57, 60, 65), but it is not clear whether the cemetery included MM I material. Mandalia (428), described in the previous section, did not experience any noticeable architectural modification during MM I. Linares (425) was probably in use until MM IA (Soles 1973, 165), but the mortuary behavior at this tomb during this period remains unknown. In the modern city of Siteia, a rock shelter was found (461) containing a larnax and a pithos with human bones; it is not clear to which period these belong, however, as the excavator published different dates for this tomb (Platon 1953b, 484 [MM IIIA]; 1953a, 291 [MM I]). Eleven MM I rectangular tombs have recently been discovered at Petras Kephala (447, 448, 450–458), together with reuse of the rock shelter (459) and a possible outside area (449; Betancourt 2012a; Tsipopoulou 2012b). While many of the tombs at Petras may have been first constructed in EM IIB and EM III (Betancourt 2012a, 109; Tsipopoulou 2012b, 58), the large and complex plans of the excavated structures resemble the rectangular tombs at Archanes (e.g., 167–169), which would suggest that major rebuilding took place in the cemetery during the EM III and MM I periods. Also, the reported material assemblage dates largely to the MM I–II periods (Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012; Krzyszkowska 2012; Tsipopoulou 2012a). At Palaikastro, new cemeteries are found as well as new tombs in cemeteries already known (Figs. 112, 116), which indicates that this increase cannot be explained merely by better preservation of the MM cemeteries. The situation at Zakros is less clear (Figs. 111, 112, 118); MM material has been reported from the caves of Ouranias (470; Platon 1962, 165–166; Kopaka and Chaniotakis 2003), Marmaras (469; Platon 1963, 187; see also Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 183), Spiliara (472; Platon 1962, 165; see also Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 184), and Zakros Cave III (467; Platon 1972, 190–191), but all these caves lack clear archaeological contexts and may not have been burial places in MM I. Nevertheless, new cemeteries have also been found, such as the one at Pezoules Kephalas (475, 476; Figs. 111, 119; Platon 1967, 190–194; Becker 1975a).

At Palaikastro, MM I tombs have been found at four different locations (Fig. 108), covering all the cardinal points around the site and at different distances from the settlement. Ta Ellenika Tombs II (441) and III (442) have already been described and were still in use in MM I, and a new tomb, Tomb VI (443), was added (Fig. 110; Dawkins 1904, 202). Tomb VI (443) consists of two rooms, a small outer one and a larger inner one. The inner room contained most of the human remains, which included 12 skulls, two of them from primary interments (Soles 1992b, 188). Most of the material was also found in this room (Fig. 118) but was never published. Soles has reported 23 ceramic vases, most of them conical cups and jugs without decoration that belong to the MM IA and MM IB periods (Soles 1992b, 188). Tombs IVa (439) and IVb (440; Figs. 109, 110; Hawes 1905, 293) lie close together, west of the main settlement at Sarantari. Both have been poorly preserved and only part of their architecture is known (Fig. 110; Soles 1992b, 184). The material inside these tombs has never been published, and the excavator only pointed out that the ceramics were similar to those found in the Gravel Ridge tombs that can be dated to MM I (Hawes 1905, 293). At Patema, southeast of Roussolakos (Fig. 109), one tomb was found, Tomb V (438; Fig. 110), where at least six different rooms were identified (Duckworth 1903b, 351–355; Dawkins 1905, 272; Soles 1992b, 184–187). Three undisturbed skeletons were reported, one of them with the skull missing, and Soles, based on the excavation diaries, estimated that only six skulls were discovered in the tomb (Soles 1992b, 186). The material was never illustrated and it was reported to date exclusively to MM I (Dawkins 1905, 269). Subsequently, a pyxis was published, which was thought to date to EM I, and this moved the date of the construction of the tomb to that period (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 5, fig. 2; Renfrew 1964, 116). Recent studies, though, have dated this pyxis to a much later time (MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399 [EM III–MM IA]; Soles 1992b, 187 [MM I]; Karantzali 1995, 452 [EM II and later]), and this, together with architectural parallels to Tombs III (442) and VIIa (435), strongly suggests a MM I date for the construction of Tomb V (438). Even if this is not the

EAST CRETE

case, it is clear that the preserved mortuary behavior in the tomb corresponds to MM I. At the Gravel Ridge, three different tombs have been dated to MM I: Tombs VIIa (435), VIIb (436), and VIII (437; Figs. 109, 110). Tomb VIIa (435) is the largest tomb found at Palaikastro and has a very peculiar plan consisting of five long parallel rooms (Fig. 110; Bosanquet 1902a, 290– 297; Duckworth 1903b, 350–354), which are subdivided into smaller cells (Bosanquet 1902a, 292, fig. 6; Duckworth 1903b, 350–354). No doorways were reported for this tomb, neither in the exterior nor in the interior walls, which suggests that entry was from above. The tomb was full of bones (97 skulls) and other material (140 vessels reported), even without excavation of the northeast corner. The tomb was used mainly in the MM I period (see cups and jugs in Bosanquet 1902a, 293, fig. 7; Soles 1973, 227–234), but later material has been identified (MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399). The tomb contained the large number of cups and jugs typical of MM I burial contexts (Fig. 105). Less information is available for Tomb VIIb (436). It is located not far from Tomb VIIa (435; Fig. 105) and was found virtually destroyed, so no plan could be reconstructed (Bosanquet 1902a, 294). In fact, the architectural remains may not have belonged to a tomb, as the surviving walls were reported to be made in “good ashlar,” a rare construction practice that has been identified only in the MM IB tomb of Chrysolakkos II (264) at Malia; furthermore, no human bones were reported and only two vases were published (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 12), including a MM IB example (Soles 1992b, 192). Eight copper axes were also found in the area around this tomb (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 12 n. 2). Tomb VIII (437) is situated south of Tomb VIIa (435) and only a part of it was preserved at the time of excavation (Duckworth 1903b, 352–353). Its plan is quite uncommon, and includes curved walls, and it may represent a building that was subdivided into various rooms, similar to Tomb VIIa (435). Ten skulls were recovered. No material from this tomb was published, but Soles has suggested a MM I date for the context (Soles 1992b, 193). At Zakros, possible MM I cemeteries have been found at four different locations, excluding the Gorge of the Dead, where various caves contained

127

MM material but without secure associations with human bones (Fig. 111). At the Acherotripa rock shelter (464), Old Palace ceramics were reported but no bones were found (Platon 1971a, 274). At Mavro Avlaki (474), MM I material was reported but it was not securely associated with burials (Petrakos 1991, 116 [EM III/MM IA]). The tombs at Rizes (477, 478) have already been noted in the previous section and no further information of MM I use is available for them. The only definite new cemetery found at Zakros during this period is Pezoules Kephalas (475, 476), which consists of two MM I rectangular tombs found west of the Minoan town (Figs. 111, 119; Orlandou 1967a, 113–115; Platon 1967, 190– 194; Becker 1975a). Tomb A (475) is the larger of the two and has three rooms, although the east part of the tomb was not completely preserved (Fig. 119). Georgoulaki (1996a, nos. 186, 187) reported two strata in this tomb, showing that the tomb had different periods of use, but until detailed publication the date and character of these will remain uncertain. Larnax fragments were found in all three rooms, but Room Gamma contained fewer bones than the other two rooms (Fig. 119). In Room B, burial pithoi and an intact larnax containing a primary interment were found. This led the excavator to suggest that Room B was used for primary interments and that the other two rooms were ossuaries for the secondary deposition of bones (Platon 1967, 191). This view is supported by the discovery of bones piled at the sides of the rooms. Originally the excavator suggested that 600 individuals were interred in this tomb (Orlandou 1967a, 114), but Soles has pointed out that this number is unlikely since only 45 skulls were found (Soles 1992b, 252). Becker, in his study of the human bones, reported very few infant bones (Becker 1975a), even though Platon reported many of them during the excavation (Platon 1967, 191), and this could indicate that the total number of recovered bones was not preserved for study, which would increase dramatically the estimated number of interments based on the evidence of human remains (Table 8). A significant amount of material has been recovered, although it is not possible to ascribe particular items to each stratum (Georgoulaki 1996a, nos. 186, 187). Around 100 ceramic vessels were found, of which 11 were in Room Gamma, 28 in

128

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Room A, and around 60 in Room B (Fig. 113A, B). In addition, each room contained four stone vessels, a seal, and some beads. The ceramic assemblage is composed mostly of MM IA–IB jugs and cups (Platon 1967, 192, 194, pls. 168, 169), although vessels of later date have been identified (Platon 1999, 674, 676). Tomb B (476) is smaller and has only one room (Fig. 119; Platon 1967), and like Tomb A (475), its deposit consisted of different strata (Georgoulaki 1996a, nos. 185, 186). Three primary interments were found: one in a larnax, the other two in a rectangular space on the ground marked with stones. At least 20 skulls were found, many piled together on the north side of the room. The Tomb B (476) assemblage includes more varied material than that in Tomb A (475): 70 ceramic vessels, four stone vessels, one seal, a copper disc, two copper tools, and a silver bead. The ceramic assemblage follows the patterns of that in Tomb A and is composed mainly of jugs and cups. The dating of the ceramics parallels Tomb A, that is, mainly MM I material with some MM II–III (Platon 1967, 194; Platon 1999, 674, 676). Outside Zakros and Palaikastro, little can be said of the MM I mortuary behavior in East Crete, apart from the fact that a number of rectangular tombs appeared, such as those at Mandalia (428; Platon 1959). As yet we have little information about the tombs at Petras, although their number and grouped position differ from the evidence at Palaikastro and Zakros. Here, too, an open space with associated deposition of ceramic vessels may have existed (460; Tsipopoulou 2012a, 119–122), and this would be a rare example in East Crete of a recurrent feature in central Cretan cemeteries. In general, these new rectangular tombs do not have a complicated plan and are composed of just two to three rooms. The varied shapes of the rooms and the evidence from certain examples, such as Tomb VI (443) at Palaikastro or Pezoules Kephalas (475, 476) at Zakros showing differences between rooms in the deposition of material and bones, indicate that the different rooms were intended for different activities (Fig. 118) and this could be a common feature in the mortuary behavior of the rectangular tombs in East Crete. Tomb VIIa (435) at Palaikastro presents an exception as all the “cells” seem to have a similar plan and

material deposition and were all probably used in the same way. A large number of interments in this tomb (Table 8) points to a different character and use, similar to that of an ossuary. During MM I, the rectangular tombs contained a larger number of interments than in previous periods. Palaikastro Tomb II (441; dated mainly to EM II) contained only a few interments compared with the MM I tombs (see above); and other early contexts, such as Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou III (421) or Caves I (465) and II (466) at Zakros Gorge of the Dead, also yielded small numbers of interments. It seems that this increase in the number of interments is part of a profound change in the mortuary behavior in East Crete during MM I that also included transformations in the material assemblage of the tombs. Ceramic types in MM I tombs consist mostly of jugs and cups, a shift from the EM I–II assemblages. Also typically, little other material was discovered in MM I tombs: a few stone vessels, copper objects (mostly tools), and very few seals (Figs. 113A, 113B). Focusing on MM I Zakros and Palaikastro, the mortuary behavior at the two sites shared some characteristics, but at the same time retained some local particularities. At Palaikastro, an increase in the number of tombs built in new locations can be observed (Fig. 116). At Zakros, a similar pattern may have existed with the construction of tombs at Rizes (477, 478) and Pezoules Kephalas (475, 476), but the loose chronological definition of many of the tombs does not provide such a clear picture as at Palaikastro (Figs. 117A, 117B). At both sites, all the new tombs are of the rectangular type. Caves at Zakros, such as Marmaras (469), Ouranias (470), or Mavro Avlaki (474), may have been used during this period for cult purposes rather than for burial, as is the case with nearby Pelekita Cave (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 33). In general, Palaikastro and Zakros displayed a much more spatially complex mortuary behavior than in previous periods, with more cemeteries and more tombs comprising different rooms with different purposes, although there is a conspicuous lack of open spaces that are only hinted at by evidence from Tombs III (442) and IVb (440) at Palaikastro, and at Petras Kephala (449, 460). What remains unclear is whether this new complexity reached particularly high levels at Palaikastro and

EAST CRETE

Zakros or whether it can be explained by the more intensive archaeological investigations at these two sites that have unearthed a larger portion of the material record of these communities. New evidence at Petras may help to answer this question in the future. Differences between tombs within a cemetery or between cemeteries at each site existed only in the number of interments, not in the quality of the assemblage or architecture. Although the small quantity of data prevents statistical analysis, the evidence from the better-known cemeteries shows that tombs with more interments (measured by recovered skulls) also contained more material (Fig. 120). Tomb B (476) at Zakros Pezoules Kephalas, having the most varied nonceramic assemblage (Figs. 113A, 113B), is the only one that deviates from this pattern. Even so, this tomb assemblage

129

does not represent a significant departure from the pattern established by the other tombs (Figs. 113A, 113B); in fact, Tomb B (476) is the smallest and one of the most poorly constructed tombs in MM I, which precludes interpretations of this tomb based on status differences. The only noteworthy difference is found at Palaikastro and it cannot be defined in terms of quality, but of character. Tomb VIIa (435) has a very distinctive layout and its pattern of use is very different from that of the other tombs (Fig. 118), as it contained an unusually large number of interments and ceramic vessels (Table 8; Figs. 113A, 120). All this evidence suggests that this structure was used as an ossuary rather than a tomb, and it may indicate that other tombs existed in the area related to this ossuary. The ashlar blocks reported hint at the possibility of other significant buildings nearby.

Middle Minoan II and Beyond In comparison with earlier periods, it seems that fewer cemeteries were in use in the MM II period (Fig. 121). In those funerary contexts that contain MM II material, such as Tomb VIIa (435) at Palaikastro and the cemetery at Zakros Pezoules Kephalas (475, 476), MM II objects represent only a small part of the assemblage (Walberg 1983, 131, 134) and mark a decline in the intensity of use of these tombs. This also seems to be the case at Petras (Krzyszkowska 2012; Tsipopoulou 2012a) and at Mavro Avlaki (474) and Acherotripa (464) at Zakros, although here the number of MM II vessels found is not completely clear (Platon 1971a, 274; Platon 1999, 674–676). Only in two cases can a significant use of the cemeteries during the MM II period be suggested, both corresponding to cemeteries constructed in this period. At Hagia Photia Siteias C, two circular structures were discovered on top of a MM IA building (417, 418; Catling 1989, 102). These two structures are architecturally very similar to tholos tombs, with a comparable construction technique, size, and entrance orientation (Tsipopoulou 1988; 1989, 98; 1990, 307–309; Belli 2003). Middle Minoan IIA ceramics were found in both, probably marking their construction (Tsipopoulou 1990,

308). A burial purpose for these buildings is debatable, however, as no human bones have been found inside the structures or in the area around them, even though the contexts seem well preserved. Also, the late date of construction casts doubts on the identification of the two buildings as tholos tombs. The second MM II cemetery is Karaviadaina (473) at Zakros, a rock shelter from which seven MM II burials have recently been reported (Touchais, Huber, and Philippa-Touchais 2001, 1018). The difficulty in finding MM II material in many of the tombs cannot be explained by poorly known assemblages or by problems in MM II material recognition, but rather by a change in the burial customs, which, when compared with earlier periods, became less visible in the archaeological record. As already stated with respect to other areas on the island, disposal of the bodies of the dead was still required, but there no longer seems to have been any effort made to indicate this with the construction of lasting architecture or a significant deposition of material. Use of the cemeteries as known until MM II had ceased by MM III, and only Tomb VIIa (435) at Palaikastro may have been used sporadically in the LM period (Walberg 1983, 131).

130

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Conclusions Early Minoan I–II Early Minoan I–II cemeteries seem to have consisted of a limited number of tombs that housed a small number of bodies. At Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou (419–421), three EM I tombs have been found, with at least 10 bodies in the best-known tomb. At Palaikastro, only two EM II tombs are known (434, 441), one of them with only one interment. At Zakros, as many as five tombs may have existed (464–466, 468, 474), with the number of interments varying from one to six. Although it obviously depends on the size of the settlement, it is suggested here that the number of tombs per cemetery was at least three, but probably more, and that each may have housed 10 or more bodies (taking into consideration that many were not preserved at the time of excavation). Later cleaning and reuse might explain the low numbers of EM I–II tombs and interments, but is this were true, we could expect to identify such activities through some surviving remains of older material in the contexts, and this is not the case. So, what kind of social unit used each tomb? The number of bodies is very small to relate a tomb to the smallest social unit considered in the literature, i.e., the nuclear family (20 is the normal number of interments for a nuclear family during a century; Bintliff 1977b, 639–640). It may be possible that only a few individuals (elders, religious figures) were entitled to be buried in the tombs, but based on the Hagios Nikolaos III (421) evidence, where the ceramic assemblage seems to indicate the burial of at least 10 bodies within the short period of use of the tomb, it seems more probable that tombs were used for brief periods by, perhaps, a nuclear family. It is always possible that nuclear families used the tombs on an episodic basis as the community moved around the landscape, or that small hamlets never survived for more than a few generations. Whatever the case, the same question arises: where are the rest of the tombs for the period? Considering the numbers, many more tombs should exist in the archaeological record, either as discrete cemeteries related to long-term settlements or dispersed in the landscape related to short-lived communities or a mobile way of life. Undoubtedly, the widespread use of rock shelters for burial during

the period has prevented the survival or recognition of most of the burial contexts, but it is not clear if this is the only reason for the lack of evidence. Other archaeologically invisible ways of disposing of bodies should be considered, such as exposure, inhumations in the ground (not completely invisible archaeologically, but very difficult to find), or even burial in the sea for coastal communities. Little can be said regarding the assemblages found in EM I–II cemeteries, as only Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou III (421) is well known. Its ceramic assemblage follows the patterns identified in other EM I contexts on Crete, with a dominant presence of pyxides and their lids. The contents of Palaikastro Tomb I (434) may not follow this pattern (Fig. 113B), but the small number of vessels found is unlikely to fully characterize an otherwise lost assemblage. At Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou (421), a small silver bead, an item most probably of high value, was found in an otherwise modest burial, a pattern corroborated at Maronia Spiliara I (430), Maronia Kolibos (429), and Zakros Cave IV (468). The few good burial contexts known for this period all contained objects of this kind. Moreover, despite the small number of tombs known and their poor preservation, more off-island materials (bar copper tools) have been found in EM I–II contexts than in those of later periods, when larger and better-preserved assemblages are found (Fig. 122). In the EM III–MM I periods, the same number of silver and gold items was found in the assemblages of all the Palaikastro (434–443), Zakros (464–478), and Mandalia (428) cemeteries taken together (more than 15 tombs that included more than 200 interments) as in the three best-known examples of EM I–II cemeteries (Hagios Nikolaos III [421], Maronia I [430], and Maronia Kolibos [429], which account for around 20 interments). Nonceramic off-island material is conspicuously rare in the cemetery of Hagia Photia Siteias A (412– 415), even though this has clear non-Cretan characteristics, which makes the examples found in the other EM I–II tombs more meaningful. It may be suggested that the deposition of high-value items, both off-island materials and elaborate stone vessels, may be a fundamental part of the mortuary ritual for this period, if not for every single individual, at least for some particular categories of

EAST CRETE

individuals. These particular categories of individuals seem to be common to all the communities in East Crete at this time, and the objects may mark some kind of important persona in the common horizontal organization of the communities, such as heads of families. It is beyond the scope of this work to explore off-island relationships during the Early Bronze Age based on the Hagia Photia evidence (412– 415), which has already been a matter of discussion in a variety of recent studies (Branigan 1991b; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Broodbank 2000; Betancourt 2003b, 2008; Shank 2005; Papadatos 2007b; Karantzali 2008; Muhly 2008; Davaras and Betancourt 2012). A short comment is necessary, however, as the implications of this relationship for wider mortuary practices in Crete have not yet been fully explored. The Cycladic mortuary behavior in this cemetery can, by means of its comparison, be used to identify some of the most essential aspects of the way Cretans understood death and burial. Particularly revealing is the sheer number of tombs at Hagia Photia (412–415), around 300, in contrast to the usual smaller number of tombs in Cretan cemeteries, and indicates that the group entitled to be buried in each tomb was of a different nature (Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 238). Cretan communities seem to have envisioned burial as a more communal affair, in which the individuals were interred within a larger group in a smaller number of tombs. This expresses differences in the way social affiliation and burial were related and therefore implies a distinction in the social organization of the Hagia Photia community in EM I. Another interesting point comes from the pattern of deposition of vessels, with pyxides and bottles almost always found in the burial chambers and chalices preferred for deposition in the anteroom. While mortuary behavior at Hagia Photia (412– 415) is very different from that in any other contemporaneous Cretan cemetery, the common use of similar vessels may indicate that a similar distinction in the ritual function of pyxides and chalices may also apply to other EM I–II Cretan tombs. Finally, attention should be paid to the discrepancy between Cretan and Cycladic vessels. A deliberate choice of Cycladic wares appears to have existed. At Hagia Photia (412–415), the clear choice of depositing Cycladic-style pyxides and bowls with the

131

deceased may indicate that these represented particularly important symbolic objects that in this particular cemetery were also chosen in order to display group-identity meanings. Another difference is the almost total absence of nonceramic objects in off-island materials, apart from obsidian and a few copper items (Stos-Gale 1993). It has already been noted that the Hagia Photia community seems to have made a conscious choice, following Cycladic mortuary behavior (Doumas 1977), not to include metal items in the tombs even though they had access to off-island materials, as the obsidian shows. The relatively few copper objects found in the cemetery contrast with the significant deposition of metal items in contemporaneous Cretan tombs. It seems that artifacts made in offisland materials had connotations for Cretan communities that were not shared by the Hagia Photia community. A last possible Cycladic element at Hagia Photia must be considered. It has been widely accepted that the strong Cycladic characteristics of this cemetery reflect a community of Cycladic immigrants (Cultraro 2000b, 488; Betancourt 2003a, 4). But a cemetery with strong Cycladic traits was not necessarily established by a community of Cycladic origin, nor does it indicate that this community was relatively isolated from the Cretan social environment (Papadatos 2007b) with which it only interacted in an economic way, as the use of the term “colony” seems to imply (Betancourt 2008). A cemetery is a highly charged social arena where the actual society is not always reflected, but rather an ideal of this society. The cemetery may therefore reflect the effort of a community to express their identity rather than their actual geographical origin (Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 145). The way Cycladic and Cretan traits combined in the cemetery cannot be thought of as an accurate indication of the relationship of a Cycladic community with their Cretan neighbors. In many respects, the characteristics of the cemetery are more Cycladic than would have been expected from a community that interacted with the surrounding Cretan communities (Karantzali 2008), particularly as the “Cycladic” population at Hagia Photia Siteias has normally been interpreted in terms of a trade community. The level of “Cycladicness” in the cemetery could only be achieved through careful and conscious

132

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

behavior, not through a passive and unconscious display of identity. The Hagia Photia evidence, rather than stating the presence of “Cycladic” people, shows a community that spent considerable effort in creating an alien mortuary behavior, possibly with the intention of building and maintaining a differentiated identity, which may or may not be directly linked to a Cycladic origin of the population. Building this strong identity may not necessarily mean isolation; the creation of a clear personality could help this community, or even put it in an advantageous position, in its interaction with other Cretan communities.

Early Minoan III–Middle Minoan II A dearth of well-understood EM II–III contexts prevents a detailed study of the transition between the EM IIA, EM IIB, and EM III periods that has proved so significant in other parts of the island. Changes in mortuary behavior in East Crete are evident between the EM I–II and the EM III–MM I periods, but neither an accurate chronology nor a characterization of them can be achieved. It can only be suggested, based on the evidence from Palaikastro Tomb III (442), that, at some sites at least, EM III did not present an obvious gap in the use of the cemeteries and that changes in East Crete in EM IIB–III may have followed the Mirabello area blueprint of an uninterrupted history. For the EM III–MM I periods, the data comes mainly from the cemeteries at Zakros (464–478) and Palaikastro (434–443). These communities, however, may not represent typical mortuary behavior, as both were probably larger-than-average sites and already may have been developing in different ways. At the moment, though, this suggestion remains hypothetical, as there is insufficient comprehensive information from other EM III– MM II burial sites in East Crete to contrast with them and there is no clear picture of the Protopalatial development of either Palaikastro (MacGillivray and Driessen 1990) or Zakros (Platon 1999). The first characteristic of the Palaikastro (434– 443) and Zakros (464–478) mortuary behaviors is the appearance of cemeteries in various locations surrounding the settlement. This pattern had already started in earlier periods, but it became

particularly evident during EM III–MM II; at Palaikastro (434–443) tombs appeared at four different locations, and at Zakros at six (464–478; Figs. 109, 110). At Zakros, the new cemeteries appeared together with the first rectangular (475, 476) tombs in the area. Rectangular tombs were not exclusive to these two sites, however, and they also appeared at Mandalia (428), Linares (425), and Petras Kephala (447, 448, 450–458). Related to this issue is the identification of the social unit that used each rectangular tomb. Soles attempted to identify the population using each rectangular tomb by counting the number of skulls in the best-preserved tombs and dividing them by the number of years that the tombs were in use (Table 8; Soles 1992b, 252–253, fig. 81). The results produced very different figures. If the Palaikastro Tomb VIIa (435) figure is set aside, as this tomb has a unique plan and deposition of material (Fig. 118), the other three tombs yield similar figures of less than a nuclear family per tomb (Table 8). Taking into consideration the problems of preservation of bones, it seems likely that this ratio is accurate (Soles 1992b, 253). If it is accepted that a rectangular tomb was intended for the burial of a group similar in size to that of a nuclear family in EM III–MM I times, small communities would have needed only five or six rectangular tombs to house their populations (taking as a reference the information provided by the recent surveys in the Mirabello Bay area and the information provided by the excavated EM II settlement at Myrtos Phournou Koriphi; Whitelaw 1983; Haggis 2005, 68). At Mandalia (428) and Linares (425), only one tomb was found and this suggests that the cemeteries of these communities followed a similar dispersed location pattern. Petras Kephala (447–460) seems to present the sole exception to the dissemination of tombs typical from the region. The emerging picture from the cemetery indicates that most if not all tombs linked to the settlement were placed in the same location, which could point to a distinctive relation between tombs, place, and social groups at Petras. The dispersed location pattern described here could easily be explained by the so-called SaxeGoldstein hypothesis (also known as Saxe hypothesis 8; Saxe 1970; Goldstein 1981; Morris 1991), which argues that spatial grouping of burials may

EAST CRETE

indicate affiliation groups in certain situations. It may be considered that tombs were built at different locations in an effort by nuclear families to express, strengthen, and symbolize their affiliation. Contemporaneous tombs that were located together may indicate close links between nuclear families. In the case of Palaikastro Ta Ellenika, Tombs III (442) and VI (443) may have been located there at a later date to reinforce the identity of a family by means of drawing links with the earlier Tomb II (441). Affiliation tends to be displayed in cemeteries in competitive circumstances (see Ch. 2 for discussion; Hodder 1982b, 196–199; Pader 1982, 62–65; Morris 1991, 148–150; Carr 1995). The possible large size of these communities could have generated distinctive characteristics in their social organization, such as vertical differentiation processes, that might have been managed through the layout of the cemeteries. The unequal interaction between families may have modified the mortuary behavior at these sites in order to negotiate these ranked relationships. On the other hand, available evidence seems to reject such a model, as competition cannot be identified in the comprehensive study of the mortuary behavior of these two sites. Architecturally, the tombs at Palaikastro (434–443) and Zakros (464–478) were actually no different from the one found at Mandalia (428), and none of the tombs at these sites included an assemblage that could be considered “rich” in the variety or the quality of the objects (Figs. 112A, 112B). The Zakros (464– 478) and Palaikastro (434–443) tomb assemblages were mainly formed of ceramic vessels, their composition coinciding with the assemblages found in most of the tombs on Crete during these periods. The only significant variations come from Palaikastro and Petras Kephala. At Petras, Tomb II (448) has been identified as larger and has a focal character in the cemetery, as it was surrounded by open areas used for cult activities (Tsipopoulou 2012a). Petras resembles closely the cases of Archanes Phourni and Malia, where a central complex such as Archanes Tholos B (162, 163) and Malia Chrysolakkos (263, 264) act as central cult areas for a large cemetery. The case of Tomb VIIa (435) at Palaikastro is more difficult to interpret due to the poor evidence. The tomb was probably surrounded by other important buildings, as the ashlar

133

blocks found in this area suggest, and it is always possible that this ossuary complemented a focal building in this cemetery. It is unclear at the moment whether these two examples are exceptions in the mortuary behavior of East Crete and whether they accommodate some specific social interactions in these communities or if more tombs of this type are waiting to be found in the cemeteries of the region. In any case, the new choices in the location of the tombs and the new popularity of the rectangular tombs (Fig. 117B) are part of a much larger change in mortuary behavior in East Crete. As noted above, rectangular tombs seem to have housed larger numbers of interments, showing that a profound change occurred during EM III times in which the relationship between tomb and population unit changed. Furthermore, a larger number of tombs appeared in the record and in MM I there was a peak in the construction and use of tombs (Figs. 117A, 117B). This process was led by Palaikastro (434–443), where a large number of new tombs have been discovered (Fig. 112). At Zakros, (464–478) the chronological resolution is poorer as the use of many caves cannot be accurately dated, but Pezoules Kephalas (475, 476) and Rizes (477, 478) may show a similar pattern (Fig. 112). Mandalia (428) and Petras Kephala (447–460) indicate that this expansion probably affected most of the cemeteries in East Crete. In addition, a new use of space emerged with the rectangular tombs; more spaces appeared in the cemeteries, normally indoors, which seem to fulfill different purposes and that indicate a more complex relationship between burial ritual and space. As in other parts of the island, the material assemblage in the tombs seems to change during EM III. The EM III–MM II mortuary assemblage is formed basically of ceramic vessels with little other material, which consists primarily of small numbers of copper tools and stone vessels (Figs. 105, 113A, 113B). Interestingly, when compared with the assemblages from cemeteries in other parts of the island, in Zakros (464–478), Palaikastro (434– 443), and Mandalia (428), very few stone vessels or seals have been discovered, which are objects typically found in MM I tombs. With respect to the ceramic assemblage, it seems that this changed in ways similar to those seen in other parts of the

134

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

island: jugs, and especially cups, became the dominant shapes. What was not found at these sites are large deposits of ceramic vessels associated with the tombs (with the possible exception of Kephala Petras; Tsipopoulou 2012a). Deposition is mostly found inside the tombs, never comprising a large number of ceramic vessels (Tomb VIIa [435] at Palaikastro may be the exception), and there is little architectural evidence here to point to public ritual activities outside the tombs (again, with the exception of Petras [449]). The lack of evidence for group ritual, as well as the low incidence of seals and stone vessels in the tombs, suggests that in East Crete, MM I cemeteries had a different role and importance as social arenas from those described in other parts of the island. By the MM II period, East Crete witnesses the same decline in the mortuary record as has been identified in other parts of the island. No significant intensive surveys have yet been published for

East Crete, so it is difficult to understand the developments in the cemeteries with respect to the local settlement history. The little information available indicates that the decline in cemetery use does not parallel exactly the development of major settlements in the Protopalatial period (MacGillivray and Driessen 1990; Platon 1999; Tsipopoulou 2002). Again, the disappearance of the tombs from the archaeological record must be explained by specific reasons, not by a decline in the population history of East Crete. The MM I use of new cultic areas, such as Pelekita Cave at Zakros (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 33), and the appearance of multiple peak sanctuaries in the region (Nowicki 1994, 2008b), such as Petsophas at Palaikastro (Rutkowski 1991), suggest that these contexts may have progressively adopted most of the roles and significance of the cemeteries as a social arena, until the latter ceased to constitute a significant part of the life of the communities.

8

West and West-Central Crete

Introduction and Archaeological Considerations This chapter analyzes the data from two different large areas: West Crete, which is defined in this study as the region west of Souda Bay and the Lefka Mountains; and West-Central Crete, which refers to the region between the Lefka Mountains and the Psiloritis Mountains (Fig. 123). In this study, the definition of these regions is not based on geographical features and both areas comprise a variety of microregions, from steep mountainous landscapes to rich coastal plains. They are also not defined culturally and do not necessarily equate with two meaningful units in the study of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. They have been defined according to archaeological criteria, as the lack of archaeological knowledge of the two regions severely constrains their study, rendering them suitable for only a limited range of analytical approaches. It is only according to these criteria that the study of the two areas has been combined in the present chapter. The archaeological knowledge of Pre- and Protopalatial West and West-Central Crete can be

described as poor at best. Pre- and Protopalatial data have been recovered from only a few excavations, namely Debla (Warren and Tzedakis 1974), Nopigeia (Karantzali 1992–1993; Nodarou 2011), Platyvola (Tzedakis 1965, 1966; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967; Nodarou 2011), Chamalevri (Andreadaki-Vlasaki and Papadopoulou 2001; Andreadaki-Vlasaki 2002; Vlazaki 2010), Monasteraki (Grundmann 1951; Kirsten 1951; Kanta 1999), Atsipades (Peatfield 1992), and Apodoulou (Civitillo and Greco 2005). None of these sites has been published in great detail. Much of the evidence originated mainly from different types of surveys in West Crete (Hood 1965; Treuil 1970; Belgiorno et al. 1984; Tzedakis 1984; Moody 1987a, 2004; Nixon, Moody, and Rackham 1988; Nixon et al. 1989, 1990; Andreadaki-Vlasaki 1997a; Moody, Peatfield, and Markoulaki 2000). These have made only a limited contribution to the pool of knowledge regarding the human landscape of the region. A third source of data has been provided by

136

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

speleological investigations in both regions. Many of the caves were explored during the general investigations of caves with archaeological material on Crete (Faure 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1969; Platakis 1973a, 1973b, 1978; Tyree 1974; Papadakis and Rutkowski 1985; Rutkowski 1986; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Tyree 2001, 2006). The little mortuary evidence discovered in these areas for these periods was derived mainly from these speleological investigations (Figs. 124, 125). It stands to reason, therefore, that caves currently dominate the literature of Pre- and Protopalatial West and West-Central Crete. Rather than illustrating a local preference, this simply reflects a dearth of identification and investigation of other funerary contexts. Little information can be gained about Pre- and Protopalatial mortuary behavior from these caves, which in several cases cannot even be confirmed as burial sites. Apart from the caves, few other burial sites have been found (Figs. 124, 125), and they normally represent cemeteries known from survey or from small rescue excavations that have produced very little information. Can this dearth of known cemeteries be wholly accounted for by the limited investigations of the archaeological record in these regions? On the one hand, these have focused on the LM III period, for which material has been found in significant quantity and quality. The only intensive survey available for the area, which took place in the Chania and Akrotiri areas, demonstrated that a richly inhabited EM and MM landscape existed, though

this has only been understood superficially (Moody 1987a, 300–304). On the other hand, at least in recent decades, these areas have come under the same degree of scrutiny by the local archaeological authorities as any other area on the island and it is surprising that no more EM and MM cemeteries have been discovered. While the Chania survey was able to identify numerous possible EM and MM settlements, it only recorded a few possible funerary contexts for the same period, some of them already known (Moody 1987a, 205, 218–219). Although the different methodologies do not permit a direct comparison between the results of different surveys on the island, it seems that the West Mesara and Hagiopharango Surveys found burial sites easier to locate (Fig. 126). It is always possible that a particular mortuary behavior in West and WestCentral Crete left a less obvious imprint in the archaeological record. For example, individual tombs like the ones at Nea Roumata (494–496) would have been very difficult to detect by archaeologists. The scanty information about funerary practices in West and West-Central Crete cannot support a similarly intensive study of the mortuary behavior as that conducted in previous chapters. Given the poor data available from the region, the following investigation will be ordered by type of context rather than chronologically. Caves and rock shelters will be studied separately for the sake of clarity, as they represent funerary contexts with slightly different characteristics.

Caves Most of the caves in West and West-Central Crete have yielded EM and MM pottery, but no human remains, and have generally been regarded as habitation contexts, though possibly on a seasonal basis (Faure 1964; Moody 1987b). We cannot exclude the possibility that caves had a different use here compared to the rest of the island. Nonetheless it is surprising that no EM cave with domestic use is known on Crete, and the lack of human bones cannot be automatically understood as evidence for nonburial use, as bones preserve poorly in the humid and heavily disturbed cave deposits.

This work does not include those caves, such as Lera (D17; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976; Karantzali 1996, 86–87), Perivolia (D18; Orlandou 1968b, 108; Karantzali 1996, 87), and Arkoudia (D15; Faure 1964, 144–146; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, 237–243), nor the ones described in Treuil’s survey of Neolithic and Subneolithic (FN/EM I) sites in West Crete (Treuil 1970), as they did not produce any evidence of human remains or burial practices. On the basis of the remaining nine caves, which in this study have been suggested as possible

WEST AND WEST-CENTRAL CRETE

Pre- and Protopalatial cemeteries, it seems obvious that burial caves did not constitute the main type of tomb in these areas. None of them can be confirmed securely as burial places, because of the inability to associate the recovered human bones with the Pre- and Protopalatial material. The osteological evidence from other caves is scarce, as is the material evidence. In the case of Kera Spiliotisa (488), burial use was suggested initially, but no human bones were found (Fig. 127; Faure 1958, 500; 1964, 69), and the cave was later attributed a domestic rather than a mortuary function (Tyree 1974, 62; Moody 1987a). Tyree reported the presence of human bones in Korakia (489), but the actual quantity is not explicit, nor is it possible to establish whether they relate to the MM I material that was also found there (Tyree 1974, 47– 48). In Kato Sarakina (487), Faure reported one or more inhumations along with FN–EM I material, but Tyree suggested domestic use for the context (Faure 1964, 69; Tyree 1974, 59–60). The one inhumation found at Maryieles (491; also known as Ellenes) has been suggested to correspond to an accidental death (Marinatos 1933, 295–297; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 76). Although FN burials were documented at Hagios Ioannis (484; Faure 1964, 69), it is still not clear whether the EM material found represented the continuation of use of the cave as a burial ground. At Ellinospilaio (482), human bones were also reported, but they could belong either to the Neolithic, Subneolithic (FN– EM I), or Mycenaean period (Faure 1956, 99; 1964, 62; Moody 1987a, 668, no. DKT1). At Koumarospilio (490), five interments were reported (Faure 1964, 62), but they have been dated to the Neolithic period (Tyree 1974, 54; Moody 1987a; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 46). Only at Melidoni Mylopotamou (492) did the bones come from a closed context, but this may have represented a Neolithic rather than a Prepalatial burial as it was stratified under an EM stratum

137

(Fig. 128; Gavrilaki 1997; Blackman 1998, 127). Such evidence contrasts with the Lasithi Plateau, for example, where the distinct use of caves for burials was easily identified. In some of the best-known cases where funerary use has been proposed, it seems to have been the result of sporadic interments rather than continuous funerary activities. In the caves where excavation was undertaken, such as Koumarospilio (490; Jantzen 1951) and Maryieles (491; Marinatos 1933), only a few human bones were reported. Only Chamber IV at Platyvola (501) produced a significant number of human bones during excavation (Tzedakis 1965, 1966; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967). The chamber contained nothing but bones, making accurate dating impossible; a large quantity of EM and MM material was found in the other chambers of the cave, however. Moreover, the assemblage resembles funerary deposits known in other parts of the island; the EM ceramics include wares of high quality (Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 504–506) and shapes typical of burial contexts, such as pyxides (Karantzali 1996, 85). Also, the Helladic sauceboats and a folded-arm figurine of the Koumasa type (Tzedakis and Davaras 1967; Tzedakis 1968; 1984; Branigan 1971, 62–63; Rutter and Zerner 1984; Karantzali 1996, 85; Pieler 2004, 96) parallel the items with Aegean connections found in the EM assemblages of other cemeteries. The clear division between the location of the bones and the material suggests that deposition was consciously ordered (as it was in the well-known Hagios Charalambos cave [205] in Central Crete; Betancourt et al. 2008a), perhaps following a ritual liturgy, and it seems safe to assume that the material and the bones are related. In many cases, the inhumations seem to be the result of Neolithic rather than EM or MM activities, but the case of Platyvola (501) indicates the probable, if restricted, use of caves as burial places in EM.

Rock Shelters Five sites in the two regions have been identified as funerary rock shelters. This group is not homogeneous, however, and it includes different

settings. Two sites, Kalogerospilio (486) and Plates/ Charakas (500), contained pithos burials (Faure 1964, 68; 1965, 53–54; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan

138

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

1964). Two sites, Kalogerospilio (486) and NAMFI beach (493), are composed of a row of rock shelters, three at the former and 11 at the latter (Faure 1964, 68; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 75; Moody 1987a, 205, no. MR6). Finally, at Kalathas (485), no human bones were found, but the rock shelter is too small for anything other than funerary use (Moody 1987a, 517, no. KL11). The example of NAMFI beach is quite intriguing (493). The rock shelters here have been described as manmade with narrow entrances and one chamber (Moody 1987a, 205) that resemble Cycladic rock-cut tombs (Doumas 1977, 47–49), such as the ones found at Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) and Gournes B (203; Davaras and Betancourt 2004; Galanaki 2006). Moreover, the number of reported tombs in this cemetery is consistent with the evidence from the rock-cut tomb cemeteries. A personal visit to the site failed to locate the tombs, but established

that the topography of the site is quite different from the rocky flat coastal plain at Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) and Gournes B (203), and it may not have been suitable for a similar cemetery. None of the named rock shelters has been excavated systematically and the dates for all of them are based on sherds found on the surface inside and around them. Apart from Kalathas (485), where only EM material was reported, the other four rock shelters may indicate a late EM III–MM use (Pendlebury 1939, 103; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 75; Moody 1987a, 205, no. MR6). In the cases of Kalogerospilio (486) and Plates/ Charakas (500), both located in the same area (Fig. 123), the pithos burials were dated to the MM period, which allows for the possibility of a MM III date (Petit 1990), and they would therefore fall outside the chronological framework of this study.

Pithos Burials Pithos burials have been found in five different locations, representing one of the main types of burial recovered from West and West-Central Crete (Fig. 125). As with rock shelters, there is considerable heterogeneity in the archaeological contexts in which the pithoi were found. Pithoi were discovered in rock shelters at Kalogerospilio (486) and Plates/Charakas (500; see last section). At Nopigeia (497), one pithos was found in an EM II context that predates the suggested date for the appearance of burial pithoi on the island (Petit 1990, 33, 44; Karantzali 1992–1993; 1996, 89–90); it was found inside a house and contained the remains of a three-year-old child (Karantzali 1992–93; 1996, 89–90). Rare examples of infant intramural burial have been encountered at Cretan sites, such as at Neolithic Knossos (Evans 1964, 1971; Broodbank 1992; Whitelaw 1992), and

in a dubious context at the settlement of Vasiliki (410; see p. 96; Zois 1992b, 102). The closest parallel comes from the roughly contemporary child intramural interments found in mainland Greece (Forsén 1992, 154–155; Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 16), and it seems that the Nopigeia (497) example represents an atypical form of interment in Central and East Crete. Newly discovered infant burials at Sissi did not come from domestic contexts but from rectangular tombs (295; Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 61–70; Schoep 2009, 51–52). At Choraphakia (481), a pithos was found in the ground, but void of human remains. The excavator suggested that it represented a burial pithos despite the absence of bones (Tzedakis 1979; contra Moody 1987a, 204, 206). Another MM I burial pithos was reported from the modern town of Chania (480), at the site of Charakas (Theofaneides 1940).

Other Burials This category includes a possible rectangular tomb at Vrimbokambos B (503; Hood 1965,

104), two possible tholoi—one at Vrimbokambos A (502; Hood 1965, 102) and another at Perivolitsa

WEST AND WEST-CENTRAL CRETE

(498; Moody 1987a, 205, no. PR4)—and the cemeteries at Nea Roumata (494–496; Tzedakis 1980; 1984, 6–7; Preve 2006), which have a type of tomb unique to the whole island. The presence of both tholoi has been suggested on the basis of the discovery of curved walls in association with MM I–II pottery. No human bones were reported from either tholos and their funerary use remains only a remote possibility. The identification of tholoi based solely on the existence of curved walls is questionable, and although it is true that most of the curved features found in EM and MM architecture corresponds to funerary buildings, curved nonburial buildings are also found on Prepalatial Crete, such as at Chamaizi in the Mirabello region (Xanthoudides 1906; Davaras 1972c). The possible rectangular tomb at Vrimbokambos B (503) was not associated with human bones and no exact date has been established (Hood 1965, 104). These three sites offer very questionable evidence of funerary use, but until excavation is conducted this possibility cannot be rejected completely. At Nea Roumata A, one tomb (494) was excavated together with the related settlement (Tzedakis 1980; 1984; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 58–59; Karantzali 1996, 89, 239), and a second reported tomb (495) suggests the possibility of a larger cemetery (Karantzali 1996, 89; Preve 2006). A similar tomb was reported at the nearby location of Nea Roumata B (496), which may indicate a second similar cemetery (Preve 2006). The excavation

139

of Tomb I (494) at Nea Roumata A revealed a small tomb consisting of a chamber created by the superposition of rows of stones that formed a small vault (Fig. 129). Inside the tomb only two ceramic vessels were found: a cup and a globular jar, both dating to EM I with no links to Cycladic material (Karantzali 1996, 89). Most probably, the interment in the tomb was carried out from above and not through the small entrance (Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 58). A single skeleton was recovered; on the basis of its size it seems logical to suggest that the tomb was intended for a single interment. With regard to the architecture, the closest parallels come from the Early Cycladic (EC) II cemeteries on Syros (Doumas 1977, 47–49; Tzedakis 1984, 6; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 58). Given that the Syros examples are of later date and that the tombs resemble tiny tholoi, Nea Roumata A (494) has also been linked to some of the EM I tholoi, such as Krasi A (238) or Chrysostomos A (14), which were larger but share a similar construction technique (Karantzali 1996, 239). Nonetheless, a fundamental difference separates the Nea Roumata tomb style (494–496) from the Cretan tholos tombs, and in general from any known mortuary behavior in other parts of Crete: Nea Roumata tombs are intended for only one individual. The sole interment in Nea Roumata tombs constituted a Cycladic and mainland funerary characteristic that has only been found on the island in cemeteries with strong Cycladic influences.

Archaeological Visibility The scarce funerary evidence from West and West-Central Crete does not allow any generalization regarding the mortuary behavior in these two areas. Nevertheless, the data generates interesting questions about archaeological visibility and mortuary customs. A characteristic common to all of the tombs discussed in this chapter is their small size and lack of monumentality. Burials have been mainly found in rock shelters and pithoi. These are burial types that are not easily visible in the archaeological record, since they do not incorporate any substantial architecture and most of them were discovered by chance. This does not mean

that no significant cemeteries existed (the pithos burials and the Nea Roumata burials may have been part of larger cemeteries), but simply that these cemeteries were not characterized by sizeable architectural features. This trait differs from what has been found in cemeteries in the Mesara or the Mirabello region, where the cemetery comprised diverse, significant, and often substantial buildings, which made them easier for archaeologists to locate. Therefore, the poor knowledge of the funerary record in West and West-Central Crete may be explained by particularities in the mortuary behavior of these areas, which involved

140

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

primarily nonmonumental tombs, poorly visible in the archaeological record. Although this

hypothesis raises some interesting research questions, only new data can assess its veracity.

Off-Island Influences in West Crete As noted in the previous chapter, a detailed analysis of the links between Crete and the Cyclades falls beyond the scope of this study. Yet the noticeable quantity of off-island influences found in the few well-known EM I–II cemeteries in West Crete demands examination (Fig. 130). Off-island links materialized in the cemeteries in a wide variety of forms (Fig. 130). At NAMFI beach (493), the cemetery may resemble Cycladic cemeteries but, unfortunately, there is no information to confirm this hypothesis. At Nea Roumata (494–496), links with Cycladic burial customs exist, perhaps not in such a straightforward mode as the adoption of burial architecture, but in its preference for individual interment. The deposited material, however, is undoubtedly of Cretan origin. Similarly, the interment type at Nopigeia (497) represents a fundamental difference from Cretan mortuary behavior: the intramural and individual nature of the burial resemble funerary practices

on mainland Greece. At Platyvola (501), the cave constituted a burial type that was common in Crete but not in the Cyclades, but contained at least two objects most probably imported from the Cyclades (Pieler 2004, 96). Off-island influences appeared in West Cretan burials in a variety of forms and represent different ways in which communities adopted external ideas. In some cases, off-island influences both from the Cyclades and the mainland may have established significant differences in burial practices in this part of the island with respect to those in Central and East Crete. Unfortunately, on the basis of the present evidence, it is not possible to examine how these differences might relate to the social organization of the communities. West Crete is not only a relatively unknown area during the EM and MM periods, but it is also one that may prove very different from our current understanding of Central and East Crete.

9

Mortuary Behavior and Social Organization

Having broken down the analysis of the mortuary evidence into geographical regions in previous chapters, it is time to take a more comprehensive look at how the different areas of Crete compare in

terms of mortuary behavior in the different periods, and to situate the emerging patterns more clearly within the theoretical framework of this study.

Early Minoan I Neolithic mortuary customs on the island are not well understood as few Neolithic tombs are known (Zois 1973; Godart and Tzedakis 1992; Strasser 1992; Triantaphyllou 2008). Many of them have in fact been included in this study as they represent burial contexts that continued to be used during EM I. The existing evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show that EM I represented a significant departure from Neolithic burial customs. Burial activities took on greater significance for Cretan communities during EM I. More cemeteries, new types of tombs, more significant deposition of material in tombs, and the creation of lasting architecture for the tombs set EM I mortuary behavior

apart from that of earlier periods. Within this general picture it is necessary to break down the study of the island into different areas, since heterogeneity is another characteristic that set the Early Bronze Age funerary customs apart from the Neolithic ones. In the EM I period, the island can be divided into at least three areas based on their mortuary behavior: one around the Asterousia Mountains; another focused along the north coast (that is, the entire stretch of the north coast, from West Crete to East Crete), although not all the sites found in this area are characterized by this second behavior; and a third comprising certain sites on the north coast, but

142

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

focused mainly in the island interior. The first two types of behavior, which appeared on the peripheries of the island, showed a definite break from older Neolithic customs, while the third type had clear roots in Neolithic burial traditions (Fig. 131). The first type of behavior was centered in the Asterousia Mountains, although some examples of it may have existed in cemeteries outside this area, such as at Krasi A (238) in the Lasithi area or Livari (426) in southeast Crete. This mortuary behavior involved a new architectural type of tomb, the tholos, which represented a very different approach to burial customs. The average tholos was bigger than Neolithic tombs and most probably intended for a larger group of individuals. In addition to this, other new material characteristics shaped this particular mortuary behavior, such as large depositions of ceramic vessels inside tombs, as seen at Lebena Y2 (79) and Hagia Kyriaki A (22). Although the sheer volume of these deposits was not equaled by other EM I tombs, the ceramic vessel types found in the tholoi, mainly closed shapes and pyxides, are typical of most mortuary contexts on the island during this period (Fig. 132). Given the distribution and chronology of this type of mortuary behavior, it seems clear that tholos tombs gain a large significance in the Asterousia Mountains in EM I (Fig. 131). The close connection between the tholos tomb cemeteries and these mountains indicates that the cemeteries must be understood with special reference to certain characteristics particular to the communities living there. It has been suggested in this work that this new mortuary behavior could be related to a mobile way of life or to unstable, fragmented communities (Whitelaw 2000; Relaki 2004). The progressive infilling of the landscape of SouthCentral Crete in EM I (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 229) may have brought new populations to this mountainous region, or preexisting ones may have had to modify the way they exploited the resources of the region in the face of new demographic pressure. Whatever the case, the new mortuary behavior must have been connected to an emerging social organization brought about by these transformations. The use of new communal tombs and the deposition of large quantities of ceramics indicate the gathering of a community, probably on the occasion of funerary-related

events. These gatherings may have provided many services to the dispersed populations. Fragmented groups may have had a need to reinforce their community identity, as the main communal identity was larger than the small dispersed populations on which everyday life was organized. Belonging to a larger group may have regulated important social relationships, such as marriage or access to certain resources in an increasingly contested landscape, and this feeling of belonging needed to be continuously strengthened. In addition, funeral rites may have been used as moments to engage dispersed populations in face-to-face socioeconomic relationships. The second type of mortuary behavior has been found at three EM I sites right on the north coast: Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415), Pseira (386– 406), and Gournes B (203). This particular mortuary behavior is characterized by its links with off-island mortuary customs. The cemeteries are made up of a large number of small cist and rockcut tombs typically found in the Cyclades and in mainland Greece but not on Crete. In the case of Gournes B (203) and Hagia Photia Siteias A (412– 415), the rock-cut tombs are virtual copies of the ones found in other parts of the Aegean and contained mainly Cycladic cultural material. At the EM I cemetery of Pseira (386–406) numerous tombs form the cemetery, including a typically Cycladic type of tomb, the cist; this type differs from those found at Gournes B (203) and Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415), perhaps indicating a relationship between the Pseira community and a different part of the Aegean from that of the other two cemeteries. But the Pseira cemetery (386–406) shows modifications within the mortuary behavior, differing in the way it manifested off-island influences, as off-island and Cretan burial customs were combined here. At Pseira, the cists were not direct copies of their Cycladic counterparts but showed architectural variations. The Cretan influence is clearer in the material assemblage. No material with Cycladic parallels has been found at Pseira, not even ceramics with Cycladic fabrics such as those found at Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) and Gournes B (203). I agree with recent discussions that have reminded us that the cultural links at Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) and Gournes B (203) do not

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

necessarily represent the presence of populations of Cycladic origin on Crete (Karantzali 1996, 251– 252; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Papadatos 2007b). The debate about the origin of these populations seems futile, however. The actual place of birth of the populations may or may not relate to their identity, and if it does it may prove not to be a direct link. What Hagia Photia Siteias (412– 415), Gournes B (203), and Pseira (386–406) indicate is that a few communities on the north coast chose to employ mortuary behavior typical of other areas in the Aegean, most probably because they identified as a group coming from a particular Aegean region, independently of where they were born. Given the stark difference between these cemeteries and other nearby necropoleis, one cannot but suggest that the Hagia Photia Siteias (412– 415) and Gournes B (203) cemeteries constituted a conscious expression of a distinct identity, and that they indicate a clear effort by these communities to differentiate themselves from the surrounding Cretan cultural environment. In this sense, it is clear that these populations must be considered Cycladic (although this is also a misleading label as their identity was most probably attached to a particular area within the Cyclades) in that they were conspicuously marking such an identity against their cultural environment. Off-island connections are not exclusive to these three cemeteries, however; they are also found at cemeteries in the north part of the island, though restricted to a small portion of the material assemblage. Most sites on the north coast followed a third type of mortuary behavior that developed from Cretan Neolithic burial customs and was clearly defined by the continuation in the use of caves and rock shelters as burial places (Fig. 131). The geographical distribution of this type of mortuary behavior is less distinct than that of the first two as it spanned the entire island. Rock shelter and cave cemeteries have various crevices that contained a number of interments clearly representing a social unit smaller than one represented by the tholos and larger than the social unit found in the rock-cut and cist tombs. Although in some cases a cave may have been the only burial site for a community, such as Trapeza Cave (312), at least three or more rock shelters and caves seem to have been used at most cemeteries. The grave goods deposited are

143

also less numerous than in the tholoi (Fig. 132). In various caves and rock shelters in North-Central Crete, DGB ware and non-DGB wares were combined in the material assemblage in a specific way (Fig. 47A). Although the present evidence does not permit definite confirmation that this pattern was typical of this region alone, the limited presence of DGB ware in tombs outside this area suggests a regional character for this practice. Off-island material was present in the best known rock shelters and caves, and it was probably common to the funerary customs of most tombs in the northern half of Crete; this material appeared in a variety of forms, such as small metal objects (Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou [420]) probably manufactured on Crete but based on imported metals (as proved by new evidence from the EM I settlements of Poros Katsambas [Doonan, Day, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2007] and Petras [Papadatos 2007a]), and Cycladic-style ceramics (Kyparisi A [243]). This pattern is difficult to detect in the poorly known EM I record, and so it will be considered in more detail using the richer material of the EM IIA period, where new types of items, such as imported figurines, can be added to the analysis. The presence of many Cycladic links in EM I–II tombs near the north coast has already been documented by other authors (Branigan 1968b; Nakou 1995; Karantzali 1996; Papadatos 2007b). A comprehensive look at the mortuary record, though, reveals the variety of ways in which these links were materialized: from cemeteries with off-island influences so strong as to suggest immigrant populations (Hagia Photia Siteias [412–415]), to the inclusion of a few objects made from off-island raw materials (Pyrgos Cave [282]), to cases where no off-island influence was found at all (Partira [274]). This reveals variations in the attitudes of different communities toward Aegean influences and the varying degrees of importance these links had in the social organization of these different communities. A detailed look at the different mortuary behaviors in EM I Crete reveals that they represent fundamental differences between communities on the island. The mortuary behavior of the Asterousia Mountains was quite homogeneous, revealing a firm sense of parity between communities that would have been difficult to achieve unless it

144

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

was actively maintained. It is suggested here that it was, in fact, part of important intercommunity dynamics that were determined by clearly delineated horizontal rules between equal groups. The homogeneous mortuary behavior placed the different communities in a very similar position with regard to their relationships with the landscape and with each other. Such a strong cultural framework may have helped to overcome the fragility of small groups and their exploitation strategies in the region. A clear set of rules marked how the most important socioeconomic institutions should be kept in the region, overcoming the frail history of the small coresidential human groups around which everyday life was organized. It is likely that cemeteries were important arenas for the re-creation and active maintenance of these supracommunity structures. On the north coast, the situation was quite different. Here influences from the Aegean mixed with traditions that had originated in the Cretan Neolithic period and created a much more fluid situation in which very different communities coexisted in close proximity. Even when the cemeteries shared burial customs, and in particular off-island influences in their mortuary behaviors, they were never pulled together into systems as integrated as those in the Asterousia Mountains, and it can be assumed that this reflects similarly heterogeneous and fluid

relationships between communities. Although the presence of off-island materials in cemeteries implies intercommunity relationships in this area, these never had the coerciveness of those in the Asterousia Mountains, nor were they deployed in a strict social framework. Off-island influences were open to various interpretations and materializations; there were communities that made an effort to distinguish themselves as non-Cretan populations, while others interlinked Aegean and Cretan influences to differing degrees. Profound differences in the layout, material record, and tomb use of the cemeteries with Cycladic influences (e.g., Pseira [386–406] and Hagia Photia Siteias [412–415]) hint at profound differences in the social organization of neighboring communities on the north coast, including group identity. In this case, heterogeneity may have been fundamental to the creation of a coherent network for communities with very different natures. Access to off-island material was perhaps one of the main criteria that differentiated communities in the north of the island. Communities with good harbors or on busy coast–inland trade routes may have had privileged access to offisland material that would have shaped their socioeconomic organization differently from that of the surrounding communities. Only a heterogeneous system that allows for such differences would have sustained such diverse intercommunity networks.

Early Minoan II By now it should be clear that EM IIA and EM IIB were two very different phases. Early Minoan IIA is characterized by further development in patterns of mortuary behavior seen in the EM I period, while EM IIB is marked by the inception of a phase of profound change on the island and a departure from EM I–IIA mortuary customs. But some sites, Mochlos (348–381) in particular, defied this distinction between EM IIA and IIB, and various regions of Crete had diverse histories in which changes followed different developments: chronologies do not necessarily align precisely with the traditional EM IIA/EM IIB/EM III ceramic sequence. Unfortunately, the fact that a detailed chronology is available for only a few

cemeteries prevents us from achieving a clearer picture of the changes in each region, especially during EM IIB, and the model presented in this chapter should be considered open to any modifications based on new data.

Early Minoan IIA Cretan communities (Fig. 133) developed EM I mortuary behavior patterns during the EM IIA period. Yet significant changes occurred that render the division of the island into the three different mortuary traditions defined in the last section more difficult. While the mortuary behavior in the Asterousia

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Mountains remained very distinctive, the mortuary record in the rest of Crete cannot be readily separated into different types of funerary customs, and therefore the analysis that follows will start with a brief description based on broad geographical region, rather than by type of mortuary behavior. The correlation between the tholos tombs and the Asterousia Mountains continued, but new important features changed the nature of the link. A larger number of tholoi are known for the period, and they begin to appear in the Mesara Valley, where a few examples occur at this time (Fig. 133). This was a significant change, as the rich landscape of the Mesara Valley was probably exploited under a very different socioeconomic organization from that of the Asterousia Mountains, and the new tholos cemeteries would have had a very different social role for the communities in the Valley. Architecturally, two-tholoi cemeteries became common during this period. Following the suggested explanation of the role of tholos cemeteries for the Asterousia communities, this new occurrence of two tholoi located together may have been the result of some significant changes in the dynamics of intra- and intercommunity relationships. The links between community, kinship groups, and landscape use seem to have undergone changes, although the exact nature of these changes remains unclear. As regards material deposition, objects with off-island connections were now deposited in most of the tholoi, and in some cases in significant quantities. Only a few of these were clearly linked with Cycladic material culture, such as the foldedarm figurines at Koumasa (61–68), and most often they were items such as daggers created locally out of imported raw materials. Also, the scale of deposition of ceramics in the tholoi seems to have diminished in comparison with the previous period. There is, however, a more interesting factor that sets EM IIA mortuary behavior in the region apart from that of the EM I period: the possible appearance of cemeteries that represent a deviation from the common conventions. The first cracks in the strict parity of the EM I period may be appearing. The case of Koumasa (61–68) is a clear example, but it is possible that others existed during this period, such as the possible cemetery associated with the deposit at Phaistos Area 24/Hagios Onouphrios (103). Koumasa (61–68) is larger and

145

more complex than the typical cemetery. In addition, a series of objects, such as folded-arm figurines and silver daggers, distinguish the Koumasa assemblage. While EM IIA Koumasa (61–68) contained an abnormal number of socially valuable items, it should still be remembered that the deposition of these materials did not represent a complete break from the general conventions in mortuary behavior. For example, folded-arm figurines have been found at other cemeteries in the region (Fig. 134), and daggers were common at most of the cemeteries (Branigan 1967). Similarly, in architectural terms, the cemetery may have been larger than average, but it did not include any features that have not been identified at other cemeteries. The exceptional features of Koumasa (61–68) were rooted in the general mortuary behavior of the region. Koumasa must not be set apart from its surrounding funerary landscape and should be considered within the emerging varied mortuary behavior in SouthCentral Crete. Perhaps the best way of describing the situation is that Koumasa (61–68) was a kind of primus inter pares in terms of mortuary behavior. Differences at the Koumasa cemetery (61–68) may be attributed to social competition dynamics, probably between the groups that used the different tholoi in the cemetery. Although the particular dynamics of the Koumasa community may have enabled it to draw some social resources from neighboring communities, it seems that, in general, vertical differentiation at Koumasa had little effect on the basic horizontal intercommunity relationships of the region. Other cemeteries with abnormal characteristics similar to Koumasa may have existed in EM IIA South-Central Crete; given that behavior at the other known tholos cemeteries remained quite homogeneous, however, it seems that dynamics similar to those at Koumasa were far from common and had little impact outside the specific community where they occurred. The north coast saw more profound changes in mortuary behavior than South-Central Crete. The Cycladic-style cemeteries at Gournes B (203) and Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) faded away. Pseira cemetery (386–406) remained in use, but changed its layout to include rectangular tombs, which became a new norm in the cemeteries of the region. This fact suggests that the Pseira cemetery (386–406) adapted to new circumstances,

146

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

modifying its mortuary behavior away from Cycladic influences to match the behavior prevalent in the region. Alongside these changes, cave and rock shelter cemeteries continued to be used. Cemeteries with fully formed examples of rectangular tombs were newly constructed at Mochlos (348, 349), Gournia North Cemetery (327), and Palaikastro (434). While the origins of the rectangular tombs can be traced to the cist tombs with built above-ground walls at Pseira (Tombs IX [394], X [395]), their development as a new architectural type is clearly a Cretan phenomenon. Furthermore, the layout of the cemeteries, which incorporated rectangular tombs during this period, shows no connections with mortuary behavior outside Crete in terms of tomb number or burial group per tomb. New cemeteries with rectangular tombs at Palaikastro (434), Mochlos (348, 349) and the Gournia North Cemetery (327) may initially have contained a smaller number of tombs (perhaps only two or three) than the typical rock shelter cemetery, which seems to have housed a somewhat larger burial group; however, given the incomplete knowledge of these cemeteries, this cannot be confirmed. Despite these changes, cemeteries in NorthCentral Crete continued to show many characteristics of EM I mortuary behavior, such as off-island influences in the material assemblage: imported and locally produced Cycladic folded-arm figurines appeared in several tombs together with Cycladic style pottery and metal objects. These objects appeared in most of the well-known cemeteries, irrespective of their type, size, or location in relation to the coast. During the EM IIA period, the widespread deposition of off-island material represents a common feature in the mortuary behavior of the different regions of the island. This deposition can only be explained as a conscious choice by Cretan communities that expressed clear preferences for certain types of materials and objects coming from abroad (Branigan 1983; Nakou 1995; Legarra Herrero 2004; Papadatos 2007b). Their ubiquity in the mortuary record indicates that items with offisland links were a common means of intra- and intercommunity negotiation on Crete. The presence of these socially valuable objects inside the tombs could mark the important social position of the deceased. Such a position does not necessarily

indicate chiefs or persons of special rank in a vertical social scale, but important positions within the horizontal structure of the community, such as religious figures or heads of families (Whitelaw 1983; Nakou 1995; Karytinos 1998; Driessen 2010, 2011). Basic social relationships could be organized both practically and ideologically around such positions. Given their key social nature, these positions were specially considered and carefully maintained, particularly in the event of the death of an individual holding such a position. The deposition of socially valuable objects could be related to specific rituals that tried to cope with such an unstable time in social life. When compared with later periods, it is clear that EM IIA mortuary customs focused on the burial chamber and on the deceased. The use of off-island material, however, was still variable, and it was adapted to the particular characteristics of each region, not only in terms of consumption choices (Branigan 1968b; Nakou 1995; Legarra Herrero 2004), but also in terms of production (Branigan 1968a, 102–103; Papadatos 2003; Betancourt 2006; Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, Wilson, and Day 2007; Doonan, Day, and DimopoulouRethemiotaki 2007; Tselios 2008). In addition, objects with direct links to Cycladic material culture, such as folded-arm figurines and Cycladic wares, had a much more restricted distribution (Figs. 134, 135), which indicates a different type of value and logic in their transformation and consumption (Papadatos 2003, 2007b). Geographical location and access to trade networks may have determined such differential depositions. It seems that the significance of these items may have been greater in some of the north coast communities (e.g., Krasi A [238] and Pyrgos cave [282]). In these communities social relationships seem to have relied to a more significant degree (but of course, not exclusively) on the use of imports and influences. Yet the social role of these objects depended ultimately on the choices and particular history of each community, showing variability within the general lines of horizontal organization described above. The use of these objects marked some kind of common, if tenuous, concept among the different areas as they seem to have been a relatively rare commodity that embodied significant social values. These commonly shared values permitted the exchange of these objects throughout the island and

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

they were also adapted to the specific tastes and social values of each region. Such exchanges may have included gift-exchange types of trade between heads of families (Blasingham 1983; Whitelaw 1983; Nakou 1995) as well as more commercial notions (see the interpretation of the metallurgic workshop at Chrysokamino during EM III; Betancourt 2006). Such a multilayered type of exchange made possible the interaction of different communities through the sharing of objects that were widely considered valuable, and at the same time it permitted a high degree of flexibility in the interpretation of these values in the particular setting of each community (Whitelaw et al. 1997). Off-island influences become particularly significant for the study of the cemeteries that stand out from the rest in terms of their material assemblages. The social value of off-island material in EM IIA was employed as a means of negotiating vertical differentiation in two sites near the north coast, especially Archanes Phourni (165, 166). Although it is located not far from the north coast and had material depositional patterns that closely followed those of other northern coastal sites (e.g., silver objects, folded-arm figurines), the cemetery may be better understood in terms of the mortuary behavior of tholos cemeteries. Two tholoi formed the core of the cemetery and Tholos Gamma (165) contained a much more extensive deposition of objects with off-island links than Tholos Epsilon (166). This distinction clearly indicates the vertical differentiation dynamic, which was only possible to suggest in the case of Koumasa (61, 62): namely intracommunity competition between two groups in order to achieve a privileged social status. At Mochlos (348, 349), the EM IIA deposition of material also suggests vertical differentiation dynamics. Two large tombs at this cemetery have been identified as belonging to the EM IIA period. At first glance, these two large tombs may seem to constitute a similar case to that of Archanes Phourni (165, 166), where two large groups were competing for social predominance, but at Mochlos the deposition of off-island material was much richer and balanced between the two tombs, suggesting a different dynamic from that at Archanes Phourni (165, 166). Perhaps the easier access this coastal community had to the exotic material modified the role of this type of material in its social

147

organization. Furthermore, other characteristics set Mochlos (348, 349) apart from Archanes Phourni (165, 166) or Koumasa (61, 62), such as the absence of folded-arm figurines and other objects with Cycladic cultural traits, which are a major characteristic of the latter cemeteries (Fig. 134). It is suggested in this study that the EM IIA Mochlos cemetery (348, 349) may have had a similar structure of intracommunity social competition and vertical differentiation to that of Koumasa (61– 68) and Archanes Phourni (165, 166, 187), but this structure responded to a very different situation and was negotiated in a particularly idiosyncratic way by this community. The differences can be appreciated further by looking at the history of the cemeteries. Mochlos (348, 349) was the only cemetery that actually further explored the dynamics of vertical social differentiation in EM IIB, indicating that these dynamics had a very different character and social basis to those at Koumasa (61–68) or Archanes Phourni (165, 166, 187), which disappeared at the end of the EM IIA period. With respect to the other cemeteries with significant depositions of off-island objects (Pyrgos Cave [282], Krasi A [238]), they do not seem to represent similar cases to Koumasa (61–68), Archanes Phourni (165, 166, 187), or Mochlos (348, 349), as clear competition between different tombs cannot be identified at these sites. In addition, the total deposition of objects in off-island materials at these cemeteries did not reach the amounts seen at Mochlos (348, 349) and Archanes Phourni (165, 166, 187; Fig. 134). The deposition at these sites may be better explained as local variants of the typical material assemblage found in EM IIA Cretan tombs. These communities had more direct access to off-island items, which therefore were more abundantly deposited in the tombs. Nevertheless, the possibility that off-island materials at Pyrgos (282) or Krasi A (238) could represent some form of social competition cannot be discarded completely. Such competition, though, would not have developed to such an extent, nor would it have had such a profound effect on the social organization of the community as at Archanes Phourni (165, 166, 187) or Mochlos (348, 349). Concentrations of these objects do not mark vertical differentiation per se and only uneven concentrations associated with two different tombs of similar

148

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

size and construction can lead to the suggestion of established vertical differentiation dynamics. The fact that individuals relied on off-island material to negotiate their privileged social status has normally been interpreted from Marxist points of view: individuals manipulated social relationships to their own advantage, mainly through the control of imported objects (Manning 1994, 1997, 2008). I think this traditional model ignores the fact that such objects were socially valuable in the wider social context. This type of material was chosen by certain individuals as a means of pursuing their personal goals because it was an important element in horizontal social relationships on Crete during the period. While hoarding these items may have been a successful strategy, it cannot be conceptualized to have existed apart from the rest of the society, as it could not have been sustained without broad social support. The monopolization of imports by only certain individuals would have undermined much of their social value and would have limited much of the broader social impact of this material. Socially valuable materials may have been associated with special social positions that were fundamental for the structure of a community, such as heads of families. Within this broad situation, particular heads of families may have tried to strengthen their social ascendancy and that of the family attached to them. This dynamic may not be driven by power-hungry individuals, but by a judgment of the whole family group to try to reinforce their social position. Off-island materials deposited in tombs mark as much the strength and position of the group to which the deceased was attached, as the individual power of the deceased. Such links between the deceased and his/her broader social group are emphasized by the communal personality of the collective tombs in which interment took place. Therefore, the simplistic idea that grave goods marked the wealth and position of an individual needs to be revised. Intracommunity horizontal relationships between groups seem to be the main target of vertical differentiation in EM IIA Crete, which were probably channeled through certain socially important individuals and the rituals that accompanied their interment. Finally, the control of exotic material and its deposition in tombs should not be considered the only strategy used in processes of vertical differentiation; other materials and

other social arenas could have been used in conjunction with the processes described above. Vertical differentiation dynamics seem to have had limited impact beyond the community level. While they may have introduced some changes in the relationships of a community with its neighbors, or even in wider off-island material trade networks, these dynamics do not seem to have caused any radical modification of intercommunity relationships. Vertical differentiation dynamics have been identified only at Mochlos (348, 349), Archanes Phourni (165, 166), and probably at Koumasa (61, 62), and even if we take into consideration the fact that further comparable sites are likely to be recognized by future research, they are likely to be few in number. Furthermore, these dynamics seem to have had a very brief lifespan, lasting only during the EM IIA period (Mochlos being the exception). All these characteristics suggest that EM IIA vertical differentiation dynamics were fragile and were still finding their way into the social organization of the different regions and their symbolic and material foundations. Vertical differentiation never managed to transform the basic social organization of EM IIA Cretan societies and to integrate itself intrinsically with other existing social relationships. When Aegean trade networks underwent an important reorganization in EM IIB, the whole dynamic crumbled, because it was based on the products of off-island trade, and the horizontal links that were still at the core of social organization regained control over the social aspects that vertical dynamics had targeted (Whitelaw 2004a). The EM IIA period should also be understood within the geographical divisions defined above, as mortuary behavior and social organization differed between the various areas of Crete. As in EM I, the most basic structural traits of the various communities remained essentially different. The Asterousia Mountains area continued its independent path, with its homogeneous mortuary record, while the north coast showed a heterogeneous scenario in which quite different cemeteries coexisted. Even the island-wide role of off-island materials as socially valuable items can only be understood from their adaptation to the diverse regional situations and the needs of the different communities. Perhaps as more evidence becomes available, we shall be able to recognize differentiated areas along the

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

north coast. The eastern Mirabello region, with its rectangular tombs, peculiarities in the material assemblage, and particular history of development, may have contained communities of a different nature from other parts of northern Crete. It still shared the characteristic of heterogeneity noted in the rest of north coast mortuary behavior, however, as the nearby cemeteries of Pseira (386–406), Mochlos (348–381), and Gournia (324–339) seem to have had variations in their funerary customs.

Early Minoan IIB New light on the ceramic sequence of SouthCentral Crete has shown that tholos cemeteries were in use during this period, although disruptions in the stratigraphy at some of the tombs seem to have occurred in later EM IIB/EM III (Fig. 19). This new understanding shows not only that changes occurred in South-Central Crete mortuary behavior, but also that these followed individual courses in each community. Along the central north coast, most of the EM I–IIA cemeteries fell out of use at the beginning of EM IIB, though a few new ones, such as Malia (245, 251), appeared in the record. The situation in the Mirabello region is more divergent. While the Gournia cemeteries fell out of use, the Pseira cemetery (386–406) has yielded a significant amount of EM IIB evidence and appears to have continued in use during this period. The Mochlos cemetery (348–381), however, developed in a completely different way and witnessed a great expansion during EM IIB. In East Crete, EM IIB material appeared at various cemeteries, and although the EM II period in this region cannot be understood in detail, it can be suggested that no gaps occurred in the use of most cemeteries in the region. There are, therefore, regional differences in the development of mortuary behavior during EM IIB that reflect wider variations in the social organization of the communities during this period. This study suggests that the variability of regional trajectories can be explained by a reshuffle of the relationships Cretan communities had with the Aegean. Off-island material lost its importance in the mortuary record, although it did not vanish completely. Cycladic objects, such as the folded-arm figurines

149

or ceramic vessels with typical Cycladic shapes, disappeared from the record, and in EM IIB the only items found in the tombs that had off-island connections were metal objects and obsidian, and these were most probably produced locally of imported raw material, showing little off-island influence (Carter 1998, 2004; Betancourt 2006; Tselios 2008). This coincided with a recorded transformation in the exchange networks of the Aegean that left Crete out of the main trading system (Broodbank 2000, 317). Since it has been suggested that off-island material played an important role in social organization in the different communities on the island, it is to be expected that a modification of the trade system had a negative effect on Cretan communities, although it did not affect each community in the same way. While Cycladic material was found in most of the cemeteries on the island in EM IIA, it has been emphasized that it was incorporated into mortuary behavior in a wide variety of ways according to the specific role that it played in different Cretan communities. Consequently, a change in the trade networks would have affected the various regions in different ways, particularly hitting communities in which off-island material was a major mechanism in social relationships, which seems to have been the case in North-Central Crete. The Asterousia and Mesara regions, however, seem to have been less affected, probably because they relied less heavily on these materials and because they still had access to obsidian and copper for making daggers and other socially valuable items. But if there was a disruption in off-island trade, how was it possible that these communities still had access to copper supplies? Apart from the possibility of the limited use of local ore sources (Stos-Gale 1993; Tzachili 2008), Mochlos may provide the answer to this question. The cemetery at Mochlos (348–381), as opposed to most of the other funerary sites on the island, thrived during this period. Several tombs seem to have been constructed in the necropolis (e.g., 360, 361) and some of the best preserved (363, 364) contained significant quantities of gold and copper objects. Mochlos was an exceptional settlement (although more communities similar to Mochlos may yet be discovered), as it played a more active role in the trade networks, perhaps already in EM IIA. Such

150

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

a proactive character would explain why it survived the changes in a different manner from other sites that were, in the main, more dependent on off-island traders. Mochlos would have found no problems in continuing the supply of off-island materials (obsidian, copper) to the rest of the island as it had a trade organization that depended less on Cycladic supply and more on its own trading ventures. The significant deposition of metal items in the cemetery and the discovery of various EM II boat models at Mochlos (Seager 1909, 290) support the idea that this community was organized around its active pursuit of trade operations. The unique competition dynamic during the EM IIB period between small groups using the cemetery may have formed part of a more general rivalry between small social groups of off-island traders within the Mochlos community. Other evidence comes from the metallurgical workshop at the nearby site of Chrysokamino, which was in use during the EM IIB–III periods (Betancourt 2006) and demonstrates that metals were arriving in this part of the island during these periods. The privileged position of Mochlos may also be relevant to explain the trade of Vasiliki Ware around the island during this period. The settlement of Vasiliki lies on one of the main routes between Mochlos and the rest of the island, and the community of Vasiliki may have prospered during the EM IIB period as it used the busy intraisland exchange route to trade its characteristic mottled ware. Apart from Mochlos, other sites on the island where incipient vertical differentiation was identified in EM IIA, such as Archanes Phourni, seem to have been abandoned in EM IIB. The rearrangement of trade networks and the reduction in the supply of Cycladic items that this brought would have dealt a deadly blow to these atypical communities that based much of their organization on off-island materials as a means of social interaction; without the unhindered access to this material, vertical differentiation dynamics would have

collapsed, a process probably accelerated by wider changes in the horizontal organization of the communities brought about by the changing situation. Although there was considerable continuity, the seeds of future changes in mortuary behavior appeared in the record, with new cemeteries such as the ones at Malia (245) and Palaikastro (434, 441), although these were still far removed from the significant cemeteries they were to become. Similarly, ceramic shapes changed from those of the EM IIA period, with the funerary assemblage starting to shift from pyxides to jugs and cups (Fig. 132), indicating changes in the rituals conducted around the tombs (Day and Wilson 2004). Again, this trend was to become stronger in later periods, representing a clear departure from EM I–II mortuary behavior. In summary, Crete still seems to have been a fractured island at this time, with different areas immersed in different processes. This is made clear by the fact that external factors of change affected the various parts of the island in very different ways, and in some cases in unique ways. The ever more heterogeneous north-central part of the island seems to have been subject to profound changes affected by the disruption of Aegean trade. The Asterousia and the Mesara regions followed a steadier path in which horizontal organization seems to have held the communities in a more solid and stable social framework. This was probably due to the fact that these communities were less dependent on the shifting relationships with the Aegean and because the social organization in these areas was more tightly integrated and resistant to external changes. Nevertheless, by the end of EM IIB, the mortuary record also began to show signs of change in South-Central Crete. East Crete and the Mirabello area are more difficult to characterize and it would seem that different communities followed individual histories, although in general these areas do not seem to have experienced such a traumatic period of change as that undergone by communities in North-Central Crete.

Early Minoan III By the end of EM IIB, the process of change had extended to the mortuary behavior in all the

regions in Crete and it continued into the EM III period. Changes did not occur in the same way in

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

all areas, and the mortuary behavior shows that there were different regional scenarios, as well as variability at community level. The study of change in EM III is further blurred by the problems of identifying the EM III period in the record (Fig. 136). The exact chronology of changes may therefore differ in each region and community. Continuity and development in the EM III period is attested at the Malia (245, 246, 263) and Palaikastro cemeteries (442). In other cases, EM III marked a new cycle of cemetery use after an EM IIB gap, such as at Archanes Phourni (165, 168, 169) and Pyrgos (282). At many cemeteries, there seems to have been some kind of disruption during the later EM IIB and earlier EM III periods, as attested by the cleaning episodes in various tholos tombs. What is clear in all

151

cases is that by the end of the EM III period the mortuary record had undergone profound changes in the different regions of the island that developed fully into a completely new mortuary behavior in MM IA. Only Mochlos (348–381) seems to represent an exception, as its EM III mortuary record is easier to understand in relationship to the EM IIB period than to MM IA. By the end of EM III, the imprecise period of embryonic change had come to an end, and the cemeteries across the entire island were already in a phase of vigorous development. Therefore, it makes sense that the new mortuary behavior that appeared during the EM III period should be considered in the next section, as only the clear archaeological record of the MM IA period allows for an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon.

Middle Minoan IA Changes in the mortuary behavior of the entire island are clearly identifiable during the MM IA period (Fig. 137). Transformations described in the earlier period were well underway at this time. But before the material and symbolic alterations are considered in detail, it must be emphasized that the changes were of a completely novel character. For the first time in the Cretan Bronze Age, they were occurring on an island-wide scale and affecting the mortuary behavior of the different regions in similar ways. At a superficial level, the Asterousia and Mesara areas still differed from the rest of the island as tholos cemeteries were still the principal type of necropolis. The mortuary behavior in these cemeteries had changed dramatically by the MM IA period, however. The tholos cemeteries were substantially different from the EM IIA examples. First, the layout of the cemeteries changed and instead of being centered on the tholos chambers it was focused on annexes and other associated contexts. New tholos cemeteries, which appeared only in the Mesara Valley, were created with large annexes from the start, while existing cemeteries, both in the Mesara Valley and the Asterousia Mountains, were modified to include larger annexes, associated buildings and, in many cases, open

areas as well. This reflects a change in the activities conducted at the cemeteries, activities that now had a more complex relationship with the various new spaces. There were also changes in the material assemblage. Metal objects were rarer in the deposits, but stone vessels and seals were more common (Fig. 134). Off-island connections almost completely disappeared from the record, and the ones that did remain show links with Egypt and the Near East rather than with the Aegean. Ceramic vessels now dominated the material record, with a small range of shapes, mainly cups and jugs, found in significant quantities (Fig. 132) and mainly in large deposits in the annexes and open areas. The changes in the tholos cemeteries represented a new complex set of activities, many of which took place outside the tombs. These ritual activities involved a significant number of people, as suggested by the new architectural features and large ceramic deposits. The spatially more complex cemeteries led to a more organized and controlled participation by individuals in ritual activities. These rituals, however, need not necessarily have involved an entire community. The diversity of spaces, some of them closed, some open, some large, some small, suggests a complex variety of rituals,

152

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

some of which could have involved a restricted number of people, while others included a larger group. Also, the secondary deposition of human remains indicates that funerary rituals may have been played out on a long temporal scale, perhaps years, in which different types of ritual would have been combined; the different rituals that took place in the cemetery did not necessarily occur in rapid sequence. Communal and group activity, therefore, could have consisted of a combination of rituals in which the whole community was involved, perhaps in consumption, and ceremonies that involved only a small group in some of the interior spaces. Both types of ritual may have complemented each other, simply marking different moments in a long funerary process that activated several complex and subtle intra- and intercommunity dynamics. Furthermore, the fact that the continuous construction of new tombs and buildings would have involved the participation and management of a significant group of people also activated many other social relationships. Mortuary behavior shifted its focus from the material deposited, which marked the key social positions of the deceased typical of the EM I–IIA period, to the mobilization and control of living people through funerary rituals. It is suggested here that the new interest in the mobilization and control of people in the cemetery was related to two different dynamics, the reinforcement of the identity and regional position of the community (horizontal), and the efforts of certain individuals to acquire privileged social status (vertical). With respect to the first point, the mobilization of people may have been an invaluable means of reinforcing community identity. The engagement of people through ritual was a powerful way of bringing a group together and creating communal identity. Such an identity may have been a key element in the growing regional competitiveness in the Mesara during this period, as suggested by recent research (Sbonias 1999a, 1999b; Relaki 2004; Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006). Based on iconographic patterns in the deposition of seals in the cemeteries and on the evidence from ceramic production and settlement patterns, this research has demonstrated that the Mesara Valley communities were engaged in a highly integrated regional competition dynamic during the MM I period. Such

a new dynamic may have called for new ways for communal identity to be reinforced and displayed. Cemeteries may have been seen as a key social arena in which to achieve this. In the setting of this regional dynamic, the cemetery was an ideal arena for signaling the regional position of a community and for managing its relationship with neighboring populations. It was an ideologically and emotionally charged context ideal for the re-endorsement of a group’s consciousness, also because funerary rituals were likely to bring people in from neighboring communities. Funerary rituals were among the rare occasions when intra- and intercommunity communications were activated in combination with and within a heavily symbolically charged context that boosted the significance of the social interactions taking place. The more complex and longer funerary rituals permitted the attendance of individuals from villages situated farther away, and these engineered funerary rituals had a larger regional impact. That the tholos cemeteries played an important role in the dynamic of intercommunity competition was nothing new, but this role was adapted in MM IA to respond to the new, more socially important, regional dynamics in the Mesara Valley, which were completely different from the EM IIA social networks in the Asterousia Mountains. The Valley communities adapted the tholos cemeteries to their new intersettlement competition, which now seems to have involved a struggle for regional influence that was unknown in previous periods. During EM III–MM IA, communities around the Asterousia Mountains may have adopted the new ways of social organization from the Valley, and adapted their cemeteries accordingly. This seems particularly to be the case with those communities that had access to the scarce arable land in the Mountains, such as communities with access to the small coastal plains (e.g., around Trypiti) and narrow arable valleys (e.g., the Moni Odigitria area). These communities may have found it easier to adopt the new social organization as they could also replicate resource exploitation strategies from the Mesara Valley. Unusual patterns in the funerary record of MM I South-Central Crete are of a very different nature. The deposition of large numbers of stone vessels outside the tombs shows that group rituals performed at the Platanos cemetery were of a different

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

character from those undertaken at other cemeteries in the Mesara. It seems that the Platanos community made a conscious effort to communicate its privileged position to the communities around it by means of lavish and rich group ritual. Platanos (112–123) is the clearest example of such dynamics, but these may also have occurred at Hagia Triada (29–35), or even at Koumasa (61–68), where a few stone vessels appear to have been deposited and large paved areas may have been in use. These sites coincide with the communities identified by Sbonias as exceptional during this period in his study of sealstone depositional patterns (Sbonias 1995, 1999b, 2010). Other smaller cemeteries, such as Apesokari A (2–4), where there is no evidence for such lavish ceremonies, may indicate communities at the lower end of the intercommunity competition scale. Group dynamics and intercommunity competition are clearly indicated by the evidence, but they were not necessarily the only dynamics in play at the cemetery. Gold objects and other significant items have been found in tombs at Platanos (112– 123) and Hagia Triada (29–35) paralleling their complex layout and rich ceremonial areas. Such items were deposited with the interments, perhaps not in a dissimilar manner to that argued for the EM IIA period, in which a rich burial marked an important social position (head of family, religious leader) of the deceased rather than a privileged status (“Big-man,” “Chief”). It is hard to envision how these items would have been deposited in tombs to mark an “elite status” in the way this term has been traditionally defined. Tombs remained communal, with a clear disregard for individual interments and the grave goods associated with them. The pattern of deposition is the complete opposite of the deposition of valuable grave goods with individual interments that marks high-status individuals in contemporaneous Egyptian tombs or the slightly later shaft graves at Aegina and Mycenae. It seems that these valuable artifacts were almost thought to belong to the tomb (and by extension to the group it represented) rather than to these interred individuals, who also may no longer have been considered as individuals but rather as part of the group related to the tomb (composed of both the living and the dead). The identity of socially important deceased persons soon melted

153

into the communal personality of the tomb. The first known example on Crete of an individual buried in a way that guaranteed his distinct interment with a related rich assemblage occurs only in LM II, with the first tholos tombs of Mycenaean style constructed around Knossos (Preston 2005, 2007). The MM IIB burial found in a pit in Tomb XVII in Mavrospelio (230) could be considered such an individual interment given the burial goods deposited in this context (Alberti 2001). The disturbed nature of the remains and the way they were deposited within a communal tomb does not seem to be very dissimilar to the way bodies had been discarded in MM I tombs, however, and it is very different to an ostentatious individual burial. Such a characterization of the mortuary behavior does not preclude that parallel intrasettlement vertical dynamics developed within the cemetery together with competitive display for a regional audience. The problem is that these dynamics may be archaeologically “silent.” The cemetery was a significant social arena, where economic and social resources were gathered for funerary rituals and later consumed in an organized form, and these activities needed certain managerial roles. The appearance of seals in the tombs in significant numbers could be related to the increasing role of certain individuals as socioeconomic resource controllers (Sbonias 1995, 144–149; Karytinos 1998; Schoep 1999; Kanta and Tzigounaki 2000). A “Big-man” or “Great-man” type of dynamic may have existed, in which individuals earned social ascendancy through the organization and control of group ritual. Such activities covered a wide range of aspects, from the gathering of resources and the invitation of the relevant people to the rituals, including those not from the community, to overseeing the correct execution of the ceremony. Such roles did not revert back to the organizer, but to the broad community he represented; the richer and more lavish the rituals, the more the regional position of the community benefited. Such key individuals could not have expressed their position in a conspicuous manner through wealth or other ways easily recognizable in the archaeological record (Strathern 1991; Robb 1999, 114–115), and may have found it problematic to strengthen their emerging social status against the strong communal ethos. In this scenario the cemetery could have been an important arena for

154

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

vertical differentiation dynamics, but these were achieved by means other than unusually rich interments associated with individuals. Therefore, vertical differentiation dynamics in a cemetery should not necessarily be expected to appear as distinctive and differentiated individual interments, nor be directly related to rich grave goods. The north coast experienced a similar period of expansion to that of the Mesara in MM IA. Yet this expansion was not uniform, and while many small rectangular tomb cemeteries appeared (rectangular tombs became the norm at this time to the detriment of caves and rock shelters; Fig. 137), the sites that were to become “palatial” in MM IB–II experienced greater expansion at their cemeteries. This was the case at Malia (Poursat 1987; 1988; although it has been recently argued that a “palatial building” at Malia may have existed in EM III, perhaps as early as EM IIB; Schoep 2002b, 21; 2007; Pelon 2006; Driessen 2007) and probably at Archanes Phourni (Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 31, 65), Gournia (Soles 1979, 151), Palaikastro (MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 400–401), and Zakros (Platon 1999, 675). The changes in the cemeteries, be they new or old, large or small, followed a similar path, paralleling most of the traits seen in the Mesara. The new rectangular tombs bore many similarities to the tholos annexes in terms of construction type, the subdivision of the buildings into various rooms, and the differentiated use of rooms for interment, deposition, and ritual. Open areas are identifiable in many of the north coast cemeteries, such as Archanes Phourni (170, 176) and Gournes A (202), although they seem to have been less popular at the eastern end of the island. The appearance of pithos burials in cemeteries was common to all regions of Crete. In addition, the material deposition in the north coast cemeteries followed very similar lines to that described for the tholos cemeteries: large deposits of ceramics were found, mostly outside the tombs, containing mainly cups and jugs. Stone vessels and seals were also commonly found, while metal objects were now less common in the mortuary deposits of the north coast. Again, stone vessels and seals have proven rarer at sites in East Crete, which may indicate some particularities in the mortuary behavior of this area. As in MM IA South-Central Crete, new complex

architecture, large deposits of material, and the identification of group ritual spaces indicate a similar interest in the management and mobilization of individuals through ritual and other activities, such as the building of the tombs. Beyond the obvious differences in tomb type, the mortuary behavior of the Mesara and Asterousia regions was very similar to that seen in the north of the island. Beyond these general lines, some differences are encountered in the cemeteries of the north coast. It is now possible to subdivide the north coast into smaller regions that displayed particular characteristics. This is especially apparent in the eastern part of the Mirabello Bay area, where a particular history revolved around the most important sites in the area. Here the MM IA expansion of the Gournia cemetery coincided with the decline of the Mochlos cemetery. Similarly, cemeteries in East Crete show particularities in their mortuary behavior that seem to lack the public character of those in Central Crete. At Gournia only the modest altar outside Tomb II (326) is known, and similar small outside cult areas have been discovered at Myrtos Pyrgos (384), Mochlos Tomb IV/V/VI (350), and Petras Kephala (449; this context may date to the MM IB period). At Palaikastro and Zakros, a clear example of such a context has yet to be found. The general mortuary behavior in North and Central Crete must be understood through microregional patterns, and the particular history of a community and its mortuary record. Differences are particularly clear in the mortuary behavior of the various “palatial” or at least the larger-thanaverage sites. Gournia (324–339), Malia (245– 267), Palaikastro (434–443), Zakros (464–478), and Archanes Phourni (162–187) show comparable developments during this period that differed from those of the smaller sites. Large sites were principally marked by the explosive expansion of their cemeteries, produced by the building of a large number of tombs over a short period of time. Such tomb development displayed similar characteristics to that of other smaller MM IA cemeteries, such as a preference for rectangular tombs, large deposits of ceramic vessels outside tombs, and the deposition of stone vessels and seals inside tombs. Interestingly, the common expansion at these “palatial” sites materialized in very different ways in each case. Archanes Phourni (162–187)

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

witnessed an extraordinary boom in the construction of tombs in MM IA that was not matched by any other cemetery. Furthermore, its layout was atypical. The cemetery was formed by a group of at least 10–12 tightly clustered funerary buildings plus several paved areas, whereas the tombs at other sites appeared at different locations situated across a larger area. Palaikastro (434–443) and Zakros (464–478) each had a large number of tombs in MM IA, but the precise structure of their cemeteries is not clear. The Gravel Ridge at Palaikastro (434–437) is reminiscent of the Archanes Phourni layout (162–187) in that it had a series of clustered buildings and rooms that seem intended for different purposes, but this possible central area cannot be compared in scale with Archanes Phourni, and tombs also existed at other locations spread over a large area surrounding the settlement. The Gravel Ridge tombs (434–437) may represent the remains of a focal structure similar to that of Tholos B (162, 163) at Archanes Phourni and Chrysolakkos (263, 264) at Malia, although there is very little evidence to support such a possibility. Such focal areas have not been found at Zakros. At Gournia, the open area outside Tomb II (326) and the silver kantharos (which, however, is of MM II date) may indicate some similarities with the Archanes Phourni Tholos B (162, 163) complex and Chrysolakkos (263, 264), but in no way does it parallel the monumentality of these two buildings, nor in all probability their rich material deposition. The absence of focal areas in the Mirabello region and East Crete parallels the lack of significant open public spaces in the cemeteries in these parts of the island. At Petras Kephala (447–460), large Tomb II (448) is surrounded by several open areas that were probably used for ritual activities. Yet, a decision on whether this complex is the focal point of a large cemetery and whether the cemetery at Petras Kephala (447– 460) matches the size and organization of Archanes Phourni (162–187) and Malia (245–267) will have to wait until the comprehensive publication of the current excavations. Archanes Phourni (162, 163) and Malia (263, 264) are the only two sites where abnormally large and complex focal buildings are clearly documented, both with traces of an assemblage particularly rich in gold objects and stone vessels. Platanos cemetery (112–123) has a very different layout than

155

these two cemeteries, but Tholos A (112) and associated contexts (113, 120) are reminiscent of the focal building at Malia (263, 264) and especially of the one at Archanes Phourni (162, 163). The deposition of gold items in the upper stratum at Platanos Tholos A (112) resembles the rich grave goods found in the buildings at Malia and Archanes Phourni, even though at Malia such items cannot be securely dated to MM IA. Paved areas outside Tholos B (170) and Chrysolakkos I (263) offer evidence for group rituals and sets of smaller rooms may have contained small-scale ritual and cult activities and show a similar structure to Platanos Tholos A Annex (112) and its surrounding area (113, 120). These focal buildings are much more elaborated than any other funerary construction known in Crete and may indicate particular local ritual activities, just as the massive deposition of stone vessels does at Platanos. The two-fold purpose proposed for the Platanos cemetery may be argued for these two buildings also, namely intracommunity vertical differentiation and the setting of the community in a privileged regional position. Such a purpose would have been fulfilled in a similar way, with the mobilization of individuals through complex ritual activities. Unfortunately, the spatially comprehensive analysis possible for the Mesara cannot be undertaken for the regions around Archanes Phourni and Malia. It is thus impossible to assess the type of regional relationships in which the north coast sites were involved, although the relatively close proximity of the large communities of Knossos and Archanes fits with such a framework of regional competition (Whitelaw 2004a, 245). It can only be suggested that the lack of focal buildings in cemeteries in the east of the island, coupled with the small number of seals and stone vessels found and the absence of open areas for group ritual, could imply that intercommunity competition loses importance as we move eastward across the island or that cemeteries played a less important role in regional competition dynamics in East Crete. Social gatherings may have been conducted mainly on the numerous peak sanctuaries in this part of the island (Nowicki 1994, 47, fig. 8), and this could indicate particularities in the social organization of the communities in this region as compared to Central Crete. By the MM IA period it is clear that a new mortuary behavior was in place on Crete, and this must

156

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

be related to profound changes in the social organization of communities throughout the island. The most significant of these changes is that communities were far more integrated on an islandwide scale, with regional differences still in place but no longer defining the situation. Only larger, more integrated supracommunity networks that went beyond the local regional scale could bring about such homogeneity. Intra- and intercommunity relationships are fundamentally linked and the new larger spatial network must have developed together with new intracommunity organizational changes. The possibility of deploying social, economic, and ideological relationships on a wider spatial scale may have affected the composition and significance of local networks. It seems that the social organization of different communities in various parts of the island began to converge, although they were still far from identical, and the continuing existence of regional personalities cannot be dismissed. This coincides with the fact that the human landscape of the island may now have become more homogeneous: Aegean trade networks had lost importance, as had some of the particularities of the north coast communities. Furthermore, the South-Central Cretan evidence comes mainly from cemeteries in the Mesara Valley and not from the mountains, and thus from a landscape far more similar to the settings of the best-known North and East Cretan sites, located near rich agricultural areas. The substitution in MM IA of local ceramic styles (i.e., Vasiliki and White-on-Dark Wares) with islandwide styles (i.e., polychrome) that had local variations (Betancourt 1985, 71) also further supports this idea of a more integrated island. This study has identified the new overarching social organization as defined by a new effort in mobilizing and integrating social groups at community and regional levels. Recent studies have focused on the commensality and group ritual aspects of mortuary behavior, which have normally been explained through vertical differentiation processes (Hamilakis 1998; Day, Relaki, and Faber 2006; Wilson 2008). These do not seem to be the key dynamics brought into play by the new mortuary behavior, however. The new funerary customs stressed integrating group rituals and other nonritual activities (tomb building). The fact

that the new changes affected most of the cemeteries on the island regardless of their size or location shows that the changes had to do with a new type of social organization, and should not be understood exclusively from a vertical differentiation point of view. This focus on the mobilization of the community may have been related to new, more integrated supracommunity horizontal relationships and new dynamics of intercommunity competition during the MM I period. Within these competition dynamics, community identity and power became much more important. It is very possible that in a more densely inhabited landscape and with the arrival of new production techniques that required new labor management, a strong and organized work force became vital for Cretan communities. A new production system and labor organization are suggested by the managerial evidence: the fact that seals now appear prominently in the mortuary record shows an interest both in the control of production as well as in new systems to control it. Also, the deployment of cemeteries around agricultural areas (the Mesara Valley) and the increasing importance of some sites in agriculturally rich areas (later palatial sites) may indicate changes in agricultural exploitation (Whitelaw 2004a, 244) that affected the different regions of the island in similar ways. Moreover, settlement patterns across the island suggest that a new means of exploiting the landscape appeared in EM III–MM IA Crete (Hope Simpson et al. 1995, 395; Hayden 2004, 81–82; although the moment of the expansion of the settlements around the landscape of Kavousi is dated to MM IB; Haggis 2005, 69–70; and perhaps in the Mesara Valley; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 281– 284), which can only be explained by a new agricultural system. This new system may have needed new resources that engendered new competition dynamics for controlling them. “Resources” does not necessarily denote only arable land, although this may be the case in some areas, but also the labor force needed to develop these techniques. A more integrated landscape with denser networks at the supracommunity level also perhaps gave rise to concerns over community identity that were not necessarily based on economic processes. More regular interactions outside a community might have made it necessary for individuals to

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

create a clear and strong communal identity that permitted them to navigate different social relationships, including marriage opportunities and land rights. In this sense, the stronger the community, the stronger the social position of its members within the different social networks. The individual had a need to belong to a strong group, which would place them in a better position within the new socioeconomic networks available. The fact that the new EM III–MM I mortuary behavior extended across most of Crete attests to an organized landscape at a scale never seen before. As Sbonias suggested (Sbonias 1995, 1999b), each large site, identified here by a large cemetery, may have become the focus of a small regional system that performed as a unit in certain supracommunity competition dynamics. It has recently been suggested by Haggis that such systems may not necessarily have existed during the MM I–II periods, and that large sites had minimal impact on intercommunity relations, which could have been organized without the presence of a large central site (Haggis 2002). The similar composition of the cemeteries in MM I supports this suggestion. Large sites did not differ substantially in terms of their organization from smaller sites, just as they did not differ in their mortuary behavior. Although the larger size of the cemeteries indicates that there were some differences from smaller sites, only a couple of examples represent a qualitative leap in scale and complexity. The models presented by Sbonias and Haggis are not necessarily exclusive, and each highlights different parts of a regional socioeconomic network. Large communities did not need (nor could they exercise) strict control over surrounding communities, but they may have provided an economic and ideological focus for smaller communities, leading them through horizontal dynamics of affiliation/association that were now played out on a much larger island scale than ever before. Such

157

regional systems may not have had the tightly hierarchical organization than political states had in the Late Bronze Age. Yet the intrinsic bond between vertical and horizontal relationships in MM I social organization could indicate that the principle of vertical differentiation may have become accepted in most Cretan communities, even if it was not in fact strongly implemented beyond the larger sites. Social vertical differentiation and regional settlement hierarchies might have become a common part of the ideological language and practical relationships of Cretan societies in MM I, and they were social aspects that would continue to grow in strength during the Protopalatial period. Although there is no evidence to suggest that individuals had achieved a strongly differentiated position in the EM III–MM IA period, vertical dynamics seem to have found a stable form. The social bases that sustained vertical differentiation were more stable now that they depended on factors internal to the communities, rather than on off-island links (Whitelaw 2004a). Furthermore, horizontal and vertical social relationships were based on similar foundations and were staged using the same funerary rituals (also in the new peak sanctuaries and, in MM IB, in the new palatial buildings), thus tightly integrating the two. This does not mean that occasional crises did not occur, but the more integrated social organization was better prepared to cope with them. At the same time, change was also possible given the fluid relationship between vertical and horizontal dynamics. The new social organization that matured in MM I had the potential to institutionalize a stratified society and develop into a palatial society in later periods. While this model may apply in a broad sense to the various areas on Crete, regional differences existed for East Crete, as we have noted, and also at the local level, as larger-than-average communities seem to have had individual mortuary behaviors that suggest individual social trajectories.

Middle Minoan IB The MM IB period is more difficult to characterize than the MM IA period since it did not represent such a stark change in mortuary behavior,

and it is sometimes difficult to recognize in the archaeological mortuary record (Fig. 138). In general, the data available indicate that MM IB burial

158

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

customs were similar to those in MM IA. Assemblages similar to those of the earlier period have been found in the cemeteries, such as large deposits of ceramics outside the tombs, as well as seals, stone vessels, and a few metal objects inside the tombs. Architectural features do not seem to have undergone significant modifications in the MM IB period, and new buildings and tombs can probably be explained by the particular history of a community rather than by profound changes in mortuary behavior. The MM IB cemetery development, particularly of the large communities, followed individual paths. Malia underwent some important changes with the rebuilding of the Chrysolakkos (264), but no important changes are known at Palaikastro and Zakros. At Archanes Phourni (162–187) most of the tombs were in use in MM IB, but the building frenzy of the MM IA period ceased, indicating stability or stagnancy. It is unclear what exactly was occurring in the Mesara Valley during this period, as there are no distinctive MM IB funerary deposits, with the exception of Platanos (112–114), where significant material deposition occurred in MM IB, and Hagia Triada where new buildings were constructed (31, 32). The lasting significance of the cemeteries at Platanos and Hagia Triada suggests that intercommunity competition dynamics were still important in the Mesara Valley during this period. Phaistos represented a large community in MM IB (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 277), but it may not as yet have been able to secure a hegemonic position in the Valley, and Platanos and Hagia Triada could still have been using funerary rites to mark their regional positions (Relaki 2004; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 288–291). It seems clear, though, that the period of development that characterized EM III–MM IA mortuary behavior came to an end in MM IB, and in some cases tombs began to be abandoned (Fig. 138), thus marking the beginning of a decline in the use of the cemeteries. By the end of MM IB this was a clear tendency, with whole cemeteries, such as Mochlos (348–381), falling out of use. The zenith in the use of tombs, and perhaps their relevance as social arenas, seems to have passed by this point. This coincided with the emergence of new standardized ritual sites such as palatial

buildings, caves, and peak sanctuaries, which might have taken over the role of the cemetery as a place for the creation and negotiation of the social organization of a community (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996; Haggis 1999; Tyree 2001). New arenas may have been regarded as more appropriate for the negotiation of individual and group identities because they were better suited for new social relationships, or simply because the new arenas were more malleable for the staging of new types of relationships than the long-used cemeteries. Cemeteries were tradition-laden spaces where social interactions followed older conventions that were less open to modification and manipulation. By the MM IB period, the emergence of “palatial” communities indicates a continuing process of change in the social organization of Cretan communities. While the mortuary record has limitations regarding the study of the “palatial” aspects of the new societies, the evidence from the cemeteries of major centers raises some interesting questions. The regular form taken by such palatial sites around the island seems to support the idea that similar processes were taking place on Crete at this time, although interpreted locally and developed differently in local histories. The fact that the mortuary behavior of such sites presented clear individual traits cannot be ignored and this fact also poses questions about differences in the social trajectories of the different communities. It is possible that while the “palace” expressed a common language in the new Cretan integrated landscape, the social bases and strategies of each palatial community were different. Related to this point is the assessment of the impact the new MM IB “palatial” sites had on surrounding communities. As we have already discussed, an integrated and stratified supracommunity system may have only certain aspects of the socioeconomic and political life of the smaller communities (Knappett 1999a), and a tighter territorial state only appeared in the Neopalatial period. There is still the question of how Cretan communities disposed of the bodies now that the cemeteries were not used intensively. Despite the excavation of well-known MM II–LM I settlements, no cemeteries from this period have been found outside Knossos, which leads us to believe that new funerary behavior left little archaeological footprint. This may be due to the adoption of new

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

funerary practices such as disposal by exposure, although it is more probable that pithoi buried in the ground became the main burial form. Pithos cemeteries have no attached architectural features easily recognizable by archaeologists and would be lying close to the surface and therefore particularly prone

159

to disturbances by agricultural work. Even modern intensive surveys may struggle to identify such types of cemeteries. One of the best-known examples is the Pacheia Ammos cemetery (385), which included significant LM evidence and was only found by chance due to heavy rain (Seager 1916).

Middle Minoan II By MM II, the declining significance of cemeteries was clear and at the end of this period most of them ceased to be in use (Figs. 139, 140). This did not simply parallel the end of the Protopalatial period, as the cemeteries were not suddenly abandoned concurrently with the destruction of the first palaces. A decline in the use of the cemeteries was evident from MM IB onward, with the abandonment of many funerary contexts and with a much less significant deposition of objects in the tombs that were still in use. This contrasted with settlement patterns, as there was a clear demographic increase and settlement expansion in this period, and only at the very end of the MM II period did the palatial sites experience major transformations (Poursat 1988, 66; MacGillivray 1994, 52–53; Schoep 2002a, 107–108; Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 277; Whitelaw 2004b, 156, figs. 10.7, 10.8; Carinci and La Rosa 2007). The few exceptions to this general scenario involve some of the largest cemeteries. At Malia, the construction of Chrysolakkos II (264) showed that the cemetery was still the focus of significant interest and of investment of very considerable effort. At Archanes Phourni there also seems to have been significant activity in the cemetery, particularly around Tholos B (162, 163). It is difficult to say for certain, but it is possible that important social acts in the form of ritual activities were still taking place at the Malia and Archanes Phourni cemeteries in MM II. The fact that these two exceptions represent large cemeteries and that activities revolved around the focal buildings in the cemetery suggests that larger communities with more marked vertical social dynamics may still have found the cemetery to be an effective arena for social negotiation.

In any case, by the end of the period most of the cemeteries had been abandoned, and a very different mortuary behavior began to appear at the close of MM II and during MM III (Fig. 140; Girella 2004). Pithoi and larnakes were used in very different contexts (Mavriyannaki 1972; Preston 2004), and pithos cemeteries became much more important (Petit 1990, 39). In general, Neopalatial mortuary behavior used new types of tombs, such as the chamber tombs at Knossos (211–217, 228–230; although the first examples appear to have been as early as MM IB), and the cemeteries were built in new locations and had a very different layout (Forsdyke 1927; Preston 1999; Alberti 2001, 2004). Even LM tholoi differed greatly from those of the EM–MM periods (Pelon 1976). Overall, only a few EM–MM cemeteries were fully used in the MM III and LM periods and in these cases the later burial activities were not connected to the EM–MM use; in some cases, LM material reflects sporadic activities that may have related to the survival of these places in the consciousness of a community (Soles 2001). The MM II period marks the end of a long cycle in mortuary behavior defined by a significant effort on the part of Cretan communities to build cemeteries that were focal social places. The social function of cemeteries changed with the rise of the palatial societies, and the role of the necropolis as an arena for gathering and interaction seems to have moved to other social contexts. This big change came with the articulation of mortuary ritual within other cultural spheres. Funerary activities did not seem to hold such a central role for the community anymore and the attitudes toward cemeteries changed. Perhaps the best example is the abandonment of the burial grounds that were

160

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

used for centuries and sometimes millennia. While the MM III and LM I material in EM and MM cemeteries shows that these places still remained in the community consciousness, they were no longer regarded as focal social arenas, and they may have

been reduced in importance. This also created space for new mortuary behaviors to explore new avenues, and by the LM II period individual and communal identities were deployed in burial contexts in a radically different way (Preston 2005, 2007).

Time and Space At this point it is necessary to recapitulate and consider in more detail the spatial and temporal patterns that have been identified in the study of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. It was suggested at the beginning of this book that both time and space are imbedded in the archaeological record in a complex way and are composed of different interacting scales. But the Cretan mortuary record has shown that such a general discussion needs to be brought down to the level of the archaeological record. A multifaceted understanding of the development of Cretan communities can only be achieved through the examination of different aspects in the interaction of the various temporal and spatial scales particular to the history of the island. While the theoretical framework at the beginning of this work laid down the basis for such an analysis, its exact repercussions for the study of Cretan societies can only now be explored.

Space With respect to spatial scales, it has been shown that island-wide patterns existed from EM I onward, but the relevance of these patterns and their materialization in the lives of Cretan communities varied widely in each period. In EM IIA, only offisland material and its exchange can be seen as a characteristic that reached most Cretan communities, but this generalization means little as different populations adapted this overarching resource to meet the needs of their local social organization, fragmenting this general pattern and rendering it understandable only at a regional level. Island-wide patterns became more relevant in subsequent periods, and by MM I they are clearly significant for the understanding of Cretan communities. By MM I, mortuary behavior can be

analyzed on an island-wide level, associated with larger and more integrated intercommunity relationships and with social organizational traits shared by different communities across the island. Furthermore, during EM I–II, Crete must be understood from a regional perspective, but by MM I it is island-wide patterns that appear to carry more explanatory weight. Crete as the subject of such analysis only becomes relevant from the EM III/MM I periods onward, and for earlier periods, models and overviews that encompass the entire island could be misleading. Throughout Crete, diverse multitiered, supracommunity spatial scales have been recognized. The study of the supracommunity scales through mortuary behavior has succeeded in the case of South-Central Crete and the eastern Mirabello areas. Two relevant social networks have been identified in the two regions with different idiosyncrasies and geographical and social boundaries. This has shown that the use of “regions” following assumed geographical boundaries, such as the Mesara region or the Mirabello area, are not always valid, and that the concept of “region” must be defined following archaeological patterns in the record. In their most basic geographical form, we can suggest that relevant regional scales may be smaller than those usually assumed. The definition of region following social networks is characterized differently in each geographical area, and varies through time. Hence, no template for the definition of a behaviorally coherent region exists, and the exact nature of a socially relevant supracommunity system changes depending on the period and area of study and the data available. Indeed, depending on the type of data studied, our identification of relevant significant scales may change. The analysis of ceramic production and exchange networks may show

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

very different patterns in the use of certain types of cemeteries. Diversity in the record should not be viewed as an obstacle to the investigations, but must be identified as a relevant characteristic to be included in the explanatory models. Further analyses should be designed to achieve a detailed knowledge of the mortuary data for the identification of the different relevant spatial scales in the rich Cretan human landscape. The community (including the diverse social groups that compose it) is the final level identified by the study of mortuary behavior as being fundamental for understanding Cretan societies. The individuality of each cemetery and community is highly relevant, and the diversity of community trajectories must be included in any explanatory model concerned with Cretan prehistory. The role played by the community in the analyses is highly dynamic. In some scenarios, more explanatory importance must be placed on the community, as in the case of the north coast during the EM I period, when very different cemeteries existed in neighboring communities. In other cases, such as EM I Asterousia, community trajectories seem to be less crucial than larger regional networks. Also, it has been shown that community is an elusive target in the mortuary record, and the structure of a community may change through time. In the Asterousia Mountains, EM I tholos tombs may have related to a community dispersed across a large geographical area, while in later periods it seems that the concept of community based on coresidence in a permanent village acquired much more importance. It is hoped that future settlement excavations will provide new data that shed light on the questions about the concept of community that the analysis of the mortuary record has raised.

Time Chronological scales are also crucial to an understanding of the Cretan archaeological record. This study has shown that long time scales explain little or nothing with respect to the mortuary record. Starkly different mortuary behaviors are identified in the Cretan record in the EM IIA and EM III periods. Indeed, only a few cemeteries were actually in use during both periods (Fig. 141).

161

It has been demonstrated that the various mortuary behaviors relate to different types of social organization in both periods, and that there was no linear connection between the two. Social dynamics in Cretan communities were created, transformed, and abandoned; certain processes came to an end and completely new ones began. Processes occurring in EM I–IIA communities may have very little relevance when explaining developments that occurred in EM III–MM IA. It is preferable that these two periods be studied in their own right and their relevance for explaining later periods, if this exists at all, must be established rather than assumed. Shorter temporal phases acquire far more significance as they fill the gap left by the unsuitability of the long-term perspective (EM I–MM II). We have identified two clear cycles: the EM I–IIA and the EM III–MM I. The two can be safely identified as independent cycles in which the highly different mortuary behaviors indicate different social organizations and social dynamics. Unfortunately, serious problems have been encountered that hinder the understanding of the phase between these two cycles. It is not clear what happened on Crete in EM IIB–III. Each region has shown differences in terms of exact dating as well as the nature of the EM IIB–III transition period—from the earlier EM IIB disruptions in the north-central coastal cemeteries to the less disruptive transitions in the later EM IIB–earlier EM III periods in the Mesara Valley and East Crete. Problems with the identification of short-term dynamics have been encountered because in general the archaeological evidence available does not permit such high-resolution analyses to be undertaken. From what can be distinguished in the mortuary record, changes were constantly taking place as unique events and short-term patterns. Some of these are more relevant for the understanding of the record than others. For example, a cleaning event, apparently a unique event in the record of the tholoi, represents a far more important incident for the understanding of the mortuary behavior of a community than the deposition of a specific interment. Moreover, some short-term events also define use of the cemetery in the long term, such as the rapid construction of tombs in MM IA Archanes Phourni, which shaped the life of the necropolis for several centuries.

162

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

New techniques in cemetery excavation (Smith et al. 2009) show that there are methodological procedures available that offer a better understanding of Cretan communal tombs and the nature and

repercussions of different episodes of use. The prospect of applying such new methods to the Cretan record opens up the possibility of a whole new approach to Cretan mortuary history.

Community and the Individual From the earliest investigations into the Preand Protopalatial periods, different scholars have suggested that the long-term, growing importance of the individual as a social agent constituted the essential change experienced by the Cretan population during these periods. The increasing importance of individualism in society was considered to have brought about a change in the social structure and ideology of Cretan societies that laid the foundations for state societies on Crete (Glotz 1925, 131–137; Wiesner 1938; Branigan 1970a, 177). Today such an idea still represents one of the most significant elements in state formation models on Crete (Branigan 1995; Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 260; Driessen 2007, 91; Manning 2008; Tsipopoulou 2008). The data from the mortuary record offer little evidence to support this, however. If anything, the evidence proves the contrary. There is only one common trait evident in all the different Cretan mortuary customs during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, namely the invariable use of collective tombs. Apart from the short-lived cases of Hagia Photia Siteias A (412–415) and Gournes B (203), both non-Cretan in their mortuary behavior, and the examples of EM I Nea Roumata (494, 495) and EM IIB Nopigeia (497) in West Crete, every one of the more than 250 known cemeteries was made of collective tombs. As argued in Chapter 6, pithos burials seem to have been part of larger cemeteries in which collective tombs formed the main core (see discussion below). Moreover, collective tombs on Crete did not house carefully interred individuals, rather they were communal tombs where bones and grave goods were mixed together indiscriminately. New excavation techniques have discovered primary interments with bodies in an articulated position (Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009), but these should not be considered as individual tombs; it is just

chance that the bodies were not disturbed by later burials. It seems clear that once deposited in the tombs, human remains and their associated items were not considered important anymore. This suggests that the tomb was the most relevant unit in mortuary behavior, not the individual interments it contained. With the dispersal of the skeleton and the burial goods around the tomb, the individual was “diluted” in the large deposits of the collective tombs (Driessen 2010). Skulls and other easily recognizable long bones were placed together within the burial place, making the tomb almost a “body” of its own, with different identifiable parts defined by concentrations of particular bones. Even in the pithoi and larnakes found inside and outside the tombs, the evidence suggests heavy reuse with little respect for earlier remains, and proves that the appearance of pithoi and larnakes in the mortuary record was not the result of a different attitude to individual remains (Walberg 1987). There is no denying that pithoi and larnakes show changes in mortuary behavior. Their appearance represents physical changes as they may make interment easier, particularly in communal tombs. Such changes, however, seem to represent only variations within the general communal ethos of the tomb, and bodies in pithoi and larnakes are subject to the same disturbances as interments in the ground. The presence of single interments in some of these containers can be explained by the particular history of use of each larnax or pithos rather than by changes in mortuary behavior; they constitute similar situations to those few undisturbed interments found outside the containers. In Pre- and Protopalatial Crete, the tomb emerges as the meaningful unit in the cemetery, and it is around the tomb that the mortuary customs revolved. The ideological and social importance of the tomb would also explain the extraordinarily long use (more than a millennium) of some of them.

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Such persistence in the use of collective tombs for such a long period of time (two millennia) is striking, even more so when put into a broader context (Dabney and Wright 1990). Prehistoric collective tombs are known in every region of the Mediterranean, but they were used for much shorter periods, and mostly in conjunction with individual interments or, rather, they housed clearly defined individual burials. In the nearby areas of the Peloponnese (Cavanagh and Mee 1998), the Cyclades (Doumas 1977), and western Anatolia (Carter and Parker 1995; Joukowsky 1996), individual interments and individual types of tombs formed a significant, if not the dominant, part of the burial customs during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. The Cretan exception is puzzling as the mortuary record of the island registered different types of influence from these surrounding regions. Cycladic and mainland objects have been found regularly in Prepalatial tombs. In Middle Minoan times, items with Near Eastern and Egyptian connections are found in many Cretan tombs. Yet the practice of clearly delimited individual burial with associated grave goods, which is common in the mortuary behavior of these cultures, was never adopted on Crete, with the possible exception of West Crete, where mortuary behavior may have followed mainland customs. Such facts leave us with no option but to seek an explanation for the unique Cretan case, since the long tradition of collective burial practices must have been actively maintained and speaks of a strong communal ideology for Cretan populations. During EM III–MM I, a new interest in group participation and “public” character appeared in the cemeteries together with the continuing collective use of the tombs. The communal character of the cemeteries passed from relying solely on the collective tombs to the inclusion of the living in a more active manner. The building of new tombs and the new complex strings of group ritual activities bonded the living closely with the strong communal character of the cemeteries. Such strong communal identity is further marked in certain cases by the presence of a focal building in the cemetery. New ritual caves, peak sanctuaries, and central buildings in settlements also appeared in this period, all of them with a similar communal ritual use to that of the cemeteries. In all these new

163

contexts, the idea of community was reinforced further through ritual performance and the organization of labor for the preparation of ceremonies. This reinforcement of the idea of coresidential community through ritual may be linked to important changes in other social institutions such as kinship. Cemeteries appeared more fragmented from MM I onward, with numerous tombs that seem to have related to nuclear families or similar small groups. Extensive kinship groups and traditional social positions (head of extended family, elders) could have lost importance to nuclear families and new “public” figures attached to the idea of coresidential community. The reinforced institution of community, suborganized around small kinship groups, may have superseded extensive kinship networks as the primary social structural principle on Crete. Such a system would have been highly dynamic and flexible, leaving much room for new social, economic, and ideological relationships. It also opens up the possibility of new institutions and social ideas based on “public” notions of community, which could rapidly have developed into state formation. With respect to the mortuary record, pithos cemeteries remain an enigmatic innovation that appeared at the same time as all these changes. In these cemeteries, most of the pithoi contained a single individual. In general, pithos cemeteries and pithos burials outside tombs seem to have a secondary significance in the Cretan MM I mortuary record. Not only did they appear around built tombs, but they were few in number and contained almost no grave goods. Most pithoi from these cemeteries may date to the MM II, MM III, and LM I periods, which also raises the question of whether MM I pithoi in these cemeteries were deposited in later periods. Pithoi are ceramic vessels with long lives and their old age might render them appropriate for funerary use in the MM II and MM III periods. Extramural pithoi may have housed those individuals that for whatever reason did not share a kinship affiliation and therefore were not entitled to be interred in the collective tombs; people such as “slaves,” “foreigners,” or individuals that fell out of favor (for reasons such as extramarital pregnancy). Individuals who were not part of the groups that structured the community may still have been considered part of the coresidential

164

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

community, and therefore entitled to be interred in the community cemetery. The pithos cemeteries may have been created as a compromise for the burial of these individuals. Such a model would actually explain some of the characteristics of Cretan prehistory that have puzzled several generations of scholars, such as the conspicuous lack of evidence for leading figures in the archaeological record, even in the LM periods. The strong communal ideology of Crete as marked not only by cemeteries, but also by the appearance of other communal arenas such as peak sanctuaries and “palaces,” was unique to the island. The strong communal character of Cretan populations may have determined the response of Cretan communities to different external factors. After a period of profound restructuring during EM IIB–III, in which Cretan communities faced the disruption of economic, social, and even political structures, they may have found a particular solution based on stressing the traditional communal ethos. Such a response to stress was quite different than that witnessed in other areas of the Mediterranean, where strong hierarchical structures emerged organized around clearly marked leaders. Such a model would also represent a unique ideological, social, and economic process of state formation. Older state formation dynamics in Egypt and Mesopotamia were marked by the rise of leaders and rulers, stressed by means of institutionalized religion, monumental architecture, restricted access to high-value items and materials, and royal tombs. Crete lacks all of these elements, and what is observed in the record of the island during the later Prepalatial formation period is a focus on community, collective ritual, and shared spaces. On Crete, the state, as a practical sociopolitical organization and as an ideological notion, may have been founded on a unique idea of community. In this sense, Egyptian and Near Eastern influences may have little relevance for the study of the Cretan case, as they were based on intrinsically opposed notions of social organization and power structures. Cretan communities, even when exposed to ideas such as king/pharaoh and the institutions that were attached to those ideas (e.g., institutionalized religion and armies), may have found it extremely difficult to understand them and impossible to relate them to their own ideas of what constituted

social life. Cretan state formation, while not completely independent, may be unique in the way it developed and difficult to understand through models developed in other geographical areas of the Mediterranean and the Near East. Moreover, it may have differed greatly from modern and romantic ideas of chiefs, kings, the agency of elites and aggrandizer figures, and we may need to be more critical in the way we use such notions in the study of Cretan societies. The model presented here is clearly reminiscent of theories of social change proposed by other authors for other parts of the world, such as “group oriented chiefdoms” (Renfrew 1972a, 2001) that have recently been redefined under the “corporatenetwork” model (Blanton et al. 1996; Feinman 2001). I am reticent to use such categories in the Cretan scenario, first because they tend to be used in an evolutionary way in which communal (group orientated or corporate) is seen as a first step that is superseded by individualizing societies (network). The communal character of Crete is not a first step on an evolutionary road, but a full process in its own right. The emphasis on community in Crete sustained many of the changes that these authors have normally related to the emergence of individualizing societies. Second, as has recently been pointed out by Feinman, “corporate” and “network” are not absolute categories but extremes of a continuum. The Cretan example is a mixture of the characteristics that divide “network” and “corporate” societies (Feinman 2001). “Wealth economy” and prestige goods are clearly present in the Cretan record (as seen in the presence of stone vessels and imported items), and there is clear evidence for craft production specialization (Andreadaki-Vlasaki 1997b; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1997; Sbonias 2000; Day and Wilson 2002; Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, Wilson, and Day 2007), ostentatious consumption (stone vessels in Platanos), and probably linear kinship groups. Cretan communities underwent a unique trajectory that evades a straightforward categorization as “network” or “corporate” societies. While this model provides interesting ideas for the understanding of Crete, it should not replace a careful and detailed characterization of the particularities of Cretan societies during the Pre- and Protopalatial periods.

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

165

Conclusions At a time when material analysis dominates the study and understanding of the prehistory of Crete, this study has focused on the interpretation of mortuary data that demonstrate the necessity of investigating different aspects of the life of Cretan communities in a relevant cultural context. This examination has demonstrated that a new look at old data based on a detailed methodology can provide information that was thought unattainable by traditional approaches. By exploiting the strengths of the available data, such as the large number of known cemeteries, we are able to obtain new information, and more importantly, to discover significant patterns in the record that have not been identified before. A more cautious interpretation of the mortuary record, taking into consideration the limitations of burial data, has yielded a better understanding of these patterns and has helped remove some pervasive assumptions from the analysis of the funerary evidence. This analysis has also been cautious in its reconstruction of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete in order to avoid the trap of creating detailed narratives that find little support in the evidence, and it has tried to build a consistent and relevant theoretical framework in which explanatory models can be better balanced against the patterns in the data. The intention of this framework has been to generate a more fluid and holistic understanding of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete that goes beyond simple and narrow generalist and evolutionary categories, such as “chiefdom,” and explanatory models that rely heavily on a single concept, such as a “managerial economy.” An attempt has been made to show that the understanding of Cretan communities must be founded on the combination of economic, ideological, and social models within complex and dynamic spatial and chronological frameworks. The result is to shift the focus of study of Preand Protopalatial Crete from the narrow vision of political evolution to a much more comprehensive understanding of the changes undergone by Cretan communities, not only by analyzing the data in a nonlineal way with different societies engaging in different processes at the same time, but also by concentrating on social organization as a whole

rather than on sociopolitical development alone. It has shown that the history of the third and second millennia b.c.e. on Crete cannot be understood as a movement toward increasing sociopolitical complexity, but rather as a series of noncumulative changes in the social organization of these societies, including both horizontal and vertical social relationships. In this regard the comprehensive approach developed in this research has placed major effort on analyzing change from a socially holistic point of view. Particular emphasis has been placed on challenging some of the spatial and chronological assumptions that pervade most studies of Pre- and Protopalatial Crete. The study of the mortuary record has revealed a complexity that needs to be incorporated into the explanatory models. Ideas about the lineal development of “complexity” and the general division of Crete into geographical areas need to be discarded and replaced by studies that address specific temporal and spatial scales, relevant to the phenomena and processes under study. The “retrospective” teleology in which earlier periods are interpreted in relation to later ones, especially with respect to the appearance of “palatial” communities, must be abandoned. Also, it has been stressed that while Crete is a defined geographical unit, it does not necessarily represent one significant human behavioral unit. Although clear boundaries cannot be created, and terms such as ethnicity have been consciously avoided, it must be remembered that very different societies may have occupied the island at any specific period. Different ways of life, including economic and social aspects, different ways of structuring social relationships, perhaps with a stress on different types of social identities, may have characterized very different populations on the island. Approaching such aspects of society through mortuary behavior has provided a more subtle insight into their nature, as descriptions of material patterning have been replaced by a more flexible and relevant analysis of behavior, that is, different ways of doing and conceptualizing things, in this case in such a significant social sphere as the mortuary arena.

166

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

While the more detailed narrative aspects of this study can and will be extended, modified, or replaced by future research into the funerary record and other archaeological areas of study, it is hoped

that an open, complex, and dynamic model has been created in this work on which more complex, relevant, and holistic studies can be based.

Appendix 1

Gazetteer of Funerary Contexts in Pre- and Protopalatial Crete

The gazetteer is ordered alphabetically within each region: South-Central Crete, Central Crete, Mirabello Bay and Ierapetra region, East Crete, and West Crete. The parts of the gazetteer entries are defined below.

ID. Name Unique number that identifies the tomb within this gazetteer and name of the cemetery and the particular tomb. Other names: names given to the particular tomb in other publications. See also Table 2 for tholos names. Type: type of context: tholos, rectangular tomb, rock-cut tomb, chamber tombs, pit, rock shelter, cave, Nea Roumata style, pithos, larnakes, pithos cemetery, annex, associated building, open area, or unknown. Nearest village: nearest modern village. Area: geographic area within Crete where tomb is located. Excavated: confirmation of excavation; in certain cases this is difficult to establish from the reports. Condition: only refers to excavated tomb and aims to describe the general condition of the tomb when excavated: disturbed, badly preserved, reused (in later periods), looted, etc.

Dubious: not certain that the context is an EM I– MM II tomb or had a funerary use.

References Literature in which the context is mentioned; in addition there are a group of references that pertain to most of the known contexts but have not been included for each record: metal objects and jewelry (Branigan 1968a, 1974; Effinger 1996; Vasilakis 1996b); figurines (Krause 1992); stone vessels (Warren 1969); seals (Yule 1980); tomb catalogs (Branigan 1970b, 1993; Georgoulaki 1996a; Hiller 1977; Panagiotopoulos 2002; see also Zois 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d).

Architecture W.: building width, interior measurements in meters; measurements should be taken as an approximation. L.: building length, interior measurements in meters; measurements should be taken as an approximation. Dia. (tholos only): interior diameter in meters; measurements should be taken as an approximation. Entrance orientation: door orientation. Doorway type (tholos only): type of doorway, built or trilithon (see Branigan 1970b, 33–36). Wall thickness (tholos only): average wall thickness in meters; measurements should be taken as an approximation.

168

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Annex (tholos only): presence of an annex. Vestibule (tholos only): presence of a vestibule. Vaulted (tholos only): evidence for stone vaulting. Number of spaces: number of discrete spaces identified inside a building. Other features: other features of interest.

number of objects; yes = reported items of a specific type, but no clear number; t. dagger = triangular dagger; l. dagger = long dagger. Material: approximate count of published items organized by raw material.

Dating

Information regarding interment type and related rituals. Larnax: presence of larnakes in the context. Pithos: presence of pithoi in the context.

Documented first use: suggested construction of a context or first use of a context for funerary purposes. Other periods documented: other periods in which the tomb was in use. Citations: dating of the tomb as suggested by different authors.

Contents Approximate count of published material. The numbers are not confirmed in many cases and represent only a reference, not definite figures; min. = minimum

Burial

Use For nonburial contexts only, information regarding use of the nonburial context.

Other Other relevant information such as identified related settlement.

South-Central Crete 1. Antiskari

2. Apesokari A, Tholos

Other names: Andiskari (Sakellarakis and Kenna, eds., 1969, 114 [CMS IV, no. 99]). Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Antiskari. Excavated: no. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

Other names: no. 9 (Branigan 1970b); Apesokari A (Branigan 1993); no. 4A (Pelon 1976, 1994); no. 18 (Belli 1984); Apesokari I (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 1 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1959, 387; Sakellarakis and Kenna, eds., 1969, 114 (CMS IV, no. 99); Pini 2000, 109; Phillips 2008b, 257, no. 255.

Architecture Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM I? Other periods documented: MM I(?), MM II(?). Citations: Platon 1959, 387, Protopalatial cups; Phillips 2008b, MM I.

Contents Scarab (1). Materials: white piece (1).

Burial Pithos: No. Larnax: No.

Other Platon mentioned Protopalatial cups coming probably from a tholos tomb; the scarab comes from the area of Andiskari, and since no other site is known in the area, it may come from the reported tomb.

References Schörgendorfer 1951b; Long 1959; Pini 1968, 4, 10; Sakellarakis and Kenna, eds., 1969, 63 (CMS IV, no. 51); Alexiou 1971; Hood 1971, 142–143; Pelon 1976, 12; Walberg 1983, 97–98; Belli 1984, 105–106; Branigan 1993, 147; Girella 2004, 273, 275, fig. 19; Caloi 2009, 396; Flouda 2011.

Architecture Dia.: 4.85 m. Entrance orientation: east-southeast. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Vaulted: possible. Other features: tholos has double wall. Plan: Schörgendorfer 1951b, table 16.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III(?), LM I(?). Citations: Schörgendorfer 1951b, MM I–II; Walberg 1983, 98, EM III/MM IA–MM III; Caloi 2009, 396, MM IB; Flouda 2011, MM IA–IB.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

169

Contents

Other

Ceramic vases (42), stone vases (25), figurine (1), stone table (1). Materials: clay (42), stone (27).

The settlement was situated on the top of the hill where the tomb is located (Schörgendorfer 1951a).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes. Jar with remains of a child’s jaw; three small larnakes, perhaps for children.

Other The settlement was situated on the top of the hill where the tomb is located (Schörgendorfer 1951a).

3. Apesokari A, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Schörgendorfer 1951b; Long 1959; Alexiou 1971; Hood 1971, 142–143; Walberg 1983, 97–98; Petit 1987; Girella 2004, 273, 275, fig. 19; Caloi 2009, 396; Flouda 2011.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 8. Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: it seems to comprise three rooms, although the excavator divided it into eight spaces (C–H, J–K); the middle one (G) has been defined as a pillar crypt. Plan: Schörgendorfer 1951b, table 16.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III(?), LM I(?). Citations: Schörgendorfer 1951b; constructed simultaneously with the tholos, MM I–II; Walberg 1983, 98, EM III–MM III; Caloi 2009, 396, MM IB; Flouda 2011, MM IA–IB.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 135), stone vases (min. 7), figurines (1), stone table (1). Materials: clay (min. 135), stone (min. 7).

Burial Burials found in areas B, C and E; in Area J an offering table was found in front of an anthropomorphic rock concretion; pithos fragment reported, not necessarily from a burial pithos. Room D had a large deposit of cups and human remains. Room C had one interment, and Room E had two interments. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

4. Apesokari A, Paved Area outside Annex Other names: area L (Schörgendorfer 1951b, 20). Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Schörgendorfer 1951b; Long 1959; Alexiou 1971; Hood 1971, 142–143; Walberg 1983, 97–98; Petit 1987; Girella 2004, 273, 275, fig. 19; Flouda 2011.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 3 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: annex to Tholos A. Other features: an altar or the base of an altar was found in the middle of the paved area. Plan: Schörgendorfer 1951b, table 16, area L.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III. Citations: Schörgendorfer 1951b, constructed simultaneously with the tholos, MM I–II; Walberg 1983, 98, EM III–MM III; Flouda 2011, MM IA–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (min. 15). Materials: clay (yes), stone (min. 15).

Other The settlement was situated on the top of the hill where the tomb is located (Schörgendorfer 1951a).

5. Apesokari B, Tholos Other names: no. 10 (Branigan 1970b); Apesokari B (Branigan 1993); Apesokari II (Pelon 1976; Belli 1984; Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 2 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1963b, 405; 1971, 307–308; Davaras 1964, 441; Pini 1968, 4; 1981, 427, no. 27; Pelon 1976, 12, no. 4B; Belli 1984, 105–106; Branigan 1993, 147, no. 62.

170

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture

Burial

Dia.: 5.7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.9–2.9 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Other features: similar plan to Apesokari A; tholos constructed with a double wall. Plan: Vavouranakis 2012, 153, fig. 1.

457 conical cups found in Room 1. Room 2 contained a larnax. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Dating

7. Apesokari B, South Desposits

Documented first use: EM IB/IIA. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I. Citations: Alexiou 1963b, 405, Protopalatial period, Barbotine Ware (MM IB); 1971, 307, MM; Vavouranakis 2012, EM IB/IIA– MM I.

Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

Contents Ceramic vases, seals (2), tools (4). Materials: clay, stone (2), ivory (1), copper (3).

Burial

References Alexiou 1963b, 405; 1971a, 307–308; Davaras 1964, 441; Soles 1973, 395–397; Petit 1987; Vavouranakis 2012.

Architecture

Other

Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Apesokari B. Other features: unclear whether there are paved areas or material deposits. Plan: Vavouranakis 2012, 153, fig. 1.

The settlement was situated 450 m from the tomb (Schörgendorfer 1951a).

Dating

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

6. Apesokari B, Annex to Tholos Type: Annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Davaras 1964, Barbotine Ware; Vavouranakis 2012, EM III–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

References Alexiou 1963b, 405; 1971, 307–308; Davaras 1964, 441; Soles 1973, 395–397; Petit 1987; Vavouranakis, forthcoming.

Architecture Number of spaces: 9. Associated contexts: Apesokari B. Other features: one anteroom, a corridor, and a large room that contained a smaller walled area. Plan: Vavouranakis 2012, 153, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II, MM III. Citations: Davaras 1964, Barbotine Ware; Vavouranakis 2012, Rooms 1–3 and 5–6, EM III–MM III, Rooms 4, 1, and 9, MM IB–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 500), stone vases (yes), seals (2), tools (1), double axes (yes). Materials: clay (min. 500), stone (yes), copper (yes).

8. Apesokari C Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Apesokari. Excavated: no. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Alexiou 1971, 308.

Architecture Only the portion of a curved wall reported.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This tholos was just mentioned by Alexiou in relation to the discovery of Apesokari B.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

9. Archaiokorapho

Burial

Other names: no. 56 (Branigan 1970b); no. 8 (Branigan 1993); Archaichorapho (Pelon 1976; Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 3 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Siva. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

11. Christos, Tholos B

References Marinatos 1924–1925, 77–78; Pelon 1976, 461; Branigan 1993, 144, no. 8.

Architecture Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 0.9 m.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM? Citations: Marinatos 1924–1925, 77, EM.

Contents

171

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other names: no. 61 Christos (Branigan 1970b); Christós (Pelon 1976, 461); no. 46 (Branigan 1993); Christos B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 30 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: unclear. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 70; Pelon 1976, 461; Karagianni 1984, 73; Branigan 1993, 146, no. 61.

Architecture

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Entrance orientation: east. Other features: only part of the wall was preserved when Xanthoudides excavated this tomb; it may never have been finished.

Burial

Dating

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial

10. Aspripetra Other names: Aspri Pétra (Pelon 1976); no. 63 (Branigan 1993); Aspri Petra (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Aspripetra (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Siva. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Xanthoudides 1918b, 15; Platon, ed., 1969, 3 (CMS II, 1, no. 1); Ward 1971, 94; Pelon 1976, 461; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 188–189; Branigan 1993, 147, no. 63; Pini 2000, 108; Phillips 2008b, 43.

Architecture Deposit with no surviving architectural features, probably a tholos (Xanthoudides 1918b).

Dating

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

12. Christos, Tholos X Other names: no. 11 (Branigan 1970b); no. 45 (Bran­ igan 1993); no. 6, Christos (Pelon 1976, 1984); no. 19, Christós (Belli 1984); Christos X (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 29 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 70–72; Evans 1928, 81–82; Pelon 1976, 16, no. 6; Belli 1984, 106; Branigan 1993, 146, no. 45.

Architecture

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM(?), MM? Citations: Xanthoudides 1918b, 15, EM II–?, Syros type ceramics; Branigan 1993, 147, EM I–MM I; Phillips 2008b, 43, MM I, EM I–IIA.

Dia.: 6–6.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.3 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: Xanthoudides suggested a vaulted tomb, but Belli doubted it. Plan: Belli 1984, 139, fig. 10.

Contents

Dating

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes), scarab (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Xanthoudides

172

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

1924, 72, EM III–MM I; Branigan 1993, 146, EM III(?)–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (9), stone vases (10), tools (2). Materials: clay (9), stone (10), copper (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

References Davaras 1968; Warren 1972b; Blackman and Branigan 1975, 26; Pelon 1976, 19, 461; 1994, 157–160; Belli 1984, 99–100; Branigan 1993, 145.

Architecture Dia.: 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: south. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.5 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 150, fig. 33.

Dating

The settlement may have been situated higher than the tomb (Evans 1928).

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM–MM? Citations: Pelon 1976, 19, EM; Branigan 1993, 145, EM I–MM I?

13. Chroni Kalyvi

Burial

Other names: Gangales? (Karo 1930, 158; Pelon 1976, 462; Hiller 1977, 101); Chroni Kalyvi (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 31, Khroni Kalyvi/Gangales (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Gangales. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Karo 1930, 158; Alexiou 1963b, 403; Pelon 1976, 462; Hiller 1977, 101.

Architecture Dia.: over 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: south.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This tomb is only mentioned in Alexiou 1963b; it is unclear if it is the same tholos called Gangales in Karo 1930 and Pelon 1976.

14. Chrysostomos A Other names: no. 12/18, Chrysostomos/Kali Limenes II (Branigan 1970b); SC 8 (Blackman and Branigan 1975); no. 29, Chrysostomos A (Branigan 1993); Kali Limenes II/Chryssostomos I (Pelon 1976); no. 9B/29A, Kali Limenes III/Chrysostomos II (Pelon 1976); no. 29A, Chrysostomos I (Pelon 1994); Chrysóstomos I (Belli 1984); Lasäa A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 69, South Coast 8A (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

15. Chrysostomos B Other names: no. 13/19, Chrysostomos/Kali Limenes III (Branigan 1970b); SC 8 (Blackman and Branigan 1975); no. 30, Chrysostomos B (Branigan 1993); Kali Limenes III/Chryssostomos II (Pelon 1976); no. 9C/29 B, Kali Limenes II/Chrysostomos I (Pelon 1976); no. 29 B, Chrysostomos II (Pelon 1994); Chrysóstomos II (Belli 1984); Lasäa B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 70, South Coast 8B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Davaras 1968, 405–406; Blackman and Branigan 1975, 26; Pelon 1976, 19, 461; 1994, 157–160; Branigan 1993, 145.

Architecture Dia.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: part of the north sector of the wall is formed by a rock outcrop; Pelon reported a miniature dromos outside the door. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 150, fig. 33.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM–MM? Citations: Pelon 1976, 19, EM; Branigan 1993, 145, EM I–MM I?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

16. Drakones, Tholos D Other names: Drakones Δ (Xanthoudides 1924); no. 14 (Branigan 1970b); no. 7A (Pelon 1976); no. 26 (Belli 1984); no. 55 (Branigan 1993); Drakones D (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 17 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Stavies. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved, reused? Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 76–80; Pendlebury, MoneyCoutts, and Eccles 1934, 86; Pini 1968, 10; Platon, ed., 1969, 8–9 (CMS II, 1, nos. 3, 4); Pelon 1976, 17; Walberg 1983, 102; Belli 1984, 111–112; Karagianni 1984, 61–62, 71–72; Branigan 1993, 146; Zois 1998d, 196.

Architecture Dia.: 5.85 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Doorway type: trilithon. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: protruding stones in the outside face of the tholos wall.

173

Architecture Associated contexts: Tholos D. Other features: rooms around tholos, especially to the east; it could be an associated building and not an annex.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM I. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 80, EM III–MM I; Walberg 1983, 102, EM III–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (1), stone vases (3, 2 of them kernoi), tools (2). Materials: clay (9), stone (9).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Most of the published material had no detailed provenance; Xanthoudides reported that most of the clay vessels came from these rooms.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 80, EM III–MM I, LM date for pithoi and larnakes in upper stratum; Walberg 1983, 102, EM III–MM I; Branigan 1993, 146, EM III–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (1), stone vases (5, one of them a kernos), seals (2), tools (4), stone palette (1). Materials: clay (9), stone (9), ivory (1), copper (2).

Burial Some of the human bones inside the tholos showed burning marks; Xanthoudides considered the pithoi and larnakes fragments found in the upper stratum of LM date. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Most of the published material had no detailed provenance; Xanthoudides reported that most of the clay vessels came from the annex.

17. Drakones, Annex to Tholos D Type: annex? Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Stavies. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 76–80; Walberg 1983, 102; Karagianni 1984, 61–62, 71–72; Petit 1987.

18. Drakones, Tholos Z Other names: Drakones Z (Xanthoudides 1924); no. 15 (Branigan 1970b); no. 7B (Pelon 1976); no. 26 (Belli 1984); no. 56 (Branigan 1993); Drakones Z (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 18 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Stavies. Excavated: yes. Condition: reused? Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 76–80; Pendlebury, MoneyCoutts, and Eccles 1934, 86; Pelon 1976, 17; Belli 1984, 111–112; Karagianni 1984, 72; Branigan 1993, 146.

Architecture Dia.: 7.1 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 2.1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: yes. Vaulted: possible. Other features: a double wall was constructed around the tholos probably in LM III; floor of the tomb was covered with gravel and sand; tall doorway.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 80, EM III–MM IA and LM III; Branigan 1993, EM III(?)– MM I.

Contents Stone vases (1, a kernos), tools (1). Materials: stone (2).

174

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial

Burial

Burials were found only in the south part of the tholos. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

LM larnakes and pithoi were reported by Xanthoudides (see also Rutkowski 1966, 119), although they may date to an earlier period (Branigan 1993, 63). Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Belli suggested that this tholos was built in a different period from Tholos D due to the architectural differences.

21. Hagia Eirene, Tholos e

Other names: Gouva (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Gouva (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Petrokephales. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Other names: Hagía Eiréne ε (Xanthoudides 1924); no. 2 (Branigan 1970b); no. 1B (Pelon 1976); no. 24 (Belli 1984); no. 58 (Branigan 1993); Ajia Irini e (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 7 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Stavies. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

References

19. Gouva

Alexiou 1963b, 403; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 201.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Other Mentioned as a tholos tomb without any other details reported; Goodison and Guarita (2005, 201) suggest that this is not a Minoan tholos tomb as there is neither funerary, nor Minoan evidence.

20. Hagia Eirene, Tholos E Other names: Hagía Eiréne E (Xanthoudides 1924); no. 1 (Branigan 1970b); no. 1A (Pelon 1976); no. 24 (Belli 1984); no. 57 (Branigan 1993); Ajia Irini E (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 6 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Stavies. Excavated: yes. Condition: reused? Dubious: no.

Xanthoudides 1924, 51–53; Branigan 1970b, 94; Pelon 1976, 8; Belli 1984, 109; Branigan 1993, 146.

Architecture Dia.: 6.6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.2 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: Belli (1984) reports an internal wall in the tholos and modifies Xanthoudides’ measurements to 4.3 m diameter and 2.35 m wall thickness.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, MM I? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 53, EM II–MM; Branigan 1993, 146, EM I–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (2). Materials: clay (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 51–53; Platon, ed., 1969a, 11 (CMS II, 1, no. 5); Pelon 1976, 8; Belli 1984, 109; Branigan 1993, 146; Zois 1998d, 163, 193.

Architecture Dia.: 7.7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: yes.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, MM I? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 52 EM I/II–?, heavily reused in LM times; Branigan 1993, 146, EM I/II–MM; Zois 1998d, 193, EM I/II–?

Contents Ceramic vases (4), t. daggers (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (4), copper (2).

22. Hagia Kyriaki, Tholos A Other names: no. 3, Agia Kyriaki (Branigan 1970b); w6 (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 26A (Pelon 1976, 1994); no. 4, Aghia Kyriaki A (Belli 1984); thesi 12 (Vasilakis 1990); no. 20, Ayia Kyriaki A (Branigan 1993); Ajia Kyriaki I (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 8 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1965b; Alexiou 1971, 307; Pelon 1976, 461; 1994, 164–166; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 56; 1982; Belli 1984, 98–99; Vasilakis 1990, 34–38; Branigan 1993, 17–32; Wilson and Day 1994, 12–13, 35–38; Tomkins 2007; Betancourt 2009, 52, 55, 59.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

175

Architecture

Burial

Dia.: 4.6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 0.5–1.75 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelling. Plan: Blackman and Branigan 1982, 45, fig. 15.

Fragments of bone found in Room 1. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating

24. Hagia Kyriaki, Tholos B

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1982, EM I–MM I; Vasilakis 1990, 34– 37, EM I–MM I; Tomkins 2007, EM I onward; Betancourt 2009, 52, 55, 59, EM I–?

Other names: w6a (Blackman and Branigan 1977); Aghia Kyriaki B (Belli 1984); no. 21, Ayia Kyriaki B (Branigan 1993); no. 26B (Pelon 1994); Ajia Kyriaki IIA (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 9 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 1,954), stone vases (28 min.), tools (24), figurines (8), beads (1), amulets (yes), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (min. 1,950), stone (min. 28), obsidian (29), copper (1).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Blackman and Branigan (1982, 55) reported three hamlets in the area, E5, W7, and E20.

23. Hagia Kyriaki, Annex to Tholos A Type: annex. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1965b; Blackman and Branigan 1982; Vasilakis 1990, 34–37; Branigan 1993, 17–32.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 8 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 7. Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: Rooms 2, 3, and 5 were constructed together; Room 2 had a bench; a fourth room, 1, was attached later as it separated Rooms 3 and 5; east of Room 2 there is a platform next to a pit, and a peribolos wall east of the annex. Plan: Blackman and Branigan 1982, 45, fig. 15.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1982, Rooms 3 and 5 constructed with Tholos in EM I; Room 2, platform, and peribolos wall, EM IIA; Room 1, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (min. 6), tools (83), beads (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (min. 25), obsidian (66).

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 37–38, 56–58; 1982, 46; Belli 1984, 98–99; Branigan 1993, 145; Pelon 1994, 161–162.

Architecture Dia.: 7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.3 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: construction was probably never finished; attached to Hagia Kyriaki Tholos C.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II(?), MM I? Citations: Blackman and Bran­igan 1977, 58, MM I or EM I/II; 1982, 46, EM I/ II–?; Branigan 1993, 145, EM I/II?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Blackman and Branigan (1982, 55) reported three hamlets in the area, E5, W7, and E20.

25. Hagia Kyriaki, Tholos C Other names: w6b (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 22, Ayia Kyriaki B (Branigan 1993); no. 26Ba (Pelon 1994); Ajia Kyriaki IIB (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 10 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 37–38, 56–58; 1982, 46; Belli 1984, 98–99; Branigan 1993, 145; Pelon 1994, 161–162.

176

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture Dia.: 3.5 m. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: construction was probably never finished; attached to Hagia Kyriaki Tholos B.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II(?), MM I? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58, MM I or EM I/II; 1982, 46, EM I/II–?; Branigan 1993, 145, EM I/II?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Blackman and Branigan reported three hamlets in the area, E5, W7, and E20 (1982, 55).

26. Hagia Kyriaki W8 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58–59, no. W8; Vasilakis 1990, 32 or 33, thesi 9 or 10.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 6 m. Other features: Blackman and Branigan reported a rectangular tomb and a second rectangular building nearby; Vasilakis reported walls inside the larger building at a lower level, however this arrangement is identical to Blackman and Branigan’s site E20. Plan: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 57, fig. 27.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB(?), MM II? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58–59, MM, Kamares Style pottery, and LM I. Vasilakis 1990, 32, thesi 9, EM II and MM IA sherds; thesi 10, EM II and MM.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Human bone fragments. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Vasilakis’s thesi 9 may not correspond to Blackman and Branigan’s W8 but to E20, even when he reported human bones from this thesi. Instead, thesi 10 may correspond to site W8.

27. Hagia Kyriaki W8a Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58–59, no. W8; Vasilakis 1990, 32 or 33, thesi 9 or 10.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 5 m. Other features: Blackman and Branigan reported a second possible rectangular tomb at this site.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB(?), MM II? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 58–59, MM, Kamares Style pottery, and LM I. Vasilakis 1990, 32, thesi 9, EM II and MM IA sherds; thesi 10, EM II and MM.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Human bone fragments. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Vasilakis’s thesi 9 may not correspond to Blackman and Branigan’s W8 but to E20, even when he reported human bones from this thesi; instead, thesi 10 may correspond to site W8.

28. Hagia Kyriaki W11a Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 60–61, no. W11A; Vasilakis 1990, 30–31, thesi 8.

Architecture W.: 5.6 m. L.: 6.75 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: Blackman and Branigan reported a rectangular building with a trilithon entrance facing south.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: MM I(?), MM II? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 60–61, EM or MM; Vasilakis 1990, 30– 31, EM and MM sherds.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial One human bone fragment was reported by Blackman and Branigan. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This building is similar to Tombs 2, 3, and 4 at Kephali Odigitrias (Saltos 2000).

177

beads (78), amulets (11), ornaments (25). Materials: clay (min. 102), stone (min. 40), ivory (50), obsidian (yes), copper (55), gold (34), silver (4).

Burial 49 skulls found in tholos chamber; a fumigation level composed by sand found between two burial strata (Cultraro 1994). Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Possible associated settlement at Hagia Triada (Todaro 2001, 2003).

29. Hagia Triada, Tholos A Other names: no. 4 (Branigan 1970b); no. 2A (Pelon 1976, 1994); no. 25 (Belli 1984); no. 1 (Branigan 1993); Ajia Triada A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 13 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Halbherr 1905; Mosso 1906; 1908; Banti 1933; 1948; Stefani 1933; Borda 1946; Zois 1965, 70–75; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 264–267, nos. 9406– 9419; Platon, ed., 1969, 13–117 (CMS II, 1, nos. 6–103); Ward 1971, 94–103; Laviosa 1972; Pelon 1976, 8–10; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 48–49; Walberg 1983, 92; Belli 1984, 109–111; Wilson 1985, 290; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 190–196; Branigan 1993, 144; Cultraro 1994; 2000a; 2003; Wilson and Day 1994, 13; Di Vita 1995; 2000; 2001, 390–393; La Rosa 1998; 1999a; 2001; Carinci 1999, 115 n. 2; 2000, 32; 2003; Todaro 2001; 2003; Panagiotopoulos 2002, 42; Bevan 2004, 113, fig. 6.2; Phillips 2008b, 21–24.

Architecture Dia.: 9 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: surrounding corridor, buttresses. Plan: Stefani 1933, 153, figs. 4, 5; Creta Antica 4, folded map; Cultraro 2003, 302, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Banti 1933, 247, EM II–MM II; Walberg 1983, ?–MM II/III; Wilson 1985, 290, EM I–?; Branigan 1993, 144, EM I–MM II; Cultraro 1994, EM I–MM II; 2000a, 310, EM IB/IIA–?; 2003, EM IIA–MM IIA; Wilson and Day 1994, 13, EM IIA–?; La Rosa 2001, EM IB/IIA–MM II; Todaro 2003, 86, EM IIB–?

Contents Ceramic vases (102), stone vases (40), seals (108), tools (6), t. daggers (40), l. daggers (8), figurines (15),

30. Hagia Triada, Annex to Tholos A Type: annex. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Halbherr 1905; Banti 1933; 1948; Stefani 1933; Platon, ed., 1969, 28, 33, 60–61, 66, 71–72 (CMS II, 1, nos. 20, 25, 52, 57, 62); Laviosa 1972; Walberg 1983, 92; Petit 1987; Cultraro 1994; 2003; Di Vita 1995; 2000; 2001; Carinci 1999; 2000; 2003; La Rosa 1999a; 1999b; 2001; Todaro 2003.

Architecture W.: 9 m. L.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 11. Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: constructed in at least two phases. Plan: Banti 1933; Creta Antica 4, folded map; Cultraro 2003, 302, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Citations: Banti 1933, 248, EM III/MM I–?; Petit 1987, 36, EM II– MM I; Cultraro 1994, MM IA–II; 2003, EM III–MM IA; Carinci 1999, 115 n. 1, MM IA–?; La Rosa 2001, MM IA; Di Vita 2001, EM II vessel found east of Room D; Todaro 2003, 87, EM III–?

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 60), stone vases (4), seals (5), tools (1), l. daggers (1). Materials: clay (min. 60), stone (4), bone (1), ivory (5), copper (1).

Burial Only Rooms E and L had no human bones; Room G contained 17 skulls, Room F 14 skulls and traces of a skeleton in flexed position; Room C contained many cups, some placed upside down, some deposited in pairs; Room L contained large amounts of cups. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

178

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

31. Hagia Triada, Tholos B Other names: no. 5 (Branigan 1970b); no. 2B (Pelon 1976, 1994); no. 25 (Belli 1984); no. 1 (Branigan 1993); Ajia Triada B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 14 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Halbherr 1902; 1903; 1905; Paribeni 1903; 1904; Pini 1968, 10; Laviosa 1975; Pelon 1976, 9–10, no. 2B; Belli 1984, 110–111; Soles 1992b, 122; Branigan 1993, 144, no. 2; La Rosa 1999b; Di Vita 2000; Carinci 2003; Ben-Tor 2006; Phillips 2008b, 24.

Architecture Dia.: 5.4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.55 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Associated contexts: Sepolcreto a ridosso della Tholos. Other features: protruding stones at the outside face of the tholos wall; corbelling. Plan: La Rosa 1999b, 178, fig. 1; Creta Antica 4, folded map.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB? Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Paribeni 1904, 707, tholos built before Sepolcreto a ridosso, which is probably EM IIA; Pelon 1976, 11, EM II–MM II; Soles 1992b, 122, EM IIA–?; Branigan 1993, 144, EM I–MM; Cultraro 1994, 271, MM IB/IIA; Carinci 1999, 115, MM IB– II; 2003, 99, MM IA (late)/MM IB–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (23), stone vases (22), seals (1), l. daggers (6), figurines (1), beads (3), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (24), stone (24), ivory (2), copper (7), gold (1).

Burial Small amount of bone. Paribeni reported fragments of two urne, which may refer to pithoi (Paribeni 1904, 684). Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Possibly associated settlements may have been located nearby (Laviosa 1972, 1975) or at Hagia Triada (Todaro 2001).

32. Hagia Triada, Sepolcreto a ridosso della Tholos Type: rectangular tomb. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Halbherr 1902; 1903; 1905; Paribeni 1903; 1904; Platon, ed., 1969, 534 (CMS II, 1, no. 449); Laviosa 1975; Petit 1987; Soles 1992b, 122; Carinci 1999, 115, no. 2; 2003; La Rosa 1999b, 178.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 7 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: Tholos B. Other features: entrance was situated in the west wall (Di Vita 2000); building formed by one (Laviosa 1975) or two rooms (Paribeni 1904); a sunken corridor surrounding the Tholos wall forms the north part of the building. Plan: La Rosa 1999b, 178, fig. 1; Creta Antica 4, folded map.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Paribeni 1904, Kamares Ware; Soles 1992b, 122, EM IIA–?; Carinci 1999; 2003, 113, MM IB–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (18), stone vases (20), seals (1), l. daggers (6), beads (2), ornaments (3). Materials: clay (19), stone (21), ivory (1), copper (7), gold (1).

Burial Crammed with bones, especially in the sunken corridor. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Building may have been independent of Tholos B; Paribeni recorded some stratigraphy in the west room, the oldest one, although from the lower level he reported Kamares Ware (MM II) with earlier pottery (Soles 1992b, 122).

33. Hagia Triada, West Camerette Type: associated building. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Condition: good. Excavated: yes. Dubious: no.

References Stefani 1933; La Rosa 1999a, 2001; Di Vita 2001; Carinci 2003.

Architecture W.: 6 m. L.: 9 m. Number of spaces: min. 6. Associated contexts: south camerette. Other features: formed by Room alpha and three contiguous rooms, a, b, and c; also by a pit used for the deposition of ceramics; two

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

baetyls; and a paved court. Plan: Creta Antica 4, folded map; Cultraro 2003, 302, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: EM I(?), MM II. Citations: La Rosa 2001, 223; Room alpha was constructed in EM I or MM IA; Rooms a–c and baetyls in early MM IA (before the south camerette); the pit is MM IA; the paved court and the corridor were constructed in MM II. Carinci 2003, 99, MM IA–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 217). Materials: clay (min. 217).

Use Cult activities, probably involving two identified baetyls in this complex; EM I material found in Room alpha may not have been related to funerary activities. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

179

Use Probable cultic use associated with the cemetery (Banti 1933, 248; Soles 1992b, 116).

35. Hagia Triada, Northeast Court Type: open area. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: yes.

References Di Vita 1995, 1998; La Rosa 1995, 1998; Carinci 1999, 2003, 2004; Palio 2003.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: west camerette. Other features: paved area, associated with a ramp and an altar; material published by Palio (2003) possibly related to these contexts (La Rosa 1995; L. Girella, pers. comm.). Plan: Creta Antica 4, folded map.

Dating

34. Hagia Triada, South Camerette Type: associated building. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Banti 1933; Stefani 1933; Zois 1965, 70 n. 3; Soles 1992b, 116–119; Cultraro 2000a; 2003; Di Vita 2001; La Rosa 2001; Carinci 2003; Todaro 2003, 87; Caloi 2009, 396, 414.

Architecture W.: 7 m. L.: 9 m. Number of spaces: 10. Associated contexts: west camerette. Other features: constructed in at least three phases: first, Rooms 1, 2; second, Rooms 5 to 10; third, Rooms 3, 4; Room 5 had stuccoed walls and floor; Room 7 had a bench and was paved in red stucco as was Room 8 and possibly 9 and 10. Plan: Stefani 1933, 149, fig. 3; Creta Antica 4, folded map; Cultraro 2003, 302, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II? Citations: Banti 1933, 248, MM I; Zois 1965, 70, MM IA; Soles 1992b, MM IA–IB; Cultraro 2000a, 316, MM IA–IIA; all three construction phases are MM I, constructed after the west camerette; Carinci 2003, 99, MM IA–IB; Caloi 2009, 396, 414, MM IB.

Contents Ceramic vases (99). Materials: clay (99).

Documented first use: MM II. Citations: Carinci 2003, MM II; Palio 2003, MM II.

Contents Stone vases (14). Materials: stone (14).

Use Probable ceremonial use associated with the cemetery.

36. Hagios Georgios Other names: no. 7 (Branigan 1970b); Agios Georgios (Pelon 1976, 461); no. 22 (Vasilakis 1990); no. 25 (Branigan 1993); Ajios Jeorjios (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 15 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: unclear. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1967a, 483; Pelon 1976, 461; Vasilakis 1990, 50; Branigan 1993, 145.

Architecture Dia.: 3.5 m. Wall thickness: 1.35 m.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II. Citations: Vasilakis 1990, 50, first EM phases.

180

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I? Citations: Sakellarakis 1968, 53, end of Prepalatial; Alexiou 1967b, 210, EM II–MM I.

37. Hagios Kyrillos, Tholos

Contents

Other names: no. 8 (Branigan 1970b); no. 3 (Pelon 1976); no. 41 (Branigan 1993); Ajios Kyrillos (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 16, Ayios Andonis (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Miamou. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes), seals (1), figurines (1), beads (min. 150). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), ivory (1).

References Alexiou 1963b, 403; 1967b, 210; Pini 1968, 4; Sakellarakis 1968, 51–53; Pelon 1976, 11–12, no. 3; Miller 1984, 556; Branigan 1993, 146, no. 41; Koehl 2006, 71– 72; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6.

Architecture Dia.: 5.85 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.6 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? EM III? Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Sakellarakis 1968, 53, end of Prepalatial; Alexiou 1967b, 210, EM II–MM I; Branigan 1993, 146, MM I; Koehl 2006, 71–72, EM III–MM IA; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6, EM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (many), beads (147). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Most of the material comes from the entrance and the annexes; EM settlement situated 1 km southeast of the tholos.

Burial One room contained primary burials and other secondary burials; the remaining two did not contain burials. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Most of the material comes from the entrance and the annexes; EM settlement situated 1 km southeast of the tholos.

39. Hagios Kyrillos, Paved Area outside Annex Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Miamou. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1963b, 403; 1967b, 210; Sakellarakis 1968, 51–53; Petit 1987.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: annex. Other features: paved area.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I? Citations: Sakellarakis 1968, 53, end of Prepalatial; Alexiou 1967b, 210, EM II–MM I.

Other EM settlement situated 1 km southeast of the tholos.

38. Hagios Kyrillos, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Miamou. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1963b, 403; 1967b, 210; Sakellarakis 1968, 51–53; Petit 1987.

Architecture Number of spaces: 4. Associated contexts: tholos.

40. Kalathiana, Tholos K Other names: no. 16 (Branigan 1970b); no. 8 (Pelon 1976); no. 34 (Belli 1984); no. 71 (Branigan 1993); Kalathiana K (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 21 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Makres. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Xanthoudides 1924, 81–87; Evans 1928, 79–80; Zois 1965, 65–66; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9440–9443; Platon, ed., 1969a, 141– 151 (CMS II, 1, nos. 123–132); Pelon 1976, 17–18; Belli 1984, 115; Branigan 1993, 147; Caloi 2009, 414.

Architecture Dia.: 9.45 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 2.4. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: construction of very regular walls; clay mortar between the stones; only half was preserved; possibly plastered on interior (contra Evans 1928, 80). Plan: Belli 1984, 141, fig. 12.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB(?), MM II(?). Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, EM II–III; Branigan 1993, EM I/II–MM II; Zois 1965, pl. B(2), MM IB pottery; Caloi 2009, 414, MM IB.

Contents Seals (10), tools (3), t. daggers (5), l. daggers (2), figurines (1), amulets (2), ornaments (14). Materials: stone (5), bone (2), ivory (7), obsidian (yes), copper (10), gold (8), crystal (2).

181

42. Kali Limenes A Other names: no. 17, Kaloi Limenes I (Branigan 1970b); SC 2 (Blackman and Branigan 1975); no. 9A, Kali Limenes I (Pelon 1976); thesi 2, Kaloi Limenes I (Vasilakis 1990); no. 27 (Branigan 1993); Kali Limenes A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 23 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: South coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1965, 552; 1967a, 483; 1971, 307; Davaras 1968, 405; Sakellarakis and Kenna, eds., 1969, 3, 5–7, 9–10, 17, 24–29, 33–34, 37–39, 43, 45–46, 49–55, 57–61, 65–67, 69–70, 72, 75–77, 79–80, 107–109, 112, 115, 117– 124, 126, 131, 133–134, 136–137, 142–143, 178, 243– 247, 359–360, 363, 366–369, 381–383, 387–388 (CMS IV, nos. 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 13, 19–24, 27, 28, 31–33, 35, 37, 38, 40–44, 46–49, 53–55, 57, 58, 60, 63–65, 67, 68, 92–94, 97, 100, 102–109, 111, 114, 116–117, 119, 120, 123, 146, 213–217, 3D, 4D, 7D, 9D–11D, 18D–20D, 23D, 24D?); Blackman and Branigan 1975, 17–20; Pelon 1976, 18– 19; 1994, 156–157; Vasilakis 1990, 18–21; Branigan 1993, 145; Pini 2000, 109; Phillips 2008b, 52.

Architecture

Other

Dia.: 4.8 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 2.2 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: probably. Other features: protruding stones from the exterior face of the tholos wall; corbelling. Plan: Blackman and Branigan 1975, 20, fig. 2.

A settlement of MM I–II date was also excavated north of the tholos but never published.

Dating

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

41. Kalathiana, Tholos B Other names: Kalathiana (Pelon 1976, 462); no. 72 (Branigan 1993); Kalathiana B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 22 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Makres. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Evans 1928, 79 n. 2; Pelon 1976, 462; Branigan 1993, 147.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Other Traces of a tholos were reported by Evans.

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II. Citations: Alexiou 1971, 307, EM I; Blackman and Branigan 1975, 19, EM I–II; Vasilakis 1990, 19, EM I–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (6), stone vases (6), seals (75?). Materials: clay (6), stone (6), bone (yes), ivory (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other 74 Pre- and Protopalatial seals and a scarab from the Metaxas Collection are reported to come from Kali Limenes, but it is not clear whether they belong to this tomb (Sakellarakis and Kenna, eds., 1969).

182

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

43. Kali Limenes B Other names: SC 3 (Blackman and Branigan 1975); thesi 3, Kaloi Limenes II (Vasilakis 1990); no. 28 (Branigan 1993); no. 9B, Kali Limenes II (Pelon 1994); Kali Limenes I (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 24 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: South coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1975, 20–21; Vasilakis 1990, 21–23; Branigan 1993, 145; Pelon 1994, 160; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 265.

Architecture Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Wall thickness: 0.85 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: only a small section of wall preserved. Plan: Blackman and Branigan 1975, 20, fig. 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1975, 21, EM I–II; Vasilakis 1990, 23, FN–EM III; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 265, FN?

Burial Small indications in the bones of charring. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This tholos is not part of the same cemetery as Kali Limenes A, which is located 250 m away; the related settlement is found northeast of the tholos, dated EM I to MM I (Vasilakis 1990, 23–26).

44. Kamilari A, Tholos Other names: Grigori Koryphi (Levi 1963; Girella 2011); no. 20 (Branigan 1970b); no. 10A (Pelon 1976); no. 27 (Belli 1984); no. 3 (Branigan 1993); Kamilari A (Panagiotopoulos 2002; Girella 2013a); no. 25 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Levi 1963; 1976, 703–741; Pini 1968, 5; Ward 1971, 98, 103; Pelon 1976, 19–22; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 8–17 (CMS II, 2, nos. 5–14); Walberg 1983, 93; Belli 1984, 112–113; Karagianni 1984, 94; Mallegni 1986; Levi and Carinci 1988, 330–334; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 207; La Rosa 1992; Branigan 1993, 50–55, 144; Fiandra 1995; Davaras and Soles 1997, 54; Blackman 1999, 114; Novaro 1999; Karetsou,

Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 109–119, no. 87a, b; Lefèvre-Novaro 2001; Girella 2004, 269–272; 2011; 2013a; 2013b; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 527; Phillips 2008b, 57.

Architecture Dia.: 7.65 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 2.2 m. Doorway type: built. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: stones dressed before construction; protruding stones from exterior of tholos wall; no corbelling, discussion about vault in Branigan 1993, 50–55. Plan: La Rosa 1992, 112, fig. 14.1.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III, LM I, LM II, LM III. Citations: Levi 1963, MM I–III and LM; Walberg 1983, 93–94, MM II–LM I; Branigan 1993, 144, MM I–III (reuse in LM), Barbotine Wares were found inside the tomb (MM IB); Girella 2011, MM IB–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 198), stone vases (min. 19), seals (14), tools (6), beads (8), amulets (3), ornaments (18). Materials: clay (min. 200), stone (min. 29), animal bone (1), ivory (1), copper (37), gold (10).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other Fire episode happened after the tomb was out of use; possible related settlement west of the tholos hill, uncertain chronology (Girella 2011).

45. Kamilari A, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Levi 1963; 1976, 703–741; Ward 1971, 98; Pelon 1976, 19–22; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 18–22 (CMS II, 2, nos. 15–19); Belli 1984, 112–113; Karagianni 1984, 94; Petit 1987; Levi and Carinci 1988, 330–334; La Rosa 1992; Branigan 1993, 50–55, 144; Fiandra 1995; Blackman 1999, 114; Novaro 1999; Lefèvre-Novaro 2001; Girella 2004, 270–271, fig. 14; 2011; 2013a; 2013b; Phillips 2008b, 58–59.

Architecture W.: 10 m. L.: 10 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Number of spaces: 8. Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: five rooms, one corridor, three raised thresholds, and a crevice in the rock in Room delta that had

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

an elliptical plan and is called “Little tholos” by Levi. Plan: La Rosa 1992, 112, fig 14.1.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB? Other periods documented: MM II, MM III, LM I, and LM III. Citations: Levi 1963, Rooms alpha, beta, MM I/II, Rooms gamma, delta, epsilon, MM III; Fiandra 1995, MM II–III seals; Novaro 1999, LM IB for the cult figurines; Girella 2011, MM IB–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (hundreds), stone vases (yes), seals (5), beads (41), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (hundreds), stone (yes), crystal (min. 2).

Burial Bones found in the annex, especially inside Rooms beta and delta; reproductions of cult scenes found in the annex. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

46. Kamilari A, Court outside Annex Type: annex. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Levi 1963; 1976, 703–741; Ward 1971, 98; Pelon 1976, 19–22; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 18–22 (CMS II, 2, nos. 15–19); Belli 1984, 112–113; Karagianni 1984, 94; Petit 1987; Levi and Carinci 1988, 330– 334; La Rosa 1992; Branigan 1993, 50–55, 144; Fiandra 1995; Blackman 1999, 114; Novaro 1999; La Rosa and Cucuzza 2001; Lefèvre-Novaro 2001; Girella 2004; 2011; 2013a; 2013b; Phillips 2008b, 58–59.

183

Use Many ceramic and stone vases found upside down on and around the altar in the “area of offerings.” Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

47. Kamilari B Other names: Mylona Lakko (Levi 1963; Girella 2011); no. 21, Mylona Lakko (Branigan 1970b); no. 10B (Pelon 1976); no. 27 (Belli 1984); no. 4 (Branigan 1993); Kamilari II (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 26 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Levi 1963; 1976, 741–743; Pini 1968, 5; Pelon 1976, 19–22; Walberg 1983, 95; Belli 1984, 112–113; Levi and Carinci 1988, 330; Branigan 1993, 144; Girella 2004, 272, fig. 16; 2011; 2013a.

Architecture Dia.: 5 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: paved interior.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III, LM I. Citations: Levi 1963, MM III; Walberg 1983, 95, MM II–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (17), stone vases (2), tools (2), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (17), stone (2), copper (4).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Architecture W.: 9 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: annex. Other features: walled court, with altar in the middle. Plan: La Rosa 1992, 112, fig 14.1.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III, LM I, and LM III. Citations: Levi 1963, 80, “area of the offerings,” MM I/II; Walberg 1983, 97, “area of the offerings,” MM I–LM I; Girella 2011, MM IB–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (hundreds), stone vases (yes). Materials: clay (hundreds), stone (yes).

48. Kamilari C, Tholos Other names: no. 22 (Branigan 1970b); no. 27 (Belli 1984); no. 5 (Branigan 1993); no. 10C (Pelon 1994); Kamilari III (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 27 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Branigan 1976; Pelon 1976, 462; 1994; Belli 1984, 112–113; Branigan 1993, 144; Cucuzza 1997; Girella 2004; 2011; 2013a; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 527–528.

184

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture

Dating

Dia.: 3.7 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Plan: Branigan 1993, 79, fig. 4.17.

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM I? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1973, EM I/IIA–MM I; Branigan 1993, EM I/IIA–MM I.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III, LM I. Citations: Branigan 1976, MM I–II; 1993, MM I–?; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 527–528, MM IB–III.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

49. Kamilari C, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Branigan 1976; 1993, 144; Pelon 1976, 462; Belli 1984, 112–113; Cucuzza 1997; Girella 2013a.

Architecture W.: 3.5 m. L.: 3.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: possible altar (Cucuzza 1997, 172), only partially preserved. Plan: Branigan 1993, 79, fig. 4.17.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Branigan 1976, MM I–II; 1993, MM I–?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Contents Beads (yes), stone quern (1). Materials: stone (yes).

Burial A quern may have been used for the processing of bones. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

51. Kephali Hagios Ioannes, Building 1 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b, 22–24.

Architecture W.: 3–6 m. L.: 12 m. Number of spaces: min. 4. Associated contexts: Building 2. Other features: narrow parallel rooms. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b, 24, EM IIA–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial

50. Kaminospelio Other names: Pigaidakia (Pelon 1976); no. 30 (Pelon 1994); no. 12 (Branigan 1993); Kaminospilio (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 28 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

No human remains reported; pithos fragments found inside the building. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Vasilakis and Branigan suggest a possible funerary use for this building given its particular layout and narrow spaces.

References Blackman and Branigan 1973; Branigan 1993, 144; Pelon 1994, 162–163.

Architecture Dia.: 8.25 m. Entrance orientation: south or east. Wall thickness: 1.4 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: no. Other features: a straight wall divides the interior of the tomb into two spaces. Plan: Blackman and Branigan 1973, 201, fig. 3.

52. Kephali Hagios Ioannes, Building 2 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b, 22–24.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

185

Architecture

Architecture

L.: 5 m. Number of spaces: min. 1. Associated contexts: Building 1. Other features: left unfinished? Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, fig. 13.

Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 4. Associated contexts: Tholos A, Tomb 3. Other features: two narrow rooms with a forecourt and altar; trilithon door.

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: unknown. Other periods documented: MM. Citations: Branigan and Vasilakis 2010b, 24, MM?

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III. Citations: Saltos 2000, 194, EM I/II–EM III.

Contents

Contents

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial No human remains reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Vasilakis and Branigan suggest a possible funerary use for Building 1, and given its proximity, it is possible that this building may have had a funerary use also.

53. Kephali Odigitrias, Tholos B Other names: thesi 23, Stou Skaniari to Lakko (Vasilakis 1990); no. 24 (Branigan 1993); Kephali B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 74, Stou Skaniari to Lakko/ Kephali Odigitrias B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: southwest coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

55. Kephali Odigitrias, Tomb 3 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: southwest coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis 1990, 50–56; 1996a; Saltos 2000.

Architecture Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 5. Associated contexts: Tholos A, Tomb 2. Other features: corridor, two rooms, an ossuary, and a forecourt; trilithon entrance.

Dating

Pini 1968, 5; Vasilakis 1990, 50–56, north tholos; Branigan 1993, 145; Saltos 2000, Building 5.

Documented first use: EM II/III. Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III. Citations: Saltos 2000, 195, EM I/II–III.

Architecture

Contents

Dia.: 5.6 m. Annex: unknown. Vestibule: unknown. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Saltos 2000, EM III–MM IB.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Two rooms were described as burial rooms and the third one as an ossuary; cups deposited upside down in the forecourt. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

54. Kephali Odigitrias, Tomb 2 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: southwest coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis 1990, 50–56; 1996a; Saltos 2000.

56. Kephali Odigitrias, Tomb 4 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: southwest coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis 1990, 50–56; 1996a; Saltos 2000.

186

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 6. Associated contexts: Tholos B. Other features: L-shaped building can be divided into two parts: 4 burial rooms and then another burial room together with a nonburial room.

Dating

58. Kokiniano Other names: no. 64 (Branigan 1970b); Kokkiniano (Pelon 1976, 462); no. 60 (Branigan 1993); Kokkiniano (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 32 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasilika Anogia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Saltos 2000, 195, EM III–MM IB.

Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 87; Pelon 1976, 462; Branigan 1993, 147.

Burial

Dating

Five of the six rooms were described as burial rooms. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

57. Kephali Odigitrias, Tholos A Other names: no. 23, Kephali Odigitrias (Branigan 1970b); no. 11, Kephali Odigitrias (Pelon 1976); no. 7, Kephali Odigitrias (Belli 1984); thesi 23, Stou Skaniari to Lakko (Vasilakis 1990); no. 23 (Branigan 1993); Kephali A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 73, Stou Skaniari to Lakko/Kephali Odigitrias A (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: southwest coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1963a, 398; 1963c, 312; 1967a, 483; 1971, 307; Pini 1968, 5; Pelon 1976, 22; Belli 1984, 101; Vasilakis 1990, 50–56, south tholos; 1996a; Branigan 1993, 145; Saltos 2000, Building 1.

Architecture Dia.: 3.7 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.5 m. Annex: possible. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM I? Citations: Alexiou 1963c, 312, EM II–?; 1971a, EM I–?; Vasilakis 1990, EM I–MM IA; Branigan 1993, 145, EM I–MM IA; Saltos 2000, FN/EM I–EM II.

Contents Tools (1), beads (yes), amulets (yes). Materials: stone (yes), copper (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This tholos was just mentioned by Pendlebury, MoneyCoutts, and Eccles (1934).

59. Korakies, Tholos Other names: no. 25, Korakies N (Branigan 1970b); Korakies (Pelon 1976); nos. 42 and 43 (Branigan 1993); Korakies A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 33 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Miamou. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1963b, 403; Faure 1969, 181 (Korakies A); Pelon 1976, 462 (Korakies A); Branigan 1993, 146; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 187, 207.

Architecture Dia.: 5.2 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 2.4 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Goodison and Guarita 2005, 187, MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Settlement probably located underneath the modern village of Miamou, 200 m north of the tomb; Goodison and Guarita (2005) reported that Korakies B tholos tomb is probably the same as Korakies A (see App. 2).

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

60. Korakies, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Miamou. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Goodison and Guarita 2005, 187.

Architecture Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 4. Associated contexts: tholos.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Goodison and Guarita 2005, 187.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Settlement probably located underneath the modern village of Miamou, 200 m north of the tombs.

61. Koumasa, Tholos A Other names: no. 27 (Branigan 1970b); no. 13A (Pelon 1976); no. 47 (Branigan 1993); Koumasa A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 34 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 32–50; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9420–9428; Zois 1968a, 78; Platon, ed., 1969, 158, 160–161, 164–177, 183 (CMS II, 1, nos. 138, 140, 141, 144–155, 161); Pelon 1976, 24; Warren 1977, 138; Walberg 1983, 102; Belli 1984, 107; Karagianni 1984, 70; Miller 1984, 557; Branigan 1993; Wilson and Day 1994, 14; Pieler 2004, 114; Koehl 2006, 75; Phillips 2008b, 180.

Architecture Dia.: 4.1 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.3 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: yes. Other features: sunken vestibule; western part of wall not preserved. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 35, EM I–?; Zois 1968a, 78, early EM II–?; Walberg 1983, 102, ?–MM I; Branigan 1993, 146, EM I(?)–MM I; Wilson and Day 1994, 14, EM IIA–?; Koehl 2006, 75, EM II–III.

187

Contents Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (2), seals (16), t. daggers (2), figurines (1), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (4), stone (13), ivory (5), copper (2), gold (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other A settlement was found north of the cemetery on the Korakies hill, and a shrine was found at the top of the hill (Xanthoudides 1924, 49–50; Rutkowski 1989; Georgoulaki 1990).

62. Koumasa, Tholos B Other names: no. 28 (Branigan 1970b); no. 13B (Pelon 1976); no. 48 (Branigan 1993); Koumasa B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 35 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 4–32; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9420–9428; Zois 1968a, 73–81; Platon, ed., 1969, 153–157, 159, 162, 180– 181, 184–192 (CMS II, 1, nos. 133–137, 139, 142, 158, 159, 162–169); Renfrew 1969, 19; Pelon 1976, 24–25; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 31–32 (CMS II, 2, no. 26); Walberg 1983, 101–102; Belli 1984, 107; Karagianni 1984, 55, 61, 64, 71; Miller 1984, 558; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 232–233; Branigan 1993, 146; Wilson and Day 1994, 14; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 107, no. 85a; Pieler 2004, 114; Koehl 2006, 71, 78.

Architecture Dia.: 9.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: yes. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelling; stones protruding from the outside face of the north part of the tholos wall; possible vestibule with a paved area outside entrance, some bones and vases came from this area. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 9–15, EM I/II–III; Zois 1968a, 78, early EM II–?; Walberg 1983, 101–102, ?–EM III/MM IA, vases outside tholos entrance are MM I; Branigan 1993, 146, EM I–MM I; Wilson and Day 1994, 14, EM IIA– ?; Koehl 2006, 71, EM III–MM IA, 78, EM II–MM I?

188

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents

64. Koumasa, Tholos E

Ceramic vases (42), stone vases (80), seals (19), tools (11), t. daggers (2), l. daggers (10), figurines (8), beads (min. 47), amulets (7), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (42), stone (116), ivory (16), copper (23), gold (9), faience?

Other names: no. 29 (Branigan 1970b); no. 13C (Pelon 1976); no. 49 (Branigan 1993); Koumasa E (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 36 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Burial

References

Hundreds of burials reported, all secondary; skulls heaped together; evidence in the tomb for numerous fires; large number of bones found outside the tholos together with some vessels. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other A settlement was found north of the cemetery on the Korakies hill, and a shrine was found at the top of the hill (Xanthoudides 1924, 49–50; Rutkowski 1989; Georgoulaki 1990).

63. Koumasa, Area Delta Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Xanthoudides 1924, 32–50; Warren 1965, 14; Platon, ed., 1969, 178–179 (CMS II, 1, nos. 156, 157); Pelon 1976, 25; Walberg 1983, 102; Belli 1984, 108; Karagianni 1984, 63, 70, 77; Branigan 1993, 146; Caloi 2009, 414, 431.

Architecture Dia.: 9.3 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 2 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: yes. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; sunk vestibule and a paved area in front of the vestibule. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating

Xanthoudides 1924, 32–50; Zois 1968a, 74–75, 77; Warren 1977, 138; Walberg 1983, 101; Karagianni 1984, 91; Miller 1984, 557; Betancourt 1985, 32; Wilson and Day 1994, 39–40; Koehl 2006, 71; Caloi 2009, 414.

Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Warren 1965, 14, EM II; only EM II vase found in soil on top of the tomb (Xanthoudides 1924, 39; contra Walberg 1983, 102); vases outside Tholos A are EM III–MM II (Xanthoudides 1924, 42–44; Walberg 1983, 102); Branigan 1993, 146, EM I–MM II?; Caloi 2009, 414, MM IB, 431, MM II.

Architecture

Contents

References

Associated contexts: Tholoi A, E, Tomb Gamma. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA. Citations: Zois 1968a, 74– 75, EM IIA–?; Walberg 1983, 101, ?–EM III/MM IA, one vessel may date to MM IB/II; Betancourt 1985, 32, Lebena Ware, EM I/IIA; Wilson and Day 1994, 39–40, EM IIA; Koehl 2006, 71, EM II–III; Caloi 2009, 414, MM IB.

Contents Ceramic vases (31), stone vases (1), tools (4). Materials: clay (31), stone (5).

Burial Human bones reported in this area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other A settlement was found north of the cemetery on the Korakies hill, and a shrine was found at the top of the hill (Xanthoudides 1924, 49–50; Rutkowski 1989; Georgoulaki 1990).

Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (2), seals (2), t. daggers (1), stone palettes (2). Materials: clay (8), stone (6), copper (1).

Burial Most of the bones found in northwest part of the tomb under a layer of white clay. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other A settlement was found north of the cemetery on the Korakies hill, and a shrine was found at the top of the hill (Xanthoudides 1924, 49–50; Rutkowski 1989; Georgoulaki 1990).

65. Koumasa, Area AB Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 32–50; Zois 1968a, 74, 77–78; Renfrew 1969, 19; Stucynski 1982; Walberg 1983, 102;

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Miller 1984, 557; Wilson and Day 1994, 14, 39; Pieler 2004, 110, 114; Koehl 2006, 76; Betancourt 2009, 52.

189

Architecture

Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholoi A, B, and E. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholoi A, B, and E. Other features: paved area in front of Tholoi B and E; a wall is sketched in the plan of the cemetery in this area and it may represent a peribolos wall. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating

Dating

Architecture

Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM I, MM II? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, EM I–II; Zois 1968a, 77–78, EM IIA; Walberg 1983, 102, ?–MM IB/II; Wilson and Day 1994, 14, 39, EM IIA; Koehl 2006, 76, EM II–III; Betancourt 2009, 52, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (11), figurines (2). Materials: clay (11), stone (2).

Burial Human bones found in this area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Koumasa figurine HM 122 most probably imported from the Cyclades.

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Human bones found in this area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

68. Koumasa, Tomb Gamma Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 32–40; Zois 1967–1968, 719–721; 1968a, 77–78; Karagianni 1984, 85; Betancourt 1985, pl. 3:K; Soles 1992b, 155–158; Wilson and Day 1994, 14; Vasilakis 1996b, 84–86; Pieler 2004, 114.

Architecture

66. Koumasa, Area BE Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 32–50.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholoi B and E. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 3). Materials: clay (min. 3).

67. Koumasa, Area Z Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Koumasa. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 32–50.

Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholoi A, Area Delta. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXI.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Zois 1967– 1968, 719–721, EM IIA; Betancourt 1985, pl. 3:K, EM IIA; Soles 1992b, 157–158, EM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (2), tools (2), l. dagger (3), figurines (1). Materials: clay (4), stone (3), copper (3), silver/lead (3).

Burial Large number of bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

69. Kouses, Tholos Other names: no. 80, Pombia (Branigan 1970b); no. 77 (Branigan 1993); Sopata Kouse (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 68, Sopata Kouse (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kouses. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

190

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Hadzi-Vallianou 1979, 384; 1989, 432; Pini 1990, 119; Branigan 1993, 147; Sbonias 1995, 114.

Architecture Dia.: 7.4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: max. 3 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Other features: double wall in the north part of the tholos. Plan: Hadzi-Vallianou 1989, 434, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: EM I(?), EM II(?), EM III(?), MM I. Citations: Hadzi-Vallianou 1979, 384, EM–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes), seals (yes), beads (yes), amulets (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), obsidian (yes), copper (yes), gold (yes), crystal (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

70. Kouses, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kouses. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Hadzi-Vallianou 1979, 384; 1989, 432.

Architecture W.: 7 m. L.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 7. Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: six rooms constructed in at least two phases; east of the annexes a ramp was reported. Plan: Hadzi-Vallianou 1989, 434, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: EM I(?), EM II(?), EM III(?), MM I? Citations: tholos, Hadzi-Vallianou 1979, 384, EM–MM I; 1989, 432, MM material reported southeast of the tholos.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vassiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1918b, 15; 1924, 74–75; Pelon 1976, 25–26; Belli 1984, 113; Branigan 1993, 146; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 194; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59.

Architecture Dia.: 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: East. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.5 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 74–75, EM I– II; Branigan 1993, 146, EM I–?; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 194, EM IB; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59, EM I–?

Burial A sterile layer was found underneath the stratum with bones. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Xanthoudides suggested an associated settlement east of the Salame tomb, but this is of later date; Pelon suggested that the settlement was situated north of the modern village of Vasiliki, at Girokephala (Pelon 1976, 26; see also Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 87).

72. Krotos Other names: no. 44 (Branigan 1993); Krotos (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 40 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Krotos. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted, very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis 1983; Touchais 1984, 833; Branigan 1993, 146.

Architecture Dia.: 4 m. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: east side of the tholos wall is formed by a rock outcrop.

Dating

71. Koutsokera Other names: no. 30 (Branigan 1970b); no. 14 (Pelon 1976); no. 28 (Belli 1984); no. 53 (Branigan 1993); Koutsokera (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 37 (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III. Citations: Vasilakis 1983, 355, EM II–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (10), stone vases (1), seals (3), tools (1), beads (min. 1,500), marble palette (1), stone pommel

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

(1). Materials: clay (10), stone (3), ivory (15), copper (1), crystal (yes), faience (yes).

Burial Around 100 burials in two layers. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Settlement situated 100–150 m southwest of this tomb.

191

Architecture Dia.: 5.2 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: Belli measured tomb diameter as 4.6 m (Belli 1984, 100).

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1975, 34 EM I/II–?; Wilson and Day 1994, 39, 49, EM IIA.

Burial

73. Lasaia A Other names: SC11A (Blackman and Branigan 1975); no. 6, Kali Limenes (Lasea) I (Belli 1984); no. 31, Lasaia A (Branigan 1993); no. 31A, Lasea A (Pelon 1994); Chrysostomos A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 71, South Coast 11 A (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1975, 32–33; Belli 1984, 100–101; Branigan 1993, 145; Pelon 1994, 163–164.

Architecture Dia.: 5.2 m. Entrance orientation: south or east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; south part not preserved; Belli measured the tomb diameter as 4.9 m (Belli 1984, 100).

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

75. Annex to Lasaia B Type: annex. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1975, 32–34.

Architecture Other features: traces of walls were found outside the entrance of the tomb.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III(?), MM I? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1975, 33, EM I–MM.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

74. Lasaia B Other names: SC11B (Blackman and Branigan 1975); no. 6, Kali Limenes (Lasea) II (Belli 1984); no. 32, Lasaia B (Branigan 1993); no. 31B, Lasea B (Pelon 1994); Chrysostomos B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 72, South Coast 11 B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1975, 32–34; Belli 1984, 100–101; Branigan 1993, 145; Pelon 1994, 163–164; Wilson and Day 1994, 39, 49 (Chrisostomos).

76. Lebena Papoura, Tholos P1 Other names: no. 31, Lebena I (Papoura) (Branigan 1970b); no. 16A, Lebena IA (Pelon 1976); no. 8, Lebena Papoura IA (Belli 1984); no. 35, Lebena P1 (Branigan 1993); Lebena/Papoura A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 41 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1958, 470–471; Alexiou 1958; 1960; 1992; Platon, ed., 1969, 194–213 (CMS II, 1, nos. 170–189); Pini 1968, 5; Zois 1968a, 59–61; Ward 1971, 75; Pelon 1976, 27–28; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 49; Belli 1984, 102; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 233–234; Branigan 1993, 145; Alexiou and Warren 2004; Ben-Tor 2006; Phillips 2008b, 181.

Architecture Dia.: 5.1 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.9 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule:

192

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; constructed with roughly worked stones. The interior of the wall was lined with upright slabs; there is an enclosed space in the northwest part of the interior of the tholos. Plan: Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB, EM III, MM IA. Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, EM IIA–IIB; little evidence of EM III–MM IA, mainly localized in the entrance and annexes.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 76), stone vases (4), seals (24), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (1), tools (85), beads (min. 910), amulets (4), ornaments (2), scarab (1). Materials: clay (82), stone (15), bone (11), ivory (7), obsidian (78), copper (6), gold (2), faience (yes).

Burial 8 individuals located in north part of tomb in extended position; 9 skulls come from the entrance and another 22 from inside the tholos; estimated maximum number of interments 50; signs of small fires inside tomb; some vessels found upside down. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Alexiou suggested that the settlement was located in Kephali, west of the modern village of Lendas (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 14).

77. Lebena Papoura, Tholos P1b Other names: no. 32, Lebena Ib (Papoura) (Branigan 1970b); no. 16B, Lebena IB (Pelon 1976); no. 8, Lebena Papoura IB (Belli 1984); no. 36, Lebena P1b (Branigan 1993); Lebena/Papoura B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 42 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1958, 470–471; Alexiou 1958; 1960; 1992; Platon, ed., 1969, 244–245 (CMS II, 1, nos. 218, 219); Pini 1968, 5; Zois 1968a, 65; Renfrew 1969, 19; Pelon 1976, 29; Belli 1984, 102; Branigan 1993, 145; Alexiou and Warren 2004; Pieler 2004, 114.

Architecture Dia.: 4.4 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Doorway type: trilithon? Wall thickness: 1.3 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; south part of the tholos wall is lost. Plan: Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB, EM III, MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, EM IIA–MM I; two layers were identified, an EM II one sealed by a layer of fallen rocks and a MM I above.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 59), stone vases (3), seals (2), tools (18), figurines (2), beads (65), amulets (3). Materials: clay (61), stone (23), obsidian (11), copper (3).

Burial A founder deposit has been suggested consisting of a marble figurine, an incised stone vessel and a Fine Gray ware pyxis (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 192). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Alexiou suggested that the settlement was located in Kephali, west of the modern village of Lendas (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 14).

78. Lebena Papoura, Annex to Tholoi P1 and P1b Type: annex. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Disturbed: no. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1958, 470–471; Alexiou 1958; 1960; 1992, 164–166; Zois 1968a, 59–61; Petit 1987; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 13, 42–44.

Architecture Number of spaces: unknown. Other features: very badly preserved when excavated, a plan of the annexes does not exist.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, the few ceramic vases coming from this area are all MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (5), stone vases (1), tools (1). Materials: clay (5), stone (1), obsidian (1).

Burial No bones were found in the annexes. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

193

Other

80. Lebena Yerokambos, Tholos Y2a

Alexiou suggested that the settlement was located in Kephali, west of the modern village of Lendas (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 14).

Other names: no. 34, Lebena IIa (Yerokambos) (Branigan 1970b); no. 16Ca, Lebena IIa (Pelon 1976); no. 9, Lebena Yerokabos IIa (Belli 1984); no. 34, Lebena Y2a (Branigan 1993); Lebena/Yerokambos (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 43 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

79. Lebena Yerokambos, Tholos Y2 Other names: no. 33, Lebena II (Yerokambos) (Bran­ igan 1970b); no. 16C, Lebena II (Pelon 1976); no. 9, Lebena Yerokabos II (Belli 1984); no. 33, Lebena Y2 (Branigan 1993); Lebena/Yerokambos (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 44 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1958; 1960; 1992; Platon 1958, 470–471; Platon, ed., 1969, 214–228 (CMS II, 1, nos. 190– 203); Pini 1968, 5; Zois 1968a, 61–65; Pelon 1976, 29; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 49; Belli 1984, 102; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 234; Branigan 1993, 145; Alexiou and Warren 2004; Pieler 2004, 114; Ben-Tor 2006; Panagiotaki 2008, 36–37; Phillips 2008b, 182; Warren 2008; Betancourt 2009.

Architecture Dia.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.7 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; fallen stones in circular arrangement may indicate a vault; a small enclosure was created at the bottom of the tholos. Plan: Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 12.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB, EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, earliest EM I–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 524), stone vases (11), seals (18), tools (135), l. daggers (4), figurines (5), beads (min. 1,133), amulets (1), ornaments (3), scarab (1), pommel (1). Materials: clay (min. 524), stone (52), bone (4), ivory (2), obsidian (125), copper (10), gold (22), silver (1), crystal (min. 2), Egyptian blue frit (yes).

Burial The enclosure inside the tholos may have contained a founder deposit (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 192); animal teeth and bones, and olive stones recovered from inside the tholos. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Alexiou 1958, 1–9; 1960; 1992; Platon 1958, 470– 471; Platon, ed., 1969, 229–242 (CMS II, I, nos. 204– 216); Pini 1968, 5; Zois 1968a, 61–65; Pelon 1976, 29; Belli 1984, 102; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 234; Branigan 1993, 145; Alexiou and Warren 2004; Ben-Tor 2006; Phillips 2008b, 183.

Architecture Dia.: 3.3 m. Entrance orientation: north. Wall thickness: 0.9 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: probable. Other features: attached to Y2, constructed after Y2. Plan: Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 12.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB, EM III, MM IA. Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, EM IIA–MM IA; two strata can be identified, the lower one under a sand layer is a closed EM IIA–IIB deposit and the upper one an EM III–MM IA deposit.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 70), stone vases (3), seals (11), tools (44), t. daggers (1), beads (200), amulets (3), scarab (1). Materials: clay (min. 74), stone (16), bone (min. 5), ivory (min. 1), obsidian (47), copper (1), faience (yes).

Burial Fumigation episode: fire inside the tholos plus a layer of sand; burials were deposited on top of the sand layer. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

81. Lebena Yerokambos, Annex to Tholoi Y2 and Y2a Type: annex. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1958, 470–471; Alexiou 1958; 1960; 1992, 164–166; Platon, ed., 1969, 243 (CMS II, I, no. 217); Petit 1987; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 15, 158–179.

194

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture

Contents

W.: 5 m. L.: 6 m. Number of spaces: 6. Associated contexts: tholoi Y2 and Y2a. Other features: constructed in two phases: first, Room AN, Delta and Room east of Delta; second, Room A, M, and east of M. Room AN had a bench. Plan: Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 12.

Ceramic vases (42), stone vases (3), seals (5), tools (11), figurines (1), beads (10), amulets (1), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (42), stone (8), bone (1), obsidian (9), copper (1), gold (1), silver (1).

Dating

Pithos fragments found; MM I burials found in the entrance; a founder deposit has been suggested consisting of a marble figurine, EM IIA vases, a skull, and various long bones (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 192). Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: EM IIB? Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, Rooms AN, Delta and Room east of Delta A constructed in EM IIB or earlier EM III. Rooms A, M, and Room east of M probably constructed in MM IA; only one sherd in Room M dated to MM IB (Alexiou and Warren 2004, 159–160, no. 13), but its Barbotine decoration may be MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 300), stone vases (4), seals (1), tools (6), beads (22). Materials: clay (min. 300), stone (9), bone (1), ivory (1).

Burial Room A contained human bones, animal bones, and teeth, and charcoal; Rooms A and D contained human bones; Room AN contained many vessels but no human bones, nor did Room M. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Burial

83. Marathokephalon, Tholos A Other names: no. 36 (Branigan 1970b); no. 17, Marathoképhalo I (Pelon 1976); no. 35 (Belli 1984); no. 69 (Branigan 1993); Marathokephalo A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 47 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Moroni. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1918b, 16; Pelon 1976, 30; Belli 1984, 116; Branigan 1993, 147.

Architecture

82. Lebena Zervou, Tholos Other names: no. 35, Lebena III (Zervou) (Branigan 1970b); no. 16D, Lebena III (Pelon 1976); no. 10, Lebena Zervou (Belli 1984); no. 37, Lebena Z3 (Branigan 1993); Lebena/Zervou (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 45 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Dia.: 5–6 m. Wall thickness: 1.5 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: only a section of the wall survived.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Xanthou­ dides 1918b, 16, EM; Branigan 1993, 147, EM I–MM I.

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

References Alexiou 1958; 1960; Platon 1958, 470–471; Platon, ed., 1969, 246–247 (CMS II, I, nos. 220, 221); Pini 1968, 5; Zois 1968a, 65; Pelon 1976, 29; Belli 1984, 103; Branigan 1993, 145; Alexiou and Warren 2004.

Architecture Dia.: 5.3 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.7 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: double wall, corbelled. Plan: Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 48.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB, EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II? Citations: Alexiou and Warren 2004, EM IIA–MM IB/II.

84. Marathokephalon, Tholos B Other names: no. 37 (Branigan 1970b); no. 17, Marathoképhalo II (Pelon 1976); no. 35 (Belli 1984); no. 70 (Branigan 1993); Marathokephalo B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 48 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Moroni. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1918b, 16–23; Warren 1965, 14; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9431–9439; Zois 1968a, 94; Platon, ed., 1969, 249–271 (CMS II, 1, nos. 222–240); Branigan 1970b, 27; 1993, 147; Pelon 1976, 30; Stucynski 1982; Walberg 1983, 97;

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

195

Belli 1984, 116; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 237; Wilson and Day 1994, 16; Phillips 2008b, 195–196; Betancourt 2009.

LM material; Vasilakis 1990, 42–44, EM I–MM II; Wilson and Day 1994, 16, EM I–MM I; Betancourt 2009, 52, 55, 59, EM I–?

Architecture

Burial

Dia.: 5.6 m. Entrance orientation: south. Wall thickness: 2 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; protruding stones on the exterior face of the north part of the tholos wall.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB(?), EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Xanthoudides 1918b, EM I–III; Zois 1968a, 94, EM IIA–? (one vase was dated to EM I/IIA); Walberg 1983, ?–MM I; Branigan 1993, 147, EM I–MM I; Wilson and Day 1994, 16, EM IIA–MM I; Betancourt 2009, 55, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (27), stone vases (16), seals (19), tools (3), t. daggers (6), l. daggers (3), beads (min. 100), amulets (3), spearhead (1). Materials: clay (27), stone (18), ivory (19), copper (13), crystal (yes).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Traces of fire. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Settlement probably located 60–100 m northwest of the tombs.

86. Megali Skini A, Annex to Tholos A Type: annex. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1966, 321; 1967a, 482; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 38–40; Petit 1987; Vasilakis 1990, 39– 45; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 267.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: rooms reported east of the tholos.

Dating

85. Megali Skini A, Tholos A Other names: no. 38, Megali Skinoi IIIa (Branigan 1970b); no. 18A, Megali Skini IIIa (Pelon 1976); E10a (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 12, Megali Skinoi IIIa (Belli 1984); thesi 14, Megaloi Skinoi II (Vasilakis 1990); no. 17 (Branigan 1993); Megali Skini A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 49 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1966, 321; 1967a, 482; Pelon 1976, 30–31; 1994, 158–159; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 38–40; Belli 1984, 104; Vasilakis 1990, 39–45; Branigan 1993, 144; Wilson and Day 1994, 16, 40; Betancourt 2009, 52, 55, 59; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 267.

Architecture

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

87. Megali Skini A, Tholos B Other names: no. 39, Megali Skinoi IIIb (Branigan 1970b); no. 18B, Megali Skini IIIb (Pelon 1976); E10b (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 12, Megali Skinoi IIIb (Belli 1984); no. 14, Megaloi Skinoi II (Vasilakis 1990); no. 18 (Branigan 1993); Megali Skini B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 50 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References

Dia.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 2 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled; walls preserved to a 3.4 m height.

Alexiou 1966, 321; 1967a, 482; Pelon 1976, 30–31; 1994, 158–159; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 38–40; Belli 1984, 104; Vasilakis 1990, 39–45; Branigan 1993, 144; Wilson and Day 1994, 16, 40; Betancourt 2009; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 267.

Dating

Architecture

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB, LM. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 40, EM I–MM I,

Dia.: 6.4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 2.1 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelled.

196

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

Architecture

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB, MM II, LM. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 40, EM I–MM I, LM material; Vasilakis 1990, 42–44, EM I– MM II; Wilson and Day 1994, 16, EM I–MM I.

Dia.: 4.1 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.3 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: corbelled(?); hard earth floor.

Burial Traces of fire inside tholos. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Settlement probably located 60–100 m northwest of the tombs.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 37, EM I–MM I; Vasilakis 1990, 38–39, FN–MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

88. Megali Skini A, Annex to Tholos B Type: annex. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Condition: looted. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

It may be related to the same settlement as Megali Skinoi A (Vasilakis 1990, 39).

90. Merthies

Alexiou 1966, 321; 1967a, 482; Blackman and Bran­ igan 1977, 38–40; Petit 1987; Vasilakis 1990, 39–45; Bet­ancourt 2009, 52, 59, EM I–?; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 267.

Other names: no. 69 (Branigan 1970b); no. 21 (Belli 1984); no. 13, Megaloi Skinoi I (Vasilakis 1990); no. 50 (Branigan 1993); Myrties (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Merthies (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Kandila. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Architecture

References

References

Associated contexts: Tholos B. Other features: rooms reported east of the tholos.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 87; Black­­man and Branigan 1973, 202–204; Belli 1984, 108; Branigan 1993, 146; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 202–203.

Architecture Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: interior of the tholos divided in two by a straight partition wall.

Dating

89. Megali Skini B Other names: no. 40, Megali Skinoi IIIc (Branigan 1970b); E9 (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 11, Megali Skinoi II (Belli 1984); no. 13, Megaloi Skinoi I (Vasilakis 1990); no. 19 (Branigan 1993); no. 18C (Pelon 1994); Megali Skini C (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 51 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1966, 322; 1967a, 483; Pelon 1976, 462; 1994, 160; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 37–38; Belli 1984, 103; Vasilakis 1990, 38–39; Branigan 1993, 144.

Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 87, EM sherds and a whole jug.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Reported (Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934) as an EM tholos tomb that could not be confirmed by Belli’s investigation; Goodison and Guarita found little evidence for suggesting a tholos tomb at this location.

91. Miamou Type: cave. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Miamou. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

197

References

Contents

Taramelli 1897, 1899; Alexiou 1951, 290–291; Faure 1964, 52–53, 68; Pini 1968, 4; Zois 1968a, 49–50; 1973, 181–187; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 134–135; Strasser 1992, 46–48.

Ceramic vases (min. 735), stone vases (3), tools (112), beads (332), amulets (4), ornaments (3). Materials: clay (min. 735), stone (min. 400), obsidian (89), copper (8), silver (1), crystal (1).

Architecture

Burial

W.: 5 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Taramelli 1897, 291, fig. 4.

Minimum number of interments is 133, of which 34 were subadults; many of the bones have evidence of weathering and they were heavily fragmented; also evidence of burning on a few of them. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA? Citations: Faure 1964, 49, 68, EM I; Zois 1968a, 49–50, EM I; 1973, 187, LN–EM IIA (domestic use), EM IIA–MM I (burial use); Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 135, EM II, cave used in FN as habitation.

Contents

Other Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Burial level over FN domestic context. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Settlement probably located underneath the modern village of Miamou, next to the cave.

92. Moni Odigitria, Tholos A Other names: no. 31, Tis Hatzinas to Liophyto (Vasilakis 1990); no. 14 (Branigan 1993); no. 32A (Pelon 1994); Odijitria A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 52 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1965b, 562; Touchais 1982, 625; Vasilakis 1990, 64–66; 1992a; Marangou, ed., 1992; Branigan 1993, 144; Pelon 1994, 165–166; Whitley 2004, 82; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1–1.5 m. Doorway type: trilithon. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: corbelled; protruding stones on the exterior face of the north part of the tholos wall. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 17.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB, EM III, MM IA. Citations: Vasilakis 1992a, 213, EM I–II; Branigan 1993, 144, EM II–MM I; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 128– 129, EM I–IIB, very little EM III and MM I.

93. Moni Odigitria, Tholos B Other names: no. 31, Tis Hatzinas to Liophyto (Vasilakis 1990); no. 13 (Branigan 1993); no. 32B (Pelon 1994); Odijitria B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 53 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1965b, 562; Touchais 1982, 625; Pini 1990, 118–119; 2000, 109–110; Vasilakis 1990, 64–66; 1992a; Marangou, ed., 1992; Pini, ed., 1992, 280–371 (CMS V, Suppl. 1A, nos. 266–344?); Branigan 1993, 144; Pelon 1994, 165–166; Sbonias 1995, 114, 172, nos. 150, 151; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 309–310, nos. 307, 308; Whitley 2004, 82; Phillips 2008b, 209; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture Dia.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 2–4 m. Doorway type: built. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Other features: slight corbelling, double wall. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 19.

Dating Documented first use: EM I/IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB, EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Vasilakis 1992a, 213, EM I–MM IA; Branigan 1993, 144, EM II–MM IB; Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 129–130, EM I/IIA–MM IB.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 478), stone vases (4), seals (16), tools (327), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (4), figurines (2), beads (324), amulets (11), ornaments (10). Materials:

198

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

clay (min. 480), stone (min. 400), bone (9), ivory (5), obsidian (191), copper (20), gold (4).

Burial Few human bones found, at a minimum around 15 individuals; pithos fragments reported, but no pithos burials found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

94. Moni Odigitria, Annex to Tholos B

95. Moni Odigitria, Ossuary Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis 1990, 64–66; 1992a, 213–215; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 3 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholos B, annex. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 20, 21, 22.

Dating

Type: annex. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Looted: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM IIA? Citations: Branigan and CampbellGreen 2010a, 131, 143, material ranges from EM I–MM IB, but the ossuary was constructed probably in MM IB to house material cleared from the annex and/or tholos.

References

Contents

Vasilakis 1990, 64–66, 1992a; Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture

Ceramic vases (min. 170), stone vases (11), seals (23), tools (190). Materials: clay (min. 170), stone (min. 71), bone (5), obsidian (127), white paste (16).

Burial

W.: 7 m. L.: 7 m. Number of spaces: min. 3, max. 6. Associated contexts: Tholos B. Other features: two different construction phases are found: first, Rooms a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, and c2; second, Rooms a, b and c. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 23–25.

Densely packed with fragmented human bones; minimum number of interments is around 50; two articulated bodies found but majority disarticulated; 47 skulls found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating

Other

Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB, EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM IIA? Citations: Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 131– 132, 141–143, first phase EM IIA–III; second phase EM III–MM IB/ IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 294), stone vases (15), seals (2), tools (115), amulet (1). Materials: clay (min. 294), stone (min. 62), bone (1), obsidian (54).

Burial

Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

96. Moni Odigitria, Room d Type: pit? Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Only a few human remains were found in Room a1. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References

Other

Architecture

Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

W.: 2.4 m. L.: 0.7 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholos B, annex, ossuary. Other features: elliptical plan; built of one row of vertically placed stones, making it look more like a “pit” or “cist” type of tomb, although Room d does not seem to have been excavated

Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

into the ground. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 20.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA. Citations: Branigan and CampbellGreen 2010b, 116, EM I–IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 4). Materials: clay (min. 4).

Burial One long human bone reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

97. Moni Odigitria, Room e Type: associated building. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture

199

Other Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

98. Moni Odigitria, Northern Courtyard Type: open area. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Looted: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 12 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: annex, Tholos B. Other features: two walls mark its northeast and northwest limits. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, fig. 14.

Dating Documented first use: EM I(?), MM I? Other periods documented: EM IB, EM IIA, EM IIB, EM III, MM I. Citations: Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 130– 131, 140, EM IB, EM IIA, EM IIB, EM III, and MM I material found in this context; northeast wall may be dated EM I, while the northwest may be EM III; three strata reported with no clear chronological distinctions.

W.: 1 m. L.: 1.2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: annex. Other features: square plan, abutted to annex; built of one row of vertically placed stones, making it look more like a “pit” or “cist” type of tomb, although Room d does not seem to have been excavated into the ground. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 20.

Relatively small assemblage led Branigan to suggest ritual activities such as dancing.

Dating

Other

Documented first use: EM II(?), MM I? Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB, MM IB. Citations: Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b, 120, EM I, EM IIA, EM IIB, and MM IB material found in this context; its position abutted to annex makes its construction date posterior to annex, and it could be EM IIB, EM III, or MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 10), tools (2). Materials: clay (min. 10), stone (1), obsidian (1).

Use No human remains reported.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 154). Materials: clay (min. 154).

Use

Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

99. Moni Odigitria, Southern Courtyard Type: open area. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

200

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 164), stone vases (2). Materials: clay (164), stone (2).

Use

W.: 8 m. L.: 10 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: a wall marks its north limit. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, fig. 14.

No human remains; low density of ceramics; area does not seem in use after EM IIB.

Dating

Other

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM I, EM IIA, EM IIB, EM III/MM IA. Citations: Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 138–139, EM I or EM IIA date for the north wall delimiting this area; material appears primarily EM IIA and EM IIB.

Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 653), stone vases (2). Materials: clay (653), stone (2).

Use No human remains; given the presence of EM IIB outsized vases Branigan suggests an area of large communal consumption.

Other Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

100. Moni Odigitria, Eastern Courtyard Type: open area. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture W.: 4.5 m. L.: 9 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tholos A, annex, outer courtyard. Other features: pavement remains in northwest and southwest part of the courtyard; a peribolos wall marks its northwest limit; possible altar. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 26.

101. Moni Odigitria, Outer Courtyard Type: open area. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture W.: 8.5 m. L.: min. 4 m. Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Eastern Courtyard, Room 1. Other features: pavement remains in southwest part of the courtyard; a peribolos wall marks its west and south limits; two distinct deposits found: “pot hoard” and “burned deposit”; other walls reported in this area in original excavation, but no longer preserved. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 26.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB, EM III/MM I, MM IB. Citations: Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 139– 140, EM I dating for peribolos wall; “pot hoard” and “burned deposit” may represent EM III clearances.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 635), figurine(?). Materials: clay (635).

Use No human remains.

Dating

Other

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB. Citations: Branigan and CampbellGreen 2010a, 139, EM I or EM IIA date for the north wall delimiting this area; pavement seems to date to the EM IIA period; material appears primarily EM IIB.

Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

102. Moni Odigitria, Room 1

201

Architecture

Type: associated building. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Other features: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer (2004) reported a large pit; Evans (1895) did not report architectural remains.

References

Dating

W.: 1.5 m. L.: min. 1.5 m. Numbewwr of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: abutted to the peribolos wall. Plan: Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, figs. 14, 26.

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II, LM Citations: Branigan 1993, 147, EM I–LM; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 530, EM I–MM II; Phillips 2008b, 26–28, scarabs are MM IA, MM II, and LM III; Betancourt 2009, 17, fig. 2.2, EM I–?

Dating

Contents

Vasilakis and Branigan 2010.

Architecture

Documented first use: EM IB. Other periods documented: EM IIA(?), EM III/MM I. Citations: Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010a, 129–130, constructed after peribolos wall; contained two strata: lower was EM IB, upper may have been EM III/MM IA.

Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (26), seals (21), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (1) figurines (9), scarab (5); materials: clay (9), stone (26), copper (8), ivory (5), crystal (2), gold (12).

Contents

Human bones reported, also pithoi fragments (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 530). Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Use No human bones reported.

Other Four small hamlets may be related to the tomb in EM II, two larger settlements in MM I; material in the Mitsotakis Collection may come from this context, including 50 stone vessels and more than 200 seals.

103. Phaistos Area 24/ Hagios Onouphrios Other names: no. 59, Agios Onouphrios (Branigan 1970b); no. 67, Ayios Onouphrios (Branigan 1993); Ajios Onouphrios (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Ayios Onouphrios (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: yes.

References Evans 1895; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 264–265, no. 9405; Zois 1968a, 49, 216; Platon, ed., 1969, 119–139 (CMS II, 1, nos. 104–122); Renfrew 1969, 27; Branigan 1971, 65–66; 1993, 147; Pelon 1976, 461; Stucynski 1982; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 196–198; Pini 2000, 108– 109; Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 530, site 24; Pieler 2004, 112, 117; Phillips 2008b, 26–29; Betancourt 2009, 17, 47–48.

Burial

Other Evans suggested that the material may come from a burial deposit and was interpreted as coming from a tholos tomb (Branigan 1970b, 1); Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer (2004) suggested that one of the Phaistos (1 km away) cemeteries lies in this area, and that the deposit may not have come from a tholos tomb.

104. Phaistos Area 83 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Disturbed: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537, EM I–MM IB.

Burial MM I pithos fragments reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies.

202

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

105. Phaistos Area 84 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Disturbed: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537.

Burial MM I– LM I pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537, EM I–MM IB.

Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Burial

Reference

MM I pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies.

106. Phaistos Area 85 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References

108. Phaistos Area 90

Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 538.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 538, MM IB–LM I.

Burial No human remains reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies.

Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537, EM I–MM II.

Burial No human bones reported; EM I–II pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies.

109. Phaistos Area 99 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 539.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, MM I? Citations: Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 539, EM I–IIB, MM I?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

107. Phaistos Area 89

Other

Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies or to represent a small settlement.

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 537, MM I–LM.

110. Phaistos Area 105 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Vori. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

203

Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 539–540.

Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: partially looted. Dubious: no.

Dating

References

Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 540, MM IB– LM III.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Suggested to have formed part of the Phaistos cemetery/ies or to represent a small hamlet.

111. Plakoura Other names: no. 72 (Branigan 1970b); no. 17 (Balli 1984); no. 51 (Branigan 1993); Plakoura (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Plakoura (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 87; Blackman and Branigan 1973, 202–204; Branigan 1993, 146; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 204.

Architecture Dia.: 3.5–6.0 m. Entrance orientation: east-southeast. Other features: circular stone foundation, interior partition wall; other walls reported around tholos.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 87, EM. Goodison and Guarita 2005, 204, mainly Byzantine and 20th-century ceramics in this location; only one possible EM sherd.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Goodison and Guarita (2006, 204) suggested this building does not represent a Minoan tholos tomb.

Xanthoudides 1915; 1924, 88–124; Platon 1953b, 491– 492; 1955, 568; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 264–265, nos. 9384–9403; Platon, ed., 1969, 274– 291, 293, 300–301, 303, 335, 352, 366, 376–378 (CMS II, 1, nos. 241–254, 256, 263–264, 266, 291, 304, 313, 322–324); Alexiou 1973a, 462–463; 1973b, 562–563; Ioannidou 1973, 573–574; Pelon 1976, 32–33; Stucynski 1982; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 50; Walberg 1983, 99; Belli 1984, 113–114, 121–122; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 243–244; Vasilakis 1992b; 1996b; Branigan 1993, 147; Zois 1998d, 155; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 107, nos. 85b, 85c; Phillips 2008b, 226–231.

Architecture Dia.: 13 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 2.4 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Vaulted: possible. Other features: buttresses. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM II/EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: only two clay vases published, one EM II or EM III (HM 6892; Walberg 1983, 99; Zois 1998d, 155), and a MM vase (HM 6915); many MM vases published from outside the tholos. Branigan 1993, 147, EM II(?)–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (2), stone vases (yes), seals (7), tools (10), t. daggers (14), l. daggers (46), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (2), stone (3), ivory (11), copper (60), gold (88), silver (1), faience (yes).

Burial Fire episode attested, separating two burial strata. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Two strata reported, the lower one only contained 14 triangular daggers; rest of material comes from upper stratum (Xanthoudides 1924, 89).

113. Platanos, Annex to Tholos A 112. Platanos, Tholos A Other names: no. 43 (Branigan 1970b); no. 20A (Pelon 1976); no. 29 (Belli 1984); no. 64 (Branigan 1993); Platanos A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 57 (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1915; 1924, 88–124; Branigan 1970b, 12; Petit 1987; Vasilakis 1992b.

204

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture

Dating

W.: 9 m. L.: 12 m. Entrance orientation: east? Number of spaces: 10. Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: only description comes from Xanthoudides map where the annex looks like a complex of parallel rooms with a corridor at the south side. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Documented first use: EM II/ III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 92, posterior to Tholos A; Warren 1965, 13, incised pyxis, HM 1904, EM IIA (survival?); Kenna 1968, 327, no. 63, EM I–MM II; Pelon 1976, 33, EM III–MM I; Branigan 1993, 147, EM II–MM II; Walberg 1983, 99, EM III–MM I; Koehl 2006, 72, 75–77, EM III–MM IA.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM I. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: bird’s-nest bowls are typically MM I (Warren 1969, 8–9); Walberg 1983, 99, EM III–?

Contents Ceramic vases (6), stone vases (min. 300), seals (11), tools (1), l. daggers (1), pommel (yes), double axe (yes). Materials: clay (6), stone (min. 300), ivory (8), copper (2).

Contents Ceramic vases (13), stone vases (33), seals (80), tools (5), l. daggers (11), figurines (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (15), stone (71), bone (4), ivory (31), obsidian (81), copper (3), gold (1).

Burial Bones found to the east of the tholos in what could have been the annexes. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Burial Room a contained hundreds of stone vases, most of them bird’s-nest bowls (Warren 1969, 121). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

115. Platanos, Annex to Tholos B

114. Platanos, Tholos B

References

Other names: no. 44 (Branigan 1970b); no. 20B (Pelon 1976); no. 29 (Belli 1984); no. 65 (Branigan 1993); Platanos B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 58 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: partially disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Warren 1965, 13; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 264–265, nos. 9381–9383; Kenna 1968, 324–328; Platon, ed., 1969, 292, 294–299, 302, 304–333, 336–351, 353–365, 367–375, 379–386, 389–398, 400–403 (CMS II, 1, nos. 255, 257– 262, 265, 267–289, 292–303, 305–312, 314–321, 325–332, 335–343, 345–347); Ward 1971, 75–76, 92; Pelon 1976, 32–33; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 30 (CMS II, 2, no. 25); Walberg 1983, 99; Belli 1984, 113–114, 121–122; Miller 1984, 560; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 241–244; Vasilakis 1992b, 248–250; Branigan 1993, 147; Davaras and Soles 1997, 57; Phillips 2004; Ben-Tor 2006; Koehl 2006, 72, 75–76; Phillips 2008b, 231–233.

Architecture Dia.: 10.2 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon? Wall thickness: 2.4 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: corbelling; protruding stones in the outer face of the tholos. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no. Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Branigan 1970b, 12; Petit 1987; Vasilakis 1992b.

Architecture W.: 9 m. L.: 11 m. Number of spaces: unknown. Associated contexts: Tholos B, Area AB. Other features: in Xanthoudides’ plan it is not clear how many rooms composed this annex. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: no material reported from this area.

Burial Bones found in the area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

116. Platanos, Tholos Gamma Other names: no. 45 (Branigan 1970b); no. 20C (Pelon 1976); no. 29 (Belli 1984); no. 66 (Branigan 1993); Platanos Γ (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 59 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

205

2006, 76, EM III–MM IA; vase 6873 was dated EM II by Xanthoudides 1924, 94, and EM III by Walberg 1983, 99.

Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Platon, ed., 1969, 334, 387–388, 399 (CMS II, 1, nos. 290, 333, 334, 344); Pelon 1976, 32–33; Walberg 1983, 99; Belli 1984, 113– 114, 121–122; Miller 1984, 557; Vasilakis 1992b, 248– 250; Branigan 1993, 147; Koehl 2006, 76.

Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (7), seals (4). Materials: clay (4), stone (9), ivory (2).

Architecture

Burial

Dia.: 7.3 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Other features: only south half of tholos preserved. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Other

Contents

Pithos: no. Larnax: no. Contents come from the tholos and area in front of it.

Dating Documented first use: EM II/EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA(?), MM IB? Citations: Walberg 1983, 99, EM III–MM I; Branigan 1993, 147, EM II– MM I(?); vase 6873 was dated EM II by Xanthoudides 1924, 94, and EM III by Walberg 1983, 99; Koehl 2006, 76, EM III–MM IA.

Contents

118. Platanos, Area AB Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (7), seals (4). Materials: clay (4), stone (9), ivory (2).

Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Renfrew 1969, 19; Branigan 1970b, 12; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 243; Vasilakis 1992b; Pieler 2004, 114; Phillips 2008b, 234.

Burial

Architecture

Bones reported to have burn marks. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Contents come from the tholos and area in front of it.

117. Platanos, Annex to Tholos Gamma Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Petit 1987; Goodison and Guarita 2005.

Architecture Entrance orientation: east? Associated contexts: Tholos Gamma. Other features: possible annex related to the Tholos, as there were badly preserved remains of walls in front of the tholos entrance; Xanthoudides suggests they belong to a sunken vestibule. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM II/ III. Other periods documented: MM I? Citations: Walberg 1983, 99, EM III– MM I; Branigan 1993, 147, EM II–MM I(?); Koehl

Associated contexts: annex to Tholos B. Other features: paved, walls from “huts” reported in this area, although they may belong to Tholos B annex. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Other periods documented: EM IIA, MM I? Citations: Warren 1969, 8, the bird’s-nest bowls are probably MM I; one stone vase possibly an Egyptian imitation (HM 1904; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 243; Phillips 2008b, 234); the foldedarm figurine is EM IIA (Renfrew 1969, 19).

Burial Bones found in the area, perhaps eroded from annex. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

119. Platanos, South Deposits Type: open area. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1953b; 1955; Orlandou 1972; Alexiou 1973a, 462–463; 1977, 562–­ 563; Ioannidou 1973; Gerontakou 2003.

Architecture Other features: no architecture was associated with these deposits, which were in the area south of tholoi A

206

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

and B; a stone wall, reported by Xanthoudides (1924), but not included in the plan, may have separated these deposits from the cemetery (Gerontakou 2003). Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM II(?), MM I? Other periods documented: EM II(?), MM IA(?), MM IB, MM II. Citations: Ioannidou 1973, 573, EM II for stone vases, MM IB Barbotine Wares. Gerontakou 2003, ceramic seems MM IB/II, although some vases may be a bit earlier; the stone vases cannot be dated more accurately than EM II–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (18), stone vases (64), tools (1). Materials: clay (18), stone (64), copper (1).

Use One deposit contained ceramic and stone vases, and the other stone vases and a copper tool. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

121. Platanos, Tomb Alpha Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: yes.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 93; Branigan 1970b, 12; Soles 1992b, 193; Georgoulaki 1996a, ill. 25b.

Architecture Number of spaces: min. 3. Associated contexts: Tholos Gamma. Other features: group of three buildings consisting of several rooms; Georgoulaki reconstructed the tomb as one building with three rooms based on the description of Xanthoudides. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2; Georgoulaki 1996a, ill. 25b.

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Other periods documented: LM. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 93, LM; Soles 1992b, 193, ?–MM I, LM sherds.

Burial

120. Platanos, Rooms South of Tholos A Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

Xanthoudides suggested that poor people were buried here. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

122. Platanos, Tomb Gamma Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Branigan 1970b, 12; Vasilakis 1992b.

References

Architecture

Xanthoudides 1924, 93; Branigan 1970b, 12; Soles 1992b, 193; Georgoulaki 1996a, ill. 25b.

Entrance Orientation: south. Number of spaces: 5. Associated contexts: Tholos A. Other features: rooms 1–5 south of tholos; these walls may have been originally buttresses and the space between them was reused as ossuaries. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII; Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: no ceramic material was published from these rooms except a small lamp (HM 6905).

Contents Seals (6), tools (2), figurines (1), ornaments (1). Materials: ivory (4), copper (3).

Burial Xanthoudides reported “poor” ceramic vessels from this area, and explained the rooms as ossuaries for poor people. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tholos Gamma. Other features: group of several buildings; probably roofed with timber and clay; Georgoulaki reconstructed the tomb as one building with three rooms based on the description of Xanthoudides. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2; Georgoulaki 1996a, ill. 25b.

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Other periods documented: LM. Citations: Soles 1992b, 193, ?–MM I, LM sherds; clay phalloi may have been a MM I type of object found in tombs Gamma or Delta (Xanthoudides 1924, 93; he reported them from Room Gamma, but on p. 97 mentioned Room Delta).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

123. Platanos, Tombs Delta and Epsilon

207

Dating

Type: rectangular tomb? Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Platanos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM II/III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 57, EM III–MM; Walberg 1983, 100–101, EM III–MM II; Branigan 1993, 146, EM I/II–MM II; Koehl 2006, 72, MM IA; Caloi 2009, 431, MM IB.

References

Contents

Xanthoudides 1924, 88–124; Branigan 1970b, 12; Vasilakis 1992b.

Architecture W.: 1.5 m. L.: 8 m. Other features: two trenches half carved in the stone, half constructed with built walls; a wall is found in Xanthoudides’ plan south of these trenches; walls may belong to a single building. Plan: Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2.

Dating

Ceramic vases (27), seals (19), tools (3), t. daggers (2), l. daggers (1), figurines (3), beads (11), ornaments (5). Materials: clay (27), stone (13), ivory (11), copper (4), gold (3), silver (1), crystal (1).

Burial Evidence was found of a general fire inside the tholos; many hundreds of bodies estimated; it is possible that some of the reported fragments of pithoi came from inside the tholos. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: MM I? Citations: clay phalloi may have been a MM I type of object found in Tomb Gamma or Delta (Xanthoudides 1924, 93; he reported them from Room Gamma, but on p. 97 mentioned Room Delta).

Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Burial

References

Large amount of bones reported from these trenches. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

125. Porti, Annex to Tholos Pi

Xanthoudides 1924, 54–69; Platon, ed., 1969, 425– 426 (CMS II, 1, no. 368); Petit 1987; Caloi 2009, 431.

Architecture

124. Porti, Tholos Pi Other names: no. 46 (Branigan 1970b); no. 21 (Pelon 1976); no. 22 (Belli 1984); no. 59 (Branigan 1993); Porti (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 60 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: partially preserved. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 54–69; Zois 1965, 67 n. 2; 1998b, 170–176; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267 no. 9429; Pini 1968, 12; Platon, ed., 1969, 407–424 (CMS II, 1, nos. 350–367); Pelon 1976, 33–34; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 50; Walberg 1983, 100–101; Belli 1984, 108–109; Karagianni 1984, 71; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 246–247; Branigan 1993, 146; Koehl 2006, 72; Caloi 2009, 414.

W.: 5 m. L.: 7 m. Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Tholos Pi. Other features: three rooms in Xanthoudides plan: alpha, beta and gamma. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII.

Dating Documented first use: EM III(?), MM I? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 56, MM pithoi, a few MM I clay vases, some of them perhaps EM III (HM 5692); Caloi 2009, 431, MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (6), seals (1), beads (1), spindle whorls (2). Materials: clay (min. 8), stone (9), crystal (1).

Burial Many bones in Rooms beta and gamma. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Architecture Dia.: 6.6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 2.3 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Other features: northwest part of tholos wall was not preserved; protruding stones from outside face of tholos wall in northeast and southwest sides. Plan: Xanthoudides 1924, pl. LXII.

126. Porti, Tomb Delta Type: rectangular tomb? Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

208

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Xanthoudides 1924, 54–69; Soles 1992b, 193–194.

Architecture

Architecture Dia.: 5 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: Platon just mentioned a circular wall made of large stones (1955, 566).

L.: 2.5 m. Entrance Orientation: south. Associated contexts: Tholos Pi. Other features: partly cut into the rock, partly built.

Dating

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: unknown.

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 55, Kamares Style pottery; Soles 1992b, 194, MM.

Other

Burial

Goodison and Guarita (2006, 205) found little evidence for a tholos tomb at this location.

Pithoi placed upside down containing human bones. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

129. Rizikas B 127. Porti, South and East Plateau Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 54–55.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tholos Pi. Other features: reported traces of architecture, but it is not clear how the pithoi related to it.

Dating

Other names: Pervolakia (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Rizikas. Excavated: yes. Dubious: yes.

References Platon 1959, 387; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 204.

Architecture Other features: Platon just mentioned a circular building (1959, 387).

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Documented first use: MM I? Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 55, MM.

Burial

Contents

Other

Ceramic vases (5), figurines (1). Materials: clay (6).

Burial Pithos placed in inverted position. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

128. Rizikas A Other names: no. 68 (Branigan 1993); Risikas (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Rizikas (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Rizikas. Excavated: no. Disturbed: no. Dubious: yes.

References Platon 1955, 566; Pini 1968, 5; Branigan 1993, 147; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 205.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no. Goodison and Guarita (2006, 204) found little evidence for a tholos tomb in this location.

130. Salame Other names: no. 48 (Branigan 1970b); no. 22 (Pelon 1976); no. 30 (Belli 1984); no. 54 (Branigan 1993); Salami (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 61 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1924, 73–74; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9444, 9445; Branigan 1970b, 18–19; 1993, 146; Pelon 1976, 34–35; Belli 1984, 114; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 194.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture Dia.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 0.8 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II. Citations: Xanthoudides 1924, 74, EM I–II; Branigan 1993, EM I–?; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 194, EM I/II (see also Blackman and Branigan 1982, 29, for dating of Salame Ware).

Contents L. daggers (2). Materials: copper (2).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Remains of a MM–LM settlement found 10 m west of the tholos.

131. Siva, Tholos N Other names: Monastirako Pigadi (Alexiou 1963b, 403); no. 49 (Branigan 1970b); no. 23A (Pelon 1976); no. 31, Siva A (Belli 1984); no. 6 (Branigan 1993); Siva N (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 63 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Sivas. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References

209

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Goodison and Guarita suggested that the tomb called Monastirako Pigadi in Alexiou 1963b, 403, refers to the Siva tholos tombs.

132. Siva, Annex to Tholoi N and S Type: annex. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Sivas. Excavated: yes. Disturbed: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Paribeni 1913; Platon, ed., 1969, 431 (CMS II, 1, no. 372); Zois 1998d, 133.

Architecture Other features: traces of walls outside both tholoi entrances, some ceramic vases come from outside of Tholos N; a room was wedged between both tholoi and dated to a later period than the tholoi construction; due to state of preservation, it is unclear if the remains come from one or two buildings. Plan: Paribeni 1913, 15, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Zois 1998d, 133, a jug coming from the room between the tholoi has an EM I/II parallel from Hagia Triada Tholos A, EM I/II–MM IIA.

Contents

Paribeni 1913; Alexiou 1963b, 403; Pelon 1976, 35; Belli 1984, 114–115; Branigan 1993, 144; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207.

Ceramic vases (12), seals (1). Materials: clay (12), stone (1).

Architecture

Burial

Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.7 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: small pit at the back of the tholos, diameter: 0.55 m; depth: 0.3 m. Plan: Paribeni 1913, 15, fig. 1.

Bones were found outside Tholos S and in the room between the tholoi. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating

Other names: no. 50 (Branigan 1970b); no. 23B (Pelon 1976); no. 31, Siva B (Belli 1984); no. 7 (Branigan 1993); Siva S (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 64 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Sivas. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III(?), MM IA(?), MM IB? Citations: Paribeni 1913, 31, EM III; Branigan 1993, 144, EM I–MM I(?).

Contents Ceramic vases (7), stone vases (3), seals (3), tools (2), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (7), stone (min. 3), copper (3).

133. Siva, Tholos S

References Paribeni 1913; Platon, ed., 1969, 428–433 (CMS II, 1, nos. 369–374); Pelon 1976, 35; Belli 1984, 114–115; Betancourt 1985, 32; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 248–250;

210

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Branigan 1993, 144; Davaras and Soles 1997, 57; Zois 1998d, 133.

Architecture Dia.: 5.9 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Plan: Paribeni 1913, 15, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM IA(?), MM IB? Citations: Paribeni 1913, 31, EM III; Betancourt 1985, 32, EM I/II; Branigan 1993, EM I–MM I?; Zois 1998d, 133, parallels in the material with Tholos A at Hagia Triada that is EM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (29), stone vases (11), seals (7), tools (2), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (1), figurines (1), amulets (1), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (30), stone (14), copper (2).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

134. Skotoumeno Charakas, Tholos A Other names: E27a (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 9 (Branigan 1993); no. 28A, Hagios Ioannis A (Pelon 1994); Skotoumenou Charakas A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 65 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Pigaidakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 50; Branigan 1993, 144; Pelon 1994, 162.

Architecture Dia.: 8.8 m. Wall thickness: 1.4 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III(?), MM IA(?), MM IB? Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 50, EM I–MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

(Pelon 1994); Skotoumenou Charakas B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 66 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Pigaidakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 50; Branigan 1993, 144; Pelon 1994, 162.

Architecture Dia.: 6.6 m. Entrance orientation: southeast or south. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 51, EM II–III.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

136. Skotoumeno Charakas, Tholos C Other names: E27c (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 11 (Branigan 1993); no. 28C, Hagios Ioannis C (Pelon 1994); Skotoumenou Charakas C (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 67 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Pigaidakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Blackman and Branigan 1977, 50; Branigan 1993, 144; Pelon 1994, 162.

Architecture Dia.: 4 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 51, EM III–MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

137. Skotoumeno Charakas, Tomb E Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Pigaidakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References

135. Skotoumeno Charakas, Tholos B Other names: E27b (Blackman and Branigan 1977); no. 10 (Branigan 1993); no. 28B, Hagios Ioannis B

Blackman and Branigan 1977, 51.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial Possible ossuary. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

211

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

138. Skotoumeno Charakas, Crevice Type: rock shelter. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Pigaidakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References

Two tombs were reported by Branigan (1993, 146) in this area; however, Belli’s photo (1984, pl. XIII) of the tomb reported by Alexiou (1967), and Vasilakis’s fig. 5 (1989, 55) show the same tholos; the settlement situated 200 m north of the tomb may be of MM I–II date (Vasilakis 1989, 52–55).

Blackman and Branigan 1977, 51.

Architecture Other features: rock cleft in a rock outcrop.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Blackman and Branigan 1977, 51, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

140. Trypiti A, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1967a, 484; Vasilakis 1989, 55–56.

Architecture Other features: traces of rooms can be seen outside the entrance of the tomb (Vasilakis 1989, 55).

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

139. Trypiti A, Tholos Other names: no. 51 (Branigan 1970b); no. 24, Trypiti (Pelon 1976); no. 13, Trypití (Belli 1984); no. 39/40, Trypiti A and B (Branigan 1993); no. 24A, Trypiti I (Pelon 1994); Trypiti (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 75 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1967a, 484; Pelon 1976, 35; 1994, 167; Belli 1984, 104–105; Vasilakis 1989, 56; Branigan 1993, 146; Müller and Pini, eds., 1999, 322 (CMS II, 6, no. 273); Vasilakis 2008; 2010b, 353.

Architecture

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

141. Trypiti B Other names: no. 42 (Branigan 1970b); Phylakas (Pelon 1976, 462); no. 38, Phylakas (Branigan 1993); no. 24B, Trypiti II (Pelon 1994); Phylakas (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 55, Phylakas A (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: no. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Alexiou 1966, 322; 1967a, 484; Pelon 1976, 462; 1994, 167; Branigan 1993, 145; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 193, mentioning information provided by A. Vasilakis; A. Vasilakis, pers. comm.

Dia.: 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.6 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: the discrepancy in dimensions between Alexiou 1967a and Belli 1984 (4.2–4.6 m diam.), and Vasilakis 1989 (5.3–5.8 m), may be the result of a clearer understanding of the tholos after excavation.

Dia.: 5.3 m. Other features: partially built using a rock overhang.

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: FN? Other periods documented: EM I, EM II. Citations: Alexiou 1967a, 484, Subneolithic ware and Phourni (Koriphi) Wares, EM I–II; Vasilakis pers. comm, EM II–III.

Architecture

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

212

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Other

144. Tsilastra, Tholos

This tholos is situated west of the Trypiti beach and not on the Phylakas peninsula.

Other names: no. 75 (Branigan 1970b); Tsilastra (Pelon 1976, 462); no. 16 (Branigan 1993); Tsilastra (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Tsilastra (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Matala. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

142. Trypiti C Other names: no. 56, Phylaka B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Goodison and Guarita 2005, 193, mentioning information provided by A. Vasilakis; A. Vasilakis, pers. comm.

Architecture Dia.: 3.7 m. Other features: remains of a circular wall.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This tholos is situated west of the Trypiti beach, about 200 m from Trypiti B and not on the Phylakas peninsula.

References Alexiou 1967a, 483; Pelon 1976, 462; Branigan 1993, 144; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 206.

Architecture Dia.: 7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 0.6 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: stone carved basin.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Reported by Alexiou as a possible tholos (1967a, 483); Goodison and Guarita (2005, 206) suggested that this is a Late Roman/Byzantine building.

145. Tsilastra, Building Type: associated building. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Matala. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

143. Trypiti D Type: tholos. Area: south coast. Nearest village: Lendas. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References A. Vasilakis, pers. comm.

Architecture Dia.: 3.5 m. Other features: remains of a circular wall.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial

References Goodison and Guarita 2005, 206.

Architecture W.: 6.5 m. L.: 7.7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: attached to west part of possible tholos.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Other Goodison and Guarita (2005, 206) suggested that this is a Late Roman/Byzantine building.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

146. Vorou A, Tholos

Situated west of the Trypiti Beach, about 100 m from Trypiti C.

Other names: no. 54 (Branigan 1970b); no. 25A (Pelon 1976); no. 36 (Belli 1984); no. 73 Vorou A/no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

75, Megali Vrysi (Branigan 1993); Vorou I (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 77 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Valis. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Marinatos 1931; Daux 1960, 833 (Megali Vrysi); Pini 1968, 10, 12; Platon, ed., 1969, 437–439 (CMS II, 1, nos. 377, 378); Pelon 1976, 36–37; Walberg 1983, 107; Belli 1984, 116; Branigan 1993, 147, nos. 73, 75; Girella 2004, 269, 272–273, fig. 18; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207.

Architecture Dia.: 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: east? Wall thickness: 1.6 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: yes. Other features: double wall in the northeast sector of the tholos; two buttresses against the west part of the wall. Plan: Marinatos 1931, 142, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II(?), MM III/LM I? Citations: Marinatos 1931, 155, EM III–MM I; Walberg 1983, 103, EM III–MM III; Branigan 1993, 147, MM I; Girella 2004, 269, 272–273, fig. 18.

Contents Ceramic vases (36), stone vases (7), seals (2), ornaments (4). Materials: clay (36), stone (8), ivory (1), copper (4).

Burial Estimated 30–40 interments. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Goodison and Guarita (2005, 207) pointed out that the tomb known as Megali Vrysi A probably refers to this tomb.

213

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM I. Other periods documented: MM II(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Walberg 1983, 107, EM III/MM I to MM III/LM I; “sheepbells” dated to EM III–MM I (Andreou 1978, 24; Morris and Peatfield 1990).

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1).

Use To the north of the tholos many “sheep bell” vases were found in a deposit with other ceramic vases.

148. Vorou A, Southwest Deposits Type: open area. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Valis. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Marinatos 1931; Walberg 1983, 107; Girella 2004.

Architecture Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: no architectural features. Plan: Marinatos 1931, 142, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM II(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: not clear what published material belongs to this deposit; ceramics outside the tholos have been dated EM III/ MM I to MM III/LM I (Walberg 1983, 107).

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1).

Use

147. Vorou A, North Deposit Type: open area. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Valis. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Marinatos 1931; Walberg 1983, 107; for the “sheepbells,” see Andreou 1978, 24, and Morris and Peatfield 1990; Girella 2004.

Architecture Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: no architectural features. Plan: Marinatos 1931, 142, fig. 5.

A deposit of jugs was found southwest of the tholos, many of them placed upside down.

149. Vorou A, West Building Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Valis. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Marinatos 1931; Petit 1987; Girella 2004.

214

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 7 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 5. Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: spaces D1 and D2 seem to have been created between what may be two buttresses against a retention wall; Rooms DD1, 2, and 3 seem to have been constructed in a second phase. Plan: Marinatos 1931, 142, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM I. Other periods documented: MM II(?), MM III/LM I? Citations: similar dating to the tholos, Marinatos 1931, 155, EM III– MM I; Walberg 1983, 103, EM III–MM III; Branigan 1993, 147, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), beads (min. 13). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Rooms D1 and D2 contained just a few bones but a large number of cups; DD1 contained a larnax and 2 pithoi, DD2 contained 5 pithoi and burials in the ground; DD3 contained 3–4 larnakes and 2–3 pithoi; 16–18 burials in total. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

150. Vorou B Other names: no. 55 (Branigan 1970b); no. 25B (Pelon 1976); no. 36 (Belli 1984); no. 74 Vorou A/no. 76, Megali Vrysi (Branigan 1993); Vorou II (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 78 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Valis. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Contents Ceramic vases (17). Materials: clay (17).

Burial Bones found outside the larnakes and pithoi; one body found in crouched position inside a pithos. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Goodison and Guarita (2005, 207) pointed out that the tomb known as Megali Vrysi B refers probably to this tomb; this tholos is situated 600 m south of Vorou A.

151. West Mesara 4 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Hagios Ioannis. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 527.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 527; one sherd EM I–IIA, all others MM IB–III.

Burial No human bones reported; pithoi fragments reported but they may not represent burials. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other The scattered material may belong to a settlement and/or graves.

References Marinatos 1931; Daux 1960, 833; Pini 1968, 12; Warren 1972b, 240; Pelon 1976, 37; Walberg 1983, 107; Belli 1984, 116–117; Branigan 1993, 147; Girella 2004, 269, 272–273, fig. 18.

Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Architecture

References

Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Wall thickness: 1–2 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: yes. Other features: southeast part of the tholos wall was lost. Plan: Marinatos 1931, 142, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Marinatos 1931, 160, MM; Branigan 1993, 147, MM I(?); Walberg 1983, 98, MM III.

152. West Mesara 14

Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 529.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 529, MM IB–II.

Burial No human bones reported; larnax and pithos fragments found. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Other Related settlement probably situated 200 m west.

215

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 536.

Dating

153. West Mesara 15 Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Kamilari. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 529.

Architecture Other features: walls reported.

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III. Citations: Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 536, MM I–LM I.

Burial No human bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Authors suggested that the scatter of material on the surface may come from burial contexts.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III. Citations: Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 529, MM IB–III.

Burial No human bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Possible settlement located 50 m north.

156. Yialomonochoro Other names: E17 (Blackman and Branigan 1977); thesi 18 (Vasilakis 1990); no. 15 Yialomonokhoro (Branigan 1993); Gavaliana (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Yialomokhoro/Gavaliana (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Listaros. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References

154. West Mesara 64

Blackman and Branigan 1977, 44; Vasilakis 1990, 46–47; Branigan 1993, 144; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 206.

Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Hagios Ioannis. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Architecture

References Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 535.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Watrous, HadziVallianou, and Blitzer 2004, 535, EM–MM IB/II.

Burial

Dia.: 3.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: it has been partially destroyed by the construction of a modern hut.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Vasilakis 1990, 47, EM.

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

No human bones reported; MM I–II pithoi identified as used for burial were found in the area. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other

155. West Mesara 81

Possible settlement 250 m west of the tholos containing MM I–LM I sherds (Vasilakis 1990, 47, thesi 19). Goodison and Guarita (2005, 206) suggested this may not be a Minoan tholos tomb.

Type: unknown. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Voroi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

216

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Central Crete 157. Aitania

160. Aphendis Kastelli

Type: pithoi. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Aitania. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

Other names: Driositis (Hazzidakis 1934, 76). Type: rock shelter. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Kastelli. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Rethemiotakis 1998a.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Rethemiotakis 1998a, MM.

Burial Burial pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

References Hazzidakis 1934, 76 n. 7; Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 80; Faure 1964, 58 n. 5, 185; 1978, 631–632; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 50.

Dating Documented first use: EM? Citations: Faure 1978, 631–632, EM.

Burial

158. Anopolis

Pithoi were reported, perhaps for burial purposes. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Type: pithoi. Area: north Crete. Nearest village: Anopolis. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Hazzidakis 1918, 58–60; Petit 1990, 49; Girella 2004, 255, 264.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Hazzidakis 1918, 58–60, MM.

Burial Ones pithos was found in a pit. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

159. Aphendis Kaminaki

161. Aphrati Type: larnakes. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Arkolochori. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1963c, 313.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB? Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Alexiou 1963c, 313, beginning of the Old Palace period, MM IB–II?

Burial Larnakes were reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Type: pithoi. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Kaminaki. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous 1982, 60; Iliopoulos 1996.

Dating Documented first use: EM II(?), MM I? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM I(?), MM II(?), MM III? Citations: Watrous 1982, 60, EM II and MM IB– III material; Iliopoulos 1996, known EM–MM site.

Burial Pithoi were reported, perhaps used for burial purposes. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

162. Archanes Phourni, Tholos B Other names: no. 5A (Pelon 1976); Archanes B (Panagiotopoulos 2002). Type: tholos. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: reused. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1966a, 175–180; 1966b, 413; 1967, 151– 159; Pelon 1976, 14–15; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1991, 171; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 169–180; Phillips 2008b, 39.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture Dia.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Wall thickness: 1.5 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: floor was raised and a bench constructed in LM and the southeast entrance to the tholos was moved to the northeast. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 170, fig. 40.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB(?), MM II(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 169, MM IA–?

Contents

217

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

164. Archanes Phourni, Area between Annex to Tholos B and Burial Building 8 Type: open area. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Architecture

Ceramic vases (8), seals (6), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), gold (5), silver (1).

W.: 1 m. L.: 5 m. Associated contexts: BB 8, annex to Tholos B. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Other

Dating

Heavily disturbed in LM period, use in Pre- and Protopalatial periods remains unclear.

Documented first use: MM IA. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 348, MM IA.

Contents

163. Archanes Phourni, Annex to Tholos B Type: annex. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1966a, 175–180; 1966b, 413; 1967, 151– 159; 1971, 278–280; 1975, 319–320; Walberg 1983, 106; Karagianni 1984, 85–86; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 186; Soles 1992b, 132–135; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1991, 173–178; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 169–180; Ben-Tor 2006.

Architecture W.: 15 m. L.: 14 m. Number of spaces: 11. Associated contexts: Tholos B. Other features: at least four building phases during MM IA; some modifications dated to LM. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 170, fig. 40.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 169, MM IA, MM II, LM IB and LM IIIA, 411, MM IB–II.

Contents Stone vases (2), tools (yes), seals (6), ornaments (1). Materials: stone (2), silver (1).

Ceramic vases (8), figurines (1). Materials: clay (9).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

165. Archanes Phourni, Tholos Gamma Other names: no. 5B (Pelon 1976); no. 79 (Branigan 1993); Archanes C (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 4 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1972, 327–351; 1973, 179–181; 1977; 1980; Pelon 1976, 16; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1980, 400–401; Stucynski 1982, 57; Phillips 1991, 404–406; Branigan 1993, 147; Watrous 1994, 725 n. 236; Sbonias 1995, 84–85, 87, 90–91, 99; Karantzali 1996, 68–69; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 181–186; Petrakos 2002; Pieler 2004, 112–113, 116; Papadatos 2005; Papadopoulos 2010.

Architecture Dia.: 3.7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.25 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: the tholos has a second opening, considered a “window.” Plan: Sakellarakis and

218

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35; Papadatos 2005, fig. 2; see also Papadopoulos 2010.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Watrous 1994, 725 n. 236, MM IA–?; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 182, 387–388, EM III–?; Papadatos 2005, lower stratum EM IIA, upper stratum EM III–MM IB/II.

Contents

(20). Materials: clay (221), stone (94), bone (25), ivory (5), obsidian (41), copper (9), gold (3), silver (1), crystal (2).

Burial 56 buried individuals, 36 of them in 31 larnakes and 2 pithoi. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

167. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 3

Ceramic vases (135), stone vases (2), seals (9), tools (64), l. daggers (3), figurines (15), beads (42), amulets (22), ornaments (29). Materials: clay (135), stone (25), bone (30), ivory (12), obsidian (56), copper (19), gold (55), silver (7), crystal (2).

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Burial

Sakellarakis 1966a, 180–183; 1973, 281; Soles 1992b, 136–139; Sbonias 1995, 107; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 194–198; Phillips 2008b, 32.

11 larnakes and 1 pithos found in upper stratum; larnakes and pithos contained the remains of 18 individuals. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

166. Archanes Phourni, Tholos Epsilon Other names: no. 80 (Branigan 1993); no. 5C (Pelon 1994); Archanes E (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 5 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1975, 268–307; 1977; 1980; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 187–188; Branigan 1993, 147; Pelon 1994, 164; Sbonias 1995, 74, 79–80, 89; Karantzali 1996, 69; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 187–188; Panagiotopoulos 2002; Phillips 2008b, 39.

Architecture Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.3 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35; Panagiotopoulos 2002, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 187, EM IIA, MM IA–II; Panagiotopoulos 2002, lower stratum EM IIA, upper stratum MM IA–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (208), stone vases (5), seals (20), tools (50), figurines (2), beads (68), amulets (22), ornaments

References

Architecture W.: 6.5 m. L.: 8 m. Number of spaces: 5. Associated contexts: annex to Tholos B, Tholos Gamma. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 195, drawing 51.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 198, MM IA–LM.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (3), seals (3), tools (2), amulets (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (3), ivory (5), obsidian (2).

Burial Three burials in the two south rooms probably dated MM IA. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

168. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 5 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1967, 159–161; 1971, 281; 1972, 319– 327; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1978, 320; SapounaSakellaraki 1983, 53–54; Miller 1984, 32–33; Soles 1992b, 136–139; Sbonias 1995, 90; Karantzali 1996, 69; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 199– 201 Koehl 2006, 73.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

219

Architecture

Burial

W.: 15.5 m. L.: 7 m. Number of spaces: 9. Associated contexts: BB 3, BB 12. Plan: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 199, drawing 52.

196 skulls recovered from two rooms; 5 larnakes, one with a Linear A inscription, and 4 pithoi were also found. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Karantzali 1996, 69, EM II; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 199, EM III–MM IA, 406, MM IB; Koehl 2006, 73, MM I.

Contents

170. Archanes Phourni, Area outside Burial Building 6 Type: open area. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (2), seals (10), tools (1), figurines (1), beads (yes), amulets (2), dagger hilt (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), ivory (6), copper (2), gold (2), silver (1).

Sakellarakis 1971; 1973, 172–173; 1975, 318–319; Walberg 1983, 106; Lahanas 1993; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 204–205.

Burial

Architecture

Burials in the ground, in 11 larnakes and in 24 pithoi; also depositions of piled skulls; one room contained 36 skulls, the other 31. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

169. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 6 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1965a; 1966b, 411–412; 1973, 167–171; Grumach and Sakellarakis 1966; Platon, ed., 1969, 443–468 (CMS II, 1, nos. 379–395); Walberg 1983, 106; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 186–187; Petit 1990, 49; Soles 1992b, 142–143; Sbonias 1995, 90–91, 107; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 202–205; Karytinos 2000b, 39; Phillips 2008b, 33–34.

Architecture W.: 5.7 m. L.: 6.5 m. Entrance Orientation: north. Number of spaces: 6. Associated contexts: annex to Tholos B, area 12. Plan: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 203, drawing 53.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 202, EM III–MM IB.

Contents Ceramic vases (70), stone vases (2), seals (17), tools (2), l. daggers (1), beads (yes), amulets (yes), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (min. 70), stone (min. 2), ivory (14), copper (2), gold (1).

W.: 1–2.5 m. L.: 15 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: BB 6, Annex to Tholos B. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Lahanas 1993, MM IA–II; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 204, MM IA–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (980), stone vases (1), figurines (3), beads (1). Materials: clay (980), stone (1), copper (1), obsidian (4).

Burial Larnax fragments but no human remains may indicate tomb clearing. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

171. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 7 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1967, 153–157; Petit 1990, 49; Phillips 1991, 399–400; Soles 1992b, 143–144; Sbonias 1995, 90–91; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 206–208; Müller and Pini, eds., 1999, 164 (CMS II, 6, no. 151); Karytinos 2000b, 39–40; Phillips 2008b, 34–35.

220

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture

References

Number of spaces: min. 6. Associated contexts: Tholos B, Annex to Tholos B. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 170, fig. 40.

Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1982, 496–499; Sbonias 1995, 99, 107, 113; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997; Phillips 2008b, 37.

Dating

Architecture

Documented first use: MM IA. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 206, MM IA.

Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: BB 8, BB 9. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Contents

Dating

Ceramic vases (13), stone vases (3), seals (13), tools (1), l. daggers (1), figurines (3), beads (yes), amulets (yes), ornaments (6). Materials: clay (min. 13), stone (min. 3), ivory (1), obsidian (yes), copper (3), gold (6), faience (yes).

Documented first use: MM IA? Citations: Sbonias 1995, 99, 107, 113, MM IA.

Burial

Stone vases (1), seals (6). Materials: stone (yes), bone (yes).

36 skulls and 6 larnakes reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Contents

Burial 10 larnakes found. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

172. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 8 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1971, 281–282; 1973, 177–178; Petit 1990, 49; Soles 1992b, 144–145; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 209.

Architecture W.: 5.5 m. L.: 6.5 m. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: BB 3. Plan: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 209, drawing 54

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Citations: Sakellarakis 1975, 177, MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), seals (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (yes), obsidian (yes), gold (1).

Burial 17 individuals buried. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

173. Archanes Phourni, Area between Burial Buildings 8 and 9 Type: open area. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

174. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 9 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1971, 281–282; 1972, 351–353; 1973, 181–186; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1982, 499–501; 1991, 180–192; Miller 1984, 33; Petit 1990, 50; Sbonias 1995, 87, 99, 103–104; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 210–212; Karytinos 2000b, 38–39; Koehl 2006, 72–73; Phillips 2008b, 35.

Architecture Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Tholos Gamma, BB 13. Other features: three rooms reported in this building, two east of Tholos Gamma that could be considered an annex and a third south of the tholos that is independent. Plan: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 210, MM IA–IB; Koehl 2006, 72–73, MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 165), seals (11), figurines (5), beads (yes), amulets (yes), sistrum (yes). Materials: clay (min. 65), stone (yes), ivory (yes), crystal (yes), obsidian (3), gold (2).

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

221

Burial

Dating

Burials found in three layers: 49 skulls found in lowest level of one of the eastern rooms; the independent south room contained 172 burials, including a child pithos burial; 14 larnakes and 14 pithoi were found in the different strata. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 212–213, EM III–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (20), sea shells (yes), animal bone (yes). Materials: clay (min. 20).

175. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 12 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis 1973, 174–177; Soles 1992b, 145; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 212–213.

Burial Ceramic vases found upside down. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

177. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 13

Architecture

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Associated contexts: BB 5, BB 23. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

References

Dating

Sakellarakis 1973, 186–187; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 213.

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 244, MM I, 387, EM III, 396, MM IA.

Contents

Architecture Associated contexts: BB 9. Other features: very badly preserved. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Ceramic vases (2), stone vases (2), seals (1), tools (yes), beads (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), bone (yes), ivory (yes), obsidian (yes), gold (4).

Dating

Burial

Contents

Many skulls were deposited in this building. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Figurines (1), amulets (1), ornaments (2), sea shells (yes). Materials: clay (1), bone (1), ivory (1), obsidian (1), gold (1).

176. Archanes Phourni, Area outside Burial Building 12 Type: open area. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM III. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 244, EM III.

Burial Remains of a child burial reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Underneath BB 9.

References Sakellarakis 1973, 174–177; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 212–213.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 3.5 m. Associated contexts: BB 5, BB 12. Other features: paved area between BB 12, Tholos B, BB 5, and BB 3; two pavements were laid in different periods. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

178. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 16 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

222

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

Burial

Sakellarakis 1975, 307–310; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1976, 395–396; 1982, 392–398; Petit 1990, 50; Sbonias 1995, 89–91, 103; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 214; Karytinos 2000b, 40.

Three south rooms contained at least 77 burials; north rooms contained at least 54 burials; 22 larnakes and 11 pithoi were reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Architecture W.: 7 m. L.: 7 m. Number of Spaces: 4. Associated contexts: Tholos E. Plan: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 214, MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (5), seals (7), amulets (3). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), ivory (yes).

Burial At least 15 burials, 12 larnakes and 4 pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

179. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 18 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1976, 344–351; 1991, 192–204; Petit 1990, 49; Soles 1992b, 146–147; Sbonias 1995, 91; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 215–216; Müller and Pini, eds., 1999, 163 (CMS II, 6, no. 150); Karytinos 2000b, 39; Petrakos 2002; Phillips 2008b, 36.

Architecture W.: 7 m. L.: 8 m. Number of Spaces: 10. Associated contexts: BB 24. Plan: Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 215, EM III–MM II, 380, two EM IIA sherds, 396, the three south rooms are EM III–MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (3), seals (13), beads (yes), amulets (3). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), ivory (yes), copper (1).

180. Archanes Phourni, Area between Burial Buildings 18 and 19 Type: open area. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1976, 385–390; Sakellarakis 1977; Karantzali 1996, 69; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997; Pieler 2004, 113.

Architecture Associated contexts: BB 18, BB 19. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA(?), MM IB? Citations: Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1976, 385, reported larnakes in this area that could be dated EM III–MM; 1997, 379, EM IIA, 383, EM IIB; Karantzali 1996, 69, EM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (9), stone vases (2), tools (40), seals (2), figurines (2), beads (1), sea shells (yes). Materials: clay (9), stone (4), obsidian (40), crystal (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

181. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 19 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1976, 381–385; 1977, 481; Karagianni 1984, 93; Petit 1990, 49; Soles 1992b, 147–148; Maggidis 1994, 1998, 2000; Sbonias 1995, 89–91, 99; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 218–220; Papadopoulos 2010.

Architecture W.: 2.8 m. L.: 3.4 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of Spaces: 1. Other features: corbelled vault;

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

interior has a circular plan and exterior a square one, and has been sometimes considered a tholos; Maggidis (1994) interpreted a large flat stone inside the chamber as an altar. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35; Maggidis 1998, 89, fig. 6.2; see also Papadopoulos 2010.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Maggidis 1994, MM IA–II; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 218, EM III–MM IIB; Karantzali 1996, 69, EM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (203), stone vases (5), seals (4), tools (57), figurines (3), beads (38), amulets (12), ornaments (8), sea shells (yes). Materials: clay (203), stone (26), ivory (8), obsidian (5), copper (7), gold (1), silver (3).

223

References Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1991, 179; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 222.

Architecture W.: 2.8 m. L.: 3.4 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of Spaces: 1. Associated contexts: BB 12. Other features: circular wall west of BB 12. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 222, early MM.

Contents Ornaments (1). Materials: gold (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Burial 181 burials in two layers; 5 larnakes and 4 pithoi found; possible altar inside the chamber. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

182. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 22

184. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 24 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1991, 204; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 222.

References

Architecture

Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1980, 398–400; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 222.

Architecture Other features: curved wall. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

183. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 23 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Associated contexts: BB 18. Other features: underneath BB 18. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 244, EM III.

Contents Ornaments (1). Materials: gold (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

185. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 25 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

224

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

References

Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1978, 320; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 222. Associated contexts: BB 3. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Sakellarakis 1977; Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1976, 390–395; 1978, 320–321; 1979, 392; 1980, 388–390; 1981, 427–448; 1982, 480–495; 1991, 179; Karantzali 1996, 69–70; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 232–236; Pieler 2004, 110–113; Koehl 2006, 76– 77; Papadatos 2005.

Dating

Architecture

Architecture

Documented first use: EM II. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 244, EM II.

Contents Figurines (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Underneath BB 3.

W.: 15 m. L.: 60 m. Associated contexts: BB 6, BB 12, BB 5, BB 23, Tholos Gamma, BB 22. Other features: crevices within the flat rock outcrop contained much material. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35, 234, fig. 61.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 236, EM II–MM IA, 406, MM IB; Koehl 2006, 76–77, EM III.

Contents

186. Archanes Phourni, Burial Building 26 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Sakellarakis and Sakellaraki 1982, 496–497; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 222.

Architecture Associated contexts: BB 8. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

Dating

Ceramic vases (32), stone vases (6), seals (3), tools (yes), figurines (11). Materials: clay (min. 32), stone (min. 6), bone (yes), obsidian (962), copper (2), gold (7), silver (1).

Burial In some areas, crevices contained cleared material from other contexts, such as Tholos Gamma (Papadatos 2005, 52); in other places, the fissures in the rocks seem to have been used as primary burial places, with larnakes and pithoi employed in some cases. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

188. Arkalies

Documented first use: EM II. Citations: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 244, EM II.

Type: pithoi, larnakes. Area: Viannos. Nearest village: Chondros. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown Dubious: no.

Burial

References

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Underneath BB 8.

Platon 1956, 417; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 81; Panagiotakis 2006, 383.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Platon 1956, 417, MM I; Panagiotakis 2006, 383, MM I–II.

187. Archanes Phourni, Area of the Rocks

Contents

Type: open area. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

Burial

Stone vases (2). Materials: stone (2). Two pithoi or larnakes. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

189. Arkalochori Type: cave. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Arkolochori. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References

191. Athimari

Hazzidakis 1913a; Marinatos 1934, 251–254; 1935a, 212–220; 1935b, 248–259; 1962; Faure 1964; Tyree 1974; 2006; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 264–265; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 24–26; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2.

References

Architecture W.: 10 m. L.: 30 m. Entrance orientation: west. Plan: Hazzidakis 1913a, 36; the plan illustrates only part of the cave.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Hazzidakis 1913a, 39–40, DGB ware (EM I–IIA); Marinatos 1962, EM, MM; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 264–265, EM I–II; 2007, 56, table 2.2, EM I; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 25, EM IIB–III; Tyree 2006, EM I–II.

Contents

225

Type: unknown. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Kenourgio Chorio. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes. Panagiotakis 2006, 397.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Panagiotakis 2006, 397, MM I–II.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other A MM I–II cemetery was reported but the type of burial was not specified.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial No burials reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Hazzidakis (1913a) suggested that the cave was used for habitation in EM I–II, but Tyree (2006) points out that the material is very similar to EM I–II funerary caves.

192. Avgusti Type: unknown. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Hagios Georgios. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 11; Watrous 1982, 55–56.

Dating

190. Arvi Type: cist. Area: Viannos. Nearest village: Arvi. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Evans 1895, 17, 112, 117; 1896, 464–465; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 91–92; Wilson and Day 1994, 13; Phillips 2008b, 42.

Architecture Other features: Evans reported cist graves but the actual type of interment is not known.

Dating

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 11, MM I; Watrous 1982, 55–56, MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Watrous suggested that the cemeteries of the nearby settlement may have been located in this area.

193. Bairia Gazi

Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Wilson and Day 1994, 13, EM IIA.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Gazi. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: yes.

Contents

References

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (6), amulets (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (min. 7).

Rethemiotakis 1984.

226

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 4.3 m. Number of spaces: 1.

with Pyrgos Cave, but without human remains it is impossible to confirm burial use; MM material may be related to cult activities rather than burial.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Citations: Rethemiotakis 1984, MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (38), stone vases (1), tools (yes), figurines (5). Materials: clay (38), stone (1), obsidian (yes).

Burial Two larnakes and one pithos found inside the tomb; most of the ceramics were found outside the north and east walls. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

194. Eileithyia, Cave Other names: Neraïdospilio (Faure 1964), Amnisos (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996). Type: cave. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Amnisos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Marinatos 1929a, 95–104; 1930, 91–98; Pendlebury 1939, 56; Faure 1964, 55–56, 68, 82–89; Platakis 1965; Zois 1973, 125–128; 1998c, 77; Tyree 1974, 31–33; Wilson 1984, 264–265; Rutkowski 1986, 56–57; Karantzali 1996, 61–62; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 21–24; Watrous 1996, 61; Wilson and Day 2000, 56; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000; Tyree 2006; Tomkins 2007; Betancourt 2009.

Architecture W.: 20 m. L.: 64 m. Entrance orientation: east. Other features: architectural remains found inside the cave belong to historical periods. Plan: Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 22, fig. 7, after Platakis 1965, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM I, MM II. Citations: Marinatos 1929a, 96, FN–EM II; Rutkowski 1986, 56– 57, MM and LM; Karantzali 1996, 61, EM I–III; Betancourt and Marinatou 2000, 188, EM I–IIA, MM I–III; Tomkins 2007, 46, EM I; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59, fig. 5.34, EM I.

Burial No burials reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other The use of the cave as a burial ground during EM I– II is based on the parallels of the material assemblage

195. Eileithyia, Rock Shelter Type: rock shelter. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Amnisos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Marinatos 1930, 98–99; Faure 1964, 86, described as “Anon.”; Zois 1973, 125–128; 1998c, 76.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM? Citations: Marinatos 1930, 98, EM, MM pithos also reported.

Contents Amulets (3). Materials: silver (3).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Rock shelter outside Eileithyia Cave.

196. Galana Charakia A, Rock Shelter A Type: rock shelter. Area: Viannos. Nearest village: Ano Viannos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1954b, 512–513; 1956, 416; Charles 1965, 44; Branigan 1968a, 63; Warren 1969, 194 n. 2; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 274 (CMS II, 2, no. 200); Petit 1990, 53; Christakis 2005, 75.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM III/LM. Citations: Platon 1954b, 512, EM and early MM; 1956, 416, EM III–MM I; Warren 1969, 194 n. 2, MM I–LM I; Christakis 2005, 75, Prepalatial.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (5), seals (2), l. daggers (2), ornaments (yes). Materials: ceramic (yes), stone (6), ivory (1), copper (yes), silver (1).

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial 32 pithoi placed upside down were located in this tomb and Rock Shelter B. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Contents described here include items from Rock Shelter B, as the assemblage from both contexts was published together.

197. Galana Charakia A, Rock Shelter B Type: rock shelter. Area: Viannos. Nearest village: Ano Viannos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

227

54, no. 18b; Branigan 1993, 148; Georgoulaki 1996a, nos. 10, 11.

Architecture Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I(?), MM II, MM III/LM. Citations: Platon 1956, 416, EM III–MM I; Georgoulaki 1996a, nos. 10, 11, MM II–?

Burial Two larnakes reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other Situated near a MM I building.

References Platon 1954b, 512–513; 1956, 416; Charles 1965, 44; Platon, ed., 1969, 529 (CMS II, 1, no. 446); Warren 1969, 194 n. 2; Karagianni 1984, 63, 72, 76; Petit 1990, 53.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM III/LM. Citations: Platon 1954b, 512, EM and early MM; 1956, 416, EM III–MM I; Platon, ed., 1969, 525 (CMS II, 1), EM III; Warren 1969, 194 n. 2, MM I–LM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes). Materials: ceramic (yes), stone (yes).

Burial 32 pithoi placed upside down were located in this tomb and Rock Shelter A. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Contents described here include items from Rock Shelter A, as the assemblage from both contexts was published together.

198. Galana Charakia B

199. Gonies Type: unknown. Area: Pediada. Nearest village: Gonies. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Kanta 2012.

Architecture Other features: may have been a rock-cut tomb or a rock shelter.

Dating Documented first use: FN/EM I. Citations: Kanta 2012, 72, possibly FN rather than EM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), beads (3). Materials: clay (4), stone (3).

Burial Remains of four adults found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

200. Gorgolaini

Other names: no. 41 (Branigan 1970b); Ano Viannos (Pelon 1976); no. 89 (Branigan 1993); Galana Charakia (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 76, Viannos (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Viannos. Nearest village: Ano Viannos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

Other names: no. 57 (Branigan 1970b); no. 78 (Branigan 1993); Gorgolaini (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 19 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Maleviziou. Nearest village: Ano Asites. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References

References

Platon 1956, 416–417; Platon, ed., 1969, 526–528 (CMS II, 1, nos. 443–445); Pelon 1976, 461; Petit 1990,

Platon 1955, 566; Hood and Boardman 1956, 30; Pini 1968, 4; Pelon 1976, 462; Branigan 1993, 147.

228

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

References

Dating

Hazzidakis 1915; 1918, 45–58; Zois 1969; Walberg 1983, 106–109; Soles 1992b, 148–151; MacGillivray 1998, 99.

Documented first use: EM. Citations: Platon (1955) suggested an EM tholos.

Architecture

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

201. Gournes A, Tomb A

W.: 2 m. L.: 3.5 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tomb A. Other features: pit with a surrounding low stone wall. Plan: Hazzidakis 1915, 59, fig. 1; Soles 1992b, 150, fig. 62.

Dating

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Gournes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Zois 1969, 23–24, MM IA, very little MM IB; Walberg 1983, 107, EM III–MM IB/ IIA; MacGillivray 1998, 99, MM IA–IB.

References

Contents

Hazzidakis 1915; 1918, 45–58; Platon, ed., 1969, 470– 479 (CMS II, 1, nos. 396–405); Zois 1969; Ward 1971, 93–94; Yule 1980, 12; Walberg 1983, 106–109; Karagianni 1984, 92; Soles 1992b, 148–151; Sbonias 1995, 91, 103–104, 113; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 388; MacGillivray 1998, 99; Pini 2000, 109; BenTor 2006; Phillips 2008b, 46.

Architecture W.: 6 m. L.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: east? Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Ieros Lakos. Other features: material from the tomb was referred to as being from Tombs A, B, Gamma, and Delta, probably referring to rooms within the building or to discrete interments. Plan: Hazzidakis 1915, 59, fig. 1; Soles 1992b, 150, fig. 62.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Zois 1969, 23–24, MM IA and very little MM IB; Yule 1980, 12, MM IA– IB; Walberg 1983, 107, ?–MM IB/II; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 388, EM III–MM II; MacGillivray 1998, 99, MM IA–IB.

Contents

Ceramic vases (hundreds). Materials: clay (hundreds).

203. Gournes B, 36 Rock-cut Tombs Type: rock-cut tombs. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Gournes. Excavated: yes. Condition: only partially recovered. Dubious: no.

References Galanaki 1999, 2006; Galanaki, Bassiakos, and Perdikatsis 2011.

Architecture Other features: 36 rock-cut tombs, many others may have existed in the vicinity; most of the tombs consisted of a burial chamber and an antechamber; chambers and antechambers have an average 1 by 1 m size. Plan: Galanaki 1999, 854, fig. 20; 2006, 236, pl. I.4.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Galanaki 1999, EM I.

Contents

Ceramic vases (yes), seals (10), figurines (yes), scarabs (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), ivory (yes).

Ceramic vases (130), stone vases (yes), tools (35), amulets (1). Materials: clay (min. 130), stone (17), copper (16), obsidian (min. 32), silver (ca. 400).

Burial

Burial

20 burials in the north room, 10 in the central room, 1 in the south room. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

202. Gournes A, Ieros Lakkos Type: associated building? Area: north coast. Nearest village: Gournes. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

204. Hagia Marina Maleviziou Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Maleviziou. Nearest village: Hagia Marina. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Hazzidakis 1913b, 43–44; Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 91.

229

Other LM I–III material outside the cave may indicate later cult activities.

Architecture W.: 1.8 m. L.: 2.2 m. Other features: square building with round corners.

206. Hagios Myronas

Dating

Type: pithoi, larnakes. Area: Maleviziou. Nearest village: Hagios Myronas. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted in antiquity. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: MM III. Citations: Hazzidakis 1913b, 44, MM; Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 91, MM III.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

205. Hagios Charalambos Type: cave. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Hagios Charalambos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Davaras and Papadakis 1976, 379–380; Davaras 1982; 1983; 1986; Pini, ed., 1992, 32–52 (CMS V, Suppl. 1A, nos. 34–47); Sbonias 1995, 91, 114; Betancourt 2002; 2005; 2011a; 2011c; Betancourt and Muhly 2006; Ferrence 2007; Anglos et al. 2008; Betancourt et al. 2008a; 2008b; McGeorge 2008; Phillips 2008b, 44–45.

Architecture W.: 19 m. L.: 10 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 7. Other features: retaining walls built inside the chambers of the cave.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II, EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II. Citations: Davaras 1986, 9, FN–MM II; Betancourt 2005, 449, FN– MM IIB; Betancourt et al. 2008a, FN–MM IIB.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (21), seals (yes), tools (min. 61), figurines (8), beads (yes), amulets (yes), ornaments (yes), sistra (5), scarabs (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (34), ivory (19), obsidian (53), copper (34), gold (5), silver (3).

Burial Remains of hundreds of individuals in secondary deposition; evidence for food consumption found outside the entrance of the cave; bones seem to have been arranged before the deliberate closing of the cave entrance in MM II. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Alexiou 1967a, 486; 1967b, 210–211; 1968, 403; 1969a, 413–414; 1969b, 239; 1970; Orlandou 1967b, 117–118; 1968a, 140–141; 1969, 192–193; Lempesi 1977; Warren 1977, 139; Walberg 1983, 105; Miller 1984, 33– 34; Chaniotis 1989; Petit 1990, 51.

Architecture Other features: remains of a wall were reported, described as a peribolos rather than part of a building.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM III/LM I. Citations: Alexiou 1967a, 486, MM IA–IB; 1970, Late Prepalatial and possible Protopalatial; Orlandou 1968a, 140, MM IA–IB; 1969, 193, EM II–MM IA; Walberg 1983, 105, EM III/MM I and MM III/LM I; Chaniotis 1989, 62, EM II–MM IA.

Burial Walberg dated the larnakes to the MM III/LM I period. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

207. Kalergi Other names: no. 62 (Branigan 1970b); no. 83 (Branigan 1993); Kalarji (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Kallergi (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Pigi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 81; Branigan 1993, 148; Girella 2004, 255, 264, fig. 12; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 202.

Architecture Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 81, EM; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 202, MM sherds in the area.

230

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

Other

Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934 reported a possible EM tholos; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 202, suggested that this is not a Minoan tholos tomb given the lack of evidence for funerary use, although they found MM sherds on the surface.

Hood reported a tholos from this location (cited in Branigan 1993, 148); Goodison and Guarita (2006, 202) found very little evidence for a tholos tomb in this location; nearby MM I–LM I settlement reported.

208. Kalivotopos Type: rectangular tomb. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Episkopi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References

210. Katsambas Type: rock shelter. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Karteros. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: yes.

References

Platon 1951, 445, Malathre(?); Panagiotakis 2006, 383.

Alexiou 1953, 307–308; Faure 1964, 68, Katsaba; Zois 1973, 132; Galanidou and Manteli 2008, 165; Iliopoulos et al. 2010.

Architecture

Dating

W.: 2.8 m. L.: 0.85 m. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: building had a corridor.

Documented first use: N, MM? Citations: Alexiou 1956, 307, N and MM.

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Panagiotakis 2006, 383, MM I–II.

Other

Burial

It is unclear if this rock shelter was used for burials during the MM period.

Platon reported larnakes. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other The site mentioned by Panagiotakis could be the same tomb reported by Platon, but this is not certain.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

211. Knossos Ailias, Tomb I Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

209. Kato Vatheia

References

Other names: no. 63 (Branigan 1970b); no. 82 (Branigan 1993); Kato Vathia (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Kato Vatheia (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Kato Vatheia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Cook 1951, 252; Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257; Hood 2010.

References Branigan 1993, 148; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 202.

Architecture Dia.: 8 m. Wall thickness: 1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Architecture Dia.: 3–4 m. Entrance orientation: northwest. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Hood 2010, 163, fig. 16.1.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Cook 1951, 252, MM and MM III; Hood 2010, 161, MM I–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

231

Burial

Contents

At least 20 burials, 5 in the ground, 9 in pithoi; earliest burials found in a pit in the floor. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), copper (yes).

212. Knossos Ailias, Tomb V Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Cook 1952, 108; Charles 1965, 46; Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257; Hood 2010.

Architecture W.: 8 m. L.: 7 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 3. Plan: Hood 2010, 163, fig. 16.1.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), seals (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III. Citations: Cook 1952, 108, MM; Hood 2010, 161, MM II–III.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Burial Fifty burials in pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

214. Knossos Ailias, Tomb VII Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Cook and Boardman 1954, 166–167; Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257; Hood 2010.

Architecture W.: 8 m. L.: 6.5 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 5. Plan: Hood 2010, 163, fig. 16.2.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III. Citations: Cook and Boardman 1954, 167, MM II; Hood 2010, 161, MM II–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (3), seals (6), figurines (1), beads (yes), amulets (yes), ornaments (yes), scarab (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), copper (min. 13), gold (2), silver (2), crystal (1).

213. Knossos Ailias, Tomb VI

Burial

Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Shallow pit contained remains of 3 or 4 children. A walled ossuary contained 25 skulls. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

References

Other

Cook and Boardman 1954, 166–167; Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257; Girella 2004, 252, 256–257; Hood 2010.

Some unusual items: silver cup and silver figurinependant, crystal scarab, two gold rings.

Architecture Dia.: 6–7 m. Number of spaces: 2. Entrance orientation: west. Other features: circular plan with dividing wall. Plan: Hood 2010, 163, fig. 16.3.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III. Citations: Cook and Boardman 1954, 166, MM II; Hood 2010, 161, MM II–III.

215. Knossos Ailias, Tomb VIII Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Hood and Boardman 1956, 33–34; Charles 1965, 47– 48; Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257; Hood 2010.

232

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III. Citations: Hood and Boardman 1956, 33, MM III; Hood 2010, 161, MM II–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), beads (yes). Materials: clay (yes), amethyst (yes).

Burial One pithos, 18 larnakes. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

218. Knossos Ailias, Site 260 Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 260.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: MM I(?), MM II? Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 260, MM tomb?

Burial

216. Knossos Ailias, Tomb IX Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Hood and Boardman 1956, 33–34; Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 257; Hood 2010.

Architecture Number of spaces: 2.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III. Citations: Hood and Boardman 1956, 34, MM III; Hood 2010, 161, MM II–III.

Burial Three larnakes, 1 pithos, burned human bones; second chamber used for cult activities. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

219. Knossos Ailias, Site 278 Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 55, no. 278; Hood 2010, 161 n. 7.

Architecture Other features: circular plan.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: MM I(?), MM II(?), MM III? Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 55, no. 278, LM III; Hood 2010, 161, one MM tomb.

Burial

217. Knossos Ailias, Site 259 Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 259.

Architecture Other features: perhaps two different tombs.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: MM I(?), MM II? Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 259, MM tombs?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

220. Knossos Gypsades, Tholos Other names: no. 24, Knossos (Branigan 1970b); no. 12, Knossos (Pelon 1976); no. 81 (Branigan 1993); Gypsades (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 20, Gypsadhes (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Hood 1958a, 22–23; 1958b, 299–301; 1960b, 169; Pelon 1976, 23; Hood and Smyth 1981, 57, no. 308; Branigan 1993, 148; Alberti 2001, 171–172; Girella 2004, 252, 258–260, fig. 7; Phillips 2008b, 144.

Architecture Dia.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 0.8 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III, LM I. Citations: Hood 1958a, 22– 23, MM II–LM IA; 1958b, 300, MM IIA; 1960b, 169, MM IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

221. Knossos Gypsades, Building II Type: rectangular tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References

233

Other features: kidney-shaped area; entrance had two steps and was closed by a wall. Plan: Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 221, fig. 21.

Dating Documented first use: MM IIB. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 223, MM IIB/IIIA; Alberti 2001, 181, MM IIB/IIIA.

Burial Nine burials, some of them in primary deposition. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

223. Knossos Gypsades, Sunken Court in Front of Building XVIII

Hood 1958a, 23; 1958b, 299–301; 1960b, 169; Soles 1973, 257–259; Hood and Smyth 1981, 57, no. 308 (in plan but not in the catalog); Alberti 2001, 171–172; Girella 2004, 252, 260, fig. 7; Phillips 2008b, 144.

Type: open area. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Architecture

References

W.: 6 m. L.: 3 m. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: tholos. Other features: building with rounded corners; a wall was constructed connecting this building and the tholos during LM IA; entrance from the roof.

Hood and Boardman 1956, 33–34; Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 220–224; Hood and Smyth 1981, 59, no. 331; Alberti 2001, 181–183; Girella 2004, 252, 258, figs. 5, 6.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III, LM I. Citations: Hood 1958a, 23, LM IA; Soles 1973, 259, MM III–LM I, but very probably constructed at the same time as the tholos (MM II).

Burial Skulls and bones reported in disarray. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Architecture W.: 2.5 m. L.: 3 m. Associated contexts: open sunken court, oval shape. Plan: Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 221, fig. 21.

Dating Documented first use: MM IIB. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 223, MM IIB/IIIA; Alberti 2001, 181, MM IIB/IIIA.

Use

222. Knossos Gypsades, Building XVIII Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Hood and Boardman 1956, 33–34; Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 220–224; Hood and Smyth 1981, 59, no. 331; Alberti 2001, 181–183; Girella 2004, 252, 258, figs. 5, 6; Phillips 2008b, 145.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: sunk antechamber.

No material found on the floor of this context.

Other Sherds found in the fill may be of later date.

224. Knossos Gypsades, Site 307 Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Dubious: yes.

References Hood 1958a, 23; Hood and Smyth 1981, 57, no. 307.

234

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

References

Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I? Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, no. 307, MM tomb.

Marinatos 1934, 249; Karo 1935, 240–241; Payne 1935, 168; Hood and Smyth 1981, 45, no. 140; Petit 1990, 50, no. 5c; Girella 2004, 255, 260; Preston 2013 (Monastiriako Kephali).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Architecture Other features: reported as a rock shelter enlarged artificially, but could also be a chamber tomb.

225. Knossos Gypsades, Site 313

Dating

Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB(?), MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Karo 1935, 241, MM IA–LM I; Payne 1935, 168, MM IA and MM III; Hood and Smyth 1981, 45, no. 140, MM IA–LM I; Preston 2013, 45, EM III/MM IA, MM II–LM IA.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 58, no. 313.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, no. 313, MM building.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 90). Materials: clay (min. 90).

Burial Burial pithoi and larnakes were found associated with MM II and MM III material. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other

226. Knossos Gypsades, Site 330 Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Catling 1977, 11; Hood and Smyth 1981, 59, no. 330; T. Whitelaw, pers. comm.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM I? Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 59, no. 330, EM and MM material; Whitelaw (pers. comm.), N and EM II–earlier MM.

Burial MM material above a layer of burned bones, EM material underneath the layer; comparable battered sherds in fill of neighboring LM III tombs may indicate that all the tombs cut through a small deposit of potentially nonfunerary material. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Probably two strata existed, a lower MM IA underneath a collapse and an upper MM II–LM I; pithoi described by Marinatos (1934) belong to the upper stratum of the tomb; skulls and bones of at least 12 individuals were found associated with MM IA material.

228. Knossos Mavrospilio, Tomb IV Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Woodward 1926, 237; 1927, 244; Forsdyke 1927; Hood and Smyth 1981, 53, no. 251; Petit 1990, 50; Alberti 2001; 2003; 2006.

Architecture Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 2 or 3. Plan: Forsdyke 1927, 244, fig. 1.

Dating

227. Knossos, Hutchinson Tomb Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: MM II. Citations: Alberti 2001, 174, material LM II–IIIA:2, but the architecture of the tombs suggests a MM construction date.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

229. Knossos Mavrospilio, Tomb IX

235

Burial

Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Skulls, bones, and beads mixed in the pit with pottery. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

References

231. Knossos Mavrospilio, Site 249

Woodward 1926, 237; 1927, 244; Forsdyke 1927; Hood and Smyth 1981, 53, no. 251; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 239; Petit 1990, 50; Alberti 2001; 2003; Girella 2004, 252, 257, fig. 4.

Architecture

Type: pithoi. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, no. 249.

W.: 11 m. L.: 12 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 5. Other features: tomb divided into chambers, maximum dimensions given. Plan: Forsdyke 1927, 244, fig. 1, 265, fig. 19.

Documented first use: MM. Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 53, no. 249, MM pithos burial.

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: MM II? Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: Alberti 2001, 176– 179, MM material in chamber E.

Burial Dog interred; MM III larnax. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

230. Knossos Mavrospilio, Tomb XVII Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Woodward 1926, 237; 1927, 244; Forsdyke 1927; Charles 1965, 85–90; Hood and Smyth 1981, 53, no. 251; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 238; Petit 1990, 50; Stürmer 1992, 53–54; MacGillivray 1998, 53; Alberti 2001; 2003.

Architecture W.: 6.5 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: northwest. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: pit at the back of second chamber. Plan: Forsdyke 1927, 244, fig. 1, 277, fig. 32.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: Stürmer 1992, 53–54, MM IIB; MacGillivray 1998, 53, material in pit dated to MM IIA–IIB; Alberti 2001, 174, material in pit dated to MM IIB, one vase in Chamber B to MM, rest of material to LM IIIA.

Dating

Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

232. Knossos Mavrospilio, Site 250 Type: pithoi, larnakes. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 53, no. 250.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 53, no. 250, MM pithos burial.

Burial Larnax reported. Pithoi recovered in the area potentially from other burials. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

233. Knossos Mavrospilio, Site 254 Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 254.

Dating Documented first use: MM? Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 54, no. 254, MM? tomb.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

236

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

234. Knossos Teke

Burial

Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: yes.

Other

References Marinatos 1933, 298–304; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, no. 9452; Renfrew 1969, 17, 19; Branigan 1971, 61 n. 18, 64; Alexiou 1975; Hood and Smyth 1981, 35, no. 23; Zois 1998c, 80; Pieler 2004, 90, 92, 96; Papadatos 2007b.

Architecture Other features: no architectural remains reported.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM I? Citations: Branigan 1971, 61 n. 18, EM III–MM IA; but Cycladic figurines are more likely to be EM IIA, and so the daggers probably are too (Legarra Herrero 2004; Papadatos 2007b).

Contents L. daggers (2), figurines (7). Materials: stone (7), silver (2).

Burial No human bones reported with the material. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other The material resembles funerary assemblages, but there is no other evidence to define this context.

235. Knossos, Site 123 Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted. Dubious: yes.

References Mackenzie 1903, 4–5; Evans 1903, 3.

Architecture Other features: round cuttings in the rock with dromoi reported; they were described as “rifled tombs.”

Dating

Pithos: no. Larnax: no. Exact location of this tomb unclear, probably the same rifled tombs mention by Evans (1903, 3); from the description, they should be near Hood and Smyth 1981, 43, no. 123.

236. Knossos, Site 148 Type: unknown. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Hood and Smyth 1981, 45, no. 148.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Hood and Smyth 1981, 45, no. 148, MM tomb.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other It is possible that this entry in the Knossos Survey by Hood and Smyth (1981) is a confusion, and the information refers to the pithos burials that Platon dug above Hutchinson’s tomb, see Knossos Hutchinson tomb entry (T. Whitelaw, pers. comm.).

237. Knossos, Site 295 Type: rock shelter. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Knossos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Karo 1935, 241; Hood and Smyth 1981, 56, no. 295.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM II(?), MM III? Citations: Karo 1935, 241, MM I–LM I; Hood and Smyth 1981, 56, MM IA–LM IA and later.

Burial

Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: Mackenzie 1903, 4–5, MM IB–II?

One piece of cranium in box in Stratigraphical Museum (T. Whitelaw, pers. comm.). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Contents

Other

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Rock shelter reported by Hutchinson downslope from the House of the High Priest.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

238. Krasi A, Tholos Other names: no. 66 (Branigan 1970b); no. 15, Krassi (Pelon 1976); no. 85, Krasi A (Branigan 1993); Krasi I (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 38, Krasi A (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Krasi. Excavated: yes. Condition: good Dubious: no.

References Evans 1928, 39 n. 4; Marinatos 1929b; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9447– 9449; Zois 1968a, 66–68; 1998c, 229–237; Platon, ed., 1969, 481–483 (CMS II, 1, nos. 406–408); Pelon 1976, 26–27; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 312–313 (CMS II, 2, no. 225); Belli 1984, 117, 119; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 265; Branigan 1993, 148; Sbonias 1995, 74, 178; Karantzali 1996, 57–58; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2, 70, table 2.5; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59.

Architecture Dia.: 4.2 m. Entrance orientation: east-northeast. Wall thickness: 1.3–2.2 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Plan: Marinatos 1929b, 104, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB(?), EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Marinatos 1929b, 127, EM I–MM I; Wilson 1984, 237, EM I–?; Branigan 1993, 148, EM I–III; Sbonias 1995, 178, lower stratum EM I–II, upper stratum MM IA; Karantzali 1996, 58, lower stratum is EM I, only one EM IIA vase; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2, 70, table 2.5, EM I, EM IIA; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (39), stone vases (2), seals (4), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (3), beads (5), amulets (2), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (42), stone (6), ivory (4), obsidian (20), copper (11), gold (3), silver (10).

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

237

225); Belli 1984, 117, 119; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 265; Sbonias 1995, 74, 178; Karantzali 1996, 57–58.

Architecture Other features: reported as similar to a paved road. Plan: Marinatos 1929b, 104, fig. 2.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB(?), EM III(?), MM IA. Citations: Marinatos 1929b, 127, EM I–MM I; Branigan 1993, 148, EM I–III; Karantzali 1996, 58, deposit at entrance is EM I–IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Unclear what published material comes from this context.

240. Krasi B, Tholos Other names: Krassi (Katalimmata) (Pelon 1976, 462); no. 86 (Branigan 1993); Krasi II (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 39 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Krasi. Excavated: no. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Platon 1959, 387; Pelon 1976, 462; Branigan 1993, 148.

Architecture Dia.: 2.9 m. Entrance orientation: east. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no. Other features: window in southwest part of the tholos.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Platon 1959, 387, EM.

Contents Figurines (1).

239. Krasi A, Paved Area Type: open area. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Krasi. Excavated: yes. Condition: good Dubious: no.

References Evans 1928, 39 n. 4; Marinatos 1929b, 108; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 266–267, nos. 9447–9449; Zois 1968a, 66–68; Platon, ed., 1969, 481– 483 (CMS II, 1, nos. 406–408); Pelon 1976, 26–27; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 312–313 (CMS II, 2, no.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

241. Krasi B, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Krasi. Excavated: no. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

238

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Goodison and Guarita 2005, 188–189.

Architecture W.: 0.9 m. L.: 0.9 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: tholos.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

242. Krasi C

237–245, 298–299, EM I; Wilson and Day 1994, 12, EM IB; Karantzali 1996, 70, EM I–IIA; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2, EM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (44), tools (3), t. daggers (3), beads (2). Materials: clay (44), copper (6).

Burial Burned animal bones may be the result of funerary rites; human bones found in lower stratum with majority of material. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

244. Kyparisi B

Type: unknown. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Krasi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Prophitis Elias. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

References

Platon 1959, 386–387.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Platon 1959, 387, EM tomb.

Contents T. daggers (yes), l. daggers (yes). Materials: copper (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

243. Kyparisi A Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Galini. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Alexiou 1951; Hutchinson 1962, 141–144, Korphi tou Vathia; Faure 1964, 68, Tikhida; Zois 1968a, 55– 58, Kyparissi; 1998c, 126–132; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 134; Wilson 1984, 237–245, 298–299; Wilson and Day 1994, 12; 2000, 56; Karantzali 1996, 70; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2:2.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 2 m. Number of spaces: 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA? Citations: Alexiou 1951, 286–287, EM I–II; Faure 1964, 78, N or Subneolithic; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 134, FN–EM IIA; Wilson 1984,

Serpetsidaki 1994, 700–701; 2006; Christakis 2005, 75.

Architecture Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: remains of a wall were found southwest of the tomb, marking a second space.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA? Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Serpetsidaki 1994, 700, mainly EM III material but wares range from EM IIB to MM IB; she also mentions five Cycladic figurines of Koumasa and Hagios Onouphrios types that may date to EM IIA. Christakis 2005, 75, EM III– MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (60), stone vases (2), seals (19), figurines (7), beads (23), amulets (17). Materials: clay (60), stone (45), bone (3), ivory (13), obsidian (yes), silver (1).

Burial Burned animal bones; 3 larnakes and 3 pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

245. Malia, Premier Charnier Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Rédaction 1928, 502–503; Béquignon 1929, 525– 527; Demargne 1945, 1–12, 70–71; Zois 1969, 42–49;

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

239

247. Malia, Troisième Charnier

Andreou 1978, 124–125; Betancourt 1979, 34; van Effenterre 1980, 233–234; Walberg 1983, 110; Poursat 1988, 71–72.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Architecture

References

Number of spaces: 1. Other features: crevice between rocks. Plan: Demargne 1945, pl. I; Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974.

Number of spaces: 1. Other features: crevice between rocks. Plan: Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974; Girella 2004, 278.

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA. Citations: Demargne 1945, 12, EM III–MM I; Zois 1969, 42–49, EM IIA–MM IA; Andreou 1978, 124–125, EM IIB–III; Betancourt 1979, 34, EM IIB; van Effenterre 1980, 233, EM II–MM; Walberg 1983, 110, EM–MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (43). Materials: clay (43).

Burial Six skulls reported, but probably many more individuals were interred in this area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II? Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 60, MM I and MM III/ LM I; Walberg 1983, 115–116, EM III/MM I–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (3), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1), bone (1).

Burial Two burial strata. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

248. Malia, Quatrième Charnier 246. Malia, Second Charnier Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Rédaction 1928, 502–503; Béquignon 1929, 525–527; Demargne 1945, 13–24; Zois 1969, 56 nn. 1 and 4, 60, 64–65; Warren 1977, 138; Andreou 1978, 124; van Effenterre 1980, 233–234; Walberg 1983, 110–111; Miller 1984, 36–37; Poursat 1988, 73; Koehl 2006, 77.

Architecture

Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Olivier and McGeorge 1977b.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Other features: crevice between rocks.

Dating

Number of spaces: 1. Other features: crevice between rocks. Plan: Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974.

Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Olivier and McGeorge 1977b, pottery from the first palaces (MM IB–II).

Dating

Contents

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB(?), MM II? Citations: Demargne 1945, 13, EM III–MM I, MM III–LM I; Zois 1969, 56 nn. 1 and 4, 64–65, EM III–MM IA; Walberg 1983, 111, EM III–MM III; Koehl 2006, 77, EM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (27), stone vases (1). Materials: clay (43), stone (1), copper (1).

Burial Two burial strata. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Human bones were found at the bottom of the crevice and may predate the pottery from the first palaces found on the surface. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

249. Malia, Eastern Ossuary I Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

240

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Demargne 1945, 61–62; Soles 1992b, 172.

Architecture W.: 4.4 m. L.: 5.2 m. Number of spaces: 2. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III; Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974.

Architecture W.: 3.5 m. L.: 3.8 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III; Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974.

Dating

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Demargne 1945, 62, MM I.

Documented first use: EM IIB. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB, MM II? Citations: Rédaction 1921, 536, EM III–MM II; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 70, EM III–MM I; van Effenterre 1980, 238, EM IIB–MM I.

Contents

Contents

Dating

Ceramic vases (yes), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (yes), gold (1).

Burial Two skeletons found in situ in south room; human bones were found in the other room. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Ceramic vases (5). Materials: clay (5).

Burial Fine ceramics reported from this context. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

252. Malia, Ossuary 1965 250. Malia, Eastern Ossuary II

Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

References

Architecture

Soles 1992b, 172.

Architecture

Becker 1974. Other features: crevice between rocks, very similar to the charniers, but of smaller size.

W.: 5 m. L.: 4 m. Number of spaces: 2. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III; Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974.

Dating

Dating

Remains of five individuals, secondary deposition. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Soles 1992b, 172, MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

251. Malia, Western Ossuary Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Rédaction 1921, 536; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 70–72; Olivier and McGeorge 1977a; van Effenterre 1980, 238–239, ossuarie Renaudin; Soles 1992b, 172–173.

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial

253. Malia, Deposit Bord de Mer Type: open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Rédaction 1921, 535–538; 1928, 502; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 62–70; Olivier and McGeorge 1977a; van Effenterre 1980, 238; Walberg 1983, 115; Soles 1992b, 172–173.

Architecture Other features: human remains and material reported from inside fissures in the rock. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

241

Dating

Other

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 63, beginning of MM; Olivier and McGeorge 1977a, 668, first palaces; van Effenterre 1980, 238, MM I; Walberg 1983, 115, MM II–III.

It has been suggested that this was not originally a tomb and was only reused for burials in a second phase (Treuil 2005, 215–216).

Contents

255. Malia, Chambre Funéraire

Ceramic vases (17), stone vases (15). Materials: clay (17), stone (15).

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Burial

References

Human remains are reported from inside fissures in the rock; in 1977, remains of at least 20 individuals were found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 98; Treuil 2005, 217.

Other

Architecture

It is not possible to confirm that the rescue work published in 1977 coincides exactly with the earlier deposit known as Deposit Bord de Mer.

W.: 2 m. L.: 1 m. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: only the corner of a building found. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III (unnamed remains between the maison des morts and cist no. 10).

254. Malia, Maison des Morts

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: reused, badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

Contents

References

Burial

Ceramic vases (50). Materials: clay (50).

Rédaction 1928, 503–504; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 85–102; van Effenterre 1980, 236– 237; Walberg 1983, 116; Petit 1990, 51; Soles 1992b, 173–176, house of the dead; Treuil 2005, 215–216.

Many bones found, together with 50 simple cups piled together. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Architecture

Van Effenterre and van Effenterre published it as part of the Maison des morts, but it seems to have constituted a different building as it is about 12 m from the Maison.

W.: 8.5 m. L.: 20 m. Number of spaces: 9. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III; Athanassiadi and Petropoulos 1974.

Other

Dating

256. Malia, Cist 10

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, MM I; van Effenterre 1980, 237, MM I, LM; Walberg 1983, 116, EM III(?)–MM I; Soles 1992b, 176, MM I, LM III.

Type: pit? Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Contents Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (7), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (8), stone (7), gold (1).

Burial Ten stone cists were found in this complex, as well as at least 10 burial pithoi and interments in the ground; bones of infants found; cists probably date to LM, pithoi to MM. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

References Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 98; Treuil 2005, 217.

Architecture W.: 0.8 m. L.: 0.5 m. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: empty cist burial placed on top of what was described as a constructed pit that was associated with a wall, of which only a small section was preserved. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III, pl. XL.

242

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: LM. Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 98, MM IA material, also one LM lamp; cist may be LM, and the MM I may be related to the earlier pit.

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 76, MM I; Walberg 1983, 116, MM II–III.

Contents

Ceramic vases (6), stone vases (1). Materials: clay (6), stone (1).

Ceramic vases (5), stone vase (possible). Materials: clay (5), stone (possible).

Burial Cist found empty, but pit underneath seems to have contained human remains; MM IA was not associated with the pit, and may represent clearances of other funerary buildings. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

257. Malia, Tomb à Puits

Contents

Burial Fragments of pithos found in the pit. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

259. Malia, Tomb Triangulaire 2 Type: pit. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

Type: pit. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

References

References

Architecture

Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 72–75; Walberg 1983, 116.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 1 m. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III, pl. II.

Dating

Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 75. W.: 3 m. L.: 2.5 m. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 73, MM I; Walberg 1983, 116, MM II–III.

260. Malia, La Tholos

Contents

Type: pit. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

Ceramic vases (6). Materials: clay (6).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

258. Malia, Tomb Triangulaire 1 Type: pit. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

References Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 75–77; Walberg 1983, 116.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 1 m. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III, pl. XXXI.

References Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 81–82.

Architecture Dia.: 3 m. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, pl. XXXIII, plan III.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM III/LM I. Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 81, MM I, MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (5), stone vases (2), figurines (1), amulets (1). Materials: clay (6), stone (3).

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

243

Use Pelon and Stürmer (1989) challenged the idea that this deposit was related to any kind of funerary activity. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

261. Malia, Terrases Occidentales Type: open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 77–81; Walberg 1983, 116; Karagianni 1984, 84.

Architecture Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 80, MM I; Walberg 1983, 116, MM I–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (10). Materials: clay (10).

Use Pelon and Stürmer (1989) challenged the idea that this deposit was related to any kind of funerary activity; a kernos was found within the ceramic assemblage. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

262. Malia, Fosse aux Trompettes Type: open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 82–85; Walberg 1983, 116; Pelon and Stürmer 1989.

Architecture

263. Malia, Chrysolakkos I Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Demargne 1930; 1932; 1945, 25–69; Zois 1969, 74– 77; Shaw 1973; van Effenterre 1980, 241–252; Walberg 1983, 111–112; Karagianni 1984, 98; Baurain 1987; Pierpoint 1987; Stürmer 1987; 1993; Poursat 1988, 73; 1993; Soles 1992b, 163–166; Hillbom 2005, 154; Treuil 2005, 211–214; Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011.

Architecture W.: 45(?) m. L.: 35 m. Number of spaces: several. Other features: building largely destroyed by MM IB construction; remains of paved areas found at the east end of the area, and a complex composed of a paved portico and a series of rooms, corridors, and kernoi was found at the west end. Plan: Demargne 1945, pl. XXXVIII, LII. Soles 1992b, 164, fig. 68.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Demargne 1945, 67–68, EM III/MM IA–MM II; Zois 1969, 77, EM III–MM IIA; van Effenterre 1980, 242, EM III–MM I; Walberg 1983, 111–112, MM IA–III (mostly MM I–II); Pierpoint 1987, 83–84, EM III–MM IA; Soles 1992b, 166 EM III–MM IA; Stürmer 1993, 186–187, MM IB–IIB (contra Poursat 1993); Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011, 653, EM II–III.

Contents

W.: 1 m. L.: 1.1 m. Plan: van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan III.

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (6), seals (3), figurines (3), ornaments (15). Materials: clay (yes), stone (8), ivory (1), copper (5), gold (15).

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I? Citations: van Effenterre 1963, 82–85; Walberg 1983, 116, MM IA–II/III; Pelon and Stürmer 1989, MM II.

Only a few human bones were found inside the building, but the remains of many were found just north of the building; it is unclear whether the material comes from phase I or II. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

264. Malia, Chrysolakkos II Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: looted, badly preserved. Dubious: no.

244

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

266. Malia, Hagia Varvara Island

Demargne 1930; 1932; 1945, 25–69; Platon, ed., 1969, 494, 496–497 (CMS II, 1, nos. 418, 420); Shaw 1973; van Effenterre 1980, 241–252; Walberg 1983, 111– 112; Baurain 1987; Pierpont 1987; Stürmer 1987; 1992, 58–63; 1993; Poursat 1988, 73; 1993; Soles 1992b, 166– 171; Hillbom 2005, 81–82, 155; Treuil 2005, 211–214; Müller and Pini, eds., 2007b, 452 (CMS III, 2, no. 264); Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

Architecture W.: 30 m. L.: 39 m. Number of spaces: several. Other features: no visible entrance; the room layout inside the building is unclear; one kernos found by west wall. Plan: Demargne 1945, pl. XXXVIII.

References Rédaction 1928, 502; Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 9–11; Müller 1992, 747.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Rédaction 1928, 502, MM I; Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 9, MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I. Citations: Demargne 1945, 67–68, EM III/MM IA–MM II; van Effenterre 1980, 246, MM IB–II; Walberg 1983, 111–112, MM IA– III (mostly MM I–II); Pierpont 1987, 83–84, MM IB– II/III; Soles 1992b, 170–171, MM IB–III; Stürmer 1992, 58–63, MM IIB; 1993, 186–187, MM IIB–III; Poursat 1993, MM IB–?; Pomadère, Gomrée, and Schmid 2011, 653, MM II.

Guest-Papamanoli and Treuil 1979; Shaw and Shaw 1999.

Contents

Architecture

Ceramic vases (5), stone vases (6), seals (3), figurines (3). Materials: clay (yes), stone (8), ivory (1), copper (5), gold (15).

Burial Stürmer (1992, 61) reports one pithos fragment among the MM IIB ceramic from Chrysolakkos, although it is unclear whether this originated from a burial pithos; also unclear whether the material comes from phase I or II. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

265. Malia, Hagia Varvara Coast Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

References Rédaction 1921, 536; Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 9–11; Treuil 2005, 209 n. 2.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Rédaction 1921, 536, MM I; Demargne and Gallet de Santerre 1953, 10, MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

267. Malia, Underwater Building Type: rectangular tomb? Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References

W.: 25 m. L.: 35 m. Number of spaces: several. Other features: parallel rooms resembling Tomb VII at Palaikastro. Plan: Guest-Papamanoli and Treuil 1979, 668, fig. 3.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other It most probably represents a Minoan or Classical shipshed (Shaw and Shaw 1999).

268. Malia, Ilôt du Christ Type: pithos cemetery. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: no.

References Rédaction 1925, 473–474; van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, 103–113; Olivier, Treuil, and Vandenabeele 1970; Becker 1975b; Davis 1977, 86; van Effenterre 1980, 240; Walberg 1983, 116–117; Baurain 1987, 64; Poursat 1988, 73; Petit 1990, 51–52.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

245

Dating

References

Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II, MM III/LM I? Citations: Rédaction 1925, 474, MM I; Olivier, Treuil, and Vandenabeele 1970, 879, MM I; van Effenterre 1980, 240, MM II; Walberg 1983, 117, MM II–III; Poursat 1988, 73, MM IB–II.

Faure 1956, 96; 1964, 60, 70; Tyree 1974, 9–10; Platakis 1978, 49–52; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 65–67.

Burial Five pithos burials published, but many more reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

269. Meliskipos Type: pithoi. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Plati. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous 1982, 64, no. 70.

Architecture L.: 72 m. Entrance orientation: south. Plan: Platakis 1978, 50.

Dating Documented first use: N. Other periods documented: EM I(?), EM II(?), EM III(?) Citations: Faure 1956, 96, MM; 1964, 60, N, 70, EM dark wares; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 67, N, EM, and LM.

Burial Faure reported human bones, but it is not clear if they were associated with the Prepalatial material; Rutkowski and Nowicki suggested that the cave was a refuge and a place for cult activities. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: Watrous 1982, 64, MM I–?

272. Mousto Latsida, Cave A

Burial

Type: cave. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Hagia Paraskevi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Pithoi reported in this area. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

References Panagiotakis 2006, 394.

270. Meskine Type: cave. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Tzermiadon. Excavated: yes. Condition: uncertain. Dubious: yes.

References Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 6, 17, 24; Zois 1973, 118; Watrous 1982, 42, no. 11; Girella 2004, 278–279.

Architecture L.: 21 m. Entrance orientation: south.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 6, MM I; Girella 2004, 278–279, MM I pithos burial with MM III occupation on top.

Burial One MM I pithos burial reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Panagiotakis 2006, 394, MM I–II.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

273. Mousto Latsida, Cave B Type: cave. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Hagia Paraskevi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Faure 1964, 70, Mikro Charakou.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Faure 1964, 70 n. 3, EM.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

271. Milatos Type: cave. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Milatos. Excavated: no. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

246

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

274. Partira

Burial

Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Partira. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

Other

References Béquignon 1931, 517; Pendlebury 1939, 56; Mortzos 1972; Zois 1973, 177–180; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 133; Karantzali 1996, 71; Tomkins 2007, 46; Betancourt 2009.

Dating Documented first use: FN? Other periods documented: EM I. Citations: Béquignon 1931, 517, N; Pendlebury 1939, 56, EM; Mortzos 1972, 402, FN–EM I; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 133, FN; Karantzali 1996, 71, EM I; Tomkins 2007, 46, EM I; Betancourt 2009, 59, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (32). Materials: clay (32).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no. A cemetery with MM I–II material was reported.

277. Pigadistria Type: unknown. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Kaminaki. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Watrous 1982, 61, no. 65.

Architecture Other features: scatter of material in a 150 x 200 m area.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM(?), LM. Citations: Watrous 1982, 61, EM II–LM I.

Burial

275. Pera Vigla Type: unknown. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Sambas. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Panagiotakis 2006, 414.

Dating

Watrous reported MM pithoi. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

278. Poros A Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Herakleion. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Panagiotakis 2006, 414, MM I–II.

Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 1987, 528–529; Phillips 2004; 2008b, 239–240.

Burial

Architecture

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other A cemetery with MM I–II material was reported.

276. Phrachto Type: unknown. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Kalloni. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Panagiotakis 2006, 417.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Panagiotakis 2006, 417, MM I–II.

Number of spaces: 3. Other features: tomb measured approximately 70 square meters.

Dating Documented first use: MM IIB. Other periods documented: MM III, LM I. Citations: DimopoulouRethemiotaki 1987, 528, MM IIB–LM IB.

Contents Ceramic vases (250), stone vases (yes), beads (yes), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (min. 250), stone (yes), obsidian (yes), copper (yes), gold (15), silver (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

247

279. Poros B

281. Psychro

Type: chamber tomb. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Herakleion. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Type: cave. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Psychro. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Dimopoulou 1994, 709–710.

Architecture Number of spaces: 4. Other features: one antechamber and three other rooms, some of them created using built rubble walls; in total, the tomb measured approximately 80 square meters.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB? Other periods documented: MM II, MM III, LM I. Citations: Dimopoulou 1994, 709–710, MM IIB–LM IB; one MM IB vessel was found.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 500), seals (yes). Materials: clay (min. 500), stone (yes), copper (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

280. Potamies Other names: no. 73 (Branigan 1970b); no. 84 (Branigan 1993); Potamies (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Potamies (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Potamies. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Branigan 1993, 148; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 205.

Architecture Dia.: 3 m. Wall thickness: 0.7 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: built against a rock outcrop.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Goodison and Guarita 2005, 205; MM pithos reported by Hood.

Burial MM pithos reported outside the tholos. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Reported by Hood (cited in Branigan 1993, 148, no. 84). Goodison and Guarita suggest that it is not a tholos tomb based on architectural traits.

References Evans 1897, 350–361; Hogarth 1900; Demargne 1901, 580–583; Boyd-Dawkins 1902; Boardman 1961, 1–75; Faure 1964, 68, 152; Platakis 1973b; Tyree 1974, 14– 20; Watrous 1982, 61, no. 66; 1996; 2004; LambrouPhillipson 1990, 251–252; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 7–19; Müller and Pini, eds., 2007a, 376–277 (CMS III, 1, no. 226); Phillips 2008b, 245–248.

Architecture L.: 100 m. Entrance orientation: north. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: EM material found mainly at the back of the upper cave. Plan: Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 12, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: LN. Other periods documented: EM I(?), EM II, EM III? Citations: Hogarth 1900, 96, Bucchero ware; Boardman 1961, 5, EM burials; Watrous 1982, 61, EM burials; 1996, 47, the cave does not seem to be used between N and MM I; 2004, 142, LN, EM IIA, MM I–?; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 11, during EM II–III it was used as burial place.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Hogarth reported bones associated with Bucchero wares in the upper cave, but it is unclear whether these were animal or human bones (Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 11), nor is the exact dating of the Bucchero ware clear (EM I?); the various authors have different opinions about the burial use of this cave in the EM periods (see dating). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

282. Pyrgos, Cave Type: cave. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Anopoli. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1918a; 1922–1924; Platon 1941, 270; Junghans, Sangmeister, and Schröder 1968, 264–265, nos. 9366–9370; Zois 1968a, 40–48; 1998c, 55–68, 83– 104; Renfrew 1969, 19; Branigan 1971, 60, 65; Warren 1977, 139; Stucynski 1982, 57; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 52–53; Karagianni 1984, 70, 79, 81, 89; Wilson 1984, 236–245, 261–264; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 247; Wilson and Day 1994, 34; Karantzali 1996, 58–61;

248

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Wilson and Day 2000, 55–56; Pieler 2004, 114; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2, 70, table 2.5; Betancourt 2009.

References

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III? Citations: Xanthoudides 1918a, 170, EM I–II/III; Wilson 1984, 245, EM IB–IIA; Karantzali 1996, 59, EM I–II; Wilson and Day 2000, 55, mainly EM I, some EM IIA; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2, 70, table 2.5, EM I, EM IIA; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59, figs. 5.34, 5.35, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 150), tools (12), l. daggers (7), figurines (8), beads (1), ornaments (10). Materials: clay (min. 150), stone (8), obsidian (7), copper (12), gold (11).

Burial More than 20 larnakes found; Zois suggested around 50 individuals buried; larnakes were found in the stratum above the EM I pottery and they might date to EM III or later (Lambrou-Phillipson dated the larnakes LM IA). Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other Lambrou-Phillipson suggested that the cave was an EM I settlement.

283. Pyrgos, Rock Shelter Type: rock shelter. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Anopoli. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Xanthoudides 1922–1924, 126; Wilson 1984, 261–264.

Dating

Faure 1958, 515 n. 3; 1964, 68. Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA. Citations: Faure 1958, 515 n. 3, EM III–MM I.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

285. Seli Type: rock shelter. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Katophigi. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Iliopoulos 1995, 1996.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Iliopoulos 1995, MM I; 1996, MM.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

286. Siderokamino, Tholos Other names: no. 58 (Branigan 1970b); Siderokamino (Pelon 1976, 462); no. 87 (Branigan 1993); Siderokamino (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 62 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II. Citations: Wilson 1984, 261–264, EM II.

Faure 1969, 180 n. 2; Branigan 1993, 148; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 194–195.

Contents

Architecture

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Two skeletons found between fissures in the rock. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Located 50 m from the entrance of Pyrgos Cave.

Dia.: 3.3 m. Entrance orientation: east. Wall thickness: 1.8 m. Annex: yes. Vestibule: no.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III(?), MM II(?), MM III? Citations: Faure 1969, 180 n. 2, MM I; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 194–195, EM II(?)–MM III?

Burial

284. Sabas Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Sabas. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

287. Siderokamino, Annex to Tholos Type: annex. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Malia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Goodison and Guarita 2005, 194–195.

Architecture W.: 6.1 m. L.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: east.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III(?), MM II(?), MM III? Citations: Goodison and Guarita 2005, 194–195, EM II(?)–MM III?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

249

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other It could be either a very disturbed funerary rock shelter or a nonfunerary context used for ritual activity related to the cemetery.

290. Sissi, Rock Shelter C Type: rock shelter? Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Schoep 2009, 47–50.

288. Sissi, Rock Shelter A

Dating

Type: rock shelter? Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

Contents

References Schoep 2009, 46.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Other periods documented: LM I, LM III. Citations: Shoep 2009, 46, MM, LM I, and LM III.

Contents

Documented first use: unknown. Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other It could be either a very disturbed funerary rock shelter or a nonfunerary context used for ritual activity related to the cemetery.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Large deposit of MM, LM I, and LM III material. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other It could be either a very disturbed funerary rock shelter or a nonfunerary context used for ritual activity related to the cemetery.

291. Sissi, Spaces 1.1/1.2/1.3 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 71–76; Schoep 2009, 46–51; Schoep et al. 2013, 36–37.

Architecture Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

W.: 6 m. L.: 4 m. Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Space 1.13. Other features: Space 1.1 constructed later abutted to Space 1.2. Plan: Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 72, figs. 4.12, 4.13; Schoep 2009, 46, 48, figs. 3.2, 3.3.

References

Dating

289. Sissi, Rock Shelter B

Schoep 2009, 46.

Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM IIB. Citations: Schoep 2009,

250

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

47, 50–51; Schoep et al. 2013, 36–37, EM III/MM IA– MM II, ceramic assemblage in Space 1.3 is EM III/MM IA. Space 1.1 was probably added in MM IIB.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (yes), copper (1).

Burial MM II pithos burial found in Space 1.2 above pebble floor; other four primary but disturbed interments in Space 1.2. In Space 1.3, 14 ceramic vessels found mixed with one long human bone; 12 cups placed upside down. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other EM I and EM II material found underneath the tomb may not be associated with burial practices. Earlier EM III/MM IA wall found underneath Room 1.2.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

294. Sissi, Space 1.6 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 59–60; Schoep 2009, 52.

Architecture W.: 2.6 m. L.: 0.9 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Spaces 1.7 and 1.8. Other features: abutted to Space 1.8. Plan: Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 60, fig. 4.1; Schoep 2009, 46, fig. 3.2.

Dating

292. Sissi, Space 1.4 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Schoep 2009.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Spaces 1.5 and 1.13. Plan: Schoep 2009, 46, 48, figs. 3.2, 3.3.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

293. Sissi, Space 1.5 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM III. Citations: Schoep 2009, 52, EM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (2). Materials: clay (2).

Burial Human remains found in northwest corner; disturbed primary deposition. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

295. Sissi, Spaces 1.7/1.8/1.16/1.31 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 61–70; Schoep 2009, 51–52; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 58–61; Schoep et al. 2013, 38.

Architecture

Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Space 1.4. Plan: Schoep 2009, 46, fig. 3.2.

W.: 7 m. L.: 2 m. Number of spaces: 4. Associated contexts: Spaces 1.6 and 1.15. Other features: Space 1.7 had a pebble floor and a double south wall; Space 1.8 had a crevice cut in the rock floor; oblique wall separating the two spaces may have been constructed later than the perimeter walls; Space 1.16 may have been constructed later. Plan: Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 61, figs. 4.2; Schoep 2009, 46, fig. 3.2; Schoep et al. 2013, fig. 21A.

Dating

Dating

References Schoep 2009.

Architecture

Documented first use: unknown.

Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Schoep 2009, 51–52,

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

251

References

MM IB–IA; Schoep et al. 2013, 38, EM III/MM IA use of the area prior to the construction of the building in MM II.

Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 86–88; Schoep 2009, 53–54; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 41–47.

Contents

Architecture

Ceramic vases (4), tools (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (4), obsidian (1), quartz (1).

Burial Two child burials and the disturbed primary interment of an adult found in Space 1.7 on top of a pebble floor; at a higher level, the remains of at least three other adults reported. Space 1.8 contained the remains of an adult and a child badly disturbed; Space 1.31 contained mainly material with some human remains. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

296. Sissi, Spaces 1.9/1.10 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 77–86; Schoep 2009, 53; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 61–62.

Architecture W.: 4.5 m. L.: 1.3 m. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: facade built with limestone blocks; dividing wall constructed with large boulders. Plan: Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 78, 85, figs. 4.18, 4.19, 4.24; Schoep 2009, 46, fig. 3.2.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 61, EM III/MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial At least 20 individuals interred in Space 1.10, including several infants; secondary deposit of bones found in Space 1.9, including nine adults, two children, one neonate. In both spaces the skulls and long bones were carefully arranged, and the room may have been used as an ossuary. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

297. Sissi, Spaces 1.11/1.12/1.24 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

W.: 5 m. L.: 2.5 m. Number of spaces: 3. Other features: double south wall; entrance possibly from above. Plan: Crevecoeur and Schmitt 2009, 87, fig. 4.25; Schoep 2009, 46, fig. 3.2; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 42, fig. 3.1.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III, MM I(?), MM II. Citations: Schoep 2009, 53–54, EM IIA; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 41, EM IIA, EM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Space 1.11 contained disturbed remains of four individuals; skulls were grouped together, around them larnax pieces were found marking EM III or later use. Space 1.12 had one adult interment and four EM IIA jars with the remains of perinatals. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

298. Sissi, Space 1.13 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Schoep 2009, 55; Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 55–57.

Architecture W.: 1.5 m. L.: 1.5 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Spaces 1.2 and 1.4. Other features: pebble floor. Plan: Schoep 2009, 46, 48, figs. 3.2, 3.3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: MM IB/II. Citations: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 55, EM II and MM IB/II.

Burial Remains of three adults and a child in secondary deposition. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

299. Sissi, Space 1.15 Type: open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

252

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

References

Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 58–60; Schoep et al. 2013, 38.

Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 53; Schoep et al. 2013, 33–36.

Architecture

Architecture

W.: 3 m. L.: 2.5 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Space 1.16. Other features: triangular space between rock outcrop and space 1.16. Plan: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 42, fig. 3.1.

W.: 5 m. L.: 2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Spaces 1.11, 1.20, and 1.29. Other features: pebble floor. Plan: Schoep et al. 2013, 28, fig. 21A.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial No human remains reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

300. Sissi, Spaces 1.17 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 48–50; Schoep et al. 2013, 27–30.

Architecture W.: 0.7 m. L.: 3 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Space 1.29. Other features: pebble floor, room divided by inner wall. Plan: Schoep et al., forthcoming, fig. 3.1A.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 48, MM I–IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos burial in upper stratum, over a pebble floor; a double burial was found underneath. Two other inhumations found stratified over pebble floor in southeastern part of room. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Schoep et al. 2013, 33, MM IB–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes), tools (yes). Material: clay (yes), stone (yes), obsidian (yes).

Burial Two pithos burials over pebble floor were composed of the halves of two different vessels; one contained an adult, the other a child. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Large deposition of cleared MM II material was stratified over the burials.

302. Sissi, Spaces 1.20/1.22/1.23/1.25/1.28 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 54–55.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 2.5 m. Number of spaces: 5. Associated contexts: Space 1.18. Other features: layer of pebbles in Space 1.20. Plan: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 42, 55, figs. 3.1, 3.16.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III/MM IA, MM I, MM II. Citations: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 54, EM II in Space 1.23, EM III/MM IA and MM II in Space 1.20.

Contents

301. Sissi, Space 1.18 Type: open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Remains of an infant in Space 1.23, covered with fragments of an oval amphora. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

303. Sissi, Space 1.29

253

Burial

Type: rectangular tomb/open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Human remains found mainly in upper layer mixed with animal bones and burned brick. Some human bones have traces of burning. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References

Other

Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 51–52; Schoep et al. 2013, 31–32.

Lower layer may indicate deposition of material relating to ceremonies; upper layer may indicate a MM II clearance.

Architecture W.: unknown. L.: unknown. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Space 1.17. Other features: a possible south wall may have eroded away; pebble floor. Plan: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 42, 52, figs. 3.1, 3.12.

Dating Documented first use: MM IIA. Citations: Schoep et al. 2013, 31, MM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Three burial pithoi, one reused, containing three adults and one child. Third pithos covered the remains of two individuals. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other This space may have been a built tomb in a first instance, later becoming an open space.

305. Sissi, Spaces 9.1/9.2/9.3/9.4 Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 65–67; Schoep et al. 2013, 41–50.

Architecture W.: min. 5 m. L.: unknown. Number of spaces: 4. Other features: double walled. Space 9.1 divided in two by inner wall. Bench in Space 9.3. Plan: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 42, fig. 3.1; Schoep et al. 2013, 43, fig. 2.19.

Dating Documented first use: MMIB/IIA. Citations: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 66, MM IB/MM II; Schoep et al. 2013, 41, MM IB/II.

Contents

304. Sissi, Space 1.30 Type: open area. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Sissi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 59–61; Schoep et al. 2013, 39–40.

Ceramic vases (yes), seals (1), beads (1), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (yes), stone (2), gold (2).

Burial Room 9.1 contained at least eight individuals, several bones from perinatals, and one pithos burial. Room 9.2 contained at least 16 individuals in three strata, one of them included a larnax. Space 9.3 did not contain human remains, and Room 9.4 contained human remains and pithos burials. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Architecture W.: unknown. L.: unknown. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Spaces 1.16 and 1.21. Plan: Schoep, Schmitt, and Crevecoeur 2011, 42, 59, figs. 3.1, 3.20.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IIA. Citations: Schoep et al. 2013, 39, EM III/MM IA, MM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), bone (yes), obsidian (yes).

306. Skaphidia Type: cave. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Tzermiadon. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 4–5, 22; Zois 1973, 117–118; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 136; Watrous 1982, 42, no. 11; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6.

254

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture

Dating

W.: 5 m. L.: 2.5 m. Entrance orientation: south. Plan: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 4, fig. 2.

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Rethemiotakis 1998b, MM IA–II.

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: LN. Other periods documented: EM I? Citations: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 5, two strata with LN material, one EM I vessel found on surface; Watrous 1982, 42, LN– Subneolithic; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6, EM I.

309. Stavroplaka

Contents

Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Mathia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Few human bones found; Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts (1940, 4–5) dated them to the Neolithic period. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

307. Skotino Type: cave. Area: north coast. Nearest village: Skotino. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

References Platon 1954b, 515; Petit 1990, 52; Panagiotakis 2006, 383.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: Platon 1954b, 515, MM; Panagiotakis 2006, 383, MM I–II.

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

References Faure 1958, 508–511; 1964, 162–173; Alexiou 1963c, 312; Tyree 1974, 20–23; Vagnetti and Belli 1984, 133; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 36–37; Whitley 2004, 68; Tyree et al. 2009.

310. Stou Petra

Architecture

References

W.: 30 m. L.: 134 m. Entrance orientation: north. Plan: Tyree et al. 2009.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I? Citations: Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 133, FN; L. Tyree, pers. comm., Pyrgos Ware was found and may indicate funerary use of the cave in EM I.

Contents

Type: unknown. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Avrakondes. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes. Watrous 1982, 57, no. 51.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II(?), LM. Citations: Watrous 1982, 57, no. 51, MM I–LM III.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial

311. Stravomyti

No human bone reported; probable cult use of the cave during MM. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Type: cave. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Archanes. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

308. Sokaras Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Sokaras. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Rethemiotakis 1998b.

References Marinatos 1949, 108–109; 1950, 248–257; Faure 1964, 68, 173–175; Zois 1973, 174–177; Tyree 1974, 34– 37; Dimopoulou 1996; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 48; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 28–31, 68–69, 376–381, 384–385; Betancourt 2009.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

255

Architecture

Contents

L.: 43 m. Entrance orientation: Northeast. Plan: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 29, drawing 3.

Ceramic vases (522), stone vases (35), seals (16), tools (44), t. daggers (3), figurines (15), beads (11), amulets (2), ornaments (6), scarab (yes). Materials: clay (524), stone (47), bone (18), ivory (3), obsidian (19), copper (16), gold (21), silver (2), crystal (5), faience (yes).

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM(?), MM? Citations: Marinatos 1950, 256–257, FN–MM; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 29–31, FN–MM; Dimopoulou 1996, EM, MM; Betancourt 2009, 52, 55, 59, 64, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial

Burial Burial pithoi deposited in the cave in MM I. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

313. Trapeza, Outside Burials Type: pithoi. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Tzermiadon. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

Faure (1964, 68) reported one pithos burial from the cave; Marinatos and Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki suggested domestic and cult activities for the cave, not funerary; Dimopoulou reported EM and MM material associated with human bone. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 3, 15, 23; Watrous 1982, 42, no. 11.

312. Trapeza, Cave

Dating

Type: cave. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Tzermiadon. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 3, 15, 23, MM I.

References

Contents

Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939; 1940, 2; Charles 1965, 39–40; Warren 1965, 11; Platon, ed., 1969, 507–524 (CMS II, 1, nos. 427–442); Branigan 1971, 60, 67–68, 70–71; Zois 1973, 118–123; 1998b, 242– 245; Tyree 1974, 10–11; Warren 1977, 139; Stucynski 1982, 57; Watrous 1982, 42, no. 11; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983, 57–58; Walberg 1983, 121–122; Miller 1984, 35; Wilson 1984, 247; Sbonias 1995, 74, 90; Karantzali 1996, 53–54; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 68–69; Brown 2001, 372; Ben-Tor 2006; Phillips 2008b, 250– 252; Betancourt 2009.

Architecture

References

Architecture Plan: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 15, fig. 3.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Burial pithoi found in a 100 m radius around the entrance of Trapeza Cave, in at least three different locations. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

314. Trapeza, Kastellos Trench 4 Type: rock shelter. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Tzermiadon. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

L.: 25 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: min. 10. Other features: stalagmites might have been used as cult objects. Plan: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 15, fig. 3.

Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 9–10; Zois 1973, 123–124.

Dating

Architecture

Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II, MM III. Citations: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 23, FN–MM II, burial use dates to EM II–III/ MM I; Walberg 1983, 121–122, EM I–MM III; Karantzali 1996, 53, EM I–MM II, burial use EM II onward; Betancourt 2009, 59, EM I–?

References

Other features: small stones found in the burial layer, and red earth also reported. Plan: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 7, fig. 3, 9, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: LN. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I. Citations: Pendlebury,

256

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 10, LN burial, found together with an EM II sherd and EM III/MM I material.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (1). Materials: clay (yes), obsidian (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

317. Venetis Type: unknown. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Kastamonitsa. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Panagiotakis 2006, 399.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Panagiotakis 2006, 399, MM I–II.

315. Trapeza, Kastellos Trench 11

Burial

Type: rock shelter. Area: Lasithi. Nearest village: Tzermiadon. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

Other

References

Pithos: no. Larnax: no. A cemetery with MM I–II material was reported at this site.

Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 13; Zois 1973, 124.

Architecture

318. Vitsilia

Plan: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 7, fig. 3.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Partira. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

Dating

References

Documented first use: LN. Other periods documented: EM I(?), MM I. Citations: Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1940, 13, later LN or Subneolithic (Trapeza Ware).

Platon 1953b, 491; Faure 1964, 56 n. 1, 68; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 30.

Dating

Ceramic vases (yes), spindle whorl (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III. Citations: Platon 1953b, 491, N; Faure 1964, 56 n. 1, EM I; Sakellarakis and SapounaSakellaraki 1997, 30, EM I–III.

Burial

Burial

Contents

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

316. Tsampi Type: rock shelter. Area: Malia. Nearest village: Tsampi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Iliopoulos 1998.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Iliopoulos 1998, MM.

Burial Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

319. Yiophyrakia Type: unknown. Area: North-Central Crete. Nearest village: Yiophyrakia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Marinatos 1933–1935, 49–51; Walberg 1983, 105; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 387; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 200; Momigliano 2007, 93, table 3.1.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I? Citations: Marinatos 1933–1935, 51, early MM; Walberg 1983, 105, EM III; Sakellarakis and

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

257

Dating

Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 387, EM III; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 200, EM III–MM I; Momigliano 2007, 93, table 3.1, EM III.

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III? Citations: Branigan 1974, 11, EM II–III?

Burial

Contents

Marinatos suggested a burial context, even when the bones found may belong to animals and the architectural context is unclear; Goodison and Guarita suggest that it could be a tholos tomb. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

L. daggers (1), figurines (1). Materials: stone (1), copper (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

320. Zinta Type: unknown. Area: Central Crete. Nearest village: Zinta. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Material purchased by the Herakleion Museum and in the Giamalakis Collection that may have come from a burial context at Zinta.

References Branigan 1972, 22; 1974, 11; Pieler 2004, 115.

Mirabello Bay and Ierapetra Region 321. Chrysokamino Type: cave. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Tholos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Mosso 1910, 289–290; Foster 1978; Betancourt 1983, 14, Pachiamos; 2006, 215–220, 261–262, Theriospelio; Zois 1990, 340; Haggis 1992, 170–173; 2005, 113–114; Becker and Betancourt 1997, 109 n. 24; Betancourt et al. 1999, 343, 351; Hayden 2004, 42.

Architecture L.: 60 m.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II, EM III(?), MM III. Citations: Mosso 1910, 290, EM II, MM III, (EM III?); Betancourt 1983, 14, FN/EM I; 2006, 216–218, FN/EM I–EM IIB; Haggis 1992, 171, 173, FN–EM III; Betancourt et al. 1999, 343, FN–EM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), slag (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Not clear whether this cave contained human remains. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Probably the same cave as the one called Pachiamos in Betancourt 1983, 14, and visited by Hall in 1910 (see Betancourt 2006, 215–216).

322. Evraika, Rock Shelter I Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Condition: good. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Pariente 1991, 940; Haggis 1992, 216–217; 2005, 141; Tsipopoulou 2008, 132.

Architecture Number of spaces: 2. Other features: two connected rooms: east room is 1 x 2.4 m and the west one has been cut into the rock and had a built doorway and a screen wall; the western one is entered through a 3.5 m long corridor.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Haggis 1992, 217, Chamaizi pots (MM I) and carinated cups (MM II); 2005, 141, MM I–II.

258

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), seals (2). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Remains of 13 individuals reported, found both inside and outside pithoi and larnakes. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Other Western chamber was heavily disturbed and did not contain any material.

323. Evraika, Rock Shelter II Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Pariente 1991, 940; Haggis 1992, 216–217; 2005, 141.

Architecture Other features: closed with a wide stone screen.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other An unexcavated rock shelter was reported; it may constitute a separate rock shelter tomb or part of Rock Shelter I.

324. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb I Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 186–187; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Davaras 1973a, 588–589; Soles 1973, 13–30; 1979, 158– 161; 1992b, 3–17; 1974, 48–49; Silverman 1974, 17; Davis 1977, 87–93; 1979; Andreou 1978, 106; Walberg 1983, 124; Wilson 1985, 304; Pini, ed., 1992, 56–57 (CMS V, Suppl. 1A, nos. 51, 52); Fotou 1993, 100; Wilson and Day 1994, 17; Sbonias 1995, 179; Vavouranakis 2005; Cultraro 2006; Wilson 2007, 70, table 2.5.

Architecture W.: 3.2 m. L.: 3.7 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: Tomb II. Other features: pit found in northwest corner of north room;

inner wall lined and cut into the rock; bench in the south room. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 2, plan 2.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: EM II, MM IA, MM IB, MM II, MM III–LM I. Citations: Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56, MM including Kamares Style pottery; Davis 1977, 93, MM IB– IIA; Andreou 1978, 106, MM II–III; Walberg 1983, 124, MM II–III; Soles 1992b, 9, MM IA–II, pit deposit: EM IIA and MM I; Wilson and Day 1994, 17, pit deposit contains EM IIA material; Wilson 2007, 70, table 2.5, EM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (11), stone vases (9), seals (2), tools (1), beads (11), ornaments (15), silver vases (1). Materials: copper (2), ivory (15), gold (1), silver (11).

Burial In her notebook, Boyd reports a broken casella containing two heads; she was possibly referring to larnakes. Pithos: no. Larnax: possible.

Other EM IIA material probably not related with an EM IIA construction of the tomb, but may represent a secondary deposition (Soles 1992b).

325. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb II Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 187–188; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Kenna 1960, 37; Davaras 1973a, 588–589; 1974, 48–49; Soles 1973, 30–52; 1979, 161–164; 1992b, 3–4, 17–28; Silverman 1974, 14–15; Fotou 1993, 100; Sbonias 1995, 179; Vavouranakis 2005.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: north? Number of spaces: 2 or 3. Associated contexts: Tomb I, open area outside tomb. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 2, plan 2.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB(?), MM II, MM III? Citations: Boyd 1905, 188, deposit of Kamares Ware pottery similar to Mackenzie 1903, 180, and deposit under the floor levels of the town (MM III?); Kenna 1960, 37, MM II; Silverman 1974, 14, MM III; Soles 1992b, 22–23, MM IA,

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

some EM III pottery underneath the east wall; Sbonias 1995, 176, seals may come from the Malia workshop, MM II.

Dating

Contents

Contents

259

Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Soles 1992b, 31, EM IIA; Wilson and Day 1994, 17, EM IIA.

Ceramic vases (21), stone vases (11), tools (3), seals (3). Materials: clay (21), stone (12), copper (3).

Ceramic vases (7), tools (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (7), copper (2).

Burial

Burial

A broken casella was reported in this tomb, probably referring to a larnax. Pithos: no. Larnax: possible.

16 skulls reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

326. Gournia North Cemetery, Area outside Tomb II Type: open area. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 187–188; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Soles 1973, 37–40; 1979, 161–164; 1992b, 3–4, 19–20; Fotou 1993, 100; Hillbom 2005, 123, 141.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tomb II. Other features: low staircase outside southeast corner that leads to two leveled boulders probably used as a platform/altar; just south of the platform lay a kernos. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 2, plan 2.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Soles 1992b, 23, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), amulets (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1).

327. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb III Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Condition: badly preserved. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Davaras 1973a, 588 (House Tomb II); 1974, 48–49; Soles 1992b, 28–34; Wilson and Day 1994, 17.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 4. Other features: built against the rock outcrop. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 11, plan 2.

Soles (1992b, 31) suggested that the EM IIA material from the pit in Tomb I might come from the clearing of this tomb.

328. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb IV Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unkown. Dubious: no.

References Soles 1992b, 34–36.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 3.5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 14, plan 2.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Soles 1992b, 36, MM I.

Burial No bones or material recovered from this building. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

329. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb V Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 182; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Zois 1968a, 53; Wilson 1984, 272–273; Soles 1992b, 1, 36– 38; Fotou 1993, 100; Wilson 2007, 70, table 2.5.

Architecture L.: 1.5 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 15, plan 2.

260

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Zois 1968a, 53, EM I/IIA; Wilson 1984, 272–273, EM IIA; Soles 1992b, 38, EM IIA; Wilson 2007, 70, table 2.5, EM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (2). Materials: clay (2).

Burial Due to its size, Soles suggested that the shelter only contained one body; human bones were found in the shelter. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Fotou (1993, 100) suggested that Rock Shelter V and VI as published by Boyd are both part of the same rock shelter (contra Soles 1992b, 36–38).

330. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb VI Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 182–183; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Zois 1968a, 54; Wilson 1984, 273; 2007, 70, table 2.5; Soles 1992b, 1, 36–38; Fotou 1993, 100; Wilson and Day 1994, 17.

331. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb VII Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1904, 42; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Soles 1979, 157; 1992b, 39–40; Fotou 1993, 99.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 5.5 m. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: divided by a stand-alone wall that created two doorways between the two rooms. Plan: Soles 1992b, plan 2; Fotou 1993, pls. XL, XLI.

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Citations: Soles 1992b, 40, MM I?

Contents Ceramic vases (19), tools (3), ornaments (2). Materials: clay (19), copper (4), gold (1).

Burial Fragments of three casella reported by Boyd in the notebooks, probably indicating larnakes. Pithos: no. Larnax: possible.

Other Exact location of the tomb varies between Soles 1992b and Fotou 1993.

Architecture L.: 2 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Plan: Soles 1992b, 5, fig. 15, plan 2.

Dating

332. Gournia North Cemetery, Tomb VIII

Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Zois 1968a, 54, EM I/IIA; Wilson 1984, 273, EM II; 2007, 70, table 2.5, EM IIA; Soles 1992b, 38, EM IIA; Wilson and Day 1994, 17, EM IIA.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

Contents

Boyd 1904, 42; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 46; Soles 1979, 157; 1992b, 39–40; Fotou 1993, 99.

Ceramic vases (2), amulets (1). Materials: clay (2), bone (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Fotou (1993, 100) suggested that Rock Shelter V and VI as published by Boyd are both part of the same rock shelter (contra Soles 1992b, 36–38).

References

Architecture Plan: Soles 1992b, plan 2; Fotou 1993, pls. XL, XLI.

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Citations: Soles 1992b, 40, MM I?

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial Fragments of two casella reported by Boyd in the notebooks, probably indicating larnakes. Pithos: no. Larnax: possible.

Other Exact location of the tomb varies in Soles 1992b and Fotou 1993 plans.

333. Gournia Sphoungaras, Rock Shelter I Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

261

154; Fotou 1993, 101; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 132.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II(?), MM I? Citations: Zois 1968a, 53, EM I/IIA and early Vapheio type cup; 1998b, 154, perhaps MM; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 132, FN/EM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (2). Materials: clay (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Boyd 1905, 179–181; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Hall 1912a, 43–46; Faure 1964, 67; Warren 1965, 18; Zois 1968a, 51; 1973, 106–107; Wilson 1984, 272; Warren and Hankey 1989, 19; Fotou 1993, 101; Haggis 1993, 30–31; Wilson and Day 1994, 17; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 132; Hayden 2004, 42 n. 42.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Hall 1912a, pl. XV.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA. Citations: Warren 1965, 18, EM I; Zois 1968a, 51, EM I/IIA; Wilson 1984, 272, EM IA–IIA; Warren and Hankey 1989, 19, EM II; Haggis 1993, 30– 31, EM I–?; Wilson and Day 1994, 17, EM IIA; Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 132, FN/EM I; Hayden 2004, 42 n. 42, EM I–IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (10). Materials: clay (10).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

335. Gournia Sphoungaras, Rock Shelter IV Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 182; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Hall 1912a, 43; Fotou 1993, 101.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II? Citations: Boyd 1905, 182, Kamares Style pottery; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56, larnax of early type (EM III/MM I?), White-on-Dark carinated cup (MM IB–II?).

Contents Ceramic vases (2). Materials: clay (2).

Burial

334. Gournia Sphoungaras, Rock Shelter II Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Boyd 1905, 179–181; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56 n. 2; Hall 1912a, 43; Faure 1964, 67; Zois 1968a, 53; 1998b,

Pieces of a casella reported, probably referring to a larnax. Pithos: no. Larnax: possible.

Other The material was described by Boyd Hawes et al. (1908, 56) as coming from the open hillside, not from a rock shelter.

262

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

336. Gournia Sphoungaras, Deposit A Type: unknown. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Hall 1912a, 46–48, 53–55; Betancourt 1983, 47–48, 51; Walberg 1983, 124; Karantzali 1996, 51; for the Neolithic deposit: Betancourt 1983, 44–46.

Architecture Plan: Hall 1912a, pl. XV.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: MM I–III. Citations: Hall 1912a, 47, EM II; Betancourt 1983, 47–48, 51, EM IIB, MM I; Karantzali 1996, 51, EM IIA–?

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 37), stone vases (1), tools (1), seals (2), figurines (1), beads (1), triton shell (yes). Material: clay (min. 37), stone (min. 1), ivory (1), copper (1), gold (6).

Burial Fragments of bones and larnakes were found in this deposit. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

338. Gournia Sphoungaras, MM I Deposit Type: open area. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References

Contents

Hall 1912a, 56–58; Betancourt 1983, 49; Walberg 1983, 125.

Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (3), tools (4). Material: clay (12), stone (3).

Architecture

Burial No bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other LN material was found underneath this deposit.

337. Gournia Sphoungaras, Deposit B Type: open area. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Hall 1912a, 46–53; Zois 1968a, 173–175; Platon, ed., 1969, 559–560 (CMS II, 1, nos. 469, 470); Andreou 1978, 62; Betancourt 1983, 46–48; 1984, 17; Walberg 1983, 124; Karantzali 1996, 51.

Architecture Other features: part of a wall was discovered in this deposit; Hall suggested that cist burials may have originally existed here. Plan: Hall 1912a, pl. XV.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIB. Other periods documented: EM II(?), EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Zois 1968a, 173–175, EM III; Andreou 1978, 62, EM III; Betancourt 1983, 46–48, EM IIB; 1984, 17, EM III; Walberg 1983, 124, EM III; Karantzali 1996, 51, EM I/IIA–III.

Plan: Hall 1912a, pl. XV.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB, MM II, MM III. Citations: Walberg 1983, 124 (under “Deposit B” she refers to fig. 28 in Hall 1912a that illustrates ceramics from this deposit), 125, EM III/MM IA–MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (28), stone vases (2). Material: clay (28), stone (2).

Burial Hall reported burial pithoi from this deposit. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

339. Gournia Sphoungaras, Pithos Cemetery Type: pithos cemetery. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Hall 1911; 1912a, 58–72; Walberg 1983, 125; Petit 1990, 55.

Architecture Plan: Hall 1912a, pl. XV.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

263

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II(?), MM III. Citations: Hall 1912a, 63– 64, MM I, but mainly MM III–LM I; Walberg 1983, 125, MM III.

Documented first use: EM IIB. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Boyd 1905, 185, Vasilike Ware; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56, MM I; Walberg 1983, 128, MM IB/IIA; Zois 1968a, 222, MM I (early polychrome ware); 1998b, 174, EM I/II–MM I/II.

Contents Ceramic vases (28), stone vases (2). Material: clay (28), stone (2).

Contents

Burial

Burial

151 pithoi and 1 larnax; all pithoi placed upside down. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

Boyd mentioned parts of a casella, probably referring to a larnax. Pithos: no. Larnax: possible.

340. Hagia Photia Ierapetras, Rock Shelter I

342. Hagia Photia Ierapetras, Rock Shelter III

Type: rock shelter. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Ierapetras. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Ierapetras. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References

References

Ceramic vases (4). Material: clay (4).

Boyd 1904, 21; 1905, 183–186; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Faure 1964, 67, Sta Pherma; Zois 1968a, 87– 89, 222; 1998b, 173–174; Betancourt 1984, 9; 2000; Haggis 1993, 14–15 n. 10.

Dating

Dating

Contents

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III? Citations: Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56, EM II–III; Zois 1968a, 88, EM IIA–IIB (Koumasa and Vasiliki Wares); 1998b, 173, EM I/II–III; Betancourt 1984, 9, early White-on-Dark Ware (EM IIB); Haggis 1993, 14–15 n. 10, FN/EM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (4). Material: clay (4).

Burial

Boyd 1904, 21; 1905, 183. Documented first use: unknown. Tools (1). Material: copper (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Boyd (1905, 183) mentioned a ruined rock shelter where a copper axe was found; this seems to be a third shelter, perhaps the same tomb in which a stratified pottery deposit was found (Boyd 1905, 185).

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

343. Hagios Antonios 341. Hagia Photia Ierapetras, Rock Shelter II

Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Kavousi. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

Type: rock shelter. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Ierapetras. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Hall 1914, 183–185; Faure 1964; Betancourt 1983, 5–6; 2009, 52; Haggis 1993; 2000; 2005, 98–99.

References

Architecture

Boyd 1904, 21; 1905, 183–186; Boyd Hawes et al. 1908, 56; Faure 1964, 67, Sta Pherma; Zois 1968a, 87– 89; 1998b, 174–175.

W.: 5 m. L.: 2.2 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: small natural terrace in front of the rock shelter, 5 by 7 m. Plan: Haggis 1993, 14, fig. 4.

264

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM IA. Citations: Hall 1914, 183, EM II; Betancourt 1983, 5, EM IIA–III; 2009, 52, EM I–?; Haggis 1993, 27–28, EM I–EM III/MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (12), stone vases (2), tools (3), t. daggers (2), beads (49), amulets (1), ornaments (3). Material: clay (15), stone (51), ivory (1), obsidian (1), copper (6), silver (3).

tomb, but the remaining wall might be a terrace or field wall (Haggis 1996, 651 n. 17). Plan: Haggis 1996, 648, fig. 3, 650, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Haggis 1996, 653–655, EM III/MM IA–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (30). Materials: clay (30).

Burial

Burial

Material was found in the terrace outside the shelter, as well as remains of animal bones, perhaps indicating ritual food consumption. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Five larnax burials: two of them with one individual each in a secondary deposition. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other Small settlement found 400 m southwest of the tomb (Haggis 2005).

344. Hagios Nikolaos Type: pithoi, larnakes. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Hagios Nikolaos. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1951, 444; Gallet de Santerre 1952, 242.

Dating

346. Kalo Chorio, Tomb B Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Kalo Chorio. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Haggis et al. 1993; Haggis 1996.

Architecture L.: 2.5 m. Associated contexts: Tomb A. Other features: badly preserved; it seems to be a rectangular tomb; but the remaining wall might be a terrace or field wall (Haggis 1996, 651 n. 17). Plan: Haggis 1996, 648, fig. 3.

Dating

Documented first use: MM. Citations: Platon 1951, 444, MM; Platon paralleled the material to that from the cemetery at Pacheia Ammos; a cup with branch decoration may be dated to MM II–III.

Documented first use: EM III/MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II. Citations: Haggis 1996, 651–655, EM III/MM IA–MM II.

Contents

Contents

Ceramic vases (yes). Material: clay (yes).

Burial One small larnax and one small pithos. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

345. Kalo Chorio, Tomb A Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Kalo Chorio. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Haggis et al. 1993; Haggis 1996.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 5 m. Associated contexts: Tomb B. Other features: badly preserved; it seems to be a rectangular

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial One pithos burial. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

347. Klisidi Type: cave. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Metaxochori. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Faure 1956, 100; 1964, 48–49, 60; Younger 1976; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 46–48.

Architecture L.: 25 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 3. Other features: cave with three chambers. Plan: Younger 1976, 167, fig. 1.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

265

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: LM. Citations: Faure 1964, 60, N, LM III, and later. Younger 1976, EM IIB but possibly earlier EM; most of the material is EM.

30 skulls found in Room I; bones found in Room II but not in Room III. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Contents

349. Mochlos, Tomb IV/V/VI

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Remains of at least 20 skeletons, all probably EM (Younger 1976); Faure reported skeletal remains of infants. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

348. Mochlos, Tomb I/II/III Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 17–40; Zois 1968a, 81–86; Platon, ed., 1969, 563–564, 570 (CMS II, 1, nos. 472, 473, 478); Soles 1973, 58–68; 1992b, 43–51; Pini, ed., 1975, 21–22 (CMS V, 1, no. 25); Davaras and Papadakis 1976, 376– 378; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 356 (CMS II, 2, no. 249); Pini 1982; Aruz 1984; Wilson 1984, 273–274; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 259–260, 262–263; Branigan 1991b; Sbonias 1995, 87; Karantzali 1996, 48; Davaras and Soles 1997, 57; Girella 2004, 278, 281; Watrous 2005; Phillips 2008b, 199–201; Hickman 2011.

Architecture W.: 4.5 m. L.: 15 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Room III was a later addition; Room II separated into two spaces; entrance framed by piers. Plan: Soles 1992b, 44, fig. 16, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA(?), MM IB(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Seager 1912, 23–24, 37, EM II–III and MM III; Zois 1968a, 81–86, EM IIA–?; Soles 1973, 68; 1992b, 49, EM IIA–MM I and MM III; Wilson 1984, 273, EM II; Sbonias 1995, 87, EM III/MM IA; Karantzali 1996, 48, EM II–III and MM in Room III; Watrous 2005, 110–112, ?–MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (29), seals (5), tools (9), t. daggers (4), beads (yes), amulets (yes), ornaments (108). Material: clay (8), stone (31), ivory (9), copper (14), gold (103), silver (6), crystal (1).

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 40–56; Platon 1948, 589; Zois 1968a, 86–87, 149, 160; 1973, 101–104; Platon, ed., 1969, 562 (CMS II, 1, no. 471); Davaras 1973b, 1974, 1975; Soles 1973, 68–86; 1992b, 51–62; Pini, ed., 1975, 20, 23 (CMS V, 1, nos. 24, 26); Davis 1977, 67–68; Walberg 1983, 129; Betancourt 1984, 17; Wilson 1984, 246, 273–274; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 261–264; Branigan 1991b; Sbonias 1995, 85; Karantzali 1996, 48–49; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 109, no. 86; Girella 2004, 278, 281; Watrous 2005; Phillips 2008b, 201–202.

Architecture W.: 5.5 m. L.: 8 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: pavement outside tomb. Other features: walls lined with upright slabs; Room V was a later addition; FN/EM I deposit underneath Room V; Room IV had an entrance framed by two piers. Plan: Soles 1992b, 52, fig. 20, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA(?), MM IB(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Seager 1912, 40, EM I, EM II–MM III; Zois 1968a, 86–87, 149, 160, EM IIA, EM III; 1973, 104, FN– EM III; Soles 1973, 84–86; 1992b, 57–59, EM IIA–III and MM III; Walberg 1983, 128, late EM III; Betancourt 1984, 17, EM III; Wilson 1984, 246, deposit underneath tomb FN/EM I, 273–274, EM II; Sbonias 1995, 85, EM III–MM IA; Karantzali 1996, 48, EM IIA–?; Watrous 2005, 112, ?–MM I and MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (17), stone vases (28), seals (1), tools (4), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (1), beads (yes), amulets (yes), ornaments (65). Material: clay (17), stone (29), ivory (4), copper (6), gold (86), silver (5), crystal (5), faience (yes), Egyptian blue (yes).

Burial Human remains found in all three rooms. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

266

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

350. Mochlos, Pavement outside Tomb IV/V/VI

Dating

Type: open area. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA(?), MM IB(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Seager 1912, 56, EM III/MM I; Soles 1992b, 104, EM II–EM III/MM I.

References

Contents

Seager 1912, 40; Soles 1973, 77–80; 1992b, 56–57, 62; Davaras 1974; 1975.

Stone vases (2), beads (1), copper bowl (yes). Material: stone (3), copper (1).

Architecture

Burial

W.: 5 m. L.: 6 m. Number of spaces: 3. Associated contexts: Tomb IV/V/VI. Other features: paved area and a raised paved terrace with a platform/altar on it; there may have existed steps approaching this pavement; different color stone slabs used in the construction of the pavement. Plan: Soles 1992b, 52, fig. 20, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM IB(?), MM III/LM I. Citations: Seager (1912, 40) reported EM I underneath the pavement together with gold scraps; the pavement may have been constructed in EM II.

Contents

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

352. Mochlos, Tomb VIII Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 57; Soles 1992b, 100, 104; Karantzali 1996, 49.

Architecture

Stone vases (2), ornaments (1). Material: stone (2), copper (1).

W.: 2 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Num­­­ber of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles 1992b, 99, fig. 43, plan 3.

Use

Dating

Stone vase fragments were found on top of the platform/altar.

Other Six gold pieces, three stone vase fragments, and a bronze scrap reported by Davaras in 1975 coming from Seager’s spoil in this area, but they have been included in the material from Tomb IV/V/VI.

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 57, EM II–III; Soles 1992b, 104, EM II (late?)–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (2). Material: clay (4), stone (2).

Burial

351. Mochlos, Tomb VII Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 56–57; Soles 1992b, 98–99, 104; Karantzali 1996, 49.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: walled rock shelter. Plan: Soles 1992b, 99, fig. 42, plan 3.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

353. Mochlos, Tomb IX Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 57; Soles 1992b, 79–84, Girella 2004, 278, 281.

Architecture W.: 2.5 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tomb X. Plan: Soles 1992b, 79, fig. 31, plan 3.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

267

Dating

Architecture

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB(?), MM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 57, MM I and MM III; Soles 1992b, 82, EM II–MM III.

W.: 3 m. L.: 4 m. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: paved floor on the east side of the room. Plan: Soles 1992b, 95, fig. 40, plan 3.

Contents

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA. Citations: Seager 1912, 59, EM II–MM I; Zois 1968a, 214, MM I; Andreou 1978, 80– 81, EM II–MM I; Walberg 1983, 129, EM II and EM III/ MM IA; Soles 1992b, 96, EM II–MM IA; Koehl 2006, 72, MM IA.

Stone vases (3), ornaments (1). Material: stone (3), gold (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating

Contents

354. Mochlos, Tomb X

Ceramic vases (8), stone vases (18), l. daggers (1), figurines (1). Material: clay (9), stone (19), copper (1).

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Seager 1912, 57–58; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 357–359 (CMS II, 2, nos. 250, 251); Soles 1992b, 79–84; Sbonias 1995, 99 n. 142; Phillips 2008b, 202.

Architecture W.: 2.5 m. L.: 2 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tomb IX. Plan: Soles 1992b, 79, fig. 31, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB(?), MM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 58, EM II–MM I, MM III; Soles 1992b, 82, EM II–MM III; Sbonias 1995, 99 n. 142, EM III/MM IA.

Contents Stone vases (1), seals (4). Material: stone (5).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

356. Mochlos, Tomb XII Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 61–63; Zois 1968a, 161; Davis 1977, 68; Walberg 1983, 129; Karantzali 1996, 49; Girella 2004, 282.

Architecture Number of spaces: 1. Other features: Seager (1912, 41–42, 61) defined the tomb as a “cist grave” but reported a doorway, so it is probably a rectangular tomb.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 61, EM–MM III; Zois 1968a, 161, EM III.

Contents

355. Mochlos, Tomb XI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 58–61; Zois 1968a, 214; Andreou 1978, 80–81; Walberg 1983, 129; Miller 1984, 36; Soles 1992b, 94–97; Karantzali 1996, 49; Koehl 2006, 72.

Ceramic vases (1), stone vases (3), seals (1), beads (3), amulets (1), ornaments (2), copper vases (2). Material: clay (3), stone (5), copper (4).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

268

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

357. Mochlos, Tomb XIII

References

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Seager 1912, 65–66; Soles 1973, 90–91; 1992b, 88– 93; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 360 (CMS II, 2, no. 252); Karantzali 1996, 49; Girella 2004, 278, 281.

References

Architecture

Seager 1912, 63–65; Warren 1977, 138–139; Walberg 1983, 129–130; Miller 1984, 35–36; Soles 1992b, 87–88, 91–92; Koehl 2006, 77; Wilson 2007, 76, table 2.7.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 4 m. Number of spaces: 1.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA. Citations: Seager 1912, EM II–MM I; Walberg 1983, 129–130, EM II–EM III/MM I; Soles 1992b, 91, EM II–MM IA; Koehl 2006, 77, EM III; Wilson 2007, 76, table 2.7, EM IIB.

Contents

W.: 1.7 m. L.: 2.5 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tombs XVI, XVII. Plan: Soles 1992b, 89, fig. 36, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 65–66, EM II/III, MM III/LM I; Soles 1973, 91; 1992b, 92, EM II–MM IA, MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (2), stone vases (7), seals (1), beads (1). Material: clay (2), stone (8).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Ceramic vases (9), stone vases (3), tools (1), figurines (1). Material: clay (10), stone (3), copper (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

358. Mochlos, Tomb XIV Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 65.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Contents Ornaments (1). Material: silver (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

359. Mochlos, Tomb XV Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

360. Mochlos, Tomb XVI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 66–68; Zois 1968a, 87, 164; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 361 (CMS II, 2, no. 253); Walberg 1983, 130; Soles 1992b, 89–93; Wilson and Day 1994, 18; Karantzali 1996, 49.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tombs XV, XVII. Other features: narrow spur wall at east side of tomb. Plan: Soles 1992b, 89, fig. 36, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA. Citations: Seager 1912, EM II, MM I; Zois 1968a, 87, 164, EM II–EM III/MM I; Walberg 1983, 130, EM II–III; Soles 1992b, 91, EM II–MM IA; Wilson and Day 1994, 18, EM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (8), seals (1), ornaments (1). Material: clay (4), stone (9), gold (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

269

361. Mochlos, Tomb XVII

363. Mochlos, Tomb XIX

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

References

Seager 1912, 68–69; Soles 1973, 87–91; 1992b, 90– 94; Karantzali 1996, 49.

Seager 1912, 70–74; Soles 1973, 92–93, 101; 1992b, 64–65, 71; Pini 1981, 422 n. 4; Wilson 1984, 274; Karantzali 1996, 49; Watrous 2005.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 3.2 m. Entrance orientation: west. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tombs XV, XVI. Plan: Soles 1992b, 89, fig. 36, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA. Citations: Seager 1912, 68– 69, EM II/III; Soles 1973, 91; 1992b, 92, EM II–MM IA.

Contents Ceramic vases (1), stone vases (3). Material: clay (1), stone (3).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

362. Mochlos, Tomb XVIII

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 2. Plan: Soles 1992b, 66, fig. 25, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA(?), MM IB? Citations: Seager 1912, 70, EM II–III; Soles 1973, 101; 1992b, 71, EM II– III; Wilson 1984, 274, EM II; Watrous 2005, 112–113, ?– MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (6), tools (9), t. daggers (1), l. daggers (1), beads (yes), ornaments (min. 19). Material: clay (4), stone (6), copper (11), gold (20).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912; 69–70; Platon, ed., 1969, 568–569 (CMS II, 1, no. 477); Soles 1992b, 105–106.

Architecture W.: 0.6 m. L.: 0.6 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles 1992b, 106, fig. 47, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 69, EM II–III; Soles 1992b, 106, EM II–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (7), seals (1). Material: clay (7), stone (1).

Burial Room for only one burial. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

364. Mochlos, Tomb XX/XXI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 74–78; Zois 1968a, 164–165; Soles 1973, 103–109, 113; 1992b, 73–77, 82; Wilson 1984, 274; Lambrou-Phillipson 1991, 260; Karantzali 1996, 50; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 119, no. 98; Watrous 2005.

Architecture W.: 4.3 m. L.: 3.3 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: Tomb XXII. Plan: Soles 1992b, 74, fig. 28, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA(?), MM IB(?), MM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 74, Room XX is MM I, MM III, 76, Room XXI is EM II–III; Zois 1968a, 164–165, Room

270

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

XXI is EM III; Soles 1973, 113; 1992b, 82, XX/XXI is EM II–III, MM III (only in Room XXI); Wilson 1984, 274, Room XX is EM II; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 119, no. 98, MM III; Watrous 2005, 113, Room XXI is MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (5), stone vases (12), tools (7), t. daggers (2), beads (51), ornaments (9). Material: clay (9), stone (9), copper (8), gold (51), silver (1).

Burial Large number of bones reported by Seager; many objects found in a crevice in the rock in Room XXI. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

365. Mochlos, Tomb XXII

Architecture W.: 2.5 m. L.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tombs Alpha and Beta. Plan: Soles 1992b, 66, fig. 25, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 79, EM II–III.

Contents Stone vases (1), beads (100), amulets (1). Material: stone (3), gold (100).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

367. Mochlos, Tomb Alpha

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

References

Seager 1912, 78–79; Soles 1973, 109–110, 113–115; 1992b, 76–77, 82–86; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 119, no. 99.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 2.7 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: Tomb XX/ XXI. Plan: Soles 1992b, 74, fig. 28, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM III. Citations: Seager 1912, 78, LM I; Soles 1973, 113–115; 1992b, 82, EM II/III, MM I, MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (2), tools (1), seals (2), beads (12), ornaments (3). Material: clay (2), stone (3), copper (2), gold (14), crystal (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

366. Mochlos, Tomb XXIII Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1912, 79–80; Soles 1973, 93–96; 1992b, 65– 68; Karantzali 1996, 50.

Soles 1992b, 69, 71.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 2.2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tombs XXIII and Beta. Plan: Soles 1992b, 66, fig. 25, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Contents Tools (2). Material: stone (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

368. Mochlos, Tomb Beta Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Soles 1992b, 69, 71.

Architecture W.: 2.7 m. L.: 3.5 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: tombs XXIII and Alpha. Plan: Soles 1992b, 66, fig. 25, plan 3.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

271

371. Mochlos, Tomb Epsilon Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Soles 1992b, 103–104.

369. Mochlos, Tomb Gamma Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Soles 1992b, 77, 83–84.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 2.2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles 1992b, 78, fig. 30, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Soles 1992b, 83, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (1). Material: clay (1).

Burial Fragments of a pithos were found, possibly a burial pithos. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Architecture W.: 1.3 m. L.: 1.4 m. Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tomb Delta. Plan: Soles 1992b, 102, fig. 44, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

372. Mochlos, Tomb Zeta Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Soles 1992b, 106–108.

Architecture: W.: 2 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Plan: Soles 1992b, 107, fig. 48, plan 3.

370. Mochlos, Tomb Delta Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Soles 1992b, 100–103.

Architecture

373. Mochlos, Tomb Eta

W.: 4.1 m. L.: 4.2 m. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: Tomb Epsilon. Plan: Soles 1992b, 102, fig. 4, plan 3.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Dating

References

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Soles 1992b, 108–110.

Architecture W.: 2.1 m. L.: 2.1 m. Entrance orientation: northwest. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles 1992b, 109, fig. 49, plan 3.

272

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

374. Mochlos, Tomb Theta Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

References Soles 1992b, 112–113.

Architecture W.: 1.7 m. L.: 2.5 m. Entrance orientation: southwest. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: walled rock shelter. Plan: Soles 1992b, 112, fig. 53, plan 3.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Soles 1992b, 110.

Architecture

377. Mochlos, Tomb Lambda

W.: 2.5 m. L.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 2. Associated contexts: Tomb Nu. Plan: Soles 1992b, 109, fig. 50, plan 3.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Dating

References

Documented first use: EM II. Citations: Soles 1992b, 110, EM II.

Soles and Davaras 1992, 422–423; Davaras and Soles 1997.

Burial

Architecture

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

375. Mochlos, Tomb Iota

W.: 7 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles and Davaras 1992, 422, fig. 4.

Dating

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM IIA? Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA, MM IB. Citations: Soles and Davaras 1992, 423, EM II–MM IB.

References

Contents

Soles 1992b, 112.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: walled rock shelter. Plan: Soles 1992b, 111, fig. 52; Soles and Davaras 1992, 421, fig. 3.

Ceramic vases (33), stone vases (3), seals (1), tools (46), iron nail (1). Material: clay (33), stone (34), obsidian (16).

Burial Earlier EM IIA burials, including a cremation found underneath the tomb. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

376. Mochlos, Tomb Kappa Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

378. Mochlos, Tomb Mu Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Soles and Davaras 1992, 424.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

273

References Soles and Davaras 2010, 3; Soles 2012, 197.

Architecture

379. Mochlos, Building Nu Type: associated building. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Soles and Davaras 1992, 424.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tomb Theta.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Contents Tools (11,901). Material: stone (13), obsidian (11,888).

Use Unclear context; may be associated with the cemetery, but not used for burial.

380. Mochlos, Building Xi Type: associated building. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Soles and Davaras 1992, 424.

Architecture Entrance orientation: southwest. Other features: entrance has four steps; tomb floor lower than the ground level.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Use Excavators suggested it was not a tomb, although it is probably associated with the cemetery.

Number of spaces: several. Other features: several phases of construction; terrace walls.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA, EM IIB. Citations: Soles and Davaras 2010, 3, EM I, EM IIA, and EM IIB; Soles 2012, 197, EM I use is not funerary.

Use Cist grave reported from late use; one building used for offerings and there are spaces for cooking and feasting; no early human remains reported from the EM I and EM II periods.

Other EM I use seems to be for habitation and perhaps also involved an obsidian workshop; in EM II, new areas and buildings were created, probably intended to be used for activities associated with the cemetery.

382. Myrsini Other names: no. 41 (Branigan 1970b); no. 89 (Branigan 1993); Myrsini (Panagiotopoulos 2002); no. 54 (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Myrsini. Excavated: yes. Condition: partly destroyed. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1959, 373–374; Daux 1960, 821; Hood 1960a; Warren 1969, 195 n. 2; Pelon 1976, 31–32; Belli 1984, pl. XXXII; Petit 1990, 54; Branigan 1993, 148.

Architecture Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 1.2. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Vaulted: possible. Other features: Platon suggested that it had a corbelled roof because of the large quantity of stones found inside the tomb and the corbelling of the tholos wall.

Dating

381. Mochlos, Unnamed Type: associated building. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM I. Citations: Platon 1959, 374, last Prepalatial phases; Warren 1969, 195 n. 2, EM II–MM IB; Branigan 1993, 149, EM III–MM IA.

274

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents

References

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes), tools (yes), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), obsidian (yes), copper (yes).

Catling 1972, 24–25; 1974, 37–38; Soles 1973, 218– 220; 1992b, 176–179; Davis 1977; Cadogan 1978, 70– 74; 1981; 2011a, 40–42; 2011b; Hankey 1981, 1986; Koehl 2006, 75, 280, 332.

Burial At least 25 larnakes and pithoi reported; interments also made in the ground; more than 60 bodies were estimated. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

383. Myrtos Pyrgos, Tomb Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Myrtos. Excavated: yes. Condition: reused. Dubious: no.

References Catling 1972, 24–25; 1974, 37–38; Soles 1973, 218– 220; 1992b, 176–179; Davis 1977; Cadogan 1978, 70– 74; 1981; 2011a, 40–42; 2011b; Hankey 1981, 1986; Girella 2004, 278, 282–283, fig. 23.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 4 m. Other features: paved road leading from the settlement to the tomb and an open court; one of the stones of the pavement is a kernos; pavement also contained a bench; dimensions given only for the court. Plan: Cadogan 1978, 72, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Cadogan 1978, 71–73, EM III/MM IA–MM IB; 2011b, 110–111, EM III/MM IA construction, upper pavement may have been built in MM IB; Koehl 2006, 75, EM III–MM IA.

Other Founding deposit under lower pavement.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 7 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Number of spaces: 4. Other features: central room has a central pillar, probably supporting a second floor; this room is considered the main tomb; the other two small spaces reported as ossuaries; second floor considered a cult area. Plan: Cadogan 1978, 72, fig. 5.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II, LM I. Citations: Cadogan 1981, 58, EM III/MM IA–LM IB.

Contents

385. Pacheia Ammos Type: pithos cemetery. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Pacheia Ammos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Seager 1916; Platon and Alexiou 1957, 339–340; Alexiou 1963b, 405; Zois 1968a, 167–168; Betancourt 1977, 346–348; 1984, 20; Walberg 1983, 125–126; Apostolakou 1986; Petit 1990, 54–55; Girella 2004, 278–280.

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (29). Material: clay (yes), stone (29).

Architecture

Burial

Dating

65 individuals estimated, all of them male and from the LM levels. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II(?), MM III, LM I. Citations: Seager 1916, 9, EM III–LM I; Alexiou 1963b, beginning of Neopalatial; Zois 1968a, 167–168, EM III–?; Walberg 1983, 125, EM III–MM III; Betancourt 1977, 347, EM III–?; 1984, 120, EM III/MM I.

Other Material and interments inside the tomb date mostly to MM II–LM IB; settlement right next to the tomb.

Other features: 20 m from modern seashore.

Contents

384. Myrtos Pyrgos, Pavement outside Tomb Type: open area. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Myrtos. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Ceramic vases (yes). Material: clay (yes).

Burial 222 pithoi and 6 larnakes were published; interments were found inside the pithoi in crouched position with

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

the head facing down; large stones kept the pithoi in place; large larnakes and pithoi interred upside down. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

386. Pseira, Tomb I

275

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

388. Pseira, Tomb III

Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

References

Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 5–17.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 2 m. Entrance orientation: east or south. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 3.

Dating

Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 35–38.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 2.5 m. Entrance orientation: southest. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 5.

Dating

Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 17, FN/EM I–MM II.

Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds. 2003, 38, EM I or IIA–MM II.

Contents

Contents

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (7), tools (7), ornaments (1). Material: clay (yes), stone (8), bone (3), obsidian (7), copper (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

387. Pseira, Tomb II

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (3). Material: clay (yes), stone (1), obsidian (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

389. Pseira, Tomb IV

Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References

References

Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 19–34.

Architecture W.: 2.5 m. L.: 3 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 20, 22, ills. 3, 4, figs. 2, 4.

Dating Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 33, FN/EM I–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (20), tools (3), beads (3). Material: clay (yes), stone (29), copper (3).

Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 39–49; Betancourt 2011b.

Architecture W.: 2.6 m. L.: 3.5 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: walled exterior enclosing the shelter. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 6.

Dating Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 48–49, FN/EM I–MM II; Betancourt 2011b, 92–93, outside terrace constructed in MM II.

276

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents Ceramic vases (59), stone vases (8), tools (5). Material: clay (59), stone (13), obsidian (5).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

390. Pseira, Tomb V Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 51–55.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

392. Pseira, Tomb VII Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 63–68.

Architecture W.: 1.3 m. L.: 2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 9.

Architecture

Dating

W.: 1.7 m. L.: 2 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 7.

Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 68, FN/EM I–EM IIB.

Dating

Contents

Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 55, FN/EM I–MM II.

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (6), amulets (1). Material: obsidian (6), gold (1).

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1), tools (1). Material: clay (yes), stone (3), obsidian (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

391. Pseira, Tomb VI Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 57–61.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

393. Pseira, Tomb VIII Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 69–72.

Architecture W.: 1.7 m. L.: 2 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 10.

Architecture

Dating

W.: 2.5 m. L.: 2.5 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 8.

Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 72, EM IIA–MM IIB.

Dating

Contents

Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 61, FN/EM I–MM IIB.

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (5), tools (4). Material: clay (5), stone (5), obsidian (1), copper (3).

Contents

Burial

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (2), tools (3). Material: clay (yes), stone (2), obsidian (3).

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

277

394. Pseira, Tomb IX

396. Pseira, Tomb XI

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Condition: badly preserved. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References

References

Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 73–81.

Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 93–94.

Architecture

Architecture

W.: 1.6 m. L.: 2.3 m. Entrance orientation: east. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 11.

L.: 2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 13.

Dating

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 94, MM I–II.

Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 81, FN/EM I–MM IIB.

Contents Ceramic vases (58), stone vases (10), tools (15), ornaments (2), bronze vessel (yes). Material: clay (58), stone (10), obsidian (15), copper (3), crystal (yes).

Burial

Dating

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1). Material: clay (yes), stone (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

397. Pseira, Tomb XII 395. Pseira, Tomb X Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Condition: badly preserved. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 83–91.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Condition: badly preserved. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 95–97.

Architecture

Architecture

W.: 2.3 m. L.: 3 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds. 2003, figs. 2, 14.

W.: 1.8 m. L.: 2 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 12.

Dating

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 90–91, EM I/ IIA–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (19), stone vases (14), tools (1), ornaments (2), bronze vessel (yes). Material: clay (19), stone (14), copper (5), crystal (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: EM IIB. Other periods documented: EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 97, EM IIB–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (2), beads (1). Material: clay (yes), stone (3).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

398. Pseira, Tomb XIII Type: cist. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

278

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 99–102.

Architecture Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 102, EM I–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (9), tools (1), bronze vase (yes). Material: clay (yes), stone (9), copper (2).

Burial

Dating Documented first use: EM I? Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 131, 133, 134, EM I/IIA–MM II, pottery found near this rock shelter; 2003, unknown.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Material: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other No material discovered inside this rock shelter, but in its vicinity.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

399. Pseira, Tomb XIV Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 103–104.

Architecture W.: 0.5 m. L.: 2.4 m. Entrance orientation: east. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds. 2003, figs. 2, 15.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, 104, MM I–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (1). Material: clay (1).

Burial

401. Pseira, Tomb XVI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 107–109.

Architecture W.: 2.7 m. L.: 0.7 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 17.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, FN–MM IIB.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Material: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

400. Pseira, Tomb XV Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 105–106.

Architecture W.: 0.4 m. L.: 0.6 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras. eds., 2003, figs. 2, 16.

402. Pseira, Tomb XVII Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 111.

Architecture W.: 7.5 m. L.: 1 m. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 18.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other No material discovered inside this rock shelter.

403. Pseira, Tomb XVIII Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 113.

Architecture W.: 2.2 m. L.: 0.8 m. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 19.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

279

405. Pseira, Northwest Area, Q27–Q30 Type: open area. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 115–117; 2003.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II, MM III, LM I. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 115–117, EM–LM I.

406. Pseira, East Area, Q31 Type: open area. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 115–117; 2003.

Dating Documented first use: FN/EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II, MM III, LM I. Citations: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002, 115–117, EM–LM, earlier than sites Q27–Q30.

No material discovered inside this rock shelter.

407. Schisma 404. Pseira, Tomb XIX Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Mochlos. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: yes.

References Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2002; 2003, 115.

Architecture

Type: unknown. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Schisma. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Lemerle 1937, 474.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Lemerle 1937, 474, EM.

W.: 0.8 m. L.: 1 m. Plan: Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 2, 19.

Burial

Dating

Other

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial

Pithos: no. Larnax: no. Author just mentioned an EM cemetery in this location.

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other No material discovered inside this rock shelter.

408. Vardoiani Type: cave. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Kritsa. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

280

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References

Other

Faure 1956, 100; 1964, 60, 70.

Tomb located on the side of the hill, with the settlement located at the top.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIB. Citations: Faure 1956, 100, EM IIB (Vasiliki Ware).

Contents

410. Vasiliki B Type: rock shelter. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Reported as a possible tomb. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Zois 1972a, 282–283; 1992a, 103.

Architecture

409. Vasiliki A

Other features: rock cavity under west wall of Room 39 in the settlement.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Mirabello. Nearest village: Vasiliki. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

Dating

References

Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Zois 1992a, 103, Koumasa Ware.

Seager 1907, 114–115; 1916, 20; Hall 1912a, 73; Zois 1972a, 274; 1976, 24; Soles 1992b, 194–195.

Contents

Architecture

Ceramic vases (yes), figurines(?). Materials: clay (yes), stone(?).

Number of spaces: min. 2.

Burial

Dating

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Hall 1912a, 73, MM I; Seager 1916, 20, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (1), beads (1). Materials: clay (1), stone (1).

Other A fragment of a Cycladic figurine was found in the area (Zois 1972a, 282–283) and may be associated with this context; the rock shelter was situated at the top of the hill where the settlement may have been located.

Burial Four larnakes reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

East Crete 411. Chosto Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Goudoura. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Davaras 1972b, 646; Schlager and Dollhofer 1998.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: south. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: measurements only correspond to first chamber. Plan: Schlager and Dollhofer 1998, 7, fig. 4 (only first chamber).

Dating Documented first use: EM IIB. Other periods documented: EM III, MM I, MM II, MM III. Citations: Schlager and Dollhofer 1998, 11–28, EM IIB–MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1).

Burial Human bone fragments found mixed together with the ceramic sherds. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

281

412. Hagia Photia Siteias A, 210 Rock Cut Tombs

413. Hagia Photia Siteias A, 35 Pit Tombs

Other names: tombs 1–4, 6–12, 15–24, 27–39, 32– 53, 56–61, 63–91, 95, 96, 98–100, 103–111, 114–117, 119, 121–141, 143–149, 151–157, 159, 161, 163–168, 176, 177, 179–187, 189, 190, 193–203, 205–207, 209–211, 213–218, 220–227, 229, 233–238, 241–247, 252–263 (Davaras and Betancourt 2004). Type: rock-cut tombs. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Siteia. Condition: good. Disturbed: yes. Dubious: no.

Other names: tombs 25, 26, 54, 55, 62, 92, 93, 97, 101, 102, 112, 113, 118, 158, 160, 162, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 178, 188, 191, 192, 197, 208, 212, 228, 230–232, 236, 240, 248 (Davaras and Betancourt 2004). Type: pit tombs. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Davaras 1971; 1972b, 648–650; Orlandou 1971, 266–267; Stucynski 1982, 55; Karagianni 1984, 69, 82–83, 85; Miller 1984, 556; Wilson 1984, 247–248; Tsipopoulou 1989; 1992; Karantzali 1995; 1996, 46– 48, 238–239; 2008; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Betancourt 2003a; 2008; 2009; 2012b; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003; Davaras and Betancourt 2004; 2012; Shank 2005; Betancourt and Muhly 2007; McGeorge 2008; Muhly 2008.

Architecture W.: 0.6–2.2 m. L.: 1–3.5 m. Entrance orientation: varies. Number of spaces: 2–3. Other features: formed by a burial chamber and an antechamber excavated in the rocky ground, separated by a built wall. Around 0.5–1 m deep; three examples of two burial chambers sharing an antechamber; average size of each chamber is 1 x 1 m. Plan: general plan in Davaras and Betancourt 2012, fig. 21; for individual plans of the tombs, see Davaras and Betancourt 2004.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA. Citations: Davaras 1971, 396, EM I/II; Wilson 1984, 247–248, EM IB; Karantzali 1996, 48, EM I–IIA; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 136– 137, EM I; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 232, EM I– II; Betancourt 2009, 52, 55, 59, 72–78, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (1,528), stone vases (8), tools (965), amulets (2). Materials: clay (1,528), stone (8), obsidian (933), copper (32), silver (2).

Burial Normally one or two individuals were found in each tomb, some of them found empty; very few tombs, normally with two burial strata, contained 10–12 interments. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Cycladic wares dominate the assemblage; above contents figures refer to all 263 tombs in the cemetery.

References Davaras 1971, 392–397; 1972b, 648–650; Orlandou 1971, 266–267; Stucynski 1982, 55; Karagianni 1984, 69, 82–83, 85; Miller 1984, 556; Wilson 1984, 247–248; Tsipopoulou 1989; 1992; Karantzali 1995; 1996, 46– 48, 238–239; 2008; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998; Betancourt 2003a; 2008; 2009; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003; Davaras and Betancourt 2004; 2012; Shank 2005; McGeorge 2008; Muhly 2008.

Architecture W.: 0.5–1.2 m. L.: 0.5–1.2 m. Entrance orientation: varies. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: single pits excavated into the rocky ground; circular or oval plan. Plan: general plan in Davaras and Betancourt 2012, fig. 21; for individual plans of the tombs, see Davaras and Betancourt 2004.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA. Citations: Davaras 1971, 396, EM I/II; Wilson 1984, 247–248, EM IB; Karantzali 1996, 48, EM I–IIA; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998, 136–137, EM I; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 232, EM I–IIA; Betancourt 2009, 72–78, EM I–?

Contents Ceramic vases (1,528), stone vases (8), tools (965), amulets (2). Materials: clay (1,528), stone (8), obsidian (933), copper (32), silver (2).

Burial Normally the remains of one or two individuals were found in each tomb. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Cycladic wares dominate the assemblage; above contents figures refer to all 263 tombs in the cemetery.

414. Hagia Photia Siteias A, 13 Tombs of Uncertain Type Other names: tombs 5, 13, 14, 94, 120, 142, 150, 173, 204, 219, 239, 250, 251 (Davaras and Betancourt 2004).

282

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Type: unknown. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Betancourt 2003a; 2008; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003; Davaras and Betancourt 2004; Shank 2005; McGeorge 2008; Muhly 2008.

References

Architecture

Davaras 1971, 392–397; 1972b, 648–650; Orlandou 1971, 266–267; Stucynski 1982, 55; Karagianni 1984, 69, 82–83, 85; Miller 1984, 556; Wilson 1984, 247–248; Tsipopoulou 1989; 1992; Karantzali 1995; 1996, 46– 48, 238–239; 2008; Day, Wilson and Kiriatzi 1998; Betancourt 2003a; 2008; 2009; Stos-Gale and Gale 2003; Davaras and Betancourt 2004; 2012; Shank 2005; McGeorge 2008; Muhly 2008.

Number of spaces: 1. Plan: for general plan, see Davaras and Betancourt 2012, fig. 21.

Architecture Other features: tombs badly preserved and their exact structure is unknown. Plan: general plan in Davaras and Betancourt 2012, fig. 21; for individual plans of the tombs, see Davaras and Betancourt 2004.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM IIA. Citations: Davaras 1971, 396, EM I/II; Wilson 1984, 247–248, EM IB; Karantzali 1996, 48, EM I–IIA; Day, Wilson and Kiriatzi 1998, 136–137, EM I; Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 232, EM I–IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (1,528), stone vases (8), tools (965), amulets (2). Materials: clay (1,528), stone (8), obsidian (933), copper (32), silver (2).

Burial Normally the remains of one or two individuals were found in each tomb. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Cycladic wares dominate the assemblage; above figures refer to all 263 tombs in the cemetery.

415. Hagia Photia Siteias A, Rock Shelter

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Burial No human remains or other material were found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

416. Hagia Photia Siteias B Type: cave. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Platon 1959, 390–391; Faure 1960, 193; 1964, 67; Tsipopoulou 1989, 33, site 9.

Architecture L.: 75 m.

Dating Documented first use: N. Other periods documented: EM(?), MM? Citations: Platon 1959, 391, MM; Faure 1960, 193, EM and MM; Tsipopoulou 1989, 33, N–MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes), copper (yes).

Burial Human remains reported (Platon 1959) without clear dating. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

Other names: tomb 249 (Davaras and Betancourt 2004). Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Goudoura. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

A second small rock shelter found near the main entrance also contained archaeological material.

References

Other names: no. 92 (Branigan 1993); Tholos A (Belli 2003); 11, Ayia Photia/Kouphota A (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Davaras 1971, 392–397; 1972b, 648–650; Orlandou 1971, 266–267; Stucynski 1982, 55; Karagianni 1984, 69, 82–83, 85; Miller 1984, 556; Wilson 1984, 247–248; Tsipopoulou 1989; 1992; Karantzali 1995; 1996, 46– 48; 238–239; 2008; Day, Wilson, and Kiriatzi 1998;

417. Hagia Photia Siteias C, Tholos A

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Tsipopoulou 1988; 1989, 98; 1990, 307–309; Catling 1989, 102; Belli 2003.

Architecture

References Tod 1903; Faure 1964, 67.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 4 m. Other features: low wall at the entrance.

Dia.: 8 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.4 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: architecture resembles EM–MM burial tholoi. Plan: Belli 2003, pl. LXXIII.

Dating

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: MM IIA. Citations: Tsipopoulou 1989, 98; 1990, 308, MM IIA.

Burial No human remains found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Structure built on top of a MM IA building.

418. Hagia Photia Siteias C, Tholos B Other names: Tholos B (Belli 2003); 12, Ayia Photia/Kouphota B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagia Photia Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Tsipopoulou 1988; 1989, 98; 1990, 307–309; Catling 1989, 102; Belli 2003.

Architecture Dia.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: east. Doorway type: built. Wall thickness: 1.1 m. Annex: no. Vestibule: no. Other features: architecture resembles EM–MM burial tholoi. Plan: Belli 2003, pl. LXXIII.

Dating Documented first use: MM IIA. Citations: Tsipopoulou 1989, 98; 1990, 308, MM IIA.

Burial No human remains found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Structure built on top of a MM IA building.

419. Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou, Rock Shelter I Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: heavily disturbed. Dubious: no.

283

Documented first use: unknown. Seven or eight skulls. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

420. Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou, Rock Shelter II Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: heavily disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Tod 1903; Faure 1964, 67.

Dating Documented first use: unknown.

Contents Ornament (1). Materials: copper (1).

Burial One skull. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Copper item is probably Byzantine.

421. Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou, Rock Shelter III Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Duckworth 1903a; Tod 1903; Evans 1921, 60; Faure 1964, 67, Karvoulakkos; Charles 1965, 41–42; Mortzos 1972; Zois 1972, 427–430; 1973, 92–97; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 137; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 1.5 m. Other features: a natural terrace lies outside the shelter. Plan: Duckworth 1903a, 346, fig. 1.

284

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

Burial

Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I. Citations: Evans 1921, 60, EM I; Mortzos 1972, 400, 402, LN–EM I; Zois 1972b, 430; 1973, 95, transition LN–EM I; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 137, EM I; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6, EM I.

Human bones were not found in the area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Contents

Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Lamnoni. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Ceramic vases (13), beads (1). Materials: clay (13), bone (1), silver (1).

Burial Many bones and 10 skulls were found; the pithos found dates probably to LM (contemporary with the main settlement of Palaikastro, Tod 1903, 340). Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

424. Lamnoni Site L44 References Branigan 1998b, 63, 73–74.

Architecture Other features: one rock shelter and several niches in the rocks.

Dating

422. Karydi Type: cave. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Karydi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Faure 1964, 67.

Architecture L.: 135 m.

Documented first use: FN. Citations: Branigan 1998b, 60, 65, FN–LM III.

Burial Human bones and teeth found in the area. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Human remains could not be related to any period in particular.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Faure 1964, 67, EM I.

425. Linares

Burial

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Papadiokambos. Nearest village: Linares. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

One burial reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References

423. Katelionas Site KS3, 28 Tombs Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Katelionas. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Branigan 1998b, 63, 73–74.

Architecture Other features: 28 niches in the rock identified; two were built cists; one had a bench and may date to postMinoan times.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II(?), MM III. Citations: Branigan 1998b, 73–74, FN and MM I–LM III.

Davaras 1972a, 45–46; 1972b, 651; 1973b, 81–82; 1985; Soles 1973, 161–165; 1992b, 158–160; Pini, ed., 1975, 18 (CMS V, 1, no. 21); Sbonias 1995, 74.

Architecture W.: 2.7 m. L.: 5.5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast? Number of spaces: 2. Other features: constructed against a rock outcrop; entrance may have been from above (Davaras 1972a, 46) or from southeast corner (Soles 1992b, 159). Plan: Soles 1992b, 159, fig. 66.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III, MM IA. Citations: Davaras 1972b, 651, EM; 1973b, 82, EM II; Soles 1973, 165, EM III–MM IA; 1992b, EM II?; Sbonias 1995, 74, EM II–III for seal.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

285

Contents

Architecture

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1), seals (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1), ivory (1).

W.: 10 m. L.: 4 m. Plan: Schlager et al. 2002, 208, fig. 18.

Burial

Dating

“Lots of tens of burials” (Davaras 1972a, 45). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II–III, MM I–II. Citations: Schlager et al. 2002, 211, EM I/IIA, EM II, and MM IIB ceramics published from surface survey.

426. Livari, Tholos Type: tholos. Area: Ziros. Nearest village: Hagia Triada. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Schlager et al. 2002, 207–212 (Livari, Skiadi); Triantaphyllou 2009; Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 81 (Goudouras, Livari, Skiadi); Papadatos and Sofianou 2012, 51–52.

Architecture Dia.: 4.5 m. Entrance orientation: southeast? Doorway type: trilithon? Wall thickness: 1–1.6 m. Other features: double wall. Plan: Schlager et al. 2002, 208, fig. 18.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III(?), MM IA(?), MM II? Citations: Schlager et al. 2002, 211, EM I/IIA, EM II and MM IIB ceramics published from surface survey; Whitelaw and Morgan 2009, 81, EM IB–EM III/MM IA; Papadatos and Sofianou 2012, 51–52, EM IB–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes), l. daggers (yes), beads (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), bone (yes), obsidian (yes), copper (yes), gold (yes), silver (yes).

Burial

428. Mandalia Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Hagios Georgios. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1959, 372; Soles 1973, 152–156; 1992b, 127– 129, Hagios Georgios; Georgoulaki 1996b; Girella 2004, 278, 283–284.

Architecture W.: 0.9–2.5 m. L.: 4.1 m. Number of spaces: 2 or 3. Other features: entrance from above; three deposits found outside the tomb. Plan: Soles 1992b, 128, fig. 58.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II, MM III. Citations: Platon 1959, 372, last phases of the Prepalatial period; Georgoulaki 1996b, 148, EM III–MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (50), tools (1), stone weights (yes), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (50), stone (min. 1), silver (1).

Burial

A large number of the human remains had evidence of being burned; bones were extremely fragmented. Pithos: no. Larnax: no

Platon suggested that vases outside the tomb were offerings to the dead (Platon 1959, 372), perhaps in libation rituals (Georgoulaki 1996b, 148); undisturbed burials found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

427. Livari, Context II

429. Maronia Kolibos

Type: rock shelter. Area: Ziros. Nearest village: Hagia Triada. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Type: cave. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Maronia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References Schlager et al. 2002, 209–210 (Livari, Skiadi); Y. Papadatos, pers. comm.

References Sakellarakis 1966b, 418.

286

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

Dating

Documented first use: EM. Citations: Sakellarakis 1966b, 418, EM.

Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Platon 1954a, 364–365, EM II (Vasiliki and Mochlos types of vessels), EM III vase; Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 191, EM II.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other It is possible that this cave is the same one investigated by Marinatos (Spiliara I; Marinatos 1937, 224, 228) and Platon (Spiliara II; Platon 1954a, 364–365; 1954b, 511).

Contents Ceramic vases (10), seals (2), beads (1). Materials: clay (10), ivory (2), gold (1).

Burial Three burials reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

430. Maronia Spiliara I Type: rock shelter. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Maronia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Marinatos 1937, 224, 228; Warren 1965, 8; Karetsou, Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and Papadakis 2001, 98, no. 72; Panagiotaki 2008, 35–36; Phillips 2008b, 196.

Dating

This might be the same rock shelter as Maronia Kolibos and Maronia Spiliara I; Faure reported two caves referencing Platon’s report; Phillips (2008b, 196) has referred recently to two rock shelters (Spiliara and Ayionero) based on Platon’s report, but it seems that Platon referred to two trenches in the same cave as “σκάμμα”.

432. Mertydia Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Mertydia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: MM I, EM II. Citations: Marinatos 1937, 224, 228, EM I–II, Pyrgos and Partira Ware; Warren 1965, 8, EM II(A) for the incised pyxis.

References

Contents

Dating

Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (1), faience cup (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1), faience (1).

Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Faure 1964, 67, EM I.

Burial

Burial

Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Faure 1964, 67, Myrtidia.

Inhumation reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other This rock shelter may have been the same investigated by Sakellarakis (Maronia Kolibos; Sakellarakis 1966b, 418) and Platon (Spiliara II; Platon 1954a, 364– 365; 1954b, 511 ); the recently discovered faience jar (Panagiotaki 2008) may be the handleless cup reported by Marinatos together with the stone pyxis.

433. Messorachi Type: tholos. Area: Papadiokambos. Nearest village: Skopi. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved, looted. Dubious: no.

References Papadatos and Sofianou 2012, 48–50.

431. Maronia Spiliara II Type: rock shelter. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Maronia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1954a, 364–365; 1954b, 511; Faure 1964, 67; Platon, ed., 1969a, 499–500 (CMS II, 1, nos. 421–422); Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 191; Vasilakis 1996b, 189.

Architecture Dia.: 3.2 m. Entrance orientation: south-southeast. Doorway type: trilithon. Wall thickness: 0.85–1 m.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Papadatos and Sofianou 2012, 50, EM I–IIA, EM III/MM IA.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

287

Contents

References

Ceramic vases (yes), beads (yes), pendants (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), copper (yes).

Bosanquet 1902a, 290–297; Duckworth 1903b, 350– 354; Dawkins 1905, 269; Soles 1973, 227–234, 1992b, 188–191; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 370–372 (CMS II, 2, nos. 257, 258); Walberg 1983, 131; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399; Zois 1998a, 58; Phillips 2008b, 213–214.

Burial A few fragmented and badly preserved human bones. Pithos: no. Larnax: no

Architecture

434. Palaikastro Gravel Ridge, Tomb I Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

W.: 7.5 m. L.: 8.5 m. Number of spaces: 5. Other features: five parallel rooms subdivided into cells; no doorway discovered but structure was partially destroyed. Plan: Bosanquet 1902a, 291, figs. 5, 292, fig. 6; Duckworth 1903b, 352, fig. 4.

Dating

Bosanquet 1902a, 290–292; Dawkins 1903, 307, fig; 7.1; 1905, 272; Warren 1965, 10–14; Soles 1973, 118– 119; 1992b, 179–180; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398; Zois 1998a, 48–49.

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III. Citations: Dawkins 1905, 269, MM I; Soles 1973, 230–234; 1992b, 191, MM IA–IB; Walberg 1983, 131, MM IA–III; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399, MM IB/IIA–IIB/IIIA; Zois 1998a, 58, EM IIB(?)–MM III.

Architecture

Contents

References

W.: 5 m. L.: 1.5 m. Other features: northwest end of the gravel ridge. It may have had parallel long rooms like Tomb VII but no architecture survived.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM IIB(?), EM III? Citations: Dawkins 1905, 272, EM I; Warren 1965, 8, EM IIA; Soles 1973, 118, EM IIA–IIB; 1992b, EM II; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398, EM IIA; one Vasiliki Ware jug was found in the area, Dawkins 1903, 307, fig. 7.1; Zois 1998a, 48– 49, EM IIA–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (4), stone vases (5). Materials: clay (4), stone (5).

Burial Bones heaped together and fragmented. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Some of the material was found in the surrounding area and not inside the tomb.

435. Palaikastro Gravel Ridge, Tomb VIIa Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Ceramic vases (140), stone vases (8), seals (2), tools (1). Materials: clay (140), stone (9), ivory (1), copper (1).

Burial Many disturbed human bones in a secondary deposition; skulls piled together in each room, 97 in total; the remains of an infant were found inside a tall vase; southeast corner of the tomb contained a primary interment; many cups and dishes found upside down. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

436. Palaikastro Gravel Ridge, Tomb VIIb Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: very badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Bosanquet 1902a, 294; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 12 n. 2, 118; Soles 1973; 234–235; 1992b, 191–192.

Architecture Other features: three-course ashlar wall (contra Soles 1992b, 192 n. 190).

Dating Soles 1973, 235, MM IA; 1992b, 192, MM IB.

288

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents

Dating

Ceramic vases (2), tools (8). Materials: clay (2), copper (8).

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Dawkins 1905, 269, MM I; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 5, EM I; Renfrew 1964, 116, EM I; Soles 1973, 224; 1992b, 187, MM I; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399, EM III–MM IA; Karantzali 1995, 452, EM II–?

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Eight single axes reported from the gravel ridge area near the sea, thus probably around this tomb (Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 118); ashlar blocks are unusual in the building of tombs and the wall may not be part of a tomb.

437. Palaikastro Gravel Ridge, Tomb VIII Type: unknown. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Duckworth 1903b, 352–353; Soles 1973, 235–236; 1992b, 192–193.

Architecture Other features: round building with other walls attached. Plan: Duckworth 1903b, 352, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: no dating given by excavators, Soles suggested a MM I use (Soles 1992b, 193).

Burial Ten skulls and many other bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

438. Palaikastro Patema, Tomb V Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Contents Ceramic vases (17), l. daggers (1), tools (3), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (17), copper (5).

Burial Scattered human remains found as well as three bodies in contracted position with heads oriented to the east, two of the three found in the northeast room. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

439. Palaikastro Sarantari, Tomb IVa Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

References Dawkins 1905, 269; Hawes 1905, 293; Soles 1973, 220–221; 1992b, 184.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 5 m. Entrance orientation: south? Number of spaces: min. 3. Other features: walls and steps found south of this tomb may indicate another building or more rooms. Plan: Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Dawkins 1905, 269, MM I; Hawes 1905, 293, same period as ossuaries at the Gravel Ridge and Ta Ellenika (MM I).

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Duckworth 1903b, 351–355; Dawkins 1905, 269, 272; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 5, 7–9; Renfrew 1964, 116; Charles 1965, 40–41; Sackett et al. 1965, 249; Soles 1973, 222–225; 1992b, 184–187; Karantzali 1995, 452.

440. Palaikastro Sarantari, Tomb IVb

Architecture

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

W.: 8 m. L.: 8 m. Entrance orientation: east? Number of spaces: min. 6. Other features: published plan shows only part of the building, consisting of at least six rooms. Plan: Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Dawkins 1905, 269; Hawes 1905, 293; Soles 1973, 220–221; 1992b, 184.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: northeast? Number of spaces: 2. Other features: poorly preserved. Plan: Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4.

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Dawkins 1905, 269, MM I; Hawes 1905, 293, same period as ossuaries at the Gravel Ridge and Ta Ellenika (MM I).

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

289

442. Palaikastro Ta Ellenika, Tomb III Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Dawkins 1905; Warren 1965, 24; Soles 1973, 124– 127; 1992b, 183–184; Andreou 1978, 60; Walberg 1983, 133–134; Betancourt 1984, 15–16, 36; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398; Zois 1998a, 72.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 9 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 6. Other features: Rooms 1 and 2 may be later additions; other walls east of the ossuary. Plan: Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4. Soles 1992b, 181, fig. 72.

Dating

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: badly preserved. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM IA? Citations: Dawkins 1905, 269, EM III; Warren 1965, 24, EM III; Andreou 1978, 60, EM III; Walberg 1983, EM III–MM IA; Betancourt 1984, 36, EM III; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398, EM IIB–?; Soles 1992b, 184, EM III; Zois 1998a, 72, EM II– MM IA.

References

Contents

441. Palaikastro Ta Ellenika, Tomb II

Dawkins 1904, 196–202; 1905, 272; Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923, 5–7; Soles 1973, 119–123; 1992b, 181– 183; Betancourt 1979, 34, 43–44, 46–47, 49; 1985, 51; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398; Zois 1998a, 63.

Architecture W.: 6 m. L.: 7 m. Number of spaces: 2. Other features: no doorway discovered. Plan: Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4. Soles 1992b, 181, fig. 72.

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Other periods documented: MM I. Citations: Dawkins 1905, 272, EM II and MM I; Soles 1973, 122–123; 1992b, 182–183, EM IIB and MM I; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 398, EM IIA–?; Zois 1998a, 63, EM IIA–MM.

Ceramic vases (42), stone vases (3), l. daggers (1). Materials: clay (42), stone (3), copper (1).

Burial Rooms 3 and 4 contained the majority of the human remains and material. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

443. Palaikastro Ta Ellenika, Tomb VI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Palaikastro. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References

Ceramic vases (25), stone vases (1), tools (1), l. daggers (1). Materials: clay (25), stone (1), copper (1).

Dawkins 1904, 202; Branigan 1965; Soles 1973, 225–227; 1992b, 188; Platon, Pini, and Salies, eds., 1977, 373–374 (CMS II, 2, no. 259); MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399; Zois 1998a, 67.

Burial

Architecture

Small number of bones in small room, maybe only one burial intended in this tomb; no burials in large room; Dawkins suggested that it was used for cult activities (Dawkins 1904, 197). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

W.: 2.8 m. L.: 6 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 2. Plan: Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4. Soles 1992b, 181, fig. 72.

Contents

290

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

References

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Soles 1992b, 188, MM IA material and at least one MM IB wheel-made jug; MacGillivray and Driessen 1990, 399, EM III/MM IA–?; Zois 1998a, 67, MM IA–IB.

Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 96; Branigan 1993, 91; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 203–204.

Dating

Contents

Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 96, all the pottery was handmade (before MM IB?).

Ceramic vases (23), stone vases (1), seals (1), tools (3). Materials: clay (23), stone (2), copper (4), gold (1).

Contents

Burial One body deposited on a layer of pebbles in the small room; large number of scattered bones in the larger room together with two contracted bodies, heads oriented to the east; around 15 skulls found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

444. Pedino, Tholos I

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Goodison and Guarita (2005) found little evidence for a tholos tomb here, although the area has been recently bulldozed.

Other names: no. 70 (Branigan 1970b); no. 90 (Branigan 1993); Pedino A (Panagiotopoulos 2002); Pedino A and B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Lithines. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Perivolakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: no.

References

References

Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 96; Branigan 1993, 91; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 203–204.

Architecture Other features: round structure.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Pendlebury, Money-Coutts, and Eccles 1934, 96, all the pottery was handmade (before MM IB?).

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Goodison and Guarita (2005) found little evidence for a tholos tomb here, although the area has been recently bulldozed.

445. Pedino, Tholos II Other names: no. 71 (Branigan 1970b); no. 91 (Branigan 1993); Pedino B (Panagiotopoulos 2002); see Pedino A and B (Goodison and Guarita 2005). Type: tholos. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Lithines. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

446. Perivolakia

Touchais 1985, 845; Phillips 2008b, 217.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM IB. Citations: Touchais 1985, 845, early EM– MM; Phillips 2008b, 217, MM IB.

Burial One larnax found. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

447. Petras Kephala, Tomb I Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130; 2010; 2012b, 59; Betancourt 2012a, 111–112; Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012, 134–136, 138–139.

Architecture W.: 8.1 m. L.: 8.3 m. Number of spaces: 8. Associated contexts: Tomb VIII. Other features: various phases of construction. Plan: Betancourt 2012a, 111, fig. 3; Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), seals (yes), l. daggers (2), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), copper (2), gold (2).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other

291

in secondary deposition. Two larnakes and a pithos found. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

449. Petras Kephala, Area outside Tomb II Type: open area. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Tsipopoulou 2012a; 2012b, 59; 2012d, 121–123; Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012, 138–139.

Architecture

Fragments of four Cycladic figurines (EM IIA) were found outside the rectangular tombs.

Number of spaces: 1. Associated contexts: Tomb II. Other features: eight benches and a peribolos wall delimiting the space. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13; 2012d, 120, 122, figs. 3, 5.

448. Petras Kephala, Tomb II

Dating

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: MM I. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Tsipopoulou 2012d, 121, Protopalatial, including Kamares.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130; 2010; 2012a; 2012b, 58–59; 2012d, 119; Betancourt 2012a, 109–111; Dierckx 2012; Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012, 136–137, 139–141; Krzyszkowska 2012, 150–154.

Architecture W.: 7.2 m. L.: 8.6 m. Number of spaces: 9. Associated contexts: outside space, Tomb VI. Other features: eight rooms; one porch. Rooms 7 and 8 were added at a later date. Benches outside the building. Plan: Betancourt 2012a, 108, fig. 1a; Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13; 2012d, 120, fig. 3.

Dating Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA; 2012c, 181, EM III–MM IB/MM IIA; Betancourt 2012b, 109, EM III; Krzyszkowska 2012, 150–154, MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), seals (5), tools (yes), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), obsidian (257), copper (yes), gold (yes), silver (yes).

Burial Rooms 7 and 8 were used for the deposition of ceramics. Room 9 was some kind of porch with few human remains. Rooms 1 to 5 contained human remains

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (1). Materials: clay (yes), copper (1).

Burial Many lamps, open dishes and bowls found in this area; also shells and animal bones. Tumblers deposited in two votive deposits. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

450. Petras Kephala, Tomb III Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130; 2010; Krzyszkowska 2012, 147–148.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tombs V and VI. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM III/MM IA? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA; Krzyszkowska 2012, 147–148, EM III/ MM IA.

292

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), seals (4). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), ivory (1), bone (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

451. Petras Kephala, Tomb IV Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130; 2010; Betancourt 2012a, 110–111; Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012, 139; Krzyszkowska 2012, 148.

Architecture W.: 7.2 m. L.: 8.6 m. Number of spaces: 3. Other features: Room 3 is a U-shaped corridor. Plan: Betancourt 2012a, 110, fig. 2; Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA; Krzyszkowska 2012, 148, MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), seals (2), tools (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes), copper (1).

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

452. Petras Kephala, Tomb V Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130; 2010; Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012, 138; Krzyszkowska 2012, 147–148.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

453. Petras Kephala, Tomb VI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt 2012a, 112.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tomb VI. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

454. Petras Kephala, Tomb VII Type: rectangular tomb/open space. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Betancourt 2012a, 112.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tomb VIII. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Architecture Associated contexts: Tomb III. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

455. Petras Kephala, Tomb VIII

Dating

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

References Tsipopoulou 2012b, 58.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Architecture Associated contexts: Tombs I and VII. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

293

458. Petras Kephala, Tomb XI Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: no. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Tsipopoulou 2012b, 58.

Architecture Associated contexts: space outside Tomb II. Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating

456. Petras Kephala, Tomb IX Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: unknown.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

References Tsipopoulou 2012b, 58.

Architecture Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

457. Petras Kephala, Tomb X Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Tsipopoulou 2012b, 58.

Architecture Plan: Tsipopoulou 2012b, 60, fig. 13.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM III–MM IIA.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

459. Petras Kephala, Rock Shelter I Type: rectangular tomb. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2008, 130; 2010; 2012a, 184; 2012b, 59; 2012c; Triantaphyllou 2009; 2012; Dierckx 2012; Ferrence, Muhly, and Betancourt 2012, 133–134, 136–138; Krzyszkowska 2012, 146–147.

Architecture W.: 4.5 m. L.: min. 3.5 m. Number of spaces: 1. Other features: rock shelter was originally deeper; most of material comes from deposit sealed by fallen outcrop at the entrance of the shelter.

Dating Documented first use: EM IB. Other periods documented: EM II, EM III, MM I, MM II, LM. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, EM I–MM II. Tsipopoulou 2008, 130, EM I–MM IIA; 2010, 124, EM I–MM I, LM; silver items dated to EM I; 2012a, 184, MM IB/IIA. Krzyszkowska 2012, 146, EM III/MM IA, MM I, and MM II.

Contents Ceramic vases (min. 100), stone vases (5), seals (5), tools (yes), beads (min. 6), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (min. 100), stone (min. 13), bone (min. 3), obsidian (yes), copper (7), gold (4), silver (10).

Burial More than 20,000 bone fragments, minimum of 165 individuals estimated. Most remains were unarticulated and many had burn marks. Fragments of a MM I

294

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

larnax reported. Excavators suggest MM I material and human remains come from cleanings of the rectangular tombs in one single event. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

Other Several ceramic vases of Cycladic style.

460. Petras Kephala, Open Area Type: open area. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 97; Tsipopoulou 2012d, 124.

Architecture Other features: possible boundary wall enclosing an open area.

Dating Documented first use: MM IB. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 97, MM IB–IIA; Tsipopoulou 2012d, 124, Protopalatial.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), ornaments (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

461. Siteia Type: rock shelter. Area: Siteia. Nearest village: Siteia. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

References Platon 1953b, 484; 1953a, 290–291; Girella 2004, 278, 283.

Architecture L.: 2.5 m.

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Other periods documented: MM III? Citations: Platon 1953b, 484, MM IIIA; 1953a, 291, MM I.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial One pithos and one larnax were found with bones inside. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

462. Skalais Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Praisos. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Bosanquet 1902b, 235–236; Schachermeyr 1938, 474; Faure 1964, 60, 67, Skales; Zois 1973, 97–98, Skales; Tyree 1974, 7–9; Papadakis and Rutkowski 1985; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 71–72.

Architecture L.: 20 m. Plan: Papadakis and Rutkowski 1985, 130, fig. 1.

Dating Documented first use: N. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II(?), MM II, LM. Citations: Bosanquet 1902b, 236, N, EM, Kamares Style pottery and postMinoan; Schachermeyr 1938, 474, EM and Geometric; Faure 1964, 60, N, EM I, LM III, Protogeometric and Geometric; Papadakis and Rutkowski 1985, 134, N, EM, MM II, LM and post-Minoan.

Burial Bosanquet reported scattered human bones (Bosanquet 1902b, 236); Papadakis and Rutkowski suggested that the burial use of the cave only started in Protogeometric times (1985, 134). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

463. Vamies Site 15 Type: unknown. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Vai. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Greco et al. 2001, 639–640.

Architecture Other features: buildings with circular and rectangular plans.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Citations: Greco et al. 2001, 639–640, EM.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Several structures reported, rectangular, and possibly circular ones.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

464. Zakros Acherotripa

Architecture

Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Dating

References Platon 1971a, 274.

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM I(?), MM II? Citations: Platon 1971a, 274, Old Palace period and Mochlos type ceramics (EM II–III[?], MM[?]); also Geometric, Late Roman, and Byzantine.

Burial

295

W.: 5 m. L.: 4 m. Documented first use: EM IIA. Citations: Zois 1997, 43, EM IIA–IIB.

Contents Ceramic vases (23), tools (3). Materials: clay (23), stone (1), obsidian (2).

Burial Five burials reported within an ash layer, perhaps inside cist graves; one skeleton found flexed lying on its left side with a probable Fine Gray ware vase. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

No human bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

465. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Cave I Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Hogarth 1901, 142–143; Charles 1965, 45; Zois 1997, 42.

Architecture W.: 2 m. L.: 5.5 m. Other features: LM structures found outside the cave.

Dating Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III. Citations: Zois 1997, 42, Fine Gray ware, Koumasa Ware, White-on-Dark Ware, EM IIA–III.

Burial No human bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

467. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Cave III Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1972, 190–191.

Architecture Other features: walls outside rock shelter.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Platon 1972, 191, MM.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (3). Materials: clay (yes), obsidian (3).

Burial Pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

466. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Cave II

468. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Cave IV

Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References

References

Hogarth 1901, 143–144; Faure 1964, 66, Trakhila; Charles 1965, 45; Karantzali 1996, 46; Zois 1997, 43.

Orlandou 1963, 176; Platon 1963, 187–188; 1971b, 66–69, 235; Faure 1965, 30 n. 2, Kouloukiou; Warren 1969, 82; Branigan 1971, 77.

296

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: EM II. Citations: Orlandou 1963, 176, EM II; Platon 1963, 88, Vasiliki Ware; 1971b, 68–69, probable Fine Gray ware and Vasiliki Ware, 235, EM I–II.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), stone vases including pyxis lid with a dog-shaped handle (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Burial Six burials reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Possible Cycladic influences on the material (Platon 1971b, 68–69).

Architecture Other features: a wall was found at the entrance.

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM. Citations: Platon 1963, 165–166, EM and MM pottery.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (2). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1), copper (1).

Burial Pithoi reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

471. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Pharanx

469. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Marmaras

Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References

References

Dating

Platon 1963, 187; Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 183.

Architecture W.: 7 m. L.: 10 m.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Platon 1963, 187, MM wares.

Contents

Orlandou 1976, 195; Touchais 1977, 644. Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Orlandou 1976, 196, perhaps Minoan.

Burial Two skulls found. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

472. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Spiliara

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Burial

References

Six burials reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

Platon 1963, 165; Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 184.

Dating

Cave may have been used for habitation, not burial (Georgoulaki 1996a, no. 183).

Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM. Citations: Platon 1963, 165, MM pithoi, EM pottery.

470. Zakros Gorge of the Dead, Ouranias

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes), figurines (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (yes).

Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

Burial

References Platon 1963, 165–166; Kopaka and Chaniotakis 2003.

Three pithoi found. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Other Georgoulaki suggested that this may have been a domestic context (1996a, no. 184).

473. Zakros Karaviadaina Type: rock shelter. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Touchais, Huber, and Philippa-Touchais 2001, 1018.

Dating Documented first use: MM II. Citations: Touchais, Huber, and Philippa-Touchais 2001, 1018, MM II.

Burial Seven burials reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

474. Zakros Mavro Avlaki Type: cave. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Platon 1961, 224; 1963, 167–168; 1971a, 235; Faure 1962, 39; 1964, 166; Petrakos 1991, 116; Platon 1999, 674–676; Touchais, Huber, and Philippa-Touchais 2001, 1016–1017.

Architecture W.: 5 m. L.: 19 m. Entrance orientation: east. Other features: there was a building in use at the same time as the cave (Platon 1963, 168).

Dating Documented first use: EM II? Other periods documented: EM III(?), MM IA, MM III. Citations: Faure 1962, 39, EM I–II; Platon 1963, 167–168, EM; 1971a, 235, EM II–III; Petrakos 1991, 116, EM III(?)–MM IA; Platon 1999, 674–676, ?–MM III.

Contents Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), obsidian (yes).

Burial Pithos and larnax fragments; the cave may have been used for habitation (Petrakos 1992, 116). Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

297

475. Zakros Pezoules Kephalas, Tomb A Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Orlandou 1967a, 113–115; Platon 1967, 190–194; Soles 1973, 167–173; 1992b, 195–198; Becker 1975a; Pomerance 1977, 22 n. 6; Andreou 1978, 101–102; Walberg 1983, 134; Georgoulaki 1996a, 185–186; Zois 1997, 62–68; Platon 1999, 674, 676; Phillips 2008b, 219.

Architecture W.: 3 m. L.: 4 m. Entrance orientation: southeast. Number of spaces: 3. Plan: Soles 1992b, 196, fig. 77.

Dating Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III. Citations: Platon 1967, 194, MM IA; Soles 1973, 173, MM IA; 1992b, 198, MM IA–II; Andreou 1978, 101–102, MM II–III; Walberg 1983, 134, MM IA–III/LM I; Zois 1997, 68, MM IA; Platon 1999, 674, 676, MM IA–III.

Contents Ceramic vases (100), stone vases (4), beads (3). Materials: clay (100), stone (4), obsidian (4).

Burial 600 burials suggested by excavator, 45 skulls found; larnakes found in all rooms; intact interment found in a larnax; bones found outside the building also. Pithos: yes. Larnax: yes.

476. Zakros Pezoules Kephalas, Tomb B Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Orlandou 1967, 113–115; Platon 1967, 190–194; Soles 1973, 173–176; 1992b, 198–201; Becker 1975a; Pomerance 1977, 22 n. 6; Andreou 1978, 101–102; Yule 1980, 16; Georgoulaki 1996a, 185–186; Zois 1997, 62– 68; Platon 1999, 674, 676; Phillips 2008b, 219.

Architecture W.: 2.4 m. L.: 3.2 m. Number of spaces: 1. Plan: Soles 1992b, 199, fig. 78.

298

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

478. Zakros Rizes, Tomb B

Documented first use: MM IA. Other periods documented: MM IB, MM II, MM III. Citations: Platon 1967, 194, MM IA; Soles 1973, 176; 1992b, 201, MM IA; Andreou 1978, 101–102, MM II–III; Yule 1980, 16, MM II; Zois 1997, 68, MM IA; Platon 1999, 674, 676, MM IA–III.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

Contents

Dating

References Platon 1971a, 274–275.

Ceramic vases (70), stone vases (4), seals (1), tools (2), beads (1), ornaments (1). Materials: clay (100), stone (4), obsidian (4).

Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM IA. Citations: Platon 1971a, 275, final Prepalatial period, (EM III?) MM IA.

Burial

Contents

20 complete skulls; three undisturbed burials, contracted, head oriented north; two of them marked off by small stones, the other found in a larnax. Pithos: no. Larnax: yes.

477. Zakros Rizes, Tomb A Type: rectangular tomb. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Kato Zakros. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

References

Ceramic vases (yes). Materials: clay (yes).

Burial Few human bones reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

479. Ziros Type: Nea Roumata type. Area: Ziros. Nearest village: Ziros. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References

Platon 1971a, 274.

Papadakis 1980, 523.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: it may have a similar dating to Tomb B.

Contents Ceramic vases (2), stone vases (1), tools (2). Materials: clay (2), stone (3).

Burial Human bones and teeth reported. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Architecture Dia.: 2.5 m. Entrance orientation: northeast. Other features: it has a 2.4 m long corridor (a feature typical of LM tholoi); tholos construction and its dimensions resemble the case of a Nea Roumata–type tomb.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Papadakis 1980, 523, Minoan.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

West Crete 480. Chania

Dating

Type: pithoi. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Chania. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: yes.

Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Theofaneides 1940, 484, MM I.

References

Burial

Theofaneides 1940, 484.

One MM I pithos reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

481. Choraphakia

299

References

Type: pithoi. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Choraphakia. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Pendlebury 1939, 103, 123; Faure 1958, 501; 1964, 69; Moody 1987a, 402, no. AMR1; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 46.

References

Architecture

Tzedakis 1979, 398; Catling 1988, 76.

Dating Documented first use: MM. Citations: Tzedakis 1979, 398, MM, an EM cup was found near the surface.

Contents Ceramic vases (2). Materials: clay (2).

Burial One pithos with a cup and a brazier inside; no bones found, nevertheless the excavator suggested a funerary context. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other Similar contexts have been suggested to be nonfunerary (Moody 1987a, 204, 206).

482. Ellinospilaio Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Aphrata. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Faure 1956, 99; 1964, 62; Hood 1965, 105; Treuil 1970, 18; Zois 1973, 211–212; Tyree 1974, 62; Moody 1987a, 668, no. DKT1; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 70.

Architecture L.: 198 m. Other features: long corridor and large chamber.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I? Citations: Faure 1964, 62, Subneolithic.

L.: 3 m.

Dating Documented first use: EM III? Other periods documented: MM IA, MM IB? Citations: Faure 1958, 501, late EM, early MM I; Pendlebury 1939, 103, burials late EM.

Contents Stone vases (2). Materials: stone (2).

Burial Burials reported from this cave, probably late EM, MM I. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

484. Hagios Ioannis Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Chania. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Faure 1962, 45; 1964, 69; Treuil 1970, 19–20; Zois 1973, 205; Tzedakis 1981; Moody 1987a, 394, no. AI6; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 44.

Architecture W.: 4 m. L.: 3 m.

Dating Documented first use: EN. Other periods documented: EM I? Citations: Moody 1987a, 394, EN I–FN.

Burial FN burials documented, but the exact nature of the reported EM stratum is not clear due to disturbances. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Burial Faure reported human bones and burials in this cave (1956, 99), although they may be associated with LM material. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

483. Gerospilia Type: rock shelter. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Hagia Marina. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

485. Kalathas Type: rock shelter. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Choraphakia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Moody 1987a, 517, no. KL11.

300

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating

488. Kera Spiliotisa

Documented first use: EM. Citations: Moody 1987a, 517, EM.

Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Vryses. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Burial

References

No bones were found, but the cave is too small for other use (Moody 1987a, 517, no. KL11). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other See Treuil 1970, 9–10, for a small survey of the area.

486. Kalogerospilio Type: rock shelter. Area: West-Central Crete. Nearest village: Mesonisi. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: no.

References Faure 1964, 68; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 75; Petit 1990, 52.

Architecture Other features: row of three rock shelters.

Dating Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I(?), MM. Citations: Faure 1964, 68, Subneolithic; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 75, MM.

Burial MM pithos fragments were reported, and the burials most probably can be dated to this period. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Faure 1958, 500; 1962, 46–47; 1964, 69; Hood 1965, 106; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 500, 506; Treuil 1970, 18–19; Zois 1973, 210–211; Tyree 1974, 60–62; Moody 1987a, 663, no. VRS1b; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 56–57; Betancourt 2009.

Architecture L.: 15 m. Entrance orientation: northwest. Plan: Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 57, fig. 22 (after Tsiphetakis).

Dating Documented first use: N. Other periods documented: EM I(?), EM(?), MM(?) Citations: Faure 1964, 63, EM I; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 506, N and EM, Pyrgos Ware; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 55–56, EM–MM; Betancourt 2009, 59, EM I–?

Burial Faure reported a possible funerary use for the cave (1964, 69); Tyree and Moody suggested domestic use (Tyree 1974, 62; Moody 1987a, 663). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

489. Korakia Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Georgioupoli. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Faure 1964, 185–186; Tyree 1974, 47–48.

487. Kato Sarakina (Elleniko)

Architecture L.: 13 m.

Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Therisso. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

Dating

References

Documented first use: N. Citations: Faure 1964, 185, MM I, MM III; Tyree 1974, N and MM I.

Faure 1960, 214–215; 1964, 69; Tyree 1974, 59–60; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 55–56.

Burial

Architecture

Tyree (1974) reported human bones in this cave. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

L.: 20 m.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Faure 1960, Subneolithic; 1964, 63, EM I.

Burial Faure reported one or more inhumations in this cave (1964, 69); Tyree suggested Neolithic and EM I domestic use (1974, 59–60). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

490. Koumarospilio Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Koumares. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

301

References

Contents

Jantzen 1951; Faure 1964, 62, 68; Treuil 1970, 21–22; Zois 1973, 205; Tyree 1974, 53–54; Tzedakis and Davaras 1977, 582–583; Moody 1987a, 521, no. KM4; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 46; Karantzali 1996, 85–86; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 58–59.

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (yes). Materials: clay (yes), obsidian (yes).

Architecture L.: 14 m. Number of spaces: 2. Plan: Jantzen 1951, pl. 7.

Dating Documented first use: N. Other periods documented: EM I(?), MM(?), LM. Citations: Jantzen 1951, 4, mainly N, only one MM sherd; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 46, N, MM and LM IIIA:2–IIIB:1; Karantzali 1996, 85–86, LN and LM IIIA:2–IIIB:1; Tomkins 2007, 20, table 1.6, EM I.

Contents

Burial An inhumation was found at the back of the cave, although it is not clear whether it was a deliberate burial or not (Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 75). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

492. Melidoni Mylopotamou (Gerospilio) Type: cave. Area: West-Central Crete. Nearest village: Melidoni. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References

Ceramic vases (yes), tools (2). Materials: clay (yes), obsidian (2).

Faure 1964, 131–136; Tyree 1974, 43–45; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 79–80; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 63–65; Gavrilaki 1997; Blackman 1998, 127.

Burial

Architecture

Faure reported the remains of five individuals, although he did not date the burials (1964, 62); they have been suggested to be Neolithic (Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 46; Moody 1987a, 521, no. KM4; Tyree 1974, 54). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

491. Maryieles Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Ellenais. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Marinatos 1933, 295–297; Pendlebury 1939, 55; Faure 1964, 68; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, 73; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 75–76; Karantzali 1996, 83–84; Kanta and Tzigounaki 2001, 153–156; Tomkins 2007 (Ellenes), 20, table I.6, EM I; Betancourt 2009.

Architecture L.: 32 m.

Dating Documented first use: EM I. Other periods documented: EM(?), MM(?), LM? Citations: Marinatos 1933, 295–296, EM I, Pyrgos Ware; Pendlebury 1939, EM I; Faure 1964, EM I; Hood, Warren, and Cadogan 1964, EM, MM, and LM; Kanta and Tzigounaki 2001, 153–156, EM II–MM II; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6, EM I; Betancourt 2009, 59, EM I–?

L.: 100 m. Entrance orientation: west. Plan: Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 64, fig. 24 (after Petrochilou).

Dating Documented first use: N. Other periods documented: EM(?), MM(?), LM? Citations: Faure 1964, 135, N, LM; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 80, MM, LM; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 65, N and LM I onward; Gavrilaki 1997, N, EM.

Burial Human remains found underneath an EM layer in the north chamber of the tomb (Gavrilaki 1997; Blackman 1998). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

493. NAMFI Beach, 11 tombs Type: rock shelter. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Marathi. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Moody 1987a, 205, no. MR6.

Architecture Other features: 11 rock shelters, manmade, with small narrow entrance and single chamber.

302

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Dating Documented first use: EM. Other periods documented: MM? Citations: Moody 1987a, 205, no. MR6, EM, MM I–II.

Burial

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other 18.5 m north of Tomb I.

No human bones. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other

496. Nea Roumata B

The architecture description resembles Cycladic burials but could be Classical.

Type: unknown. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Nea Roumata. Excavated: yes. Condition: unknown. Dubious: no.

494. Nea Roumata A, Tomb I

References Preve 2006.

Type: Nea Roumata. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Nea Roumata. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Architecture

References

Dating

Tzedakis 1980, 1984; Moody 1987a, 591, no. NRM1; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 58–59; Karantzali 1996, 89, 239; Preve 2006; Betancourt 2009.

Architecture Dia.: 1.1 m. Other features: 0.61 m high; it has similarities to tombs from Syros (Karantzali 1996, 239).

Dating

Other features: similar tomb to Nea Roumata Pevkos. Documented first use: EM I? Citations: architectural affinities suggest a similar dating to the Pevkos tombs.

Burial Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other Situated 2 km north of Pevkos.

Documented first use: EM I. Citations: Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 59, EM I; Karantzali 1996, 89, EM I; Betancourt 2009, 52, figs. 5.25, 5.28, EM I–?

497. Nopigeia

Burial

Type: pithoi. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Nopigeia. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

One single burial. Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Other EM I–II settlement found 800–1,000 m in a direct line from the tomb (Tzedakis 1980; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 59).

References Karantzali 1996, 89–90; 1992–1993, 66–67; Nodarou 2011, 10–11, 35–36.

Architecture Plan: Karantzali 1996, fig. 93.

495. Nea Roumata A, Tomb II

Dating

Type: Nea Roumata. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Nea Roumata. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

Documented first use: EM IIA. Other periods documented: EM III? Citations: Karantzali 1996, 91, EM IIA, little EM IIB–III; Nodarou 2011, 10–11, EM IIA and no traces of EM IIB.

References

Burial

Preve 2006.

Architecture

Pithos burial of a three-year-old child who seems to have been buried inside a house. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other features: similar to Tomb I.

Dating

498. Perivolitsa

Documented first use: EM I? Citations: architectural affinities suggest a similar dating to Tomb I.

Type: tholos. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Nopigeia. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

GAZETTEER OF FUNERARY CONTEXTS IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

References Moody 1987a, 205, no. PR4.

Architecture Other features: curved wall.

Dating Documented first use: MM I/II. Citations: Moody 1987a, 205, MM I–II.

Burial No associated bones; funerary function suggested by curved wall. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

499. Pigi Type: pithos cemetery. Area: West-Central Crete. Nearest village: Pigi. Excavated: yes. Condition: good. Dubious: no.

References Whitley et al. 2007, 113–114.

Architecture Number of spaces: min. 16. Other features: pithoi placed on their side, not upside down, some of them closed by a stone or fragments of vessels; wall on top of burials is of unclear date. Plan: Whitley et al. 2007, 113, fig. 130.

303

Dating Documented first use: MM I? Citations: Faure 1965, 54, MM I based on parallels with other pithos cemeteries.

Burial Several burial pithoi. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

501. Platyvola Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Platyvola. Excavated: yes. Condition: disturbed. Dubious: yes.

References Tzedakis 1965; 1966, 428–429; 1968, 415–416; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 504–506; Treuil 1970, 11–12; Branigan 1971, 63; Zois 1973, 208–210; Warren and Tzedakis 1974; Wilson 1984, 301–303; Moody 1987a, 611, no. PLV1; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, 48–51; Vlasaki and Hallager 1995, 258, 267; Karantzali 1996, 84–85; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 67–68; Pieler 2004, 116; Wilson 2007, 56, table 2.2, 70, table 2.5, 76, table 2.7; Betancourt 2009; Nodarou 2011, 9, 32–33.

Architecture Number of spaces: 4. Other features: four different chambers. Plan: Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 503, drawing 3.

Dating

Ceramic vases (15), stone vases (1), beads (2). Materials: clay (15), stone (1), silver (1), crystal (1).

Documented first use: FN. Other periods documented: EM I, EM II, EM III(?), MM(?), LM? Citations: Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, FN, EM I–MM II; Tzedakis 1968, FN, EM I–MM II, LM; Godart and Tzedakis 1992, FN–LM; Wilson 2007, 56, 70, 76, tables 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, EM I, EM IIA, EM IIB; Betancourt 2009, 52, 59, 64, EM I–?; Nodarou 2011, 32–33, EM I, EM IIA, EM IIB, MM.

Burial

Contents

Dating Documented first use: MM I. Citations: Whitley et al. 2007, 113, MM I.

Contents

Sixteen pithoi reported; pit with marks from burning and containing cooking vessel sherds found among the burials. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

500. Plates/Charakas Type: rock shelter or pithos cemetery. Area: WestCentral Crete. Nearest village: Patsos. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References Faure 1965, 53–54; Petit 1990, 52.

Ceramic vases (yes), figurines (1). Materials: clay (yes), stone (1).

Burial Use of the cave for funerary purposes in EM is not secure. Bones found mainly in Chamber IV and could date to the Protopalatial period. Pithos fragments reported. Pithos: yes. Larnax: no.

Other “Sauceboats” and folded-arm figurines indicate Cycladic and Peloponnesian links.

304

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

502. Vrimbokambos A

503. Vrimbokambos B

Type: tholos. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Papadiana. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

Type: rectangular tomb. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Papadiana. Excavated: no. Dubious: yes.

References

References

Hood 1965, 102–103, Thrimbokambos; Belgiorno et al. 1984, 76–77, Thrimbokambos.

Architecture Other features: curved wall.

Dating

Hood 1965, 104–105, Thrimbokambos 3E.

Architecture Number of spaces: 2.

Dating Documented first use: unknown. Citations: Hood 1965, 104, Minoan.

Documented first use: EM III. Other periods documented: MM I, MM II. Citations: Hood 1965, 102, EM III–MM II; Belgiorno et al. 1984, 76, MM I–II.

Burial

Burial

Possible rectangular tomb (Hood 1965, 105). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Possible tholos inside a settlement (Hood 1965, 103). Pithos: no. Larnax: no.

Appendix 2

Dubitanda

This gazetteer includes sites that were suggested to have been used in the Early or Middle Bronze Age in relationship to funerary practices, but according to present understanding of the data are highly unlikely to constitute EM or MM funerary contexts.

D1. Hagios Andonis Tholos Type: tholos. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes.

References Alexiou 1967a, 483; Pelon 1976, 461; 1994, 162, no. 27; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 48, E22; Belli 1984, 97 (Hagiopharango); Vasilakis 1990, 26–28, thesi 6; Branigan 1993, 145, no. 26; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 201; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 266.

Comments Vasilakis reported a possible tholos tomb, annex, and associated settlements (1990, 28, thesi 6 and 7), but later looting has shown that this building is most probably Hellenistic (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 266).

D2. Hagios Andonis Annex Type: annex. Area: Hagiopharango. Nearest village: Kali Limenes. Excavated: yes.

References Alexiou 1967a, 483; Blackman and Branigan 1977, 48, E22; Vasilakis 1990, 26–28, thesi 6; Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 266.

Comments Vasilakis reported a possible tholos tomb, annex and associated settlements (1990, 28, thesi 6 and 7), but later looting has shown that this building is most probably Hellenistic (Branigan and Vasilakis 2010a, 266).

D3. Kamares Type: cave. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Kamares. Excavated: yes.

References Dawkins and Laistner 1913; Faure 1964; Betancourt 1983, 9; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 30 –32.

306

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Comments

Comments

Two EM sherds and a complete EM III vessel found (Dawkins and Laistner 1913); no human remains reported.

Alexiou may have been referring to the Siva tombs (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

D4. Korakies, Tholos B

D8. Pigaidakia

Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Miamou.

References Faure 1969, 181; Pelon 1976, 462; Branigan 1993, 146, no. 43; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207.

Comments See Korakies in App. 1. Goodison and Guarita have shown this tomb never existed.

D5. Loukia Type: tholos. Area: East Mesara. Nearest village: Loukia.

References Evans 1928, 71; Branigan 1993, 146, no. 52; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207.

Comments This tomb on Evans’s map may in fact be the Koumasa cemetery.

D6. Megali Vrysi, Tholoi A and B

Type: tholos. Area: Asterousia. Nearest village: Siva.

References Pelon 1976, 462; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207–208

Comments This seems to be the same tomb as Kaminospilio (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

D9. Vali Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Vali.

References Marinatos 1931, 157; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 208.

Comments Alternative name used for the Vorou A tomb (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

D10. Kerato Type: cave. Area: Viannos. Nearest village: Vigla.

Type: tholos. Area: North Mesara. Nearest village: Megali Vrysi.

References

References

Pendlebury 1939; Faure 1964; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 69.

Platon 1959, 387; Daux 1960, 833; Branigan 1993, 147, nos. 75, 76; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207.

Comments A probable misattribution of the Vorou tombs (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

Comments EM and MM material reported, but no human remains.

D11. Avdou D7. Monastiriako Pigadi, Tholoi A and B Type: tholos. Area: West Mesara. Nearest village: Siva.

References Alexiou 1968, 403; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 207.

Type: tholos. Area: Malia/Lasithi. Nearest village: Avdou.

References Woodward 1927, 258. Goodison and Guarita 2005, 200–201.

DUBITANDA

307

Comments

Comments

Goodison and Guarita suggest that this structure is related to the nearby Turkish mill.

Cave with reported FN, EM, and MM material but no human remains were ever mentioned.

D12. Myrtos Phournou Koriphi

D16. Hagia Sophia

Type: tholos. Area: Ierapetra. Nearest village: Myrtos.

Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Topolia.

References

References

Warren 1972a, 89–90; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 203; T. Whitelaw, pers. comm.

Faure 1956; 1964; Hood 1965, 104–105; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 54–55.

Comments

Comments

Circular structure near the settlement. It was a suggested tholos tomb, but closer examination has proved that it is unlikely to be a Bronze Age burial chamber.

Hood (1965) reported EM I material but no human remains.

D13. Itanos, Tholoi A and B Type: tholos. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Vai.

References Branigan 1993, 148, nos. 93, 94; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 202–203.

Comments No evidence to suggest that these circular buildings are prehistoric; their features do not fit other known tholos tombs (Goodison and Guarita 2005).

D14. Praisos

D17. Lera Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Stavros.

References Faure 1960, 213–214; 1962, 46–47; 1964, 140–144; Tzedakis 1966, 429; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 495– 497; Treuil 1970, 20–21; Zois 1973, 208; Tyree 1974, 56; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, 178–237; Karantzali 1996, 86–87; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 59–61; Tomkins 2007, 20, table I.6, EM I.

Comments Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki (1976 reported EM I–IIB, MM IA, and MM II material. Karantzali also mentions (1996) EN, MN, LN, EM I–IIB, MM, and LM material; no human remains ever mentioned.

Type: tholos. Area: East Crete. Nearest village: Maronia.

References

D18. Perivolia

Platon 1953b, 489; Goodison and Guarita 2005, 205; J. Whitley, pers. comm.

Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Perivolia.

Comments

References

Praisos Survey has shown that this is unlikely to be a Prepalatial tholos tomb.

D15. Arkoudia Type: cave. Area: West Crete. Nearest village: Stavros.

References Jantzen 1951, 4–5; Faure 1956; Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 495; Guest-Papamanoli and Lambraki 1976, 237; Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 50–52.

Tzedakis and Davaras 1967, 506; Tzedakis 1968, 417–418; 1970, 469–470; Orlandou 1968b, 103–111; Karantzali 1996, 87.

Comments Tzedakis (1970) reports MM II–III material; Karantzali (1996) reports EM I, EM IIA–IIB, MM II–MM III/ LM I material; no human remains ever reported.

References

Abbreviations for periodicals and series follow the conventions published in the American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007), pp. 14–34. Alberti, L. 2001. “Costumi funerari medio minoici a Cnosso: La necropoli di Mavro Spileo,” SMEA 43, pp. 163–187. . 2003. “Η νεκρόπολη στο Μαύρο Σπήλαιο, στην Κνωσό, ανάμεσα στους Μινωΐτες και τους Μυκηναίους,” in The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Proceedings of the 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999, N. Kyparissi-Apostolika and M. Papakonstantiou, eds., Athens, pp. 543–554. . 2004. “The Late Minoan II–IIIA1 Warrior Graves at Knossos: The Burial Assemblages,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 127–136. . 2006. “Μεσομινωικά ταφικά έθιμα στην Κνωσό: Η νεκρόπολη στο Μαύρο Σπήλαιο,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Heraklion, pp. 259–269. Alexiou, S. 1951. “Πρωτομινωικαὶ ταφαὶ παρὰ τὸ Κανλὶ-Καστέλλι Ἡρακλείου,” CretChron 5, pp. 275–294.

. 1953. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Κατσάμπᾷ,” Prakt 108 [1956], pp. 299–308. . 1958. “Ein frühminoisches Grab bei Lebena auf Kreta,” AA 1958, pp. 1–9. . 1960. “New Light on Minoan Dating: Early Minoan Tombs at Lebena,” Illustrated London News, 6 August 1960, pp. 225–226. . 1963a. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἐτος 1962,” CretChron 17, pp. 394–401. . 1963b. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἐτος 1963,” CretChron 17, pp. 401–412. . 1963c. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 18 (B', 2) [1965], pp. 309–316. . 1965. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 20 (B', 3) [1967], pp. 549–557. . 1966. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ τὸ 1966,” CretChron 20, pp. 319–326.

310

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

. 1967a. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικής και ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 22 (B', 2) [1969], pp. 480–488.

. 1997b. “Craftsmanship at MM Khamalevri in Rethymnon,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 37–44.

. 1967b. “Μικραὶ ἀνασκαφαὶ καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων εἰς Κρήτην,” Prakt 122 [1969], pp. 210–215.

. 2002. “Χαμαλεύρι,” Κρητική Εστία 9, pp. 272–274.

. 1968. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς και ἀνατολικής Κρήτης: Ἀνασκαφαί καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαιοτήτων,” ArchDelt 23 (B', 2) [1969], pp. 402–404.

Andreadaki-Vlasaki, M., and E. Papadopoulou. 2001. “Χαμαλεύρι,” Κρητική Εστία 8, pp. 290–299.

. 1969a. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ανατολικῆς Κρήτης: Ἀνασκαφαὶ καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαιοτήτων,” ArchDelt 24 (B', 2) [1970], pp. 413–415. . 1969b. “Μικραὶ ἀνασκαφαὶ καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων εἰς Κρήτην,” Prakt 124 [1971], pp. 238–240. . 1970. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης: Ἀνασκαφαὶ καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαιοτήτων,” ArchDelt 25 (B', 2) [1973], pp. 454–455. . 1971. “Forschungsbericht über die Ausgrabungen und Neufunde zur ägäischen Frühzeit, 1961– 1965,” AA 86, pp. 305–344. . 1973a. “Αἱ ἀρχαιότητες Ἡράκλειου κατὰ τὸ 1972,” CretChron 25, pp. 457–478. . 1973b. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 28 (B', 2) [1977], pp. 559–564. . 1975. “Cleansing of Silver Objects in the New Laboratory in the Heraklion Museum,” AAA 8 (2), pp. 138–139. . 1992. “Lebena-Tombs,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 164–167.

Andreou, S. 1978. Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period in Crete, Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati. Anglos, D., J.D. Muhly, S.C. Ferrence, K. Melessanaki, A. Giakoumaki, S. Chlouveraki, and P.P. Betancourt. 2008. “LIBS Analysis of Metalwork from the Ayios Charalambos Cave,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 289–296. Apostolakou, S. 1986. “ΚΔ' εφορεία προϊστορικών και κλασικών αρχαιοτήτων: Παχειά Άμμος,” ArchDelt 41 (B') [1990], p. 232. Apostolakou, V., P.P. Betancourt, and T.M. Brogan. 2011. “The Alatzomouri Rock Shelter: Defining EM III in Eastern Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 9, pp. 35–48. Arnold, C. 1980. “Wealth and Social Structure: A Matter of Life and Death,” in Rahtz, Dickinson, and Watts, eds., 1980, pp. 81–139. Arnold, J., ed. 1996. Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of Intermediate Societies, Ann Arbor. Aruz, J. 1984. “The Silver Cylinder Seal from Mochlos,” Kadmos 23, pp. 186–188. Athanassiadi, I., and D. Petropoulos. 1974. “Plan topographique,” in Mallia: Plan du site. Plans du palais: Indices (ÉtCrét 19), Paris. Bailey, G. 2006. “Time Perspectives, Palimpsests, and the Archaeology of Time,” JAnthrArch 26, pp. 198–223.

Alexiou, S., and P. Warren. 2004. The Early Minoan Tombs of Lebena, Southern Crete (SIMA 30), Säve­dalen.

Banti, L. 1933. “La grande tombe a tholos di Haghia Triadha,” ASAtene 13–14, pp. 155–241.

Allsebrook, M. 1992. Born to Rebel: The Life of Harriet Boyd Hawes, Oxford.

. 1948. “I culti minoici e greci di Haghia Triadha (Creta),” ASAtene 19–21, pp. 9–74.

Ames, K.M. 2010. “On the Evolution of the Human Capacity for Inequality and/or Egalitarism,” in Price and Feinman, eds., 2010, pp. 15–44.

Barrett, J.C., and K. Damilati. 2004. “‘Some Light on the Early Origins of Them All’: Generalization and the Explanation of Civilization Revisited,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 145–169.

Andreadaki-Vlasaki, M. 1993. “Χαμαλεύρι,” Κρητική Εστία 4, pp. 241–247. . 1996. “Χαμαλεύρι,” Κρητική Εστία 5, pp. 251–264. . 1997a. The Country of Khania through Its Monuments from the Prehistoric Period to Roman Times, Athens.

Barrett, J.C., and P. Halstead, eds. 2004. The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), Oxford. Baurain, C. 1987. “Les necropolis de Malia,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 61–75.

REFERENCES

311

Becker, M.J. 1974. “Malia: Inhumations decouvertes en 1965,” BCH 98, pp. 809–812.

Work on Crete., J.D. Muhly and E. Sikla, eds., Athens, p. 117.

. 1975a. “Human Skeletal Remains from Kato Zakro,” AJA 79, pp. 271–276.

. 2002. “The 2002 Excavations at Hagios Charalambos,” Kentro: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 5, p. 1.

. 1975b. “Malia: Analyse ostéologique de cinq inhumations provenant de l’ilôt du Christ,” BCH 99, pp. 726–728. Becker, M.J., and P.P. Betancourt. 1997. Richard Berry Seager: Pioneer Archaeologist and Proper Gentleman, Philadelphia. Belgiorno, M., P. Belli, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and L. Vagnetti. 1984. “Spunti per lo studio della regione di Kissamos nell’etá del bronzo,” SMEA 25, pp. 91–142. Belli, P. 1984. “Nuovi documenti per lo studio delle tombe circolari cretesi,” SMEA 25, pp. 91–142. . 2003. “On Measuring Tholoi in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in Foster and Laffineur, eds., 2003, pp. 403–409. Ben-Tor, D. 2006. “Chronological and Historical Implications of the Early Egyptian Scarabs on Crete,” in Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149), E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab, eds., Leuven, pp. 77–86. Béquignon, Y. 1929. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique,” BCH 53, pp. 491–534. . 1931. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (1931),” BCH 55, pp. 450–522. Betancourt, P.P. 1977. “Some Chronological Problems in the Middle Minoan Dark-on-Light Pottery of Eastern Crete,” AJA 81, pp. 341–353. . 1979. Vasilike Ware: An Early Bronze Age Pottery Style in Crete. Results of the Philadelphia Vasilike Ware Project, Göteborg. . 1983. The Cretan Collection in the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania I: Minoan Objects Excavated from Vasilike, Pseira, Sphoungaras, Priniatikos Pyrgos, and Other Sites (University Museum Monograph 47), Philadelphia. . 1984. East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware: Studies on a Handmade Pottery of the Early to Middle Minoan Periods (University Museum Monograph 51), Philadelphia. . 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton. . 2000. “Ayia Photia Ierapetras,” in Crete 2000: One Hundred Years of American Archaeological

. 2003a. “The Impact of Cycladic Settlers on Early Minoan Crete,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3 (1), pp. 3–12. . 2003b. “Interpreting Ceramic Petrography: The Special Product Model, a New Model for Pottery Distribution in the Early Minoan Period,” in Foster and Laffineur, eds., 2003, pp. 117–121. . 2005. “Egyptian Connections at Hagios Charalambos,” in Laffineur and Greco, eds., 2005, pp. 449–454. . 2006. The Chrysokamino Metallurgy Workshop and Its Territory (Hesperia Suppl. 36), Princeton. . 2008. “The Cemetery at Hagia Photia, Crete,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 237–240. . 2009. The Bronze Age Begins: The Ceramics Revolution of Early Minoan I and the New Forms of Wealth That Transformed Prehistoric Society, Philadelphia. . 2011a. “A Marine Style Gold Ring from the Hagios Charalambos Ossuary: Symbolic Use of Cockle Shells in Minoan Crete,” in Betancourt and Ferrence, eds., 2011, pp. 117–124. . 2011b. “Tomb 4 at Pseira: Evidence for Minoan Social Practices,” in Murphy, ed., 2011, pp. 85–103. . 2011c. “Trade and Interconnections in Lasithi between EM II and MM I, the Evidence from the Ayios Charalambos Cave,” in Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, I. Schoep, P. Tomkins, and J. Driessen, eds., Oxford, pp. 184–194. . 2012a. “The Architecture of the House Tombs at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 107–117. . 2012b. “The Frying Pans from Hagia Photia,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 1–6. Betancourt, P.P., and C. Davaras, eds. 2002. Pseira VI: The Pseira Cemetery 1. The Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 5), Philadelphia. , eds. 2003. Pseira VII: The Pseira Cemetery 2. Excavation of the Tombs (Prehistory Monographs 6), Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P., C. Davaras, H.M.C. Dierckx, S.C. Ferrence, J. Hickman, P. Karkanas, P.J.P. McGeorge, J.D. Muhly, D.S. Reese, E. Stravopodi, and L.

312

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Langford-­Verstegen. 2008a. “Excavations in the Hagios Charalambos Cave: A Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 77, pp. 539–605. Betancourt, P.P., C. Davaras, and R. Hope Simpson, eds. 2005. Pseira IX: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira 2. The Intensive Surface Survey (Prehistory Monographs 12), Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P., and S. Ferrence, eds. 2011. Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (Prehistory Monographs 29), Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P., R. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds. 1999. Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), Liège. Betancourt, P.P., and N. Marinatou. 2000. “Tὸ σπήλαιο τῆς Αμνισοῦ: Η έρευνα τοῦ 1992,” ArchEph 139 [2001], pp. 179–236.

. 2010. “Political Geography and Palatial Crete,” JMA 23 (1), pp. 27–54. Binford, L.R. 1971. “Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential,” in Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25), J.A. Brown, ed., pp. 6–29. Bintliff, J. 1977a. “Appendix 2. The Number of Burials in the Mesara Tholoi,” BSA 72, pp. 83–84. . 1977b. Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece Based on Original Fieldwork I (BAR Suppl. 28 [1]), Oxford. . 1984. “Structuralism and Myth in Minoan Studies,” Antiquity 58, pp. 33–38. . 1989. “Cemetery Populations, Carrying Capacities, and the Individual in History,” in Burial Archaeology: Current Research, Methods, and Developments (BAR-BS 211), C.A. Roberts, F. Lee, and J.L. Bintliff, eds., Oxford, pp. 85–104.

Betancourt, P.P., and J.D. Muhly. 2006. “The Sistra from the Minoan Burial Cave at Hagios Charalambos,” in Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149), E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab, eds., Leuven, pp. 429–436.

Blackman, D.J. 1998. “Archaeology in Greece 1997– 98,” AR 44, pp. 1–128.

. 2007. “The Crucibles from the Aghia Photia Cemetery,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 146–153.

Blackman, D.J., and K. Branigan. 1973. “An Unusual Tholos Tomb at Kaminospelio, S. Crete,” CretChron 1973, pp. 199–206.

Betancourt, P.P., J.D. Muhly, W.R. Farrand, C. Stearns, L. Onyshkevych, W.B. Hafford, and D. Evely. 1999. “Research and Excavation at Chrysokamino, Crete: 1995–1998,” Hesperia 68, pp. 343–369.

. 1975. “An Archaeological Survey of the South Coast of Crete between the Ayiofarango and Chrisostomos,” BSA 70, pp. 17–36.

Betancourt, P.P., M.C. Nelson, and H. Williams, eds., 2007. Krinoi kai Limenes. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (Prehistory Monographs 22), Philadelphia. Betancourt, P.P., D.S. Reese, L.L. Verstegen, and S.C. Ferrence. 2008b. “Feasts for the Dead: Evidence from the Ossuary at Hagios Charalambos,” in Dais: The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference/12e Recontre égéenne international. University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25–29 March 2008, L. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur, and J. Crowley, eds., Liège, pp. 161–167. Bevan, A. 2004. “Emerging Civilized Values? The Consumption and Imitation of Egyptian Stone Vessels in EMII–MMI Crete and Its Wider Eastern Mediterranean Context,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 107–126. . 2007. Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean, Cambridge.

. 1999. “Archaeology in Greece 1998–99,” AR 45, pp. 1–124.

. 1977. “An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Catchment of the Ayiofarango Valley,” BSA 72, pp. 13–84. . 1982. “The Excavation of an Early Minoan Tholos Tomb at Ayia Kiriaki, Ayiofarango,” BSA 77, pp. 1–57. Blanton, R.E. 1998. “Beyond Centralization: Steps Toward a Theory of Egalitarian Behavior in Archaic States,” in Archaic States, G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus, eds., Santa Fe, pp. 135–171. Blanton, R.E., G.M. Feinman, S.A. Kowalewski, and P.N. Peregrine. 1996. “A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization,” CurrAnthr 37, pp. 1–14. Blasingham, A.C. 1983. “The Seals from the Tombs of the Messara: Inferences as to Kinship and Social Organization,” in Krzyszkowska and Nixon, eds., 1983, pp. 11–21.

REFERENCES

Bloedow, E.F., and C. Björk. 1989. “The Mallia Pendant: A Study in Iconography and Minoan Religion,” SMEA 27, pp. 9–68. Boardman, J. 1961. The Cretan Collection in Oxford: The Dictaean Cave and Iron Age Crete, Oxford. Bonacasa, N. 1969. “Patrikiés-Una stazione mediominoica fra Haghia Triada e Festós,” ASAtene 29–30, pp. 7–54. Borda, M. 1946. Arte cretese-micenea nel Museo Pigorini di Roma, Rome.

313

. 1971. “Cycladic Figurines and Their Derivatives in Crete,” BSA 66, pp. 57–78. . 1972. “Early Minoan Figurines in the Giamalakis Collection,” BSA 67, pp. 21–23. . 1974. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford. . 1976. “A New Tholos Tomb at Kamilari,” SMEA 17, pp. 167–171.

Bosanquet, R.C. 1902a. “Excavations at Palaikastro I,” BSA 8, pp. 286–315.

. 1981. “Early Bronze Age Settlement and Population in the Asterousia Mountains,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Δ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Athens, pp. 48–56.

. 1902b. “Excavations at Praesos I,” BSA 8, pp. 231–270.

. 1983. “Gold and Goldworking in Early Bronze Age Crete,” TUAS 8, pp. 15–20.

Bosanquet, R.C., and R.M. Dawkins. 1923. The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations, 1902–1906, London.

. 1984. “Early Minoan Society: The Evidence of the Mesara Tholoi Reviewed,” in Aux origines de l’hellénisme: La Crète et la Grèce. Hommage à Henri van Effenterre, G. Centre Glotz, ed., Paris, pp. 29–37.

Boyd, H.A. 1904. “Gournia: Report of the American Exploration Society’s Excavations at Gournia, Crete, 1901–03,” Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania 1 (i–ii), Philadelphia, pp. 7–44. . 1905. “Gournia: Report of the American Exploration Society’s Excavations at Gournia, Crete, 1904,” Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania 1 (iii), pp. 177–190. Boyd-Dawkins, W. 1902. “Remains of Animals Found in the Dictaean Cave in 1901,” Man: A Monthly Record of Anthropological Science 2, pp. 162–165. Boyd Hawes, H.A., B.E. Williams, R.B. Seager, and E.H. Hall. 1908. Gournia, Vasilike, and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete: Excavations of the Wells-Houston-Cramp Expeditions, 1901, 1903, 1904, Philadelphia. Branigan, K. 1965. “Four ‘Miniature Sickles’ of Middle Minoan Crete,” CretChron 19, pp. 179–182. . 1967. “The Early Bronze Age Daggers of Crete,” BSA 62, pp. 211–239.

. 1985. “The Foundations of Palatial Crete—A Review,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Ε' Διεθνοῦς Κρητο­ λογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Heraklion, pp. 57–66. . 1987a. “Body-Counts in the Mesara Tholoi,” in Ειλαπινή. Τόμος τιμητικὸς γιὰ τὸν καθηγητὴ Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα, L. Kastrinake, G. Orfanou, and N. Giannadakis, eds., Herakleion, pp. 299–310. . 1987b. “The Economic Role of the First Palaces,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 245–249. . 1987c. “Ritual Interference with Human Bones in the Mesara Tholoi,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 43–50. . 1988. Pre-Palatial: The Foundations of Palatial Crete. A Survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age, Amsterdam. . 1991a. “Funerary Ritual and Social Cohesion in EBA Crete,” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 2, pp. 183–192.

. 1968b. “Silver and Lead in Prepalatial Crete,” AJA 72, pp. 219–229.

. 1991b. “Mochlos—An Early Aegean ‘Gateway Community?’” in Thalassa. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la 3e Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques, Calvi, Corse, 23– 25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7), R. Laffineur and L. Basch, eds., Liège, pp. 97–105.

. 1970a. The Foundations of Palatial Crete: A Survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age, London.

. 1993. Dancing with Death: Life and Death in Southern Crete c. 3000–2000 b.c., Amsterdam.

. 1970b. The Tombs of Mesara: A Study of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in Southern Crete, 2800–1700 b.c., London.

. 1995. “Social Transformations and the Rise of the State in Crete,” in Politeia: Society and State in

. 1968a. Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete (SIMA 19), Lund.

314

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 33–42.

Broodbank, C. 1992. “The Neolithic Labyrinth: Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Age,” JMA 5, pp. 39–75. . 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge.

. 1998a. “The Nearness of You: Proximity and Distance in Early Minoan Funerary Behaviour,” in Branigan, ed., 1998, pp. 13–26.

Brown, A. 2001. Arthur Evans’ Travels in Crete 1894– 1899 (BAR-IS 1000), Oxford.

. 1998b. “Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement in the Ziros Region, Eastern Crete,” BSA 93, pp. 23–90.

Brown, J.A. 1995. “On Mortuary Analysis—with Special Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research Program,” in Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, L.A. Beck, ed., New York, pp. 3–26.

. 2008. “Communal Ceremonies in an Early Minoan Tholos Cemetery,” in Dioskouri. Studies Presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-Year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology (BAR-IS 1889), C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis, and G. Muskett, eds., Oxford, pp. 15–22. . 2010a. “History and Use of the Cemetery,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 251–264. . 2010b. “The Late Prepalatial Resurrected,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 25–32. . 2011. “The Triangular ‘Daggers’ of Prepalatial Crete,” in Betancourt and Ferrence, eds., 2011, pp. 105–116. . 2012. “The Genesis of the Early Minoan Tholos Tombs,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 7–14. Branigan, K., ed. 1998. Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology), Sheffield. Branigan, K., and T. Campbell-Green. 2010a. “Interpretation of the Pottery Assemblage,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 127–145. . 2010b. “The Pottery Assemblage: Data and Analysis,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 69–126. Branigan, K., and A. Vasilakis. 2010a. “The Hagiopharango in the Early Bronze Age,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 265–269. . 2010b. “Survey of the Environs around the Tholos Cemetery,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 3–27. Bredaki, M., and F. Longo. 2011. “Progetto Festòs: Ricognizioni archeologiche di superficie. Le campagne 2007–2009,” ASAtene 87, pp. 935–978. Brodie, N., J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew, eds. 2008. Horizon (‘Ορίζων): A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (McDonald Institute Monographs), Cambridge.

Brown, J.A., ed. 1971. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Washington, DC. Brumfiel, E.M., and A. College. 1995. “Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies: Comments,” in Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy, eds., 1995, pp. 125–131. Byrd, B.F., and C.M. Monahan. 1995. “Death, Mortuary Ritual, and Natufian Social Structure,” JAnthArch 14, pp. 251–287. Cadogan, G. 1978. “Pyrgos, Crete, 1970–77,” AR 1977– 78, pp. 70–84. . 1981. “Minoan Pyrgos,” in Πεπραγμένα του Δ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Athens, pp. 57–61. . 1983. “Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Chronology,” AJA 87, pp. 507–518. . 1986. “Why Was Crete Different?” in The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, G. Cadogan, ed., Leiden, pp. 153–171. . 1994. “An Old Palace Period Knossos State?” in Evely, Hughes-Brock, and Momigliano, eds., 1994, pp. 57–68. . 2000. “Domestic Life at Minoan MyrtosPyrgos,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητο­ λογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Heraklion, pp. 169–174. . 2010. “Goddess, Nymph, or Housewife; and Water Worries at Myrtos?” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 41–47. . 2011a. “Myrtos: From Phournou Koryphi to Pyrgos,” in Στέγα. The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete, K.T. Glowacki and N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, eds., Princeton, pp. 39–50. . 2011b. “A Power House of the Dead: The Functions and Long Life of the Tomb at Myrtos-Pyrgos,” in Murphy, ed., 2011, pp. 103–119.

REFERENCES

315

Cadogan, G., P.M. Day, C.F. Macdonald, J.A. MacGillivray, N. Momigliano, T.M. Whitelaw, and D.E. Wilson. 1993. “Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Pottery Groups at Knossos,” BSA 88, pp. 21–28.

. 2004. “Mochlos and Melos: A Special Relationship? Creating Identity and Status in Minoan Crete,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly, eds., 2004, pp. 291–307.

Cadogan, G., E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, eds. 2004. Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), London.

Catapotis, M., and Y. Bassiakos. 2007. “Copper Smelting at the Early Minoan Site of Chrysokamino on Crete,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 68–83.

Caloi, I. 2009. “For a New Ceramic Sequence of Protopalatial Phaistos (MM IB–MM IIA) and Some Observations on Barbotine Ware,” Creta Antica 10 (2), pp. 373–440. Cannon, A. 1995. “Two Faces of Power: Communal and Individual Modes of Mortuary Expression,” ARX, World Journal of Prehistoric and Ancient Studies 1, pp. 3–8. Canuto, M.A., and J. Yaeger, eds. 2000. The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, New York. Carinci, F.M. 1999. “Haghia Triada nel periodo dei primi palazzi: i nuovi dati sulle produzioni ceramiche,” in La Rosa, Palermo, and Vagnetti, eds., 1999, pp. 115–132. . 2000. “Western Messara and Egypt during the Protopalatial Period: A Minimalist View,” in Κρήτη–Αίγυπτος: Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών, A. Karetsou, ed., Athens, pp. 31–37. . 2003. “Haghia Triada nel periodo medio minoico,” Creta Antica 4, pp. 97–144. . 2004. “Priests in Action: Considerazioni sulla fine dell’etá prepalaziale ad Haghia Triada,” Creta Antica 5, pp. 25–41. Carinci, F.M., and V. La Rosa. 2007. “Revisioni festie,” Creta Antica 8, pp. 11–120. Carr, C. 1995. “Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and Physical Determinants,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2, pp. 105–200. Carter, E., and A. Parker. 1995. “Pots, People and the Archaeology of Death in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the Latter Half of the Third Millenium b.c.,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, S. Campbell and A. Green, eds., Oxford, pp. 96–116. Carter, T. 1998. “Reverberations of the ‘International Spirit’: Thoughts upon ‘Cycladica’ in the Mesara,” in Branigan, ed., 1998, pp. 59–77.

Catling, H.W. 1972. “Archaeology in Greece, 1971–72,” AR 18, pp. 3–26. . 1974. “Archaeology in Greece, 1973–74,” AR 20, pp. 3–41. . 1977. “The Knossos Area, 1974–76,” AR 23, pp. 3–23. . 1988. “Archaeology in Greece 1987–88,” AR 34, pp. 3–85. . 1989. “Archaeology in Greece 1988–89,” AR 35, pp. 3–116. Cavanagh, W., and C. Mee. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125), Jonsered. Chaniotis, A. 1989. “Μινωϊκά εὑρήματα ἀπό τόν Ἄγιο Μύρονα σέ ἕνα τουρκικό ἔγγραφο,” CretChron 28– 29, pp. 58–63. Chaniotis, A., ed. 1999. From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, Stuttgart. Chapman, R. 1981. “Archaeological Theory and Communal Burial in Prehistoric Europe,” in Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, eds., Cambridge, pp. 387–411. . 1996. “Problems of Scale in the Emergences of Complexity,” in Arnold, ed., 1996, pp. 35–49. . 2005. “Mortuary Analysis: A Matter of Time?” in Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, G.F.M. Rakita, J.E. Buikstra, L.A. Beck, and S.R. Williams, eds., Gainesville, pp. 25–40. Chapman, R., and K. Randsborg. 1981. “Approaches to the Archaeology of Death,” in The Archaeology of Death, J. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, eds., Cambridge, pp. 1–24. Chapouthier, F. 1928. “Chroniques des foullies et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique novembre 1927–novembre 1928,” BCH 52, pp. 466–510. Charles, D.K. 2005. “The Archaeology of Death as Anthropology,” in Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New

316

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Millennium, G.F.M. Rakita, J.E. Buikstra, L.A. Beck, and S.R. Williams, eds., Gainesville, pp. 15–24.

. 1952. “Archaeology in Greece, 1951,” JHS 72, pp. 92–112.

Charles, R.P. 1965. Anthropologie archéologique de la Créte (ÉtCrét 14), Paris.

Cook, J.M., and J. Boardman. 1954. “Archaeology in Greece, 1953,” JHS 74, pp. 142–169.

Cherry, J.F. 1983a. “Evolution, Revolution, and the Origins of Complex Society in Minoan Crete,” in Krzyszkowska and Nixon, eds., 1983, pp. 33–45.

Crevecoeur, I., and A. Schmitt. 2009. “Etude archéoanthropologique de la nécropole (zone 1),” in Driessen et al., eds., 2009, pp. 57–94.

. 1983b. “Frogs Around the Pond: Perspectives on Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the Mediterranean Region,” in Archaeological Survey in the Mediterrranean Area (BAR-IS 155), D.R. Keller and D.W. Rupp, eds., Oxford, pp. 375–416.

Crumley, C.L. 1979. “Three Locational Models: An Episte­mological Assessment for Anthropology and Archaeology,” Advances in Archaeology Method and Theory 2, pp. 141–173.

. 1984. “The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean,” PCPS 210, pp. 18–48.

. 1995. “Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies,” in Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy, 1995, pp. 1–6.

. 1999. “Introductory Reflections on Economies and Scale in Prehistoric Crete,” in A. Chaniotis, ed., 1999, pp. 17–23.

. 2001. “Communication, Holism, and the Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity,” in From Leaders to Rulers, J. Haas, ed., New York, pp. 19–33.

. 2003. “Archaeology beyond the Site: Regional Survey and Its Future,” in Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives, J.K. Papadopoulos and R.M. Leventhal, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 137–160.

. 2003. “Alternative Forms of Social Order,” in Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning Jr., eds., 2003, pp. 136–145.

. 2004. “Chapter 14 Revisited: Sites, Settlement and Population in the Prehistoric Aegean since the Emergence of Civilisation,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 1–20. . 2010. “Sorting Out Crete’s Prepalatial OffIsland Interactions,” in Archaic State Interaction: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age (School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series), W.A. Parkinson and M.L. Galaty, eds., Santa Fe, pp. 107–140. Christakis, K.S. 2005. Cretan Bronze Age Pithoi: Traditions and Trends in the Production and Consumption of Storage Containers in Bronze Age Crete (Prehistory Monographs 18), Philadelphia. Civitillo, M., and B. Greco. 2005. “Il complesso protopalaziale di Apodoulou Amariou: Riflessioni preliminari,” ASAtene 81, pp. 769–798. Clark, J.E., and M. Blake. 1994. “The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica,” in Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox, eds., Cambridge, pp. 17–30. Colburn, C.S. 2008. “Exotica and the Early Minoan Elite: Eastern Imports in Prepalatial Crete,” AJA 112, pp. 225–246. Cook, J.M. 1951. “Archaeology in Greece, 1949–1950,” JHS 71, pp. 233–253.

. 2007. “Notes on a New Paradigm,” in Socialising Complexity: Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse, S. Kohring and S. WynneJones, eds., Oxford, pp. 30–36. Cucuzza, N. 1997. “Considerazioni su alcuni culti nella Messara di epoca storica e sul rapporti territorialli fra Festós e Gortina,” RendLinc ser. 9, vol. 8, pp. 163–193. Cultraro, M. 1994. La grande tomba a tholos di Haghia Triada: una revisione, Ph.D. diss., Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. . 2000a. “La brocchetta dei vivi per la sete dei morti: Riconsiderazione delle camerette a sud della grande tholos di Haghia Triada,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Herakleion, pp. 309–326. . 2000b. “Il tipo di tomba ipogeia a groticella artificiale in ambito egeo: Alcune osservazioni,” in L’Ipogeismo nel Mediterraneo: Origini, Sviluppo, Quadri Culturali. Atti del Congreso Internazionale Sassar-Oristano 23–28 Maggio 1994, Sassari, pp. 473–499. . 2001. L’Anello di Minosse. Archeologia della Regalità nell’Egeo Minoico, Milan. . 2003. “La grande tholos di Haghia Triada: Nuovi dati per un vecchio complesso,” Creta Antica 4, pp. 301–328. . 2006. “La coppa del principe: Per una riconsiderazione del tipo del kantharos in ambito minoico,”

REFERENCES

317

in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συν­ εδρίου A' (3), Herakleion, pp. 109–129.

. 1983. “Σπήλαιο Γεροντομουρί,” ArchDelt 38 (B', 2) [1989], p. 375.

Curti, M. 1996. “Il complesso cretese di Apodoulou: Tipologia e strutture,” in Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia. 14–20 ottobre 1991, Roma–Napoli 3: Archeologia (Incunabula graeca 98), E. De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi, eds., Rome, pp. 1411–1422.

. 1985. “Une Tombe à voute en Crète Orientale (note complémentaire),” BCH 109, pp. 625–628.

Dabney, M.K., and J.C. Wright. 1990. “Mortuary Customs, Palatial Society and State Formation in the Aegean Area: A Comparative Study,” in Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11–13 June, 1988 (SkrAth 4º, 40), R. Hägg and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Stockholm, pp. 45–53. D’Annibale, C. 2008. “Obsidian in Transition: The Technological Reorganization of the Obsidian Industry from Petras Kephala (Siteia) between Final Neolithic IV and Early Minoan I,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 191–201. Daux, G. 1960. “Chronique des foullies et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1959,” BCH 84, pp. 617–868. Davaras, C. 1964. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα Κρήτης. Μικραὶ σκαφικαὶ ἔρευναι, Γοῦβες,” ArchDelt 19 (B', 3) [1967], pp. 441–442. . 1968. “Περιοχὶ Μονῆς Οδιγιτρίας,” ArchDelt 23 (B', 2) [1969], pp. 405–406. . 1971. “Πρωτομινωικὸν νεκροταφεῖον Ἁγίας Φωτιᾶς Σητείας,” AAA 4, pp. 392–397. . 1972a. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογική κίνηση στὴν ἀνατολική Κρήτη κατά τὸ 1971,” Αμάλθεια 3, pp. 33–52. . 1972b. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 27 (B') [1977], pp. 645–654. . 1972c. “The Oval House at Chamaizi Reconsidered,” AAA 5, pp. 283–288. . 1973a. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 28 (B', 2) [1977], pp. 585–596. . 1973b. “Μινωικαὶ σφραγῖδες τοῦ μουσείου Ἅγ. Νικολάου,” ArchEph 1973, pp. 81–86. . 1974. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογική κίνηση στὴν ἀνατολική Κρήτη κατά τὸ 1972,” Αμάλθεια 5, pp. 40–62. . 1975. “Early Minoan Jewellery from Mochlos,” BSA 70, pp. 101–114. . 1982. “Σπήλαιο Αγίου Χαραλάμπους (Γεροντομουρί),” ArchDelt 37 (B', 2) [1989], pp. 387–388.

. 1986. “Πρώιμες μινωικὲς σφραγίδες καὶ σφραγιστικοὶ δακτύλιοι ἀπό τὸ Σπήλαιο Γεροντομουρί Λασιθίου,” ArchEph 125 [1986], pp. 9–48. Davaras, C., and P.P. Betancourt. 2004. The Hagia Photia Cemetery I: The Tomb Groups and Architecture (Prehistory Monographs 14), Philadelphia. . 2012. The Hagia Photia Cemetery II: The Pottery (Prehistory Monographs 34), Philadelphia. Davaras, C., and N. Papadakis. 1976. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα ανατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 31 (B', 2) [1984], pp. 373–383. Davaras, C., and J.S. Soles. 1997. “A New Oriental Cylinder Seal from Mochlos. Appendix: Catalogue of the Cylinder Seals Found in the Aegean,” ArchEph 134, pp. 29–66. Davis, E.N. 1977. The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware, New York. . 1979. “The Silver Kantharos from Gournia,” TUAS 4, pp. 34–45. Dawkins, R.M. 1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro II.8: The Pottery,” BSA 9, pp. 297–328. . 1904. “Excavations at Palaikastro III.2: Τα Ελληνικά and Early Minoan Discoveries,” BSA 10, pp. 196–202. . 1905. “Excavations at Palaikastro IV.3: An Early Minoan Ossuary,” BSA 11, pp. 268–272. . 1908. “Archaeology in Greece,” JHS 28, pp. 319–336. Dawkins, R.M., and M.L.W. Laistner. 1913. “The Excavation of the Kamares Cave in Crete,” BSA 19, pp. 1–34. Day, L.P., M. Mook, and J.D. Muhly, eds. 2004. Crete beyond the Palaces. Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference (Prehistory Monographs 10), Philadelphia. Day, P.M. 2004. “The Early Bronze Age Harbour Town of Poros-Katsambas: New Evidence from Material Analysis,” BICS 47, pp. 177–178. Day, P.M., and R.C.P. Doonan, eds. 2007. Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 7), Oxford. Day, P.M., A. Hein, L. Joyner, V. Kilikoglou, E. Kiriatzi, A. Tsolakidou, and D.E. Wilson. 2012. “Appendix

318

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

A. Petrographic and Chemical Analysis of the Pottery,” in Davaras and Betancourt 2012, pp. 115–138.

(Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 27), M.W. Diehl, ed., Carbondale, pp. 11–30.

Day, P.M., and M. Relaki. 2002. “Past Factions and Present Fictions: Palaces in the Study of Minoan Crete,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 217–234.

Dierckx, H.M.C. 2012. “Size Does Matter: The Significance of Obsidian Microliths and Querns at the Petras Cemetery,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 171–177.

Day, P.M., M. Relaki, and E.W. Faber. 2006. “Pottery Making and Social Reproduction in the Bronze Age Mesara,” in Pottery and Society: The Impact of Recent Studies in Minoan Pottery. Gold Medal Colloquium in Honor of Philip P. Betancourt, 104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5 January 2003, M.H. Wiener, J.L. Warner, J. Polonsky, E.E. Hayes, and C. McDonald, eds., Boston, pp. 22–72. Day, P.M., and D.E. Wilson. 1998. “Consuming Power: Kamares Ware in Protopalatial Knossos,” Antiquity 72, pp. 350–358. . 2002. “Landscapes of Memory, Craft, and Power in Prepalatial and Protopalatial Knossos,” in Hamilakis, ed., 2002, pp. 143–166. . 2004. “Ceramic Change and the Practice of Eating and Drinking in Early Bronze Age Crete,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett, eds., Oxford, pp. 45–62. Day, P.M., D.E. Wilson, and E. Kiriatzi. 1997. “Reassessing Specialisation in Prepalatial Cretan Ceramic Production,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 275–290. . 1998. “Pots, Labels, and People: Burying Ethnicity in the Cemetery at Aghia Photia,” in Branigan, ed., 1998, pp. 133–149. Deligianni, E.E. 1995. Το Κτίριο 4 του μινωϊκού νεκροταφείου στη θέση Φουρνί Αρχανών, Ph.D. diss., National and Kapodistrian University, Athens. Demargne, P. 1901. “Antiquités de Présos ét de l’antre Dictéen,” BCH 26, pp. 571–583. . 1930. “Bijoux minoens de Mallia,” BCH 54, pp. 404–421. . 1932. “Culte funéraire et foyer domestique,” BCH 56, pp. 60–88. . 1945. Fouilles exécutées a Mallia. Exploration des necrópoles (1921–1933) I (ÉtCrét 7), Paris.

Dimakopoulou, K. 1998. Κοσμήματα της Ελληνικής Προϊστορίας. Ο Νεολιθικός Θησαυρός, Athens. Dimopoulou, N. 1994. “Πόρος Ηρακλείου: Λεωφόρος Ικάρου,” ArchDelt 49 (B', 2) [1999], pp. 709–710. . 1996. “Όρος Γιούκτας: Σπήλαιο Στραβομύτη,” ArchDelt 51 (B', 2) [2001], p. 645. . 1999. “The Neopalatial Cemetery of the Knossian Harbour-Town at Poros: Mortuary Behaviour and Social Ranking,” in Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse Zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen I, Mainz, pp. 27–36. . 2000. “Seals and Scarabs from the Minoan Port Settlement at Poros-Katsambas,” in Müller, ed., 2000, pp. 27–38. . 2012. “Metallurgy and Metalworking in the Harbour Town of Knossos at Poros-Katsambas,” in Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC. A Conference in Honour of James D. Muhly, Nicosia, 10th–11th October 2009, V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas, eds., Oxford, pp. 135–141. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N. 1987. “Πόρος: 14o Δημοτικό Σχολείο,” ArchDelt 42 (B', 2) [1992], pp. 528–529. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, N., D.E. Wilson, and P.M. Day. 2007. “The Earlier Prepalatial Settlement of Poros-Katasambas: Craft Production and Exchange at the Harbour Town of Knossos,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 84–97. Di Vita, A. 1995. “Atti della Scuola 1990–1991: Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 68–69, pp. 428–432. . 1998. “Atti della scuola 1992–1993: Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 60–61, pp. 411–419. . 2000. “Atti della scuola 1996–1997: Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 74–75, pp. 478–484. . 2001. “Atti della scuola 1998–2000: Haghia Triada 1998–99,” ASAtene 76–77, pp. 390–397.

Demargne, P., and H. Gallet de Santerre. 1953. Fouilles exécutées a Mallia. Exploration des maisons et quartiers d’habitation (1921–1948). Premier fascicule (ÉtCrét 9), Paris.

Doonan, R.C.P., P.M. Day, and N. DimopoulouRethemiotaki. 2007. “Lame Excuses for Emerging Complexity in Early Bronze Age Crete: The Metallurgical Finds from Poros Katsambas and Their Context,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 98–122.

Diehl, M.W. 2000. “Some Thoughts on the Study of Hierarchies,” in Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono?

Doumas, G.C. 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades (SIMA 48), Göteborg.

REFERENCES

Drennan, R.D. 1996. “One for All and All for One: Accounting for Variability without Losing Sight of Regularities in the Development of Complex Society,” in Arnold, ed., 1996, pp. 25–34. Drennan, R.D., C.E. Peterson, and J.R. Fox. 2010. “Degrees and Kinds of Inequality,” in Price and Feinman, eds., 2010, pp. 45–76. Driessen, J. 2007. “IIb or Not IIb: On the Beginnings of Minoan Monument Building,” in Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 156), J. Bretschneider, J. Driessen, and K. Van Lerberghe, eds., Leuven, pp. 73–92. . 2009. “Excavations on the Kephali at Sissi: Introduction,” in Driessen et al., eds., 2009, pp. 19–44. . 2010. “The Goddess and the Skull: Some Observations on Group Identity in Prepalatial Crete,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 107–118. . 2011. “A Matrilocal House Society in Preand Protopalatial Crete?” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2011, pp. 358–383. Driessen, J., and C.F. Macdonald. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liège. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, eds. 2002. Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001 (Aegaeum 23), Liège. Driessen, J., I. Schoep, F. Carpentier, I. Crevecoeur, M. Devolder, F. Gaignerot-Driessen, P. Hacigüzeller, S. Jusseret, C. Langhor, Q. Letesson, and A. Schmitt, eds. 2009. Excavations at Sissi: Preliminary Report on the 2007–2008 Campaigns (Aegis 1), Louvain. Duckworth, W.L.H. 1903a. “Excavations at Palaikastro II.11: Human Remains at Hagios Nikolaos,” BSA 9, pp. 344–350. . 1903b. “Excavations at Palaikastro II.12: Ossuaries at Roussolakos,” BSA 9, pp. 350–355. École Française d’Athènes. 1974. Mallia: Plan du Site. Plans du palais. Indices (ÉtCrét 19), Paris. Effinger, M. 1996. Minoischer Schmuck (BAR-IS 646), Oxford.

319

. 1896. “Krete: Explorations in Eastern Krete,” AJA 11, pp. 449–469. . 1897. “Further Discoveries of Cretan and Aegean Script with Libyan and Proto-Egyptian Comparisons,” JHS 17, pp. 327–395. . 1903. “The Palace of Knossos: Provisional Report for the Year 1903,” BSA 9, pp. 1–153. . 1906. Essai de classification des époques de la civilisation minoenne: Résume d’un discours fait au congrès d’archéologie à Athénes, London. . 1921. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos I. The Neolithic and Early and Middle Minoan Ages, London. . 1928. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos II. Part I: Fresh Lights on Origins and External Relations. The Restoration in Town and Palace after Seismic Catastrophe towards the Close of M.M. III, and the Beginnings of the New Era, London. Evans, J.D. 1964. “Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement at Knossos, 1957–60,” BSA 59, pp. 132–240. . 1971. “Neolithic Knossos: The Growth of a Settlement,” PPS 37, pp. 95–117. Evely, D. 2008. “Crete,” AR 54, pp. 94–112. . 2010. “Crete,” AR 56, pp. 169–200. Evely, D., H. Hughes-Brock, and N. Momigliano, eds. 1994. Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood, London. Faber, E.W., V. Kilikoglou, P.M. Day, and D.E. Wilson. 2002. “A Technological Study of Middle Minoan Polychrome Pottery from Knossos, Crete,” in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (BAR-IS 1011), A. Hein and Y. Maniatis, eds., Oxford, pp. 129–142. Falconer, S.E. 1994. “Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley: A Study of Bronze Age Rural Complexity,” in Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, G.M. Schwartz and S.E. Falconer, eds., Washington, DC, pp. 121–142.

Ehrenreich, R.M., C.L. Crumley, and J.E. Levy, eds. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6), Arlington.

Faure, P. 1956. “Grottes crétoises,” BCH 80, pp. 95–103.

Evans, A.J. 1895. Cretan Pictographs and the Mycenaean Script, London.

. 1960. “Nouvelles recherches de spéléologie et de topographie crétoises,” BCH 84, pp. 189–220.

. 1958. “Spéléologie et topographie crétoises,” BCH 82, pp. 495–515.

320

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

. 1962. “Cavernes et sites aux deux extrémités de la Crète,” BCH 86, pp. 36–56.

. 1979. “Four Stone Vase Fragments from Mochlos,” AAA 12, pp. 237–241.

. 1964. Fonctions des cavernes crétoises (Travaux et mémoires 14), Paris.

Foster, K.P., and R. Laffineur, eds. 2003. Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24), Liège.

. 1965. “Recherches sur le peuplement des montagnes de Crète: Sites, cavernes et cultes,” BCH 89, pp. 27–63. . 1969. “Sur trois sortes de sanctuaries cretois,” BCH 93, pp. 174–213. . 1978. “Chronique des cavernes crétoises (1972–1977),” BCH 102, pp. 629–640. Feinman, G.M. 2001. “Mesoamerican Political Complexity: The Corporate-Network Dimension,” in From Leaders to Rulers, J. Haas, ed., New York, pp. 151–175. Feinman, G.M., and J. Neitzel. 1984. “Too Many Types: An Overview of Prestate Societies in the Americas,” Advances in Archaeology Method and Theory 7, pp. 39–102. Ferrence, S.C. 2007. “Hippopotamus Ivory in EM–MM Lasithi and the Implications for Eastern Mediterranean Trade: New Evidence from Hagios Charalambos,” in Betancourt, Nelson, and Williams, eds., 2007, pp. 167–176. Ferrence, S.C., J.D. Muhly, and P.P. Betancourt. 2012. “Affluence in Eastern Crete: Metal Objects from the Cemetery of Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 133–143. Fiandra, E. 1962. “I periodi struttivi del primo palazzo di Festos,” CretChron 15–16, pp. 112–126. . 1995. “Change and Continuity in the MM: The Tomb of Kamilari,” in Sceaux Minoens et Mycéniens: 4e Symposium International, 10–12 Septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (CMS Beiheft 5), W. Müller, ed., Berlin, pp. 77–85. Flanagan, J.G. 1989. “Hierarchy in Simple ‘Egalitarian’ Societies,” Annual Review of Anthropology 18, pp. 245–266. Flouda, G. 2011. “Reassessing the Apesokari Tholos A Funerary Record: Preliminary Thoughts,” Rivista di Archeologia 35 [2012], pp. 111–121. Forsdyke, E.J. 1927. “The Mavro Spelio Cemetery at Knossos,” BSA 28, pp. 243–296. Forsén, J. 1992. The Twilight of the Early Helladics: A Study of the Disturbances in East-Central and Southern Greece Towards the End of the Early Bronze Age, Jonsered. Foster, K.P. 1978. “The Mount Holyoke College Collection of Minoan Pottery,” TUAS 3, pp. 1–30.

Fotou, C. 1993. New Light on Gournia: Unknown Documents of the Excavation at Gournia and Other Sites on the Isthmus of Ierapetra by Harriet Ann Boyd (Aegaeum 9), Liège. Fox, J.M. 1994. “Conclusions: Moietal Opposition, Segmentation, and Factionalism in New World Political Arenas,” in Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox, eds., Cambridge, pp. 199–206. Foxhall, L. 2000. “The Running Sands of Time: Archaeology and the Short-Term,” WorldArch 31, pp. 484–498. Frazer, J.G. 1890. The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion, London. French, E.B., and K.A. Wardle, eds. 1988. Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, Bristol. Fried, M.H. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology, New York. Galanaki, K.E. 1999. “Γούρνες,” ArchDelt 54 (B', 2) [2006], pp. 853–856. . 2006. “Πρωτομινωικό ταφικό σύνολο στην πρώην Αμερικανική Βάση Γουρνών Πεδιάδος,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 227–241. Galanaki, K.E., Y. Bassiakos, and V. Perdikatsis. 2011. “Silver and Bronze Artifacts from the EM I Necropolis at Gournes, Pediada,” in Betancourt and Ferrence, eds., 2011, pp. 79–90. Galanidou, N., and K. Manteli. 2008. “Neolithic Katsambas Revisited: The Evidence from the House,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 165–176. Gallet de Santerre, H. 1952. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Gréce en 1951: Première partie. Tableau d’ensemble de l’activit‚ archéologique en Gréce (I),” BCH 76, pp. 201–244. Gavrilaki, I. 1997. “Σπήλαιο Μελιδονίου,” Κρητική Εστία 5, pp. 291–293. Georgoulaki, E. 1990. “The Minoan Sanctuary at Koumasa: The Evidence of the Material,” Aegaeum 6, pp. 5–23.

REFERENCES

321

. 1996a. Burial Evidence and Its Religious Connotations in Prepalatial and Old Palace Minoan Crete, Ph.D. diss., University of Liège.

Goodison, L. 1989. Death, Women, and the Sun: Symbolism of Regeneration in Early Aegean Religion (BICS Suppl. 53), London.

. 1996b. “Cleaning of the Minoan Tomb at Mantalia (Kato Kephala) near Hagios Georgios Siteias,” Cretan Studies 5, pp. 147–150.

. 2001. “From Tholos Tomb to Throne Room: Perceptions of the Sun in Minoan Ritual,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 77–88.

. 1999. “Μεικτοί τύποι τάφων στην προανακτορική και παλαιοανακτορική Κρήτη,” Κρητική Εστία 7, pp. 9–30.

. 2004. “From Tholos Tomb to Throne Room: Some Considerations of Dawn Light and Directionality in Minoan Buildings,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 339–350.

. 2002. “Discerning Early Minoan Cultic Trends: The Archaeological Evidence,” Kernos 15, pp. 19–29. . 2009. “Interment Sites and Associated Settlements in Prepalatial Minoan Crete: The Topographical Evidence,” Platon 56, pp. 193–224. Gerontakou, E. 2003. “Δύο μεσομινωικοί αποθέτες στο νεκροταφείο του Πλατάνου,” in Αργοναύτης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών, A. Vlachopoulos and K. Birtacha, eds., Athens, pp. 303–330. Girella, L. 2004. “La morte ineguale: Per una lettura delle evidenze funerarie nel medio minoico III a Creta,” ASAtene 81, pp. 251–300.

. 2006. “Re-constructing Dialogues with the Dead,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου, A' (3), Herakleion, pp. 325–340. Goodison, L., and C. Guarita. 2005. “A New Catalogue of the Mesara-type Tombs,” SMEA 47, pp. 171–212. Gosden, C., and K. Kirsanow. 2006. “Timescales,” in Lock and Molyneaux, eds., 2006, pp. 27–37. Greco, E., T. Kalpaxis, N. Papadakis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 2000. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 124, pp. 547–559. . 2001. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 125, pp. 637–644.

. 2011. “The Kamilari Project Publication,” Rivista di Archeologia 35 [2012], pp. 123–136.

. 2002. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 126, pp. 577–582.

. 2013a. “Exhuming an Excavation: Preliminary Notes on the Use of the Kamilari Tholos Tomb in Middle Minoan III,” in Intermezzo: Intermediacy and Regeneration in Middle Minoan III Palatial Crete (BSA Studies 21), C.F. Macdonald and C. Knappett, eds., London, pp. 149–159.

Greco, E., T. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1996. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 120, pp. 941–952.

. 2013b. “Further Notes on the So-Called Minoan ‘Egyptianizing’ Amphorae: New Evidence from Kamilari,” in Φιλική Συναυλία: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi (BAR-IS 2460), G. Graziado, R. Guglielmino, V. Lenuzza, and S. Vitale, eds., Oxford, pp. 15–29. Glotz, G. 1925. The Aegean Civilization, London. Godart, L., and Y. Tzedakis. 1992. Témoignages archéologiques et épigraphiques en Créte occidentale du néolothique au minoen récent III B (Incunabula Graeca 93), Rome. Godelier, M. 1986. The Making of Great Men: Male Domination and Power among the New Guinea Baruya, Cambridge. Goldstein, L. G. 1981. Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestations of Mississippian Society, Ann Arbor.

. 1997. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 121, pp. 809–824. . 1998. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 122, pp. 585–602. . 1999. “Itanos (Crète orientale),” BCH 123, pp. 515–530. Grumach, E., and J.A. Sakellarakis. 1966. “Die neuen Hieroglyphensiegel vom Phourni (Archanes) I,” Kadmos 5, pp. 109–114. Grundmann, K. 1951. “Die Grabung auf der Charakeshöhe bei Monastiraki II,” in Matz, ed., 1951, pp. 62–71. Guest-Papamanoli, A., and A. Lambraki. 1976. “Les grottes de Léra et de l’Arkoudia en Crète occidentale aux époques préhistoriques et historiques,” ArchDelt 31 (A') [1980], pp. 178–243. Guest-Papamanoli, A., and R. Treuil. 1979. “Travaux de l’École française en Grèce en 1978. Malia II: Bátiment immergé,” BCH 103, pp. 668–669.

322

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Hadzi-Vallianou, D. 1979. “Εφορεία προϊστορικών και κλασικών αρχαιοτήτων: Νομός Ηρακλείου,” ArchDelt 34 (B', 2) [1987], pp. 382–385.

Haggis, D.C., M. Mook, J.L. Tobin, and B.J. Hayden. 1993. “New Excavations of a Middle Minoan Cemetery in East Crete,” AJA 97, p. 301.

. 1989. “ΚΓ' εφορεία προϊστορικών και κλασικών αρχαιοτήτων,” ArchDelt 44 (B', 2) [1995], pp. 428–447.

Halbherr, F. 1902. “Lavori eseguiti dalla Missione Archeologica Italiana ad Haghia Triada e nella necropoli di Phaestos dal 15 Maggio al 12 Giugno 1902,” RendLinc, ser. 5, vol. 11, pp. 433–447.

Hageman, J.B., and J.C. Lohse. 2003. “Heterarchy, Corporate Groups, and the Late Classic Resource Management in Northwestern Belize,” in Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning, Jr., eds., 2003, pp. 109–121. Hägg, R., and N. Marinatos, eds. 1987. The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (SkrAth 4o, 35), Stockholm. Haggis, D.C. 1992. The Kavousi-Thriphti Survey: An Analysis of Settlement Patterns in an Area of Eastern Crete in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota. . 1993. “The Early Minoan Burial Cave at Ayios Antonios and Some Problems in Early Bronze Age Chronology,” SMEA 31, pp. 7–34. . 1996. “Excavations at Kalo Chorio, East Crete,” AJA 100, pp. 645–681. . 1997. “The Typology of the Early Minoan I Chalice and the Cultural Implications of Form and Style in Early Bronze Age Ceramics,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 291–298. . 1999. “Staple Finance, Peak Sanctuaries, and Economic Complexity in Late Prepalatial Crete,” in Chaniotis, ed., 1999, pp. 53–85.

. 1903. “Resti dell’etá micenea scoperti ad Haghia Triada presso Phaestos,” MonAnt 13, p. 5. . 1905. “Rapporto alla presidenza del Reale Istituto Lombardo di scienze a lettere sugli scavi eseguiti dalla Missione Archaeologica ad Haghia Triada ed a Festo nel 1904,” Memorie del Reale Istituto Lombardo de Scienze e Lettere 3 (21), pp. 235–254. Hall, E.H. 1905. “Early Painted Pottery from Gournia, Crete,” Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania 1 (iii), Philadelphia, pp. 191–205. . 1911. “American Excavations in Crete in 1910,” AJA 15, pp. 73–74. . 1912a. “Excavations in Eastern Crete. Sphoun­ garas,” University of Pennsylvania, the University Museum Anthropological Publications 3 (ii), pp. 43–73. . 1912b. “Mediterranean Section. The Cretan Expedition,” MusJ 3, pp. 39–44. . 1914. “Excavations in Eastern Crete, Vrokastro,” University of Pennsylvania, the University Museum Anthropological Publications 3 (iii), pp. 79–185.

. 2000. “Ayios Antonios,” in Muhly and Sikla, eds., 2000, pp. 58–61.

Halstead, P. 1981. “From Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storage and the Rise of the Minoan Palace,” in Economic Archaeology (BAR-IS 96), A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, eds., Oxford, pp. 187–213.

. 2002. “Integration and Complexity in the Late Pre-Palatial Period: A View from the Countryside in Eastern Crete,” in Hamilakis, ed., 2002, pp. 120–142.

. 1988. “On Redistribution and the Origin of Minoan-Mycenaean Palatial Economies,” in French and Wardle, eds., 1988, pp. 519–530.

. 2005. Kavousi I: The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (Prehistory Monographs 16), Philadelphia.

. 2004. “Life after Mediterranean Polyculture: The Subsistence Subsystem and the Emergence of Civilisation Revisited,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 189–206.

. 2007. “Stylistic Diversity and Diacritical Feasting at Protopalatial Petras: A Preliminary Analysis of the Lakkos Deposit,” AJA 111, pp. 715–775. . 2012. “An Early Minoan I Long Dagger and Razor from Kalo Chorio, East Crete,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 51–58. Haggis, D.C., and M. Mook. 1993. “The Kavousi Coarse Wares: A Bronze Age Chronology for Survey in the Mirabello Area, East Crete,” AJA 97, pp. 265–293.

. 2008. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Coping with Marginal Colonisation in the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Crete and the Aegean,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 229–257. Halstead, P., and J.C. Barrett. 2004. “Introduction: Food, Drink, and Society in Prehistoric Greece,” in Food, Cuisine, and Society in Prehistoric Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5), P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett, eds., Oxford, pp. 1–15.

REFERENCES

Halstead, P., and J. O’Shea. 1982. “A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking,” in Ranking, Resource, and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, eds., Cambridge, pp. 92–99. Hamilakis, Y. 1998. “Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feasting and the Politics of Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age Societies,” in Branigan, ed., 1998, pp. 115–132. . 2002a. “Too Many Chiefs? Factional Competition in Neopalatial Crete,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 179–199. . 2002b. “What Future for the ‘Minoan’ Past? Re-thinking the Minoan Archaeology,” in Hamilakis, ed., 2002, pp. 2–29. Hamilakis, Y., ed. 2002. Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Minoan” Archaeology, Oxford. Hankey, V. 1981. “Stone Vessels at Myrtos Pyrgos,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Δ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Athens, pp. 210 –215. . 1986. “Pyrgos: The Communal Tomb in Pyrgos IV (Late Minoan I),” BICS 33, pp. 135–137. Harding, J. 2005. “Rethinking the Great Divide: LongTerm Structural History and the Temporality of Event,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 38, pp. 88–101. Hare, T.S. 2000. “Between the Household and the Empire: Structural Relationships within and among Aztec Communities and Polities,” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 78–101. Härke, H. 1994. “Data Types in Burial Analysis,” in Prehistoric Graves as a Source of Information. Symposium at Kastlösa, Oland, May 21–23, 1992, B. Stjernquist, ed., Uppsala, pp. 31–39. Hawes, C.H. 1905. “Excavations at Palaikastro IV.7: Larnax Burials at Sarandari,” BSA 11, pp. 293–297. Hayden, B. 1997. The Pithouses of Keatley Creek: Complex Hunter-Gatherers of the Northwest Plateau, Fort Worth. . 2009. “Funerals as Feasts: Why Are They So Important?” CAJ 19, pp. 29–52.

323

. 2003b. “Final Neolithic–Early Minoan I/IIA Settlement in the Vrokrastro Area, Eastern Crete,” AJA 107, pp. 363–412. . 2003c. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 1: Catalogue of Pottery from the Bronze and Early Iron Age Settlement of Vrokastro in the Collections of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the Archaeological Museum, Herakleion, Crete (University Museum Monograph 113), Philadelphia. . 2004. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 2: The Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area and Related Studies (University Museum Monograph 119), Philadelphia. . 2005. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 3: The Vrokastro Regional Survey Project. Sites and Pottery (University Museum Monograph 123), Philadelphia. Hayden, B.J., Y. Bassiakos, T. Kalpaxis, A. Sarris, and M. Tsipopoulou. 2007. “A New Exploration of Priniatikos Pyrgos: Primary Harbor Settlement and Emporium of the Vrokastro Survey Region,” in Betancourt, Nelson, and Williams, eds., 2007, pp. 93–100. Hazzidakis, J. 1913a. “An Early Minoan Sacred Cave at Arkalokhori in Crete,” BSA 19, pp. 35–47. . 1913b. “Kretische Gräber,” MdI 38, pp. 43–50. . 1915. “Πρωτομινωϊκοὶ τάφοι παρὰ τὸ χορίον Γοῦρνες,” ArchDelt 1 [1916], pp. 59–63. . 1918. “Μινωϊκοὶ τάφοι ἐν Κρήτη,” ArchDelt 4 [1921], pp. 45–87. . 1934. Tylissos: Villas Minoennes (ÉtCrét 3), Paris. Hickman, J. 2011. “The Dog Diadem from Mochlos,” in Betancourt and Ferrence, eds., 2011, pp. 91–104. Hillbom, N. 2003. For Games or for Gods? An Investigation of Minoan Cup-Holes (SIMA 132), Sävedalen. . 2005. Minoan Games and Game Boards, Lund. Hiller, S. 1977. Das minoische Kreta nach den Ausgrab­ungen des letzen Jahrzehnts (Mykenische Studien 5), Vienna.

Hayden, B., and S. Villeneuve. 2010. “Who Benefits from Complexity? A View from Futuna,” in Price and Feinman, eds., 2010, pp. 95–146.

Hitchcock, L., and P. Koudounaris. 2002. “Virtual Discourse: Arthur Evans and the Reconstructions of the Minoan Palace at Knossos,” in Hamilakis, ed., 2002, pp. 40–58.

Hayden, B.J. 2003a. “The Final Neolithic–Early Minoan I/IIA Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area, Mirabello, Eastern Crete,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3, pp. 31–44.

Hodder, I. 1980. “Social Structure and Cemeteries: A Critical Appraisal,” in Rahtz, Dickinson, and Watts, eds., 1980, pp. 161–169.

324

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

. 1982a. “The Identification and Interpretation of Ranking in Prehistory: A Contextual Perspective,” in Ranking, Resource, and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, C. Renfrew and S.J. Shennan, eds., Cambridge, pp. 150–154. . 1982b. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge. . 1987. “The Contextual Analysis of Symbolic Meanings,” in The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, I. Hodder, ed., Cambridge, pp. 1–10. Hodder, I., and S. Hutson. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 3rd edition, Cambridge. Hodson, F.R. 1977. “Quantifying Hallstatt: Some Initial Results,” AmerAnt 42, pp. 394–412. Höflmayer, F. 2007. “Ägyptische Skarabäen auf Kreta und ihre Bedeutung für die absolute Chronologie der minoischen Altpalastzeit (MM IB–MM IIB),” Egypt and the Levant (International Journal for Egyptian Archaeology and Related Disciplines 17), pp. 107–125. Hogarth, D.G. 1900. “The Dictaean Cave,” BSA 6, pp. 94–116. . 1901. “Excavations at Zakro, Crete,” BSA 7, pp. 121–149. Hood, M.S.F. 1958a. “Archaeology in Greece 1957,” AR 1957, pp. 3–25. . 1958b. “The Largest Ivory Statuettes to be Found in Greece, and an Early Tholos Tomb; Discoveries during the Latest Knossos Excavations,” Illustrated London News, 22 February 1958, pp. 299–301. . 1960a. “Archaeology in Greece 1959,” AR 1959–1960, pp. 3–26. . 1960b. “Tholos Tombs of the Aegean,” Antiquity 34, pp. 166–176.

Hood, M.S.F., and G. Cadogan. 2011. Knossos Excavations 1957–1961: Early Minoan (BSA Suppl. 46), London. Hood, M.S.F., G. Huxley, and N. Sandars. 1959. “A Minoan Cemetery on Upper Gypsades (Knossos Survey 156),” BSA 53–54, pp. 194–262. Hood, M.S.F., and D. Smyth. 1981. Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area, 2nd edition, London. Hood, M.S.F., P. Warren, and G. Cadogan. 1964. “Travels in Crete, 1962,” BSA 59, pp. 50–99. Hope Simpson, R., P.P. Betancourt, P.J. Callaghan, D.K. Harlan, J.W. Hayes, J.W. Shaw, M.C. Shaw, and L.V. Watrous. 1995. “The Archaeological Survey of the Kommos Area,” in Kommos I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 1: The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries, J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Princeton, pp. 325–402. Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford. Hull, K.L. 2005. “Process, Perception, and Practice: Time Perspectivism in Yosemite Native Demography,” JAnthrArch 24, pp. 354–377. Hutchinson, D.L., and L.V. Aragon. 2002. “Collective Burials and Community Memories: Interpreting the Placement of the Dead in the Southeastern and MidAtlantic United States with Reference to Ethnographic Cases from Indonesia,” in The Space and Place of Death (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 11), H. Silverman and D.B. Small, eds., Arlington, pp. 27–54. Hutchinson, R.W. 1962. Prehistoric Crete, London. Iannone, G. 2002. “Annales History and the Ancient Maya State: Some Observations on the ‘Dynamic Model,’” American Anthropology 104, pp. 68–78.

. 1965. “Minoan Sites in the Far West Crete,” BSA 60, pp. 99–113.

Iliopoulos, G., N. Galanidou, S.A. Pergantis, V. Vamvakaki, and N. Chaniotakis. 2010. “Identifying the Geochemical Taphonomy of the Osteological Material from Katsambas Rockshelter,” JAS 37, 116–123.

. 1971. The Minoans: Crete in the Bronze Age, London.

Iliopoulos, T. 1995. “Μάρη Λασιθίου,” ArchDelt 50 (B', 2) [2000], p. 755.

. 1990. “Autochtons or Settlers? Evidence for Immigration at the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Crete,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ ΣΤ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Chania, pp. 367–375.

. 1996. “Λασιθιώτικα Βουνά,” ArchDelt 51 (B', 2) [2001], p. 658.

. 2010. “The Middle Minoan Cemetery on Ailias at Knossos,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 161–168. Hood, M.S.F., and J. Boardman. 1956. “Archaeology in Greece, 1955,” AR 1955, pp. 3–38.

. 1998. “Τσαμπί Μιραμπέλλου,” ArchDelt 53 (B', 3) [2004], p. 880. Ioannidou, A. 1973. “Περισυλλογή ἀρχαίων τυχαῖα εὑρήματα,” ArchDelt 28 (B', 2) [1977], pp. 569–574. Isaakidou, V., and P.D. Tomkins, eds. 2008. Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8), Oxford.

REFERENCES

325

Isbell, W.H. 2000. “What We Should be Studying: The ‘Imagined Community’ and the ‘Natural Community,’” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 243–266.

Karantzali, E. 1992–1993. “Στοιχεία πρωτομινωικής κατοίκησης στα Νοπήγεια Κισάμου,” ArchDelt 47– 48 (A') [1997], pp. 65–82.

Jantzen, U. 1951. “Die Kumaro-Höhle,” in Matz, ed., 1951, pp. 1–12.

. 1995. “Απόψεις πάνω στις πολιτιστικές σχέσης Κρήτης και Κυκλάδων την πρώιμη εποχή του χαλκού: Η μαρτυρία των αγγείων και των ειδωλίων. Χρονολογικά στοιχεία της ΠΚ περιόδου και αντιστοιχία με την μινωική χρονολογική ακολουθία,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Ζ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Rethymnon, pp. 445–483.

Jones, D.W. 1999. Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete: Comparison of Artefacts (SIMA 156), Jonsered. Joukowsky, M.S. 1996. Early Turkey: An Introduction to the Archaeology of Anatolia from Prehistory through the Lydian Period, Dubuque. Joyce, R.A., and J.A. Hendon. 2000. “Heterarchy, History, and Material Reality: ‘Communities’ in Late Classic Honduras,” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 143–160. Junghans, S., E. Sangmeister, and M. Schröder. 1968. Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metalzeit Europas. Katalog der Analysen Nr. 985–10040 (Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 2 [3]), Berlin. Kalpaxis, T., A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1995. “Itanos, Crète Orientale,” BCH 119, pp. 713–736. Kanta, A. 1999. “Monastiraki and Phaistos, Elements of Protopalatial History,” in Betancourt, Karageorghis, Laffineur, and Niemeier, eds., 1999, pp. 387–393.

. 1996. Le bronze ancien dans les Cyclades et en Crète: Les relations entre les deux régions. Influence de la Grèce continentale (BAR-IS 631), Oxford. . 2008. “The Transition of EBI to EBII in the Cyclades and Crete: Historical and Cultural Repercussions for Aegean Communities,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 241–260. Karetsou, A., M. Andreadaki-Vlasaki, and N. Papadakis. 2001. Crete–Egypt: Three Thousand Years of Cultural Links, Catalogue, Herakleion. Karo, G. 1930. “Archäologische Funde aus dem Jahre 1929 und der ersten Hälfte von 1930. Griechenland and Dodekanes,” AA 1930, pp. 88–167. . 1935. “Archäologische Funde vom Juli 1934 bis Juli 1935. Griechenland,” AA 1935, pp. 159–244.

. 2012. “A Tomb at Gonies Pediados: The End of Final Neolithic IV Merges with the Dawn of the Early Bronze Age,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 65–80.

Karytinos, A. 1998. “Sealstones in Cemeteries: A Display of Social Status?” in Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 78–88.

Kanta, A., and A. Tzigounaki. 2000. “The Protopalatial Multiple Sealing System: New Evidence from Monastiraki,” in Administrative Documents in the Aegean and Their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Naples, February 29–March 2, 1996 (Publicazioni del Centro Internazionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche 3), M. Perna, ed., Turin, pp. 193–210.

. 2000a. “The Stylistic Development of Seals from Archanes-Phourni throughout the Prepalatial Period—Style and Social Meaning,” in Müller, ed., 2000, pp. 124–134.

. 2001. “The Character of the Minoan Goddess: New Evidence from the Area of Amari,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 151–158. Kantner, J. 2008. “The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Toolkit to Ubiquitous Spatial Perspective,” Journal of Archaeological Research 16, pp. 37–81. Karadimas, N., and N. Momigliano. 2004. “On the Term ‘Minoan’ before Evans’s Work in Crete (1894),” SMEA 46, pp. 243–258. Karagianni, E. 1984. Μινωικά Σύνθετα Σκεύη (Κέρ­ νοι;), Athens.

. 2000b. “Οι ζωομορφικές σφραγίδες των Αρχανών,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 37–50. Kenna, V.E.G. 1960. Cretan Seals with a Catalogue of the Minoan Gems in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. . 1968. “Ancient Crete and the Use of the Cylinder Seal,” AJA 72, pp. 321–336. Keswani, P.S. 1996. “Hierarchies, Heterarchies, and Urbanization Processes: The View from Bronze Age Cyprus,” JMA 9, pp. 211–250. Kirsten, E. 1951. “Die Grabung auf der Charakeshöhe bei Monastiraki I,” in Matz, ed., 1951, pp. 27–61. Knapp, A.B. 1992. “Archaeology and Annales: Time, Space, and Change,” in Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge, pp. 1–21.

326

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Knappett, C. 1997. “Ceramic Production in the Proto­ palatial Mallia ‘State:’ Evidence from Quartier Mu and Myrtos Pyrgos,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 305–312. . 1999a. “Assessing a Polity in Protopalatial Crete: The Malia-Lasithi State,” AJA 103, pp. 615–639. . 1999b. “Tradition and Innovation in Pottery Forming Technology: Wheel Throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos,” BSA 94, pp. 101–130. Koehl, R.B. 2006. Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Prehis­ tory Monographs 19), Philadelphia. Kopaka, K., and N. Chaniotakis. 2003. “Just Taste Additive? Bronze Age Salt from Zakros, Crete,” OJA 22 (1), pp. 53–66. Kourou, N. 2005. “A Pre-palatial Stone Figurine from Myrtos, Crete,” in Μεγάλαι Νῆσοι. Studi dedicati a Giovanni Rizza per il suo ottantesimo compleanno, Volume Primo, R. Gigli, ed., Catania, pp. 43–50. Kramer, C. 1994. “Scale, Organization, and Function in Village and Town,” in Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, G.M. Schwartz and S.E. Falconer, eds., Washington, DC, pp. 207–212. Krause, S. 1992. Die Typologie der frühminoischen Idole: Versuch einer evolutionären Typologie, Hamburg. Krzyszkowska, O. 1983. “Wealth and Prosperity in Prepalatial Crete: The Case of Ivory,” in Krzyszkowska and Nixon, eds., 1983, pp. 163–171. . 2005. Aegean Seals: An Introduction (BICS Suppl. 85), London. . 2012. “Seals from the Petras Cemetery: A Preliminary Overview,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 145–160.

University, 18–21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), Liège, pp. 37–44. Laffineur, R., and E. Greco, eds. 2005. Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Italian School of Archaeology in Athens, 14–18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), Liège. Laffineur, R., and R. Hägg, eds. 2001. Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Aegaeum 22), Liège. Lahanas, A. 1993. Ein Keramikdepot aus Archanes und seine Bedeutung für die Entwincklung der mittelminoischen Keramik, Ph.D. diss., Freiburg University. . 2000. “Συνοπτική παρουσίαση της στιλιστικής εξέλιξις της κεραμικής των Αρχανών από την ΠΜ έως την ΜΜ ΙΒ περίοδο,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 155–169. Lambrou-Phillipson, C. 1990. Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, ca. 3000– 1100 b.c. Interconnections Based on the Material Record and the Written Evidence; Plus Orientalia: Catalogue of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mittanian, SyroPalestinian, Cypriot and Asia Minor Objects from the Bronze Age Aegean (SIMA 95), Göteborg. La Rosa, V. 1992. “Kamilari,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 112–115. . 1995. “Le campagne 1986–1991 e la conclusione del primo ciclo di lavori ad Haghia Triada,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Ζ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Rethymnon, pp. 523–543. . 1998. “La c.d. Tomba degli Ori e il nuovo settore nord-est,” ASAtene 70–71, pp. 121–174.

Krzyszkowska, O., ed. 2010. Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18), Athens.

. 1999a. “Άγια Τριάδα,” ArchDelt 54 (B', 2) [2006], pp. 857.

Krzyszkowska, O., and L. Nixon, eds. 1983. Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981, Bristol.

. 1999b. “Nuovi dati sulla tomba del sarcofago dipinto di H. Triada,” in La Rosa, Palermo, and Vagnetti, eds., 1999, pp. 177–188.

Kuijt, I. 1996. “Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A Period Mortuary Practices,” JAnthArch 15, pp. 313–336.

. 2001. “Minoan Baetyls: Between Funerary Rituals and Epiphanies,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 221–227.

Laffineur, R., ed. 1987. Thanatos: Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l’Age du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège, 21–23 avril 1986 (Aegaeum 1), Liège. Laffineur, R., and P.P. Betancourt, eds. 1997. Texnh: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple

. 2002. “Pour une révision préliminaire du second palais de Phaistos,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 71–98. . 2004. “Perché il palazzo a Festòs?” Creta Antica 5, pp. 43–52. La Rosa, V., and N. Cucuzza. 2001. L’insediamento di Selí di Kamilari nel territorio di Festós (Studi di Archaeologia Cretese 1), Padua.

REFERENCES

La Rosa, V., D. Palermo, and L. Vagnetti, eds. 1999. Επί πόντον πλαζομένοι. Simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese, Rome. Laviosa, C. 1972. “Saggi di scavo ad Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 47–48, pp. 407–415. . 1975. “L’abitato prepalaziale di Haghia Triada,” ASAtene 50–51, pp. 503–513.

327

. 1976. Festós e la civilitá Minoica, Rome. Levi, D., and F.M. Carinci 1988. Festós e la civilitá Minoica II: Fascicolo secondo. L’arte nel periodo protopalaziale: ceramica ed altri materiali, Rome. Levy, J.E. 1995. “Heterarchy in Bronze Age Denmark: Settlement Pattern, Gender, and Ritual,” in Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy, eds.,1995, pp. 41–53.

Lefèvre-Novaro, D. 2001. “Un nouvel examen des modèles réduits trouvés dans la grande tombe de Kamilari,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 89–97.

Lewthwaite, J. 1983. “Why Did Civilization Not Emerge More Often? A Comparative Approach to the Development of Minoan Crete,” in Krzyszkowska and Nixon, eds., 1983, pp. 171–183.

Legarra Herrero, B. 2004. “About the Distribution of Metal Objects in Prepalatial Crete,” Papers of the Institute of Archaeology 15, pp. 29–51.

Lock, G., and B.L. Molyneaux, eds. 2006a. Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice, G. Lock and B.L. Molyneaux, eds., New York.

. 2009. “The Minoan Fallacy: Cultural Diversity and Mortuary Behaviour on Crete at the Beginning of the Bronze Age,” OJA 29 (1), pp. 29–57.

Lock, G., and B.L. Molyneaux. 2006b. “Introduction: Confronting Scale,” in Lock and Molyneaux, eds., 2006, pp. 1–11.

. 2011a. “The Construction, Deconstruction and Non-construction of Hierarchies in the Funerary Record of Prepalatial Crete,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2011, pp. 325–357.

Long, C.R. 1959. “Shrines in Sepulchres? A Reexamination of Three Middle to Late Minoan Tombs,” AJA 63, pp. 59–65.

. 2011b. “New Kid on the Block: The Nature of the First Systemic Contacts between Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean around 2000 BC,” in Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to the 1st Millennia BC. Papers from a Conference in Memory of Professor Andew Sherratt: What Would a Bronze Age World System Look Like? World Systems Approaches to Europe and Western Asia 4th to 1st Millennia BC, T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, and J. Bennet, eds., Oxford, pp. 66–81. . 2011c. “The Secret Lives of the Early and Middle Minoan Tholos Cemeteries: Koumasa and Platanos,” in Murphy, ed., 2011, pp. 49–84. Lemerle, P. 1937. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Gréce en 1937,” BCH 61, pp. 441–476. Lempesi, A. 1977. “Άγιος Μύρων,” ArchDelt 32 (B', 2) [1984], pp. 314–315. Lenuzza, V. 2008. “Il periodo tardo-prepalaziale a Festòs: una nuova lettura del saggio Levi sotto il piazzale LXX,” ASAtene 84, pp. 653–672. . 2011. “‘The Whole is a Freak’: A Reassessment of the Spatial Organization of the Oval House in Chamaizi, Siteia,” in Στεγα: The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 44), K.T. Glowacki and N. Vogeikoff-Brogan, eds., Princeton, pp. 59–70. Levi, D. 1963. “La tomba a tholos di Kamilari presso a Festos,” ASAtene 39–40, pp. 7–148.

Lull, V. 2000. “Death and Society: A Marxist Approach,” Antiquity 74, pp. 576–580. Macdonald, C.F., and C. Knappett. 2007. Knossos: Protopalatial Deposits in Early Magazine A and the South-West Houses (BSA Suppl. 41), London. MacGillivray, J.A. 1994. “The Early History of the Palace at Knossos (MM I–II),” in Evely, Hughes-Brock, and Momigliano, eds., 1994, pp. 45–55. . 1998. Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period, London. . 2007. “Protopalatial,” in Momigliano, ed., 2007, pp. 105–149. MacGillivray, J.A., and J. Driessen. 1990. “Minoan Settlement at Palaikastro,” in L’habitat Égéen Préhistorique. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale organisée par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, l’Université de Paris I et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 23–25 juin 1987) (BCH Suppl. 19), P. Darcque and R. Treuil, eds., Athens, pp. 395–412. Mackenzie, D. 1903. Day-Book of the Excavations at Knossos, vol. 1, Arthur Evans Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. MacSweeney, N. 2004. “Social Complexity and Population: A Study in the Early Bronze Age Aegean,” Papers of the Institute of Archaeology 15, pp. 52–65. Maggidis, C. 1994. Burial Building 19 at Archanes: A Study of Prepalatial and Early Protopalatial

328

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Funerary Architecture and Ritual, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.

. 1931. “Δύο πρώϊμοι μινωϊκοὶ τάφοι ἐκ Βοροῦ Μεσαρᾶς,” ArchDelt 13 [1933], pp. 137–170.

. 1998. “From Polis to Necropolis: Social Ranking from Architectural and Mortuary Evidence in the Minoan Cemetery at Phourni,” in Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 87–102.

. 1933. “Funde und Forschungen auf Kreta,” AA 1933, cols. 287–314.

. 2000. “Minoan Burial Customs and Social Ranking at Archanes,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Heraklion, pp. 179–198. Mallegni, F. 1986. “Su alcuni reperti ossei umani sella tholos di Kamilari,” ASAtene 57–58, pp. 187–196. Manning, S. 1994. “The Emergence of Divergence: Development and Decline on Bronze Age Crete and the Cyclades,” in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, C. Mathers and S. Stoddart, eds., Sheffield, pp. 221–270. . 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and History, Sheffield. . 1997. “Cultural Change in the Aegean c. 2200 in Third Millennium b.c. Climate Change and Old World Collapse, H. Nüzhet Dalfes, G. Kukla, and H. Weiss, eds., London, pp. 149–171. b.c.,”

. 2008. “Formation of the Palaces,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, C.W. Shelmerdine, ed., Cambridge, pp. 105–120. Mantzourani, E., and P.P. Betancourt, eds. 2012. Philistor. Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (Prehistory Monographs 36), Philadelphia. Marangou, L., ed., 1992. Minoan and Greek Civilization from the Mitsotakis Collection, Athens. Marcus, J. 2000. “Toward an Archaeology of Communities,” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 231–242. Marinatos, N. 1986. Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practice and Symbolism (SkrAth 8o, 9), Stockholm. . 1993. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol, Columbia. Marinatos, S. 1924–1925. “Μεσομινωϊκὴ οἰκία ἐν Κάτω Μεσαρᾷ,” ArchDelt 9 [1927], pp. 53–78. . 1929a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Κρήτῃ,” Prakt 84 [1931], pp. 94–104. .1929b. “Πρωτομινωϊκὸς θολωτὸς τάφος παρὰ τὸ χορίων Κράσι Πεδιάδος,” ArchDelt 12 [1932], pp. 102–141. . 1930. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Κρήτῃ,” Prakt 85 [1932], pp. 91–99.

. 1933–1935. “Ἐνάτη καὶ δεκάτη ἀρχαιολογικὴ περιφέρεια (Κρήτη),” ArchDelt 15 [1938], pp. 49–83. . 1934. “Ausgrabungen und Funde auf Kreta 1933–­1934,” AA 1934, pp. 246–254. . 1935a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Κρήτῃ,” Prakt 90 [1936], pp. 196–220. . 1935b. “Ausgrabungen und Funde auf Kreta 1934–1935,” AA 1935, pp. 244–259. . 1937. “Ausgrabungen und Funde auf Kreta,” AA 1937, cols. 222–234. . 1949. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ Βαθυπέτρου Ἀρχανῶν (Κρήτης),” Prakt 104 [1951], pp. 100–109. . 1950. “Τὸ μέγαρον Βαθυπέτρου,” Prakt 105 [1951], pp. 242–257. . 1962. “Zur Frage der Grotte von Arkalochori,” Kadmos 1, pp. 87–94. Mathieu, J.R., and R.E. Scott. 2004. “Introduction: Exploring the Role of Analytical Scale in Archaeological Interpretation,” in Exploring the Role of Analytical Scale in Archaeological Interpretation (BAR-IS 1261), J.R. Mathieu and R.E. Scott, eds., Oxford, pp. 1–10. Matz, F., ed. 1951. Forschungen auf Kreta 1942, Berlin. Mavriyannaki, C. 1972. Recherches sur les larnakes minoennes de la Crète occidentale, Roma. McEnroe, J.C. 2002. “Cretan Questions: Politics and Archaeology 1898–1913,” in Hamilakis, ed., 2002, pp. 59–73. McGeorge, P.J.P. 2008. “Morbidity and Medical Practice in Minoan Crete,” in From the Land of the Laby­ rinth: Minoan Crete, 3000–1100 b.c. 2: Essays, M. Andreadaki-Vlasaki, G. Rethemiotakis, and N. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, eds., Athens, pp. 118–127. McHugh, F. 1999. Theoretical and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Mortuary Practice (BARIS 785), Oxford. McIntosh, S.K. 1999. “Pathways to Complexity: An African Perspective,” in Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa, S.K. McIntosh, ed., Cambridge, pp. 1–30. Mehrer, M.W. 2000. “Heterarchy and Hierarchy: The Community Plan as Institution in Cahokia’s Polity,” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 44–57.

REFERENCES

329

Meskell, L. 2001. “Archaeologies of Identity,” in Archaeological Theory Today, I. Hodder, ed., Cambridge, pp. 187–213.

Morris, I. 1991. “The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited,” CAJ 1, pp. 147–169.

Michelaki, F., and A. Vasilakis. 2010. “Jewelry and Other Small Finds,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 187–199.

. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.

Miller, E.B. 1984. Zoomorphic Vases in the Bronze Age Aegean, Ph.D. diss., New York University. Millett, M. 2000. “Dating, Quantifying, and Utilising Pottery Assemblages from Surface Survey,” in Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages (The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 5), R. Francovich and H. Patterson, eds., Oxford, pp. 53–59. Momigliano, N. 1991. “MM IA Pottery from Evan’s Excavations at Knossos: A Reassessment,” BSA 86, pp. 149–271. . 2000a. “Knossos 1902, 1905: The Prepalatial and Protopalatial Deposits from the Room of the Jars in the Royal Pottery Stores,” BSA 95, pp. 65–103. . 2000b. “On the Early Minoan III and Middle Minoan IA Sequence at Knossos,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 335–348. . 2007. “Late Prepalatial,” in Momigliano, ed., 2007, pp. 79–103. Momigliano, N., ed. 2007. Knossos Pottery Handbook: Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan) (BSA Studies 14), London. Momigliano, N., and D.E. Wilson. 1996. “Knossos 1993: Excavations outside the South Front of the Palace,” BSA 91, pp. 1–55. Moody, J. 1987a. The Environmental and Cultural Prehistory of the Khania Region of West Crete: Neolithic through Late Minoan III, Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota. . 1987b. “The Minoan Palace as a Prestige Artefact,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 235–241. . 2004. “Western Crete in the Bronze Age: A Survey of the Evidence,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly, eds., 2004, pp. 247–264. Moody, J., A.A.D. Peatfield, and S. Markoulaki. 2000. “Report from the Aghios Vasilios Valley Survey,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 359–371. Morris, C.E., and A.A.D. Peatfield. 1990. “Minoan Sheep Bells: Form and Function,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ ΣΤ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Chania, pp. 29–37.

Mortzos, C.E. 1972. “Πάρτιρα: Μία πρώϊμος μινωϊκή κεραμεικὴ ὁμάς,” ‘Επετηρὶς ‘Επιστημονικῶν Ερευνῶν 3, pp. 386–421. Mortzos, C.E., and A. Zois. 2007. Βασιλική II: Νέα αρχαιολογική έρευνα εις το Κεφάλι πλησίον του χωρίου Βασιλική Ιεράπετρας: Η κεραμεική των ανασκαφών Seager 1903–1906, Athens. Mosso, A. 1906. “Le armi piú antiche di rame e di bronzo,” MemLinc 12, pp. 479–579. . 1908. “Ceramica neolitica di Phaestos ed i vasi dell’epoca minoica primitiva,” MonAnt 19, pp. 213. . 1910. The Dawn of Mediterranean Civilisation, London. Muhly, J.D. 2000. “One Hundred Years of American Archaeological Work on Crete,” in Crete 2000: One Hundred Years of American Archaeological Work on Crete, J.D. Muhly and E. Sikla, eds., Athens, pp. 7–20. . 2008. “Ayia Photia and the Cycladic Element in Early Minoan Metallurgy,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 69–74. Muhly, P.M. 1984. “Minoan Hearths,” AJA 88, pp. 107–122. Müller, S. 1990. “Prospection de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 114, pp. 921–930. . 1991. “Prospection de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 115, pp. 741–749. . 1992. “Prospection de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 116, pp. 742–753. . 1996. “Prospection de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 120, pp. 921–928. . 1998. “Prospection de la plaine de Malia,” BCH 122, pp. 548–552. Müller, W., ed. 2000. Minoisch-Mykenische Glyptik V: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. Internationales SiegelSymposium, Marburg, 23–25 September 1999 (CMS Beiheft 6), Berlin. Müller, W., and I. Pini, eds. 1999. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum. Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und anderen zentral-und ostkretischen Fundorten (CMS II, 6), Berlin. , eds. 2007a. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum. Sammlung Giamalakis (CMS III, 1), Mainz am Rhein.

330

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

, eds. 2007b. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum. Sammlung Giamalakis (CMS III, 2), Mainz am Rhein.

. 2008a. Monastiraki Katalimata: Excavation of a Cretan Refuge Site, 1993–2000 (Prehistory Monographs 24), Philadelphia.

Murphy, J.M. 1998. “Ideologies, Rites, and Rituals: A View of Prepalatial Minoan Tholoi,” in Branigan, ed., 1998, pp. 27–41.

. 2008b. “Some Remarks on New Peak Sanctuaries in Crete: The Topography of Ritual Areas and Their Relationship with Settlements,” Jdl 122, pp. 1–32.

. 2000. “Private Life, Public Death: Contrasts in Minoan Prepalatial Society,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 405–412. Murphy, J.M., ed. 2011. Prehistoric Crete: Regional and Diachronic Studies on Mortuary Systems, Philadelphia. Myers, E.E., J.W. Myers, and G. Cadogan, eds. 1992. The Aerial Atlas of Ancient Crete, Berkeley. Mytilinaiou, D.K. 1998. “Προανακτορική κεραμική από τη θέση Ψαθί Κυδωνίας,” Κρητική Εστία 6, pp. 195–236. . 2006. “Η ΠΜΙΙΙ/ΜΜΙΑ περίοδος στη δυτική Κρήτη. Η περίπτωση της εγκατάστασης στο Ψαθί Κυδωνίας,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Herakleion, pp. 35–46. Nakou, G. 1995. “The Cutting Edge: A New Look at Early Aegean Metallurgy,” JMA 8, pp. 1–32. Nielsen, K.H. 1997. “From Society to Burial and from Burial to Society?” in Burial and Society: The Chronological and Social Analysis of Archaeological Burial Data, C.K. Jensen and K.H. Nielsen, eds., Aarhus, pp. 103–110. Nilsson, M.T. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion, Lund. Nixon, L., J. Moody, V. Niniou-Kindeli, S. Price, and O. Rackham. 1990. “Archaeological Survey in Sphakia, Crete,” EchCl 24, pp. 213–220. Nixon, L., J. Moody, S. Price, and O. Rackham. 1989. “Archaeological Survey in Sphakia, Crete,” EchCl 23, pp. 201–215. Nixon, L., J. Moody, and O. Rackham. 1988. “Archaeological Survey in Sphakia, Crete,” EchCl 22, pp. 159–173. Nodarou, E. 2011. Pottery Production, Distribution and Consumption in Early Minoan West Crete: An Analytical Perspective (BAR-IS 2210), Oxford.

. 2010. “Myrtos Fournou Korifi: Before and After,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 223–238. Oestigaard, T., and J. Goldhahn. 2006. “From the Dead to the Living: Death as Transactions and Renegotiations,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 39, pp. 27–48. Olivier, J.P., and T. McGeorge. 1977a. “Fouille de sauvetage en B7/c2,” BCH 101, p. 701. . 1977b. “Fouille d’urgence del’entrée du ‘Charnier no 4,’ en C4/f 5–6,” BCH 101, pp. 701–702. Olivier, J.P., R. Treuil, and F. Vandenabeele. 1970. “Nécropole de l’ilôt du Christ,” BCH 94, pp. 871–879. Orlandou, A.K. 1963. “Κρήτη: Κάτω Ζάκρον,” Ergon 1963 [1964], pp. 159–177. . 1967a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 15. Κρήτη (Ζάκρος),” Ergon 1967 [1968], pp. 103–115. . 1967b. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 16. Κρήτη: Μικροανασκαφαὶ καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων,” Ergon 1967 [1968], pp. 115–129. . 1968a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 18. Κρήτη: Μικροανασκαφαὶ καὶ περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων,” Ergon 1968 [1969], pp. 140–145. . 1968b. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 15. Κρήτη: Περιοχὴ Κυδωνίας,” Ergon 1968 [1969], pp. 102–111. . 1969. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 18. Κρήτη (περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων),” Ergon 1969 [1970], pp. 190–195. . 1971. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 21. Κρήτη (περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων Α. Κρήτης),” Ergon 1971 [1972], pp. 262–267. . 1972. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 20. Κρήτη (περισυλλογὴ ἀρχαίων),” Ergon 1972 [1973], pp. 125–130. . 1976. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ. 31. Ζάκρος,” Ergon 1976 [1977], pp. 188–195.

Novaro, D. 1999. “I modellini fittili della tomba di Kamilari: il problema cronologico,” in La Rosa, Palermo, and Vagnetti, eds., 1999, pp. 151–160.

Osborne, R. 2004a. “Demography and Survey,” in Sideby-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry, eds., Oxford, pp. 163–172.

Nowicki, K. 1994. “Some Remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial Peak Sanctuaries in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1, pp. 31–48.

. 2004b. “Greek Archaeology: A Survey of Recent Work,” AJA 108, pp. 87–102. . 2007. “Is Archaeology Equal to Equality?” WorldArch 39, pp. 143–150.

REFERENCES

O’Shea, J.M. 1981. “Social Configurarions and the Archaeological Study of Mortuary Practices: A Case Study,” in The Archaeology of Death, J. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, eds., Cambridge, pp. 39–52. . 1984. Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investigation, New York. O’Shea, J.M., and A.W. Barker. 1996. “Measuring Social Complexity and Variation: A Categorical Imperative?” in Arnold, ed., 1996, pp. 13–24. Pader, E.J. 1980. “Material Symbolism and Social Relations in Mortuary Studies,” in Rahtz, Dickinson, and Watts, eds., 1980, pp. 143–160. . 1982. Symbolism, Social Relation, and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains (BAR-IS 130), Oxford. Palio, O. 2003. “Un complesso di vasi in pietra dai livelli MM II del ‘Settore Nord-Est’ di Haghia Triada,” Creta Antica 4, pp. 329–342. Panagiotaki, M. 2008. “The Technological Development of Aegean Vitreous Materials in the Bronze Age,” in Vitreous Materials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 9), C.M. Jackson and E.C. Wager, eds., Oxford, pp. 34–63.

331

. 2005. Tholos Tomb Gamma: A Prepalatial Tholos Tomb at Phourni, Archanes (Prehistory Monographs 17), Philadelphia. . 2007a. “The Beginning of Metallurgy in Crete: New Evidence from the FN–EM I Settlement at Kephala Petras, Siteia,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 154–167. . 2007b. “Beyond Cultures and Ethnicity: A New Look at Material Culture Distribution and Inter-regional Interaction in the Early Bronze Age Southern Aegean,” in Mediterranean Crossroads, S. Antoniadou and A. Pace, eds., Athens, pp. 419–451. . 2008. “The Neolithic–Early Bronze Age Transition in Crete: New Evidence from the Settlement at Petras Kephala, Siteia,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 258–273. . 2012. “Back to the Beginnings: The Earliest Habitation at Petras on the Basis of the Evidence from the FN–EM I Settlement on Kephala,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 69–79.

Panagiotakis, N. 2006. “L’évolution archéologique de la Pédiada (Crète centrale): premier bilan d’une prospection,” BCH 127, pp. 327–430.

Papadatos, Y., and C. Sofianou. 2012. “Πολιτισμική ομοιογένεια και διαφοροποίηση στην Προανα­ κτορική Κρήτη: Νέα δεδομένα από τις ανασκαφές πρωτομινωικών νεκροταφείων στην Επαρχία Ση­ τείας,” in Αρχαιολογικό έργο Κρήτης 2: Πρακτικά της 2ης συνάντησης, Ρέθυμνο, 26–28 Νοεμβρίου 2010, M. Andrianakis, P. Varthalitou, and I. Tzachili, eds., Rethymnon, pp. 48–59.

Panagiotopoulos, D. 2001. “Minoische Jenseitsvorstellungen. Frühkretische Grabfunde aus kulturanthropologischer Sicht,” in Kreta und Zypern: Religion und Schrift. Von der Frühgeschichte bis zum Ende der archaischen Zeit, Tagung, 26.–28.2.1999, Ohlstadt/Oberbayern-Germany, A. Kyriatsoulis, ed., Altenburg, pp. 279–295.

Papadopoulos, C. 2010. Death Management and Virtual Pursuits: A Virtual Reconstruction of the Minoan Cemetery at Phourni, Archanes. Examining the Use of Tholos Tomb C and Burial Building 19 and the Role of Illumination in Relation to Mortuary Practices and the Perception of Life and Death by the Living (BAR-IS 2082), Oxford.

. 2002. Das Tholosgrab E von Phourni bei Archanes: Studien zu einem frühkretischen Grabfund und seine kulturellen Kontext (BAR-IS 1014), Oxford.

Papadopoulos, J.K., and R.M. Leventhal, eds. 2003. Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives (Cotsen Adanced Seminars 1), Los Angeles.

Papadakis, N. 1980. “Σητεία,” ArchDelt 35 (B', 2) [1988], p. 523. Papadakis, N., and B. Rutkowski. 1985. “New Research at Skales Cave Near Praisos,” BSA 80, pp. 129–137. Papadatos, Y. 1999. Mortuary Practices and Their Importance for the Reconstruction of Society and Life in Prepalatial Crete: The Evidence from Tholos Tomb Gamma in Archanes-Phourni, Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield. . 2003. “Ένα παλίμψηστο λοιπόν . . .,” in Αργοναύτης: Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ. Ντούμα από τους μαθητές του στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών (1980–2000), A. Vlachopoulos and K. Birtacha, eds., Athens, pp. 277–291.

Papavasileiou, G.A. 1910. Περί τῶν εν Εύβοία αρχαίων τάφων (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας), Athens. Paribeni, R. 1903. “Lavori eseguiti dalla missione archeologica italiana nel palazzo e nella necropoli di Haghia Triada dal 23 febbraio al 15 luglio 1903,” RendLinc ser. 5, vol. 12, pp. 317–351. . 1904. “Richerche nel sepolcreto di Haghia Triadha presso Phaestos,” MonAnt 14, pp. 678–756. . 1913. “Scavi nella necropoli preellenica di Festo. Tombe a ‘Tholos’ scoperte presso il villaggio di Siva,” Ausonia 8 [1915], pp. 14–31.

332

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Pariente, A. 1991. “Chronique des fouilles et décou­ vertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1990,” BCH 115, pp. 835–946. . 1993. “Chronique des foullies et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1992,” BCH 117, pp. 757–913. Parker Pearson, M. 1982. “Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study,” in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder, ed., Cambridge, pp. 99–113. . 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Stroud. Parkin, R. 2004. “Descent and Marriage: Introduction,” in Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader (Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 4), R. Parkin and L. Stone, eds., Oxford, pp. 29–42. Parkinson, W.A., and M.L. Galaty 2007. “Secondary States in Prespective: An Integrated Approach to State Formation in the Prehistoric Aegean,” American Anthropologist 109, pp. 113–129. Pauketat, T.R. 2000a. “Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley,” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 16–43. . 2000b. “The Tragedy of the Commoners,” in Agency in Archaeology, M.A. Dobres and J.E. Robb, eds., London, pp. 113–129. Payne, H.G.G. 1935. “Archaeology in Greece, 1934– 1935,” JHS 55, pp. 147–171. Pearson, M. 1998. “Performance as Valuation: Early Bronze Age Burial as Theatrical Complexity,” in The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and the Processes of Valuation (BAR-IS 730), D. Bailey, ed., Oxford, pp. 32–41. Peatfield, A.A.D. 1987. “Palace and Peak: The Political and Religious Relationship Between Palaces and Peak Sanctuaries,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 89–93. . 1992. “Rural Ritual in Bronze Age Crete: The Peak Sanctuary at Atsipadhes,” CAJ 2, pp. 59–87. Peebles, C.S., and S.M. Kus. 1977. “Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies,” AmerAnt 42, pp. 421–448.

. 1985. “Publication d’un palais Minoen: Eléments pour une chronologie,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Ε' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 276–283. . 1986. “Un dépot de fondation au palais de Malia,” BCH 110, pp. 9–16. . 1994. “Les tombes circulaires dans l’Égée de l’âge du Bronze: État des questions,” Topoi 4, pp. 153–207. . 2006. “Stratigraphie et chronologie au palais de Malia,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογι­ κοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (1), Heraklion, pp. 141–152. Pelon, O., and A. Schmitt. 2006. “Étude en laboratoire des céramiques dites de Vassiliki (Crète orièntale),” BCH 127, pp. 431–442. Pelon, O., and V. Stürmer. 1989. “Sur les pseudotrompettes de Malia,” BCH 113, pp. 101–111. Pendlebury, H.W., J.D.S. Pendlebury, and M.B. MoneyCoutts. 1939. “Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi I: The Cave of Trapeza,” BSA 36, pp. 5–132. . 1940. “Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi II,” BSA 38, pp. 1–57. Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1939. The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction, London. Pendlebury, J.D.S., M.B. Money-Coutts, and E. Eccles. 1934. “Journeys in Crete 1932/33,” BSA 33, pp. 80–100. Petit, F. 1987. “Les tombes circulaires de la Messara: problèmes d’interprètation des pièces annexes,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 35–43. . 1990. “Les jarres funéraires du Minoen Ancien III au Minoen Récent I,” Aegaeum 6, pp. 29–57. Petrakos, B.C. 1991. “Ζάκρος,” Ergon 1991 [1992], pp. 116–118. . 2002. “Αρχάνες,” Ergon 2002 [2003], pp. 49–51. Phillips, J. 1991. The Impact and Implications of the Egyptian and ‘Egyptianizing’ Material Found in Bronze Age Crete ca. 3000–ca. 1100 B.C., Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto.

Pelon, O. 1976. Tholoi, tumuli et circles funéraires. Recherches sur les monuments funéraires de plan circulaire dans l’Égée de l’Age du Bronze (IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.–C.), Athens.

. 2004. “The Odd Man Out: Minoan Scarabs and Scaraboids,” in Scarabs of the Second Millennium b.c. from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th–13th of January 2002, M. Bietak and E. Czerny, eds., Vienna, pp. 161–170.

. 1983. “L’épée à l’acrobate et la chronologie maliote (II),” BCH 107, pp. 679–703.

. 2008a. Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review I

REFERENCES

333

(Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 18), Vienna.

Κρήτης) Πεπραγμένα 1940,” in Ἑπετηρὶς Ἑπιστημονικῶν Ερευvῶν 4, pp. 269–274.

. 2008b. Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review II (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 18), Vienna.

. 1948. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το 1948,” CretChron 2, pp. 584–590.

Picard, C. 1948. Les religions Préhelléniques (Crète et Mycénes), Paris. Pieler, E.C. 2004. “Kykladische und ‘kykladisierende’ Idole auf Kreta und im helladischen Raum in der Frühbronzezeit–eine Klassifizierung,” SMEA 46, pp. 79–119. Pierpont, G.D. 1987. “Réflexions sur la destination des edifices de Chrysolakkos,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 275–290.

. 1951. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1951,” CretChron 5, pp. 438–449. . 1953a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ εἰς τὴν περιοχὴν Σητείας,” Prakt 108 [1956], pp. 288–297. . 1953b. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνισις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1953,” CretChron 7, pp. 479–492. . 1954a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ περιοχῆς Σητείας,” Prakt 109 [1957], pp. 361–368. . 1954b. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1954,” CretChron 8, pp. 506–517.

Pini, I. 1968. Beiträge zur minoischen Gräberkunde, Wiesbaden.

. 1955. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1955,” CretChron 9, pp. 553–569.

. 1981. “Ein Beitrag zur chronologischen Ordnung der frühkretischen Siegel,” in Πεπραγμένα του Δ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 421–435.

. 1956. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1956,” CretChron 10, pp. 405–422.

. 1982. “Zu dem silbernen Rollsiegel aus Moch­ los,” AA 1982, pp. 599–603. . 1990. “Eine frühkretische Siegelwerkstatt?” in Πεπραγμένα του ΣΤ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Chania, pp. 115–127. . 2000. “Eleven Early Cretan Scarabs,” in Κρήτη–Αίγυπτος: Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών, A. Karetsou, ed., Athens, pp. 107–113. Pini, I., ed. 1975. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen (CMS V, 1), Berlin. , ed. 1992. Kleinere griechische Sammlungen. Ägina–Korinth (CMS V Suppl. 1A), Berlin. Platakis, E.K. 1965. “Προϊστορικές θέσεις στη Μόνη Οδηγήτριας,” Κρητικίς Πρωτοχρόνιας 5, pp. 198–226.

. 1958. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1958,” CretChron 12, pp. 459–483. . 1959. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1959,” CretChron 13, pp. 359–393. . 1961. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Κάτω Ζάκρου,” Prakt 116 [1964], pp. 216–224. . 1962. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ζάκρου,” Prakt 117 [1966], pp. 142–168. . 1963. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ζάκρου,” Prakt 118 [1966], pp. 160–188. . 1967. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ Ζάκρου,” Prakt 122 [1969], pp. 162–194. . 1971a. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ Ζάκρου,” Prakt 123 [1973], pp. 231–275. . 1971b. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace in Ancient Crete, New York.

. 1973a. Σπήλαια και άλλαι καρστικαί μορφαί της Κρήτης, Herakleion.

. 1972. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ζάκρου,” Prakt 127 [1974], pp. 159–192.

. 1973b. “Το σπήλαιο του Ψυχρού ‘Δικτάιον Αντρόν,’” Αμάλθεια 4, pp. 276–280.

Platon, N., ed. 1969. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: Die Siegel der Vorpalastzeit (CMS II, 1), Berlin.

. 1978. “Από τα σπήλαια του Νόμου Λασιθίου,” Αμάλθεια 9, pp. 49–56.

Platon, N., and S. Alexiou. 1957. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογικὴ κίνησις ἐν Κρήτη κατὰ το ἔτος 1957,” CretChron 11, pp. 326–343.

Platon, L. 1999. “New Evidence for the Occupation at Zakros before the LM I Palace,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 671–682. Platon, N. 1941. “Ι' αρχαιολογική περιφέρεια Ἡρακ­ λείου (διαμέρισμα κεντρικῆς καὶ ανατολικῆς

Platon, N., I. Pini, and G. Salies, eds. 1977. Iraklion Archäologisches Museum: Die Siegel der Altpalastzeit (CMS II, 2), Berlin.

334

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Pomadère, M., T. Gomrée, and M. Schmid. 2011. “Malia– Chrysolakkos–Le Palais,” BCH 133, pp. 647–669.

Models in Prehistory, C. Renfrew, ed., London, pp. 565–570.

Pomerance, L. 1977. “The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology,” in Antichità Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi (Cronache di Archeologia 12), Catania, pp. 21–30.

Rahtz, P., T. Dickinson, and L. Watts, eds. 1980. AngloSaxon Cemeteries 1979. The Fourth Anglo-Saxon Symposium at Oxford (BAR 82), Oxford.

Poursat, J.C. 1987. “Le début de l’époque protopalatiale à Malia,” in Ειλαπινή: Τόμος τιμητικὸς γιὰ τὸν καθηγητὴ Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα, Herakleion, pp. 461–466. . 1988. “La ville minoenne de Malia: Re­cherches et publications récentes,” RA 1988, pp. 61–82. . 1993. “Notes de céramique maliote à propos de la céramique de Chrysolakkos,” BCH 117, pp. 602–607. Preston, L. 1999. “Mortuary Practices and the Negotiation of Social Identities at LM II Knossos,” BSA 94, pp. 131–143. . 2004. “Contextualising the Larnax: Tradition, Innovation and Regionalism in Coffin Use on Late Minoan II–IIIB Crete,” OJA 23, pp. 177–197. . 2005. “The Kephala Tholos at Knossos: A Study in the Reuse of the Past,” BSA 102, pp. 61–124. . 2007. “The Isopata Cemetery at Knossos,” BSA 102, pp. 257–314. . 2013. Knossos Monastiriako Kephali Tomb and “Deposit” (BSA Studies 22), London. Preve, S. 2006. “Νέα Ρούματα,” in Αρχαίοι τόποι και μνημεία νόμος Χανιών. ΚΕ' εφορεία προϊστορικών και κλασικών αρχαιοτήτων με τη συνδρομή του Τ.Ε.Ε. τμήματος δυτικής Κρήτης, M. Andreadaki-Vlasaki and V. Niniou-Kindeli, eds., Chania, p. 36. Price, T.D., and G.M. Feinman. 1995. “Foundations of Prehistoric Social Inequality,” in Foundations of Social Inequality (Fundamental Issues in Archaeology), T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman, eds., New York, pp. 3–11. Price, T.D., and G.M. Feinman, eds. 2010. Pathways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality, New York. Ramenofsky, A.F. 1998. “The Illusion of Time,” in Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material, A.F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, eds., Salt Lake City, pp. 74–84. Randsborg, K. 1974. “Wealth and Social Structure as Reflected in Bronze Age Burials—A Quantitative Approach,” in The Explanation of Culture Change:

Rédaction, L. 1921. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (novembre 1920–novembre 1921),” BCH 45, pp. 487–568. . 1925. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique (1925),” BCH 49, pp. 428–480. . 1928. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’orient hellénique,” BCH 52, pp. 466–510. Relaki, M. 2003. Social Arenas in Minoan Crete: A Regional History of the Mesara in South-Central Crete from the Final Neolithic to the End of the Protopalatial Period, Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield. . 2004. “Constructing a Region: The Contested Landscapes of Prepalatial Mesara,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 170–188. . 2011. “The Social Arenas of Tradition: Investigating Collective and Individual Social Strategies in the Prepalatial and Protopalatial Mesara,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2011, pp. 290–324. Renfrew, C. 1964. “Crete and the Cyclades before Rhadamanthus,” CretChron 18, pp. 107–141. . 1969. “The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figurines,” AJA 73, pp. 1–32. . 1972a. “Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organization in Prehistoric Europe,” in Reconstructing Complex Societies: An Archaeological Colloquium (Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 20), C. Moore, ed., Cambridge, MA, pp. 69–95. . 1972b. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium b.c., London. . 1976. “Megaliths, Territories, and Populations,” in Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe, Mainly during the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age, S.J. De Laet, ed., Brugge, pp. 198–220. . 2001. “Commodification and Institution in Group-Oriented and Individualizing Societies,” in The Origin of Human Social Institutions (Proceedings of the British Academy 110), W.G. Runciman, ed., Oxford, pp. 93–117. . 2004. “Rethinking the Emergence,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 257–274.

REFERENCES

Rethemiotakis, G. 1984. “Θέση Μπαΐρια Γάζι,” ArchDelt 39 (B') [1989], p. 296. . 1992–1993. “Το μινωικό ‘κεντρικό κτίριο’ στο Καστέλλι Πεδιάδας,” ArchDelt 47–48 (A') [1997], pp. 29–64. . 1998a. “Αϊτάνια,” ArchDelt 53 (B', 3) [2004], pp. 853. . 1998b. “Σοκαράς,” ArchDelt 53 (B', 3) [2004], pp. 853–854. . 1999a. “The Hearths of the Minoan Palace at Galatas,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 721–728. . 1999b. “Social Rank and Political Power: The Evidence from the Minoan Palace at Galatas,” in Eliten in der bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen I (Monographien/Römischgermanischen Zentralmuseum Dorschunginstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte), Mainz, pp. 19–26. Rethemiotakis, G., and K.S. Christakis. 2004. “Cultural Interaction between Knossos and Pediada: The Evidence from the Middle Minoan IB Pottery,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 169–175. Robb, J.E. 1999. “Great Persons and Big Men in the Italian Neolithic,” in Social Dynamics in the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean (Accordia Research Institute), R.H. Tykot and J. Morter, eds., London, pp. 111–120. Rousseau, J. 2001. “Hereditary Stratification in MiddleRange Societies,” JRAI 7, pp. 117–131. Rutkowski, B. 1966. Larnaksy egejskie, Warsaw. . 1968. “The Origin of the Minoan Coffin,” BSA 63, pp. 219–228. . 1986. The Cult Places of the Aegean, New Haven. . 1989. “Minoan Sanctuaries at Christos and Koumasa, Crete: New Field Research,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 19, pp. 47–51. . 1991. Petsophas: A Cretan Peak Sanctuary (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization I [i]), Warsaw.

335

Sackett, L.H., M.R. Popham, P.M. Warren, and L. Engstrand. 1965. “Excavations at Palaikastro VI,” BSA 60, pp. 248–315. Sakellarakis, J.A. 1965a. “Arkhanes 1965. Report on the Excavations,” Kadmos 4, pp. 177–180. . 1965b. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης: Μονὴ Ὁδηγητρίας,” ArchDelt 20 (B', 3) [1968], pp. 562–564. . 1966a. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 121 [1968], pp. 174–184. . 1966b. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα κεντρικῆς καὶ ἀνατολικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 21 (B', 2) [1968], pp. 405–419. . 1967. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 122 [1969], pp. 151–161. . 1968. “Θολοτὸς τάφος εἰς Ἅγ. Κύριλλον Μεσ­ αρᾶς,” AAA, pp. 50–53. . 1971. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 126 [1973], pp. 276–283. . 1972. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 127 [1974], pp. 310–353. . 1973. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 128 [1975], pp. 167–187. . 1975. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 130 (B') [1977], pp. 255–321. . 1977. “Τὰ κυκλαδικά στοιχεῖα τῶν Ἀρχανῶν,” AAA 10, pp. 93–115. . 1980. “Datierte Gruppen vorpalastzeitlichen minoischener Siegel,” JRGZM 27, pp. 1–12. Sakellarakis, J.A., and V.E.G. Kenna, eds. 1969. Iraklion: Sammlung Metaxas (CMS IV), Mainz. Sakellarakis, J.A., and E. Sakellaraki. 1976. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 131 (B') [1979], pp. 342–399. . 1977. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 132 (B') [1980], pp. 459–482. . 1978. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 133 [1980], pp. 309–322.

Rutkowski, B., and K. Nowicki. 1996. The Psychro Cave and Other Sacred Grottoes in Crete (Studies and Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology and Civilization ser. 2, vol. 1), Warsaw.

. 1979. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 134 [1981], pp. 331–392.

Rutter, J., and C. Zerner. 1984. “Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts,” in The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (SkrAth 4º, 32), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 75–83.

. 1981. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 136 (B') [1984], pp. 409–448.

. 1980. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 137 [1982], pp. 354–401.

. 1982. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν,” Prakt 137 [1984], pp. 467–530.

336

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

. 1991. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀρχανῶν 1986–1988,” ArchEph 130 [1993], pp. 169–218.

Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the EastCentral Yucatan Peninsula, Tucson.

Sakellarakis, J.A., and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki. 1997. Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light, Athens.

Schachermeyr, F. 1938. “Vorbericht über eine Expedition nach Ostkreta,” AA 1938, pp. 466–479.

Saltos, V. 2000. “Ζητήματα ταφικής αρχιτεκτονικής στη νότια Κρήτη κατά την προανακτορική περίοδο,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (3), Herakleion, pp. 193–200.

Schlager, N., J. Böhm, M. Koller, F. Lang, M. Aufschnaiter, M. Lardurner, E.C. Pieler, L. Berger, N. Alber, M. Frauenglas, R. Ployer, U. Schmiedicke, C. Vogelmayer, E. Mlinar, U. Schuh, D.S. Reese, S. Guderna, W. Reiter, and B. Simon. 2002. “Pleistozäne, neolithische, bronzezeitliche und rezente Befunde und Ruinen im Fernen Osten Kretas. Dokumentation 2000,” ÖJh 70, pp. 157–220.

Sampson, A. 1987. “The Early Helladic Graves at Manika: Contribution to the Socio-economic Conditions of the Early Bronze Age,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 19–28. . 1988. Μάνικα II: Ο Προτοελλαδικός Οικισμός και το Νεκροταφείο, Athens. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 1983. “Τὸ εἰδώλιο τοῦ Σαμπᾶ καὶ τὰ ἄμορφα λίθινα εἰδώλια τῆς πρώιμης ἐποχης τοῦ χαλκοῦ στὴν Κρήτη,” ArchEph 122 [1985], pp. 44–74. . 1987. “New Evidence from the Early Bronze Age Cemetery at Manika, Chalkis,” BSA 82, pp. 233–264. Saxe, A.A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Sbonias, K. 1995. Frühkretische Siegel. Ansätze für eine Interpretation der sozial-politischen Entwincklung auf Kreta während der Frühbronzezeit (BAR-IS 620), Oxford. . 1999a. “Inter-Settlement Relations and Symbolic Representations in Prepalatial Crete,” in Eliten in der Bronzezeit I: Ergebnisse Zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Mainz, pp. 1–18. . 1999b. “Social Development, Management of Production and Symbolic Representation in Prepalatial Crete,” in Chaniotis, ed., 1999, pp. 25–51. . 2000. “Specialization in the Early Minoan Seal Manufacture: Craftsmen, Settlements, and the Organization of Production,” in Müller, ed., 2000, pp. 277–293. . 2010. “Seals from the Cemetery,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 201–225. . 2011. “Regional Elite-Groups and the Production and Consumption of Seals in the Prepalatial Period: A Case-Study of the Asterousia Region,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2011, pp. 236–272. Scarborough, V.L., F. Valdez, and N.P. Dunning Jr. 2003. “Introduction,” in Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning Jr., eds., 2003, pp. xiii–xx. Scarborough, V.L., F. Valdez, and N.P. Dunning Jr., eds. 2003. Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the

Schlager, N., and L. Dollhofer. 1998. “Die minoische Grabhöhle Chosto im Kastri Goudourou Sitias,” ÖJh 67, pp. 1–37. Schoep, I. 1999. “The Origins of Writing and Administration on Crete,” OJA 18, pp. 265–276. . 2002a. “Social and Political Organization on Crete in the Proto-Palatial Period: The Case of Middle Minoan II Malia,” JMA 15, pp. 101–132. . 2002b. “The State of the Minoan Palaces or the Minoan Palace-State,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 15–33. . 2006. “Looking Beyond the First Palaces: Elites and the Agency of Power in EM III–MM II Crete,” AJA 110, pp. 37–64. . 2007. “Architecture and Power: The Origins of Minoan ‘Palatial Architecture,’” in Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 156), J. Bretschneider, J. Driessen, and K. Van Lerberghe, eds., Leuven, pp. 213–236. . 2009. “The Excavation of the Cemetery (Zone 1),” in Driessen et al., eds., 2009, pp. 45–56. Schoep, I., and C. Knappett. 2004. “Dual Emergence: Evolving Heterarchy, Exploding Hierarchy,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 21–37. Schoep, I., A. Schmitt, and I. Crevecoeur. 2011. “The Cemetery at Sissi: Report of the 2009 and 2010 Campaigns,” in Excavations at Sissi II: Preliminary Report on the 2009–2010 Campaigns (Aegis 4), J. Driessen, I. Schoep, F. Carpentier, I. Crevecoeur, M. Devolder, F. Gaignerot-Driessen, P. Hacigüzeller, V. Isaakidou, S. Jusseret, C. Langhor, Q. Letesson, and A. Schmitt, eds., Louvain, pp. 41–68. Schoep, I., A. Schmitt, I. Crevecoeur, and S. Déderix. 2013. “The Cemetery at Sissi: Report of the 2011 Campaign,” in Excavations at Sissi III: Preliminary Report on the 2011 Campaign (Aegis 6), J. Driessen, I. Schoep, M. Anastasiadou, F. Carpentier, I.

REFERENCES

Crevecoeur, S. Déderix, M. Devolder, F. GaignerotDriessen, S. Jusseret, C. Langhor, Q. Letesson, F. Liard, A. Schmitt, C. Tsoraki, and R. Veropoulidou, eds., Louvain, pp. 27–51. Schoep, I., P. Tomkins, and J. Driessen, eds. 2011. Back to the Beginning: Reassessing Social and Political Complexity on Crete during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford. Schörgendorfer, A.S. 1951a. “Die minoische Siedlung von Apesokari,” in Matz, ed., 1951, pp. 23–26. . 1951b. “Ein mittelminoisches Tholosgrab bei Apesokari,” in Matz, ed., 1951, pp. 13–22. Seager, R.B. 1905. “Excavations at Vasilike, 1904,” Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania 1, pp. 207–221. . 1907. “Report of Excavations at Vasilike, Crete, in 1906,” Transactions of the Department of Archaeology, Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania 2, pp. 111–132. . 1909. “Excavations on the Island of Mochlos, Crete, 1908,” AJA 13, pp. 273–303. . 1910. “Excavations on the Island of Pseira, Crete,” University of Pennsylvania, the University Museum Anthropological Publications 3, pp. 4–38. . 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos, Boston and New York. . 1916. “The Cemetery of Pachyammos. Crete,” University of Pennsylvania, the University Museum Anthropological Publications 7, pp. 5–30. Serpetsidaki, I.M. 1994. “Κυπαρίσσι Τεμένους. Θέση Καπέλλα,” ArchDelt 49 (B', 2) [1999], pp. 700–701. . 2006. “Προανακτορικός σπηλαιώδης τάφος στο Κυπαρίσσι Τεμένους,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 243–258. Shank, E. 2005. “New Evidence for Anatolian Relations with Crete in EM I–IIA,” in Laffineur and Greco, eds., 2005, pp. 103–106. Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1982. “Ideology, Symbolic Power, and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices,” in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder, ed., Cambridge, pp. 129–154.

337

Shaw, J.W., and M.C. Shaw. 1999. “A Proposal for Bronze Age Aegean Ship-Sheds in Crete,” in Tropis V: 5th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Navplio, 1993, H. Tzalas, ed., Athens, pp. 369–382. Shennan, S. 1985. Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: The East Hampshire Survey, Sheffield. . 1989. “Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity,” in Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (One World Archaeology 10), S. Shennan, ed., London, pp. 1–32. Silverman, J.S. 1974. “A Lost Notebook from the Excavations at Gournia, Crete,” Expedition 17, pp. 11–20. Small, D.B. 1995. “Heterarchical Paths to Evolution: The Role of External Economies,” in Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy, eds., 1995, pp. 71–86. Smith, R.A.K., E. Pappi, M.K. Dabney, S. Triantaphyllou, and J.C. Wright. 2009. “2006–2007 Excavations of the Mycenaean Cemetery at Ayia Sotira, Ancient Nemea,” Aegean Archaeology 8, pp. 95–110. Soles, J.S. 1973. The Gournia House Tombs: A Study of the Architecture, Chronology, and Use of Built Rectangular Tombs of Crete, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. . 1979. “The Early Gournia Town,” AJA 83, pp. 149–167. . 1988. “Social Ranking in Prepalatial Cemeteries,” in French and Wardle, eds., 1988, pp. 49–61. . 1992a. “Mochlos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 186–193. . 1992b. The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 24), Princeton. . 1995. “The Functions of a Cosmological Center: Knossos in Palatial Crete,” in Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 405–414. . 2001. “Reverence for Dead Ancestors in Prehistoric Crete,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., 2001, pp. 230–236.

. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology, Cambridge.

. 2004. “New Construction at Mochlos in the LM IB Period,” in Day, Mook, and Muhly, eds., 2004, pp. 153–162.

Shaw, J.W. 1973. “The Chrysolakkos Façades,” in Περπαγμένα τοῦ Γ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A', Rethymnon, pp. 319–331.

. 2012. “Mochlos Boats,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 187–200.

338

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Soles, J.S., and C. Davaras. 1992. “Excavations at Mochlos 1989,” Hesperia 61, pp. 413–445.

Stucynski, S. 1982. “Cycladic ‘Imports’ in Crete: A Brief Survey,” TUAS 7, pp. 50–60.

. 1994. “Excavations at Mochlos 1990–91,” Hesperia 63, pp. 391–436.

Stürmer, V. 1987. “Bemerkungen zur Keramik der Nekropole von Chrysolakkos,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 75–78.

. 1996. “Excavations at Mochlos 1992–94,” Hesperia 65, pp. 175–230. . 2010. “2010 Greek-American Excavations at Mochlos,” Kentro: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 13, pp. 1–3. Souvatzi, S. 2007. “Social Complexity is Not the Same as Hierarchy,” in Socialising Complexity: Structure, Interaction, and Power in Archaeological Discourse, S. Kohring and S. Wynne-Jones, eds., Oxford, pp. 37–59. Starr, C.G. 1984. “Minoan Flower Lovers,” in The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (SkrAth 4º, 32), R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, eds., Stockholm, pp. 9–12. Stefani, E. 1933. “La grande tomba a tholos di Haghia Triadha,” ASAtene 13–14, pp. 147–154. Stein, G.J. 1998. “Heterogeneity, Power, and Political Economy: Some Current Research Issues in the Archaeology of Old World Complex Societies,” Journal of Archaeological Research 6, pp. 1–55. Steuer, H. 1982. Frühgeschichtliche Sozialztrukturen in Mitteleuropa: Eine Analyse der Auswertungsmethoden des archäologischen Quellenmaterials, Göttigen. Stos-Gale, Z.A. 1993. “The Origin of Metal Used for Making Weapons in Early and Middle Minoan Crete,” in Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Bristol, April 1992, C. Scarre and F. Healy, eds., Oxford, pp. 115–129. . 1998. “The Role of Kythnos and Other Cycladic Islands in the Origins of Early Minoan Metallurgy,” in Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium Kea-Kythnos, 22–25 June 1994, L.G. Mendoni and A.J. Mazarakis Ainian, eds., Athens, pp. 717–736. Stos-Gale, Z.A., and N.H. Gale. 2003. “Lead Isotopic and Other Isotopic Research in the Aegean,” in Foster and Laffineur, eds., 2003, pp. 83–102. Strasser, T.F. 1992. Neolithic Settlement and Land-Use on Crete, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Strathern, M. 1991. “Introduction,” in Big Men and Great Men: Personification of Power in Melanesia, M. Godelier and M. Strathern, eds., Cambridge, pp. 1–5.

. 1992. MM III: Studien zum Stilwandel der minoischen Keramik (Archaeologica Heidelbergensia 1), Mainz. . 1993. “La céramique de Chrysolakkos: catalogue et réexamen,” BCH 117, pp. 123–187. Tainter, J.A. 1975. “Social Inference and Mortuary Practices: An Experiment in Numerical Classification,” WorldArch 7, pp. 1–15. . 1978. “Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems,” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, pp. 105–141. Tainter, J.A., and R.H. Corby. 1977. “An Archaeological Analysis of Social Ranking and Residence Groups in Prehistoric Hawaii,” WorldArch 9, pp. 95–112. Taramelli, A. 1897. “The Prehistoric Grotto at Miamú,” AJA 1, pp. 287–312. . 1899. “Richerche archeologische cretesi,” Mon­ Ant 9, pp. 285–448. Tarlow, S. 1992. “Each Slow Dusk a Drawing Down of Blinds,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11, pp. 125–140. . 1999. Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality, Oxford. Tartaron, T.F. 2008. “Aegean Prehistory as World Archaeology: Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Bronze Age Greece,” Journal of Archaeological Research 16, pp. 83–163. TenWolde, C. 1992. “Myrtos: The Role of Relative Function Ceramic Typologies in Bronze Age Settlement Analysis,” OJA 11, pp. 1–24. Theofaneides, V. 1940. “Ἡ ἀρχαιολογική περιφέρεια δυτικής Κρήτης,” Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Κρητικών Σπουδών 3, pp. 481–486. Tod, M.N. 1903. “Excavations at Palaikastro II.10 Hagios Nikolaos,” BSA 9, pp. 336–343. Todaro, S. 2001. “Nuove prospettive sulla produzione in stile Pyrgos nella Creta meridionale: Il caso della pisside e della coppa su base ad anello,” Creta Antica 2, pp. 11–26. . 2003. “Haghia Triada nel periodo Antico Minoico,” Creta Antica 4, pp. 69–96.

REFERENCES

. 2005. “EM I–MM IA Ceramic Groups at Phaistos: Towards the Definition of a Prepalatial Ceramic Sequence in South Central Crete,” Creta Antica 6, pp. 11–46. . 2009. “The Latest Prepalatial Period and the Foundation of the First Palace at Phaistos: A Stratigraphic and Chronological Re-assessment,” Creta Antica 10 (1), pp. 105–145. . 2010. “Pottery Production in the Prepalatial Mesara: The Artisan’s Quarter to the West of the Palace at Phaistos,” Creta Antica 10 (2), pp. 333–352. . 2011. “Craft Production and Social Practices at Prepalatial Phaistos: The Background to the First ‘Palace,’” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2011, pp. 195–235. Todaro, S., and S. Di Tonto. 2008. “The Neolithic Settlement of Phaistos Revisited: Evidence for Ceremonial Activity on the Eve of the Bronze Age,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 177–190. Tomkins, P.D. 2004. “Filling in the ‘Neolithic Background:’ Social Life and Social Transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 38–63. . 2007. “Neolithic,” in Momigliano, ed., 2007, pp. 9–48. . 2008. “Time, Space, and the Reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 21–49. . 2013. “Landscapes of Ritual, Identity, and Memory: Reconsidering Neolithic and Bronze Age Cave Use in Crete, Greece,” in Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, H. Moyes, ed., Boulder, pp. 59–80. Touchais, G. 1977. “Chronique des foullies et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1976,” BCH 101, pp. 513–659. . 1982. “Chronique des foullies et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1981,” BCH 106, pp. 529–631.

339

Treuil, R. 1970. “Les sites néolithiques de Crète occidentale,” BCH 94, pp. 5–25. . 2005. “Entre morts et vivants à Malia. La ‘zone des nécropoles’ et les quartiers d’habitation,” in Κρής Τεχνίτης: L’artisan crétois (Aegaeum 26), I. Bradfer-Burdet, B. Detournay, and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège, pp. 209–220. Triantaphyllou, S. 2005. “Appendix: The Human Remains,” in Tholos Tomb Gama: A Prepalatial Tholos Tomb at Phourni, Archanes (Prehistory Monographs 17), Y. Papadatos, Philadelphia, pp. 67–76. . 2008. “Living with the Dead: A ReConsideration of Mortuary Practices in the Greek Neolithic,” in Isaakidou and Tomkins, eds., 2008, pp. 136–154. . 2009. “EM/MM Human Skeletal Remains from East Crete: The Kephala Petras Rock Shelter, Siteia, and the Livari Tholos Tomb, Skiadi,” Kentro: The Newsletter of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete 12, pp. 19–23. . 2010. “Analysis of the Human Bones,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 229–248. . 2012. “Kephala Petras: The Human Remains and the Burial Practices in the Rock Shelter,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 161–170. Tselios, T. 2008. “Pre-palatial Copper Metalworking in the Mesara Plain, Crete,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 123–132. Tsipopoulou, M. 1988. “Άγια Φωτιά Σητείας: Το νέο εύρημα,” in French and Wardle, eds., 1988, pp. 31–47. . 1989. Archaeological Survey at Aghia Photia, Siteia (SIMA 76), Partille. . 1990. “Νέα στοιχεία για τη Μινωική κατοίκηση στην περιοχή της πόλης της Σητείας,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ ΣΤ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Chania, pp. 306–321. . 1992. “Ayia Photia,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 66–69.

. 1984. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1983,” BCH 108, pp. 735–843.

. 2002. “Petras, Siteia: The Palace, the Town, the Hinterland and the Protopalatial Background,” in Driessen, Schoep, and Laffineur, eds., 2002, pp. 133–144.

. 1985. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1984,” BCH 109, pp. 759–862.

. 2007. “Agia Photia-Kouphota: A Centre for Metallurgy in the Early Minoan Period,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 135–145.

Touchais, G., S. Huber, and A. Philippa-Touchais. 2001. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 2000,” BCH 125, pp. 779–1046.

. 2008. “Community and the Individual in Death: The Prepalatial and Protopalatial Periods,” in From the Land of the Labyrinth: Minoan Crete,

340

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

3000–1100 b.c. 2: Essays, M. Andreadaki-Vlasaki, G. Rethemiotakis, and N. Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki, eds., Athens, pp. 128–133. . 2010. “Προανακτορική ταφική βραχοσκεπή στον Πετρά Σητείας–Πρώτη ανακοίνωση,” in Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 1. Πρακτικά της 1ης Συνάντησης. Ρέθυμνο, 28–30 Νοεμβρίου 2008, M. Andrianakis and I. Tzachili, eds., Rethymnon, pp. 121–133.

Tzedakis, Y. 1965. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 20 (B', 2) [1968], pp. 568–570. . 1966. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 21 (B', 2) [1968], pp. 425–429. . 1968. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 23 (B', 2) [1969], pp. 413–420. . 1970. “Άρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα δυτικῆς Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 25 (B', 2) [1973], pp. 465–478.

. 2012a. “Defining the End of the Prepalatial Period at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 179–190.

. 1979. “Καστέλλι Κισάμου,” ArchDelt 34 (B', 2) [1987], pp. 393–398.

. 2012b. “Introduction: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies at Petras,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 45–68.

. 1980. “Νέα Ρούματα Κυδωνίας,” ArchDelt 35 (B', 2) [1988], pp. 508–509.

. 2012c. “Kampos Group Pottery from the Prepalatial Cemetery of Petras, Siteia,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 213–222. . 2012d. “The Prepalatial–Early Protopalatial Cemetery at Petras, Siteia: A Diachronic Symbol of Social Coherence,” in Tsipopoulou, ed., 2012, pp. 117–131.

. 1981. “Σπηλιά Αγίου Ιωάννου,” ArchDelt 36 (B', 2) [1988], pp. 395–396. . 1984. “Le passage au minoen ancien en Crète occidentale,” in Aux origines de l’hellénisme: La Crète et la Grèce. Hommage à Henri van Effenterre, G. Centre Glotz, ed., Paris, pp. 3–7. Tzedakis, Y., and C. Davaras. 1967. “Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα δυτικής Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 22 (B', 2) [1969], pp. 495–506.

Tsipopoulou, M., ed. 2012. Petras, Siteia: 25 Years of Excavations and Studies. Acts of a Two-Day Conference Held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 9–10 October 2010 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 16), Athens.

Tzigounaki, A. 1999. “Apodhoulou. Elements of Architecture of a Protopalatial Settlement,” in Betancourt et al., eds., 1999, pp. 863–868.

Tylor, E.B. 1873. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom, London.

Ucko, P. 1969. “Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,” WorldArch 1, pp. 262–280.

Tyree, E.L. 1974. Cretan Sacred Caves, Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri.

Vagnetti, L., and P. Belli. 1978. “Characters and Problems of the Final Neolithic in Crete,” SMEA 19, pp. 125–163.

. 2001. “Diachronic Changes in Minoan Cave Cult,” in Laffineur and Hägg, eds., Liège, pp. 39–50. . 2006. “Minoan Sacred Caves: The Natural and Political Landscape,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 329–342. Tyree, E.L., F.W. McCoy, A. Kanta, D. Sphakianakis, A. Stamos, K. Aretaki, and E. Kamilaki. 2009. “Inferences for Use of Skotino Cave during the Bronze Age and Later Based on a Speleological and Environmental Study at Skotino Cave, Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 8, pp. 51–64. Tzachili, I. 2008. “An Addendum: Were There Sources of Metal Ores on Crete or Not?” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 327–329. Tzachili, I. ed. 2008. Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19–21, 2004, Athens.

Van de Moortel, A. 2006a. “Ceramic Evidence for External Contact: Protopalatial,” in Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Princeton, pp. 856–859. . 2006b. “Ceramic Imports of the Protopalatial Era,” in Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Princeton, pp. 630–646. . 2006c. “Middle Minoan IA and Protopalatial Pottery,” in Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Princeton, pp. 264–377. van Effenterre, H. 1980. Les palais de Mallia et la cité minoenne. Étude de synthèse I (Incunabula Graeca 76), Rome. van Effenterre, H., and M. van Effenterre. 1963. Fouilles exécutées a Mallia. Étude du site (1956–57) et exploration des necropolis (1915–1928) II (ÉtCrét 13), Paris.

REFERENCES

Vasilakis, A. 1983. “Κρότος Καινουργίου,” ArchDelt 38, (B', 2), pp. 355. . 1989. “Ο Πρωτομινωικός οικισμός Τρυπητής,” Αρχαιολογία 30, pp. 52–56. . 1990. “Προϊστορικές θέσεις στη Μoνή Οδηγήτριας Καλoί Λιμένες,” Κρητική Εστία 3, pp. 11–80. . 1992a. “Odigitria,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 213–215. . 1992b. “Platanos,” in Myers, Myers, and Cadogan, eds., 1992, pp. 248–250. . 1996a. “Μονή Οδηγήτριας,” Κρητική Εστία 5, pp. 336–337. . 1996b. Ο χρυσός και ο άργυρος στην Κρήτη κατά την πρώϊμη περίοδο του χαλκού, Herakleion. . 2008. “Silver Metalworking in Prehistoric Crete: A Historical Survey,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 75–86. . 2010a. “Excavation and Architecture of the Cemetery,” in Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, pp. 47–65.

341

. 2011. “Funerary Customs and Maritime Activity in Early Bronze Crete,” in The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory, G. Vavouranakis, ed., Athens, pp. 91–118. . 2012. “Ο θολωτός τάφος Β' στη θέση Απεσωκάρι Μεσαράς,” in Αρχαιολογικό έργο Κρήτης 2: Πρακτικά της 2ης συνάντησης, Ρέθυμνο, 26–28 Νοεμβρίου 2010, M. Andrianakis, P. Varthalitou, and I. Tzachili, eds., Rethymnon, pp. 144–153. Vlasaki, M., and E. Hallager. 1995. “Evidence for Seal Use in Pre-Palatial Western Crete,” in Sceaux Minoens et Mycéniens. 4e Symposium International, 10– 12 Septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand (CMS Beiheft 5), W. Müller, ed., Berlin, pp. 251–270. Vlazaki, M. 2010. “Iris Cretica and the Prepalatial Workshop of Chamalevri,” in Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18), O. Krzyszkowska, ed., Athens, pp. 359–366. Walberg, G. 1983. Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz am Rhein. . 1987. “Early Cretan Tombs: The Pottery,” in Laffineur, ed., 1987, pp. 53–60.

. 2010b. “Myrtos Fournou Korifi and Trypiti Adami Korfali: Similarities and Differences in Two Prepalatial Settlements in Southern Crete,” in Krzyszkowska, ed., 2010, pp. 353–358.

Wandsnider, L. 1998. “Regional Scale Processes and Archaeological Landscape Units,” in Unit Issues in Archaeology: Measuring Time, Space, and Material, A.F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, eds., Salt Lake City, pp. 87–102.

Vasilakis, A., and K. Branigan. 2010. Moni Odigitria: A Prepalatial Cemetery and Its Environs in the Asterousia, Southern Crete (Prehistory Monographs 30), Philadelphia.

Ward, W.A. 1971. Egypt and the East Mediterranean World 2200–1900 b.c.: Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations during the First Intermediate Period, Beirut.

Vavouranakis, G. 2002. “Towards an Elemental Approach to Early Minoan Funerary Architecture: The Enduring Bedrock,” in SOMA 2001: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of Postgraduate Researchers, the University of Liverpool, 23–25 February 2001 (BAR-IS 1040), G. Muskett, A. Koltsida, and M. Georgiadis, eds., Oxford, pp. 39–46.

Warren, P. 1965. “The First Minoan Stone Vases and EM Chronology,” CretChron 19, pp. 7–43.

. 2005. “Αρχιτεκτονική αποκατάσταση των τάφων Ι και ΙΙ βόρειου νεκροταφείου των προϊστορικών Γουρνιών στην Κρήτη,” Αριάδνη: Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Κρήτης 11, pp. 39–63. . 2006. “Η τοπογραφία των μινωικών τάφων στην ανατολική Κρήτη: Αρχαιολογικές παρατηρήσεις, κοινωνιολογικές σκέψεις, ιστορικές ερμηνεύσεις,” in Πεπραγμένα Θ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Herakleion, pp. 283–295. . 2007. Funerary Landscapes East of Lasithi, Crete, in the Bronze Age (BAR-IS 1606), Oxford.

. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge. . 1972a. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete, Oxford. . 1972b. Review of The Tombs of Mesara: A Study of Funerary Architecture and Ritual in Southern Crete, 2800–1700 b.c., by K. Branigan, JHS 92, pp. 238–240. . 1973. “The Mitata of Nidha and Early Minoan Tholos Tombs,” AAA 6, pp. 449–456. . 1977. “The Beginnings of Minoan Religion,” in Antichità Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi (Cronache di Archeologia 12), Catania, pp. 137–147. . 1981. “Knossos and Its Foreign Relations in the Early Bronze Age,” in Πεπραγμένα τοῦ Δ' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (2), Athens, pp. 628–637.

342

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

. 1983. “The Settlement at Fournou Korifi, Myrtos (Crete) and Its Place within the Evolution of the Rural Community in Bronze Age Crete,” in Les communautés rurales: Deuxième partie. Antiquité (Recueils de la société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions 41), Paris, pp. 239–271.

Watrous, L.V., D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer. 2004. The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta Archaeologica 23), Los Angeles.

. 1987. “The Genesis of the Minoan Palace,” in Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1987, pp. 47–56.

White, J.C. 1995. “Incorporating Heterarchy into Theory on Socio-Political Development: The Case for Southeast Asia,” in Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy, eds., 1995, pp. 101–124.

. 2004. “Terra Cognita? The Territory and Boundaries of the Early Neopalatial Knossian State,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 159–168.

Whitelaw, T.M. 1983. “The Settlement at Fournou Korifi, Myrtos and Aspects of Early Minoan Social Organization,” in Krzyszkowska and Nixon, eds., 1983, pp. 323–345.

. 2007. “The Roofing of Early Minoan Round Tombs: The Evidence of Lebena Tomb II (Gerokampos) and of Cretan Mitata,” in Betancourt, Nelson, and Williams, eds., 2007, pp. 9–16.

. 1992. “Lost in the Labyrinth? Comments on Broodbank’s ‘Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Age,’” JMA 5, pp. 225–238.

Warren, P., and V. Hankey. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol. Warren, P., and Y. Tzedakis. 1974. “Debla: An Early Minoan Settlement in Western Crete,” BSA 69, pp. 299–342. Wason, P.K. 1994. The Archaeology of Rank, Cambridge. Watrous, L.V. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton.

. 2000. “Settlement Instability and Landscape Degradation in the Southern Aegean in the Third Millennium,” in Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 3), P. Halstead and C. Frederick, eds., Sheffield, pp. 135–161. . 2001. “From Sites to Communities: Defining the Human Dimension of Minoan Urbanism,” in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 15–37.

. 1994. “Crete from Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial Period,” AJA 98, pp. 698–753.

. 2004a. “Alternative Pathways to Complexity in the Southern Aegean,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 232–256.

1996. The Cave Sanctuary of Zeus at Psychro: A Study of Extra-Urban Sanctuaries in Minoan and Early Iron Age Crete (Aegaeum 15), Liège.

. 2004b. “Estimating the Population of Neopalatial Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 147–158.

. 2001. “Addendum: 1994–1999,” in Aegean Prehistory: A Review, T. Cullen, ed., Boston, pp. 216–223.

. 2011. “The Urbanisation of Prehistoric Crete: Settlement Prespectives on Minoan State Formation,” in Schoep, Tomkins, and Driessen, eds., 2011, pp. 114–176.

. 2004. “New Pottery from the Psychro Cave and Its Implications for Minoan Crete,” BSA 99, pp. 129–148. . 2005. “Cretan International Relations during the Middle Minoan IA Period and the Chronology of Seager’s Finds from the Mochlos Tombs,” in Laffineur and Greco, eds., 2005, pp. 107–116. . 2012. “An Overview of Secondary State Formation on Crete: The Mirabello Region during the Bronze Age,” in Mantzourani and Betancourt, eds., 2012, pp. 273–282. Watrous, L.V., H. Blitzer, D.C. Haggis, and E. Zangger. 2000. “Economy and Society in the Gournia Region of Crete: A Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Field Seasons of the Gournia Project,” in Πεπραγμένα Η' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A' (3), Herakleion, pp. 471–483.

Whitelaw, T.M., P.M. Day, E. Kiriatzi, V. Kilikoglou, and D.E. Wilson. 1997. “Ceramic Traditions at EM IIB Myrtos, Fournou Korifi,” in Laffineur and Betancourt, eds., 1997, pp. 265–274. Whitelaw, T.M., and C. Morgan. 2009. “Crete,” AR 55, pp. 79–101. Whitley, J. 1998. “From Minoans to Eteocretans: The Praisos Region, 1200–500 b.c.,” in Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings on Post-Minoan Crete Held by the British School at Athens and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 10–11 November 1995 (BSA Studies 2), W. Cavanagh, M. Curtis, J.N. Coldstream, and W. Johnston, eds., London, pp. 27–39. . 2002. “Too Many Ancestors,” Antiquity 76, pp. 119–126.

REFERENCES

. 2004. “Archaeology in Greece 2003–2004,” AR 50, pp. 1–92. Whitley, J., S. Germanidou, D. Urem-Kotsou, A. Dim­ oula, I. Nikolakopoulou, A. Karnava, and D. Evely. 2007. “Archaeology in Greece 2006–2007,” AR 53, pp. 3–121. Whitley, J., S. Germanidou, D. Urem-Kotsou, A. Dimoula, I. Nikolakopoulou, A. Karnava, and E. Hatzaki. 2006. “Archaeology in Greece 2005–2006,” AR 52, pp. 1–112. Whittle, A., and A. Bayliss. 2007. “The Times of Their Lives: From Chronological Precision to Kinds of History and Change,” CAJ 17, pp. 21–28. Wiesner, J. 1938. Grab und Jenseits: Untersuchungen im ägäischen Raum zur Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit, Berlin. Wiessner, P. 2002. “The Vines of Complexity: Egalitarian Structures and the Institutionalization of Inequality among the Enga,” CurrAnthr 43, pp. 233–269. . 2009. “The Power of One? Big Men Revisited,” in The Evolution of Leadership: Transitions in Decision Making from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies, K.J. Vaughn, J.W. Eerkens, and J. Kantner, eds., Santa Fe, pp. 195–222. Wilson, D.E. 1984. The Early Minoan IIA West Court House at Knossos, Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati. . 1985. “The Pottery and Architecture of the EM IIA West Court House at Knossos,” BSA 80, pp. 281–364. . 1994. “Knossos before the Palaces: An Overview of the Early Bronze Age (EM I–EM III),” in Evely, Hughes-Brock, and Momigliano, eds., 1994, pp. 23–45.

343

Poros-Katsambas: Trade and Exchange between North-Central Crete and the Cyclades in EBI–II,” in Brodie, Doole, Gavalas, and Renfrew, eds., 2008, pp. 261–270. Wobst, H.M. 2006. “Artifacts as Social Interference: The Politics of Spatial Scale,” in Lock and Molyneaux, eds., 2006, pp. 55–64. Wolpert, A. 2004. “Getting Past Consumption and Competition: Legitimacy and Consensus in the Shaft Graves,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 127–144. Woodward, A.M. 1926. “Archaeology in Greece, 1925– 26,” JHS 46, pp. 223–249. . 1927. “Archaeology in Greece, 1926–27,” JHS 47, pp. 234–263. Wright, J.C. 2004. “The Emergence of Leadership and the Rise of Civilization in the Aegean,” in Barrett and Halstead, eds., 2004, pp. 64–89. Xanthoudides, S. 1906. “Ἐκ Κρήτης,” ArchEph 1906, pp. 116–155. . 1915. “Ι' ἀρχαιολογικὴ περιφέρεια–περὶ ἀνασκαφῆς μεγάλου θολωτοῦ τάφου πρωτομινωϊκῆς ἐποχῆς ἐν Πλατάνῳ Κρήτης,” ArchDelt 1 [1916], pp. 60–62. . 1918a. “Μέγας πρωτομινωϊκὸς τάφος Πύργου,” ArchDelt 4 [1921], pp. 136–170. . 1918b. “Πρωτομινωϊκοὶ τάφοι Μεσαρᾶς,” ArchDelt 4 [1921], pp. 15–23. . 1922–1924. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ εἰς Νίρου Χάνι Κρήτης,” Prakt 77–79 [1925], pp. 125–129. . 1924. The Vaulted Tombs of the Mesara, London.

. 2007. “Early Prepalatial,” in Momigliano, ed., 2007, pp. 49–77.

Yaeger, J., and M.A. Canuto. 2000. “Introducing an Archaeology of Communities,” in Canuto and Yaeger, eds., 2000, pp. 1–15.

. 2008. “Early Prepalatial Crete,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, C.W. Shelmerdine, ed., Cambridge, pp. 77–104.

Younger, J. 1976. “The Cave ‘To Kleisidi’ near Myrtos in Southern Crete,” AAA 9, pp. 166–169.

Wilson, D.E., and P.M. Day. 1994. “Ceramic Regionalism in Prepalatial Central Crete: The Messara Imports at EM I to EM IIA Knossos,” BSA 89, pp. 1–87.

Yule, P. 1980. Early Cretan Seals: A Study of Chronology (Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4), Mainz am Rhein.

. 1999. “EM IIB Ware Groups at Knossos: The 1907–1908 South Front Tests,” BSA 94, pp. 1–62.

Zagarell, A. 1995. “Hierarchy and Heterarchy: The Unity of Opposites,” in Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levy, eds., 1995, pp. 87–100.

. 2000. “EM I Chronology and Social Practice: Pottery from the Early Palace Tests at Knossos,” BSA 95, pp. 21–63.

Zaphiropoulou, P. 2008. “Early Bronze Age Cemeteries of the Kampos Group on Ano Kouphonisi,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 183–194.

Wilson, D.E., P.M. Day, and N. DimopoulouRethemiotaki. 2008. “The Gateway Port of

Zeimbekis, M. 2001. “Symbolic Exchange in Cretan Peak Sanctuary Ritual,” BICS 45, pp. 185–186.

344

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Zois, A. 1965. “Φαιστιακά,” ArchEph 104 [1967], pp. 27–109.

. 1992b. “18. Βασιλικὴ Ἱεραπέτρας,” Ergon 1992 [1993], pp. 100–103.

. 1967–1968. “Ερεύνα περί της μινωικής κεραμεικής,” Επετηρίς Επιστημονικών Ερευνών 1, pp. 703–732.

. 1993. “Εργασίες μελέτης και συντήρησης ευρημάτων ανασκαφής Βασιλικής Ιεραπέτρας,” Prakt 148 [1996], pp. 250–261.

. 1968a. Der Kamares-Stil: Werden und Wesen, Tübingen.

. 1994. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Βασιλικῆς Ἱεραπέτρας,” Prakt 149 [1997], pp. 173–223.

. 1968b. “Υπάρχει ΠΜ ΙΙΙ εποχή;” in Πεπραγμένα του Β' Διεθνοῦς Κρητολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου A', Athens, pp. 141–156.

. 1997. Κρήτη: Η πρώιμη εποχή του χαλκού. Αρχαιολογία και ιστορία σχεδόν όλων των θέσεων της νήσου από τις πιο ανατολικές ως τις πιο δυτικές περιοχές 1: Γενική εισαγωγή και Ζάκρος, Athens.

. 1969. Προβλήματα χρονολογίας της μινωϊκῆς κεραμεικῆς: Γοῦρνες-Τυλισός-Μάλια (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Αρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 66), Athens. . 1972a. “Ἀνασκαφὴ εἰς Βασιλικὴν Ἱεραπέτρας,” Prakt 127 [1974], pp. 274–309. . 1972b. “Νεολιθική Κρήτη,” Επετηρίς Επιστημονικών Ερευνών 3, pp. 422–466. . 1973. Κρήτη—Εποχή του Λίθου (Αρχαίες Ελληνικές Πόλεις 18), Athens. . 1976. Βασιλική I (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 83), Athens. . 1982. “Gibt es Vorläufer der Minoischen Paläste auf Kreta?” in Palast und Hütte. Beitrage zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archäologen, Vor- und Frühgschichtlern. Tagungsbeiträge eines Symposiums der Alexander Von HumboldtStiftung Bonn-Bad Godesberg, veranstaltet com 25– 30. November 1979 im Berlin, D. Papenfuss and N.M. Strocka, eds., Mainz am Rhein, pp. 207–217. . 1990. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Βασιλικῆς Ἱεραπέτρας,” Prakt 145 [1993], pp. 315–341. . 1991. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Βασιλικῆς Ἱεραπέτρας,” Prakt 146 [1994], pp. 331–391. . 1992a. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Βασιλικῆς Ἱεραπέτρας,” Prakt 147 [1995], pp. 231–243.

. 1998a. Κρήτη: Η πρώιμη εποχή του χαλκού. Αρχαιολογία και ιστορία σχεδόν όλων των θέσεων της νήσου από τις πιο ανατολικές ως τις πιο δυτικές περιοχές 2: Παλαίκαστρο, Athens. . 1998b. Κρήτη: Η πρώιμη εποχή του χαλκού. Αρχαιολογία και ιστορία σχεδόν όλων των θέσεων της νήσου από τις πιο ανατολικές ως τις πιο δυτικές περιοχές 3: Ανατολική Κρήτη, Μάλια και Λασίθι, Athens. . 1998c. Κρήτη: Η πρώιμη εποχή του χαλκού. Αρχαιολογία και ιστορία σχεδόν όλων των θέσεων της νήσου από τις πιο ανατολικές ως τις πιο δυτικές περιοχές 4: Βόρεια κεντρική Κρήτη. Κνωσός, Πύργος, Αρχάνες, Κυπαρίσσι και άλλες θέσεις, Athens. . 1998d. Κρήτη: Η πρώιμη εποχή του χαλκού. Αρχαιολογία και ιστορία σχεδόν όλων των θέσεων της νήσου από τις πιο ανατολικές ως τις πιο δυτικές περιοχές 5: Μεσαρά Κρήτης και Νότια Κεντρική Κρήτη, Athens. . 2006. Αρχαιολογική αδράνεια: Η περιπέτεια του 1989 και το 1990. Ημερολόγια και εκθέσεις εργασιών της αρχαιολογικής αποστολής Βασιλικής Ιεράπετρας, 1989 και 1990, Athens.

Index

Bold numbers refer to gazetteer entries in Appendices 1 and 2. abandonment, 28–29, 34, 48, 61–62, 73, 84–85, 88, 90, 108, 113, 115, 159 access, 6–7, 36, 56, 72, 114–115, 131, 142, 144, 146–147, 149–150, 152. See also entrance administration, 83, 89 Aegean, 4, 11, 25, 61, 68, 101, 114, 116, 123, 137, 142– 144, 148–151 Aegina, 153 affiliation, 49, 61, 107, 131, 133, 157, 163 agents (agency), 6, 8, 164 aggrandizer, 164. See also elite agricultural, 19, 24, 29, 42, 59, 156, 159 Aitania, 78, 85, 216, 157 Akrotiri (West Crete), 28, 136 altar, 82, 98, 108, 110, 154, 169, 179, 183–185, 200, 223, 259, 266 amethyst, 232 amphora, 252 amulet, 45, 70, 97, 175, 177, 181–182, 186, 188, 190, 192–194, 197–198, 210, 218–223, 225–226, 229, 231, 237–238, 242, 255, 259–260, 264–265, 267, 270, 276, 281–282 Anatolia, 163

ancestors, 11 animals, 257 annex, 23, 38–39, 41, 43–44, 46, 49–57, 61–62, 74, 80– 84, 105, 151, 154–155 Ano Viannos region, 74, 224–227, 306 Anopolis, 78, 85, 216, 158 antechamber, 39, 41, 43 anteroom, 41, 51, 121–122, 131, anthropological analogy (also ethnographic parallels), 11, 13, 27, 35 Antiskari, 168, 1 Apesokari A , 32, 33, 50, 57, 62, 153, 168–169 annex to tholos, 31, 33, 50, 53, 57, 62, 105, 153, 169, 3 paved area outside annex, 31, 33, 50, 52, 53, 153 169, 4 tholos, 31, 33, 44, 50, 53, 55, 57, 62, 105, 153, 168– 169, 2 Apesokari B, 32 annex to tholos, 54, 170, 6 South Deposits, 52, 170, 7 Tholos B, 52, 55, 169–170, 5 Apesokari C, 32, 170, 8

346

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Aphendis Kaminaki, 19, 78, 216, 159 Aphendis Kastelli, 216, 160 Aphrati, 78, 216, 161 Apodoulou, 25–26, 135 Archaiokorapho, 171, 9 Archanes community, 72, 83, 87–90, 147–148, 154–155 palace, 154 Archanes Phourni, 72–73, 76–77, 80, 83, 87–90, 114, 150, 154–155, 158, 161 annex to Tholos B, 80, 82, 84, 105, 133, 155, 159, 217, 163 area between annex to Tholos B and Burial Building 8, 217, 164 area between Burial Buildings 8 and 9, 220, 173 area between Burial Buildings 18 and 19, 73, 75, 222, 180 Area of the Rocks, 70, 73, 75, 110, 147, 224, 187 area outside Burial Building 6, 81, 84, 89, 155, 219, 170 area outside Burial Building 12, 73, 75, 89, 221, 176 Burial Building 3, 77, 126, 218, 167 Burial Building 5, 73, 75, 77, 126, 151, 218–219, 168 Burial Building 6, 73, 75, 77, 102, 151, 126, 219, 169 Burial Building 7, 77, 80, 219–220, 171 Burial Building 8, 77, 220, 172 Burial Building 9, 77, 84, 221, 174 Burial Building 12, 73, 75, 77, 221, 175 Burial Building 13, 73, 75, 77, 221, 177 Burial Building 16, 77, 221–22, 178 Burial Building 18, 70, 75, 76–77, 84, 222, 179 Burial Building 19, 70, 73, 75, 77, 81, 84, 89, 222– 223, 181 Burial Building 22, 77, 223, 182 Burial Building 23, 223, 183 Burial Building 24, 73, 75, 223, 184 Burial Building 25, 73, 75, 223–224, 185 Burial Building 26, 224, 186 Tholos B, 80, 82, 84, 90, 133, 155, 159, 216–217, 162 Tholos Epsilon, 72, 80–81, 84, 86–87, 113, 147– 148, 218, 166 Tholos Gamma, 47, 69–70, 72–73, 75, 76, 80–81, 84, 86–87, 101–102, 113, 147–148, 151, 217– 218, 165 architecture, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16–17, 19, 22–23, 34, 37–39, 46–47, 50–51, 53, 56, 58, 60–63, 72, 74–75, 77–79, 83, 85–86, 88, 94–99, 103, 105, 107, 110, 113–114, 123, 125–127, 129, 133–134, 139–140, 142, 145–146, 151, 154, 158–159, 164 Arkalies, 78, 224, 188

Arkalochori, 66, 225, 189 Arkoudia, 136, 307, D15 armlet, 100 arrowhead, 100–101 Arvi, 70, 225, 190 ashlar, 127, 129, 133 Aspripetra, 34, 171, 10 Asterousia Mountains, 29, 31–33, 35–37, 39–43, 45–47, 49–51, 53, 55–59, 61, 63, 68, 141–142, 144–145, 148– 152, 154, 161 Athimari, 225, 191 Atsipades, 135 Avdou, 306–307, D11 Avgusti, 225, 225 axe, 127, 170, 204, 263, 288

Bairia, 77, 88, 225 Bairia Gazi, 77, 88, 225–226, 193 Barbotine Ware, 77, 170, 182, 194, 206 beads, 45–46, 69, 72, 94, 99, 101, 110, 121, 123, 128, 130, 175, 177–178, 180, 182–184, 186, 190, 192–195, 197, 207, 214, 218–223, 227, 229, 231–232, 235, 237– 238, 246, 248, 253, 255, 258, 262, 264–270, 275, 277, 280, 284, 286–287, 293, 297–298, 303 bench, 74, 110, 175, 179, 194, 217, 253, 258, 274, 284, 291 boat models, 114, 124, 150 bodies, 15, 21, 35, 55, 69, 71, 74–76, 103, 122, 129–130, 153, 158, 162, 198, 207, 274, 288, 290 bone (animal), 73, 93, 164, 193–194, 221, 238, 247, 253, 291 burned, 73, 238 bone (human), 20–21, 42–44, 71, 73–74, 79–80, 93, 96– 97, 103–104, 108, 111, 121, 123–129, 132, 136–139, 162, 173, 175–178, 182–184, 187–190, 194, 197–199, 201–202, 204–205, 207–209, 214–215, 229, 232–236, 238–241, 243, 245, 247, 250–251, 253–255, 259–260, 262, 265, 270, 280, 284–285, 287–290, 293–295, 297–300, 302–303 burned, 232, 234, 285 fragmentation, 41–42, 124, 262, 293 infant, 127, 241, 253 bottle, 122 Cycladic inspired, 67–68, 87, 122, 131 boulders, 38, 59, 251, 259 boundaries, 4–5, 92, 160, 165 boundary wall, 52, 294. See also peribolos wall bowl ceramic, 41, 45 , 67, 97, 121, 291 copper, 266 Cycladic, 131 brazier, 299

INDEX

bronze awl, 97 cutter, 69 knife, 101 tool, 97 Bucchero ware, 247 burial container, 22, 55–56, 76, 83, 88, 107, 162. See also larnax; pithos burials burnished decoration, 33–34, 67–68, 70, 93, 99 buttress, 110, 177, 203, 206, 213–214 Byblos, 101–102 Byzantine building, 212 material, 121, 203, 283, 295

casella, 110, 258–261, 263. See also larnax cave, 39, 64, 66–71, 73, 76–78, 83, 86, 88, 93, 96, 102, 105, 110, 115, 120, 124–128, 130, 133–134, 136–137, 140, 143, 146–147, 167, 196–197, 225–226, 229, 245, 247–248, 253–255, 257, 264, 279–280, 282, 284– 286, 290, 294–297, 299–301, 303, 305–307 definition, 22 use, 19–20, 26, 39, 66, 69, 71, 77, 83, 86, 88, 93, 105, 111, 115, 120, 134, 136–137, 140, 143, 154, 158, 163 celebration, 83 ceramic assemblages, 25, 28, 33–35, 40, 41, 45–46, 53–54, 61, 67–68, 70–72, 82, 84, 96–97, 99, 101–102, 110, 116, 121, 125, 128, 130, 133 dating, 19–22, 32–35, 48–49, 92, 161 ceremony, 11–12, 62, 114, 152–153, 163, 179, 253 Chamaizi, 24–25, 139 Chamalevri, 25, 135 Chania, 138, 298–299, 480 Chania survey, 28, 136 charcoal, 111, 194 chief/chiefdom, 7–8, 13, 63, 146, 153, 164–165 children, 71, 104, 169, 231, 251. See also infant Choraphakia, 138, 299, 481 Chosto, 280, 411 Christos, 49 Tholos B, 49, 171, 11 Tholos X, 49, 171–172, 12 Chroni Kalyvi, 172, 13 chronology, 10–11, 16, 20–22, 32–35, 49, 57, 112–113 absolute, 1 relative, 11, 49, 69, 161–162 scales, 6, 161–162 Chrysokamino Cave, 92–93, 96, 257, 321

347

Chrysokamino metallurgical workshop, 25, 116, 147, 150 Chrysostomos A, 139, 172, 191, 14 Chrysostomos B, 172, 191, 15 cist, 22, 79, 94–95, 98, 112, 124, 126, 142–143, 146, 198–199, 225, 241–242, 262, 267, 273, 275–277, 284, 295 clan, 11–12, 27–29, 35–36. See also kinship; lineage cleaning episodes in tombs, 20, 34, 47–49, 53, 61, 75, 79, 88, 96–97, 130, 151, 161, 294 clearance of the tombs, 36, 43, 46, 48, 52, 71, 80, 198, 200, 219, 224, 242, 152–253, 259. See also fumigation coarse ware, 71 collapse, 111, 116, 234 architectural, 77, 111 social, 116, 150 community cemetery relationship, 22–23, 27, 29, 35–37, 59, 62–64, 72, 78, 86, 89, 109, 114, 121, 130, 142, 162–164 co-residential, 25, 163 definition, 4, 27, 59, 161 intercommunity, 4, 5, 60, 64, 73, 87–88, 144–146, 148, 152–153, 156–158, 160 intracommunity, 60, 147–148, 155–156 ranked communities, 16, 83, 87, 113, 133, 147, 150, 158, 161 ritual, 62–63, 89, 114, 142, 152, 156 size, 104, 122, 133 supracommunity, 4, 5, 61–63, 88, 90, 144, 156– 157, 160 competition between communities, 61–62, 64, 152–153, 155–158 resource competition, 12–13, 156 within communities, 87, 113–115, 133, 145, 147, 150, 153 consumption, 9, 82, 146 ceramics, 21, 81, 122 food and drink, 43, 56, 61, 93, 116, 152, 200, 229, 264 stone vessels, 164 cooking activities, 28, 43, 56, 62, 71, 273, 303 cooking ware, 28, 43, 62, 71, 93 corbelling, 23, 38, 96, 175, 178, 181–182, 187–188, 191– 197, 204, 222, 273 Corinth, 121 corridor, 34, 75, 170, 178–179, 182, 185, 204, 230, 243, 257, 292, 298–299 crypt, 81, 169 crystal, 101, 181, 183, 190–191, 193, 195, 197, 201, 207, 218, 220, 222, 231, 255, 265, 270, 277, 303

348

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

cup ceramic, 41, 43, 45, 49–51, 53–54, 56, 57, 61–62, 70–71, 74, 82, 89, 101, 106, 109, 116, 125–128, 134, 139, 150–151, 154, 168–170, 177, 185, 214, 241, 250, 257, 287 deposits, 27, 43, 45, 51, 53, 56, 116, 125–128, 134, 150–151, 154 silver, 102 upside-down, 43, 54, 177, 183, 185, 192, 221, 250, 287 use, 62 Cycladic burial customs, 58, 68, 94–96, 98, 112, 121, 123, 131, 138–140, 142, 145, 163, 302 ceramic fabrics, 142 identity, 123, 131–132, 143 imitations of Cycladic material, 67, 70–72, 87, 114, 120, 122–123, 143, 146–147, 281–282, 294, 296, 303 imported material, 47, 55, 68, 71–72, 86, 122–123, 140, 142, 145, 149, 189, 281–282, 291. See also figurines, folded arm influence, 89, 94–96, 112, 131, 139–140, 143–144, 146–147 populations in Crete, 95, 115, 131–132, 143

dagger, 14, 35, 46, 54–55, 59, 69–70, 145, 149 long, 69, 100, 109, 123, 177–178, 181, 188–189, 192–193, 195, 197, 201, 203–204, 207, 209–210, 218–220, 226, 236–238, 248, 257, 265, 267, 269, 285, 288–289, 291 silver, 47, 69–70, 145 triangular, 54, 69, 100–102, 174, 177, 181, 187– 188, 192–193, 195, 197, 201, 203, 207, 209, 210, 237–238, 255, 264–265, 269–270 Dark Gray Burnished Ware (DGB), 40, 44, 66–68, 87, 120, 143, 225 Debla, 25, 27, 135 decline, 29 Middle Minoan IA, 61, 64, 99, 108–109, 116, 154 Middle Minoan IB, 37, 64, 159 Middle Minoan II, 57, 64, 84, 90, 111, 129, 134, 159 decomposition, 11, 21, 41. See also skeletons demography, 4, 28–29, 36, 42 demographic boom, 57 demographic pressure, 59, 142 diadems, 102 Dictaean Mountains, 65 disturbances in tombs, 20, 73, 88, 93, 159, 162 Neopalatial disturbances, 99

DNA, 27 doorway, 38, 39, 98, 103, 110, 127. See also entrance built type, 38, 168, 172, 180, 182, 190–191, 197– 198, 209, 217, 283 doorjambs, 98 orientation, 15, 43 trilithon type, 38, 171–173, 175–176, 185–188, 190–197, 203–205, 207, 209, 211, 218, 273, 285 Drakones, 49 annex to Tholos D, 49, 50, 55, 173, 17 Tholos D, 49, 55, 173, 16 Tholos Z , 49, 173–174, 18 dromos, 107, 172, 236

Early Minoan I ceramics, 37–42, 44–46, 66–73, 86–88, 92–95, 99, 120–123, 126, 130–131, 136–137, 139, 142–144 Early Minoan IB, 34, 38, 120 figurines, 70 metal items, 46 mortuary behavior, 33–34, 37–42, 52, 58–60, 66– 69, 86–89, 92–96, 108, 112, 114, 116, 120–123, 130–131, 136–137, 139, 141–146, 148–150, 152, 160–162 settlement, 25, 27, 58, 131 Early Minoan II, 36, 39, 40–41, 42–48, 53, 55–56, 58– 60, 62 Early Minoan IIA ceramics, 34–35, 38, 42–48, 67–70, 86–87, 94, 97, 99, 101–102, 110, 120, 122–124, 129 figurines, 70 mortuary behavior, 33–35, 39, 42–48, 60–61, 63, 68, 70–73, 75, 76, 86–89, 96–99, 101– 102, 112–114, 120, 122–124, 132, 143–153, 160–161 settlement, 24–27, 93 stone vessel, 46 Early Minoan IIB ceramics, 21, 42–49, 60, 70–72, 88, 97–103, 123–124. See also Vasiliki Ware gap, 48–49, 60–61, 70, 73, 75, 86, 88, 109, 123, 125, 132, 149, 151 mortuary behavior, 33, 37, 42–48, 60, 62–63, 69–73, 86, 88, 97–106, 109, 112–116, 123, 126, 132, 144, 147–151, 154, 161–162, 164 settlement, 24, 26 Early Minoan III ceramics, 21, 43–45, 47, 48–50, 60, 70–76, 78, 97, 100–108, 113, 124–125, 144. See also Whiteon-Dark Ware gap, 19, 21, 48–49, 109, 115, 123, 125, 132

INDEX

Early Minoan III, cont. mortuary behavior, 44, 48–51, 55–56, 60–61, 68, 72–77, 88–90, 99, 100–107, 109, 115, 123, 126, 132–133, 150–151 settlement, 24–25, 61 Early Minoan III–Middle Minoan I ceramics, 54–55, 68, 70, 81, 99, 126 mortuary behavior, 62, 72, 80, 88–90, 96, 107, 110, 114–116, 124–125, 127, 130, 132–133, 138, 152, 157–158, 161, 163 seals, 54–55 stone vase, 97, 100 eastern Mediterranean links, 101, 115 egalitarian society, 6–8, 12 Egypt burial customs, 153 contacts 10–11, 116, 151, 163 imitations, 10, 54–55, 100–102, 205 imported material, 54–55, 193 influences, 58, 61, 164 Eileithyia cave, 67, 70, 76, 83, 86, 226, 194 rock shelter, 67, 69, 86, 226, 195 elite, 42, 63, 153, 164 Ellinospilaio, 137, 299, 482 Enga, 9 entrance, 23, 38–39, 51–52, 78, 84, 93, 96–97, 101, 103, 105, 107, 110, 120, 129, 138–139. See also doorway orientation, 129 Epano Kouphonisi, 68, 121 ethnicity, 165 Euboia, 121 Evraika Rock Shelter I, 107, 257–258, 322 Rock Shelter II, 107, 258, 323 exotic materials, 14, 87, 147–148. See also import extended family/descent group, 27, 36, 58, 163

faience, 188, 191–193, 203, 220, 255, 265, 286 farmsteads, 59 figurine, 26, 40, 45–47, 54–55, 59, 68–70, 72, 77, 86– 87, 97, 123, 137, 143, 145–147, 149, 167, 169, 175, 177–178, 183, 187–189, 192–194, 197, 200–201, 204– 208, 210, 217–224, 228–229, 236–238, 242, 248, 255, 257, 262, 267–268, 280, 291, 296, 303 folded-arm, 45, 46–47, 55, 59, 68–70, 72, 87, 137, 145–147, 149, 205, 303 ivory, 97 Koumasa type, 137 Porti style, 70 Trapeza style, 70

349

fission and fusion strategies, 36, 59 fumigation, 36, 43, 48–49, 60, 177, 193 funeral, 62–63, 108, 142

Galana Charakia A, 73–74 Rock Shelter A, 47, 74, 226–227, 196 Rock Shelter B, 74, 227, 197 Galana Charakia B, 73, 227, 198 Galatas, 26, 28 gender, 6–7, 83 Gerospilia, 299, 483 Giamalakis, 257 goblet, 49, 67, 71, 74, 82, 100–101, 124 gold, 10, 46–47, 54–55, 68–70, 72, 82, 84, 89, 96–97, 99–103, 106, 123, 130, 149, 153, 155, 177–178, 181– 182, 187–188, 190, 192–194, 198, 201, 203–204, 207, 217–221, 223–224, 229, 231, 237, 240–241, 243–244, 246, 248, 253, 255, 258, 260, 262, 265–270, 276, 285–286, 290–291, 293 armlet, 100 bead, 46, 69, 72, 99, 101, 123 diadem, 102 foil, 101 pins, 100 signet ring, 82, 84 strip, 72, 96, 101 Gonies, 227, 199 Gorgolaini, 66, 227–228, 200 Gournes A, 77, 83 Ieros Lakkos, 88–89, 154, 228, 202 Tomb A, 228, 201 Gournes B, 66, 68–69, 86, 95–96, 121, 138, 142–143, 145, 162, 228, 203 Gournia settlement, 97, 109 survey, 28, 92–93 Gournia North Cemetery, 71–72, 78, 80, 92, 97, 105– 107, 109, 111–113, 116, 149, 154 area outside Tomb II, 74, 105, 108, 115, 154–155, 259, 326 Tomb I, 71, 105, 109, 115–116, 258, 324 Tomb II, 105, 109, 115, 258–259, 325 Tomb III, 97, 112–113, 146, 259, 327 Tomb IV, 109, 259, 328 Tomb V, 22, 112–113, 259–260, 329 Tomb VI, 22, 113, 260, 330 Tomb VII, 109, 260, 331 Tomb VIII, 109, 260–261, 332

350

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Gournia Sphoungaras, 22, 78, 92–93, 109, 112–113, 115, 149, 154 Deposit A, 96–97, 113, 262, 336 Deposit B, 96, 113, 262, 337 Middle Minoan I Deposit, 262, 338 Pithos Cemetery, 22, 78, 111, 262–263, 339 Rock Shelter I, 93, 96, 261, 333 Rock Shelter II, 93, 96, 261, 334 Rock Shelter IV, 93, 261, 335 settlement, 93 Gouva, 174, 19

habitation in cemetery areas, 25, 34, 36, 88, 136, 197, 225, 273, 296–297 Hagia Eirene, 34, 43 Tholos E, 34, 39, 43, 174, 20 Tholos e, 34, 43, 174, 21 Hagia Kyriaki, 31–32, 34, 36, 37–41, 53 annex to Tholos A, 31–33, 37–38, 52, 175, 23 Tholos A, 22–23, 31–33, 37–41, 142, 174–175, 22 Tholos B, 31–32, 38, 175, 24 Tholos C, 31–32, 38, 175–176, 25 W8, 31, 43, 57, 176, 26 W8a, 31, 43, 57, 176, 27 W11A, 31, 43, 57, 176–177, 28 Hagia Marina Maleviziou, 228–229, 204 Hagia Photia Ierapetras, 10–11, 93, 96, 112 Rock Shelter I, 10, 93, 263, 340 Rock Shelter II, 10, 93, 263, 341 Rock Shelter III, 263, 342 Hagia Photia Kouphota, 24–25 Hagia Photia Siteias A, 15, 68, 86, 95–96, 120–123, 130–132, 138, 142–145, 162 community, 122, 131, 162 Cycladic links, 130–132 pit tombs, 281, 413 rock-cut tombs, 22, 68, 281, 412 rock shelter, 282, 415 tombs of uncertain type, 281–282, 414 Hagia Photia Siteias B, 282, 416 Hagia Photia Siteias C, 96, 129 Tholos A, 282–283, 417 Tholos B, 283, 417 Hagia Photia Siteias survey, 28 Hagia Sophia, 307, D16 Hagia Triada, 11, 16, 25, 27, 31, 32–34, 48, 50, 52–56, 62–63, 82, 153, 158 annex to Tholos A, 51, 53, 57, 177, 30 Northeast Court, 57, 179, 35 Sepolcreto a ridosso della Tholos, 23, 53, 57, 158, 178, 32

Hagia Triada, cont. settlement, 25 South Camerette, 51–52, 57, 79, 179, 34 Tholos A, 37, 43, 48–49, 53–55, 57, 60, 62, 177, 29 Tholos B, 31, 55, 158, 178, 31 West Camerette, 51–52, 54, 178–179, 33 Hagiopharango, 58, 136 settlement pattern, 37, 42, 58–59 survey, 31–32, 58, 136 Hagios Andonis annex, 305, D2 tholos, 305, D1 Hagios Antonios, 92–93, 96, 105, 112, 115, 263–264, 343 Hagios Charalambos, 71, 73, 77, 83–84, 86, 137, 229, 205 Hagios Georgios, 31–32, 42–43, 179–180, 36 Hagios Ioannis, 137, 299, 484 Hagios Kyrillos, 31, 50 annex to tholos, 54, 180, 38 paved area outside annex, 180, 39 tholos, 180, 37 Hagios Myronas, 19, 73–74, 78, 83, 107, 229, 206 Hagios Nikolaos, 264, 344 Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou 120, 122, 130, Rock Shelter I, 20, 120, 124, 283, 419 Rock Shelter II, 143, 283, 420 Rock Shelter III, 121, 124, 128, 130, 283–284, 421 Hagios Onouphrios. See Phaistos, Area 24 Hagios Onouphrios Ware, 40 hamlet, 24–25, 27, 36, 58–59, 130, 175–176, 197–201, 203 pattern of use, 58–59, 130 harbors, 98, 144 Helladic material, 137 Herakleion, 65–66, 69, 107, 121, 246–247, 257 heterarchy, 7 hierarchy/hierarchical relationship, 5, 7–8, 12, 24, 42, 46, 113, 157, 164 hinterland, 24 household, 4, 27 composition, 24–25 houses, 24–25, 27–28, 34, 36, 93, 138 house tombs, 11, 22, 94

Idean Mountains, 58 identity, 4, 88 community/group identity, 26, 37, 59, 62, 114, 131, 142–144, 152–153, 156, 163 Cyladic identity, 131–132, 143 individual identity, 83

INDEX

Ierapetra region, 2, 24, 91–92, 104, 107, 111, 112, 114 import, 48, 146 Cycladic, 47, 55, 71–72, 122–123, 140, 143, 146 Egyptian, 10, 54–55 imported ideas, 10 imported items, 10, 17, 47, 54, 55, 68, 70, 87, 103, 106, 115, 143, 148, 164 imported materials, 45, 47, 54, 65, 69, 72, 87, 89, 93, 103, 109, 112, 143, 145, 149 individuals, 4, 6–8, 12–13, 17, 24, 27, 35, 42, 62–63, 70, 80, 82–83, 87, 89, 95–96, 103–104, 107, 111, 114, 121, 124, 127, 130–131, 142, 148, 151–156, 162–164 individual estimated in tombs, 41–42, 70, 96, 104, 110, 121–122, 124, 127 individual identity and the tombs, 27, 35, 46, 59, 62–63, 80, 82–83. 87, 103, 107, 111, 114, 122, 130–131, 142, 148, 152–54, 157, 162–164 individualistic society, 11, 15, 23, 56, 83, 162–164 inequality, 7, 116. See also hierarchy/hierarchical relationship infant, 71, 104, 127, 138 inhumation, 130, 137 innovation in burial customs, 11, 61, 74, 88, 163 institutions, 144, 163–164 kinship, 11, 107 interment, 13, 22–23, 27, 36–37, 43, 52–53, 55, 62–63, 68–69, 71–72, 75–76, 78, 80–82, 86–88, 93–95, 99, 103–104, 107–108, 110, 112, 115–116, 121, 124–125, 127–130, 133, 137–140, 143, 148, 153–154, 162–163, Itanos survey, 28, Tholoi A and B, 307, D13

jar, 41, 71, 100, 108, 139 burial jar. See pithos burials Egyptian cylindrical jar, 100 jug, 27, 39, 41, 43–44, 49–50, 53, 56–57, 61, 67–68, 71, 74, 89, 96–97, 116, 122–128, 134, 150–151 juglets, 41 Juktas, 26

Kalathas, 138, 299–300, 485 Kalathiana, 57, 62 Tholos B, 181, 41 Tholos K, 34, 180–181, 40 Kalergi, 66, 68, 229–230, 207 Kali Limenes A, 32, 39, 48, 181, 42 Kali Limenes B, 32, 39, 48, 182, 43 Kalivotopos, 230, 208

351

Kalo Chorio, 105, 115–116, settlement, 25 Tomb A, 107, 111, 264, 345 Tomb B, 264, 346 Kalogerospilio, 137–138, 300, 486 Kamares Cave, 64, 305–306, D3 Kamares Ware, 176, 178, 208, 258, 261, 291, 294 Kamilari A, 31–33, 50, 52, 58 annex to tholos, 57, 182–183, 45 Court outside annex, 23, 52, 54, 183, 46 tholos, 57, 182, 44 Kamilari B, 57, 183, 47 Kamilari C annex to tholos, 184, 49 tholos, 183–184, 48 Kaminospelio, 184, 306, 50 Kantharos, 111, 155 Karydi, 120, 284, 422 Kastelli, 25 Katelionas/Lamnoni survey, 28 Katelionas Site KS3, 123, 125, 284, 423 Kato Sarakina, 137, 300, 488 Kato Vatheia, 230, 209 Katsambas, 230, 210 Kavousi, 113, 156 survey, 28, 92–93 Kephali Hagios Ioannes, Building 1, 43, 184, 51 Building 2, 43, 184–185, 52 Kephali Odigitrias, 31–32, 38–39, 49 Tholos A, 39, 43, 49, 186, 57 Tholos B, 43, 49–50, 185, 53 Tomb 2, 39, 49, 177, 185, 54 Tomb 3, 43, 49–50, 177, 185, 55 Tomb 4, 50, 177, 185–186, 56 Kera Spiliotisa, 137, 300, 487 Kerato, 306, D10 kernos, 44, 55, 74, 84, 105, 110, 173, 243–244, 259, 274 Keros-Syros culture ceramics, 34 kinship, 6–7, 11, 27, 29, 35–37, 59, 82, 107, 111, 122, 145, 163–164 Klisidi, 96, 264–265, 347 Knossos ceramics, 65–66, 69 control over Crete (Knossocentrism), 65–66 palace, 120 region, 26, 83, 85, 90, 153 settlement, 26, 65, 69, 88, 100–101, 116, 138, 155 survey, 28 Knossos Ailias, 85 Site 259, 159, 232, 217 Site 260, 232, 218 Site 278, 232, 219

352

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Knossos Ailias, cont. Tomb I, 159, 230–231, 211 Tomb V, 159, 231, 212 Tomb VI, 159, 231, 213 Tomb VII, 159, 231, 214 Tomb VIII, 159, 231–232, 215 Tomb IX, 159, 232, 216 Knossos Gypsades, 85 Building II, 85, 233, 221 Building XVIII, 233, 222 Site 307, 233–234, 224 Site 313, 234, 225 Site 330, 234, 226 Sunken Court in front of Building XVIII, 233, 223 tholos, 85, 232–233, 220 Knossos Hutchinson Tomb, 77, 85, 234, 227 Knossos Mavrospilio, 85 Site 249, 235, 231 Site 250, 235, 232 Site 254, 235, 233 Tomb IV, 23, 159, 234–235, 228 Tomb IX, 159, 235, 229 Tomb XVII, 159, 235, 230 Knossos Site 123, 236, 235 Knossos Site 148, 85, 236, 236 Knossos Site 295, 85, 236, 237 Knossos Teke, 47, 69–70, 87, 236, 234 Kommos settlement, 26 survey, 28, 32, 58 Korakia, 137, 300, 489 Korakies annex to tholos, 187, 60 tholos, 186, 59 Tholos B, 306, D4 Koumarospilio, 137, 300–301, 490 Koumasa, 43–44, 45, 47, 55, 58, 60, 62–63, 145, 147, 153, 306 Area AB, 47, 188–189, 65 Area BE, 47, 57, 189, 66 Area Delta, 188, 63 Area Z, 189, 67 Tholos A, 147–148, 187, 61 Tholos B, 34, 47, 55, 147–148, 187–188, 62 Tholos E, 48, 188, 64 Tomb Gamma, 44, 54, 189, 68 Koumasa Ware, 33, 47, 263, 280, 295 Kouses, 32, 50 annex to tholos, 51, 190, 70 tholos, 189–190, 69 Koutsokera, 190, 71 Koutsouras, 119

Krasi A, 66, 68, 73–74, 96 tholos, 68–70, 74, 86–87, 100, 139, 142, 146–147, 237, 238 paved area, 74, 237, 239 Krasi B, 66, 68 annex to tholos, 237–238, 241 tholos, 237, 240 Krasi C, 238, 242 Krotos, 190–191, 72 Kultepe, 102 Kyparisi A, 66–70, 86–87, 143, 238, 243 Kyparisi B, 70, 73, 88, 107, 238, 244

Lamnoni Site L44, 123, 126, 284, 424 lamps, 54, 206, 242, 291 larnax, 55–56, 67, 70, 73–74, 77–78, 81, 96, 105–110, 115, 159, 167–169, 173–174, 214, 216, 218–224, 226– 227, 229–230, 232, 234–235, 238, 248, 258, 260– 262, 264, 274–275, 280, 291, 297. See also pithos burials burials and social organisation, 12, 56, 83, 162 definition, 22 first appearance, 11, 15, 55, 76, 88, 105, 115 use, 76, 108, 159 Lasaia area survey, 32, 39 Lasaia A, 39, 191, 73 Lasaia B annex to tholos, 191, 75 tholos, 39, 191, 74 Lasithi, 66, 77, 83, 86, 92, 96, 137, 142 survey, 28 Late Minoan, 26, 54, 58, 83, 85, 90, 93, 95, 105, 129, 159, 164 disturbances, 24 Late Minoan I, 1, 74, 84–85, 105, 107, 109, 111, 116, 158, 160, 163 Late Minoan II, 153, 160 Late Minoan III, 77, 79, 81, 84, 96, 126, 136 Lebena Papoura, 32, 33, 45, 47 annex to Tholoi P1 and P1b, 192–193, 78 Tholos P1, 45, 48, 191–192, 76 Tholos P1b, 45, 192, 77 Lebena Ware, 33, 188 Lebena Yerokambos, 32, 37, 43, 46–47, 52–54, 56, 60 annex to Tholoi Y2 and Y2a, 41, 43, 50, 53, 193– 194, 81 Tholos Y2, 33, 37–41, 43, 45–46, 56, 142, 193, 79 Tholos Y2a, 37, 43, 45–46, 48, 56, 193, 80 Lebena Zervou, 32–33, 82 Lefka Mountains, 135 Lera, 307, D17

INDEX

libation, 56, 62, 285 limestone, 78, 251 Linares, 123, 125–126, 132, 284–285, 425 lineage, 27, 35–36, 83. See also clan; kinship Livari, 120, 123 Context II, 285, 427 tholos, 96, 142, 285, 426 livestock, 42 looting, 32, 45–47, 55, 62, 84, 99, 103 historical, 20, 84 modern, 20, 37–38, 40, 47 Loukia, 306, D5

Malia, 11, 71, 76–78, 80, 88–90, 114, 133, 154–155, 158 Chambre Funéraire, 77, 241, 255 Chrysolakkos I, 73–75, 77, 79–80, 101, 105, 110, 133, 151, 155, 243, 263 Chrysolakkos II, 79, 84, 101, 105, 127, 133, 155, 158–159, 243–244, 264 Cist 10, 78, 241–242, 256 Deposit Bord de Mer, 79, 89, 240–241, 253 Eastern Ossuary I, 77, 79, 239–240, 249 Eastern Ossuary II, 77, 79, 240, 250 Fosse aux Trompettes, 78–80, 84, 243, 262 Hagia Varvara Coast, 79, 244, 265 Hagia Varvara Island, 79, 244, 266 Ilôt du Christ, 78, 84, 107, 244–245, 268 La Tholos, 78, 242–243, 260 Maison des Morts, 77, 79–80, 241, 254 Ossuary 1965, 77, 240, 252 palace, 154 Premier Charnier, 71, 73–74, 78–80, 149–151, 238–239, 245 Quatrième Charnier, 78, 80, 239, 248 Second Charnier, 73–74, 78–80, 151, 239, 246 settlement, 26, 88, 116 survey, 28 Terrases Occidentales, 78–79, 243, 261 Tomb à Puits, 78, 242, 257 Tomb Triangulaire, 1, 23, 78, 242, 258 Tomb Triangulaire, 2, 78, 242, 259 Troisième Charnier, 73–74, 78–80, 239, 247 Underwater Building, 244, 267 Western Ossuary, 71, 73–74, 77, 79–80, 149, 240, 251 Mandalia, 125–126, 128, 130, 132–133, 285, 428 Manika, 121 Marathokephalon, 34 Tholos A, 34, 194, 83 Tholos B, 34, 194–195, 84 Maronia Kolibos, 123, 130, 285–286, 429 Maronia Spiliara I, 120, 123, 130, 286, 430

353

Maronia Spiliara II, 123–124, 286, 431 marriage, 7, 27, 36, 59, 142, 157 Marxism, 148 Maryieles, 137, 301, 491 medieval, 20 Megali Skini A, 31, 38–39, 51 annex to Tholos A, 195, 86 annex to Tholos B, 196, 88 Tholos A, 195, 85 Tholos B, 195–196, 87 Megali Skini B, 31, 39, 196, 89 Megali Vrysi, Tholoi A and B, 306, D6 Melidoni Mylopotamou, 137, 301, 492 Meliskipos, 78, 245, 269 Melos/Melian, 24 Merthies, 196, 90 Mertydia, 120, 286, 432 Mesara Valley, 11–12, 21, 31–34, 37, 42, 48, 50, 54, 56– 59, 61–64, 88, 136, 139, 145, 149–156, 158, 160–161 Meskine, 77, 245, 270 Mesolithic, 1 Messorachi, 96, 120, 286–287, 433 metalwork, 25, 40, 69, 93, 116, 121, 147, 150. See also bronze; gold Metaxas Collection, 181 Miamou, 39, 196–197, 91 Middle Minoan I Middle Minoan IA ceramics, 21, 45, 48, 50–54, 57, 73–75, 81–82, 93, 100–101, 110, 125–126, 128 mortuary behavior, 11, 49–54, 61, 74, 77, 80– 82, 88, 90, 102, 105, 109, 125–126, 129, 151– 158, 161 seal, 108 settlement, 25, 61 Middle Minoan IB ceramics, 33, 50–52, 57, 70, 77, 79, 82, 110–111, 126, 128 mortuary behavior, 37, 50–52, 57, 60, 63, 80, 82, 84, 89–90, 107, 109–110, 116, 127, 154, 157–159 settlement, 25–26, 61, 156–157 Middle Minoan II, 1 ceramics, 57, 78, 82, 84, 110, 128–129, 155 Middle Minoan IIA, 84 Middle Minoan IIB, 1, 57, 64, 83–85, 111, 153 mortuary behavior, 57, 63–64, 66, 71, 82–85, 90, 102, 111, 116–117, 125, 129, 134, 159–160, 163 settlement, 26, 158 stone vessel, 100 Middle Minoan III, 1, 58, 83–85, 90, 99, 101, 105, 111, 116, 125, 129, 138, 159–160, 163 Middle Minoan IIIA, 111, 126 Milatos, 67, 76, 245, 271

354

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Mirabello Bay region, 2, 10, 25, 70–71, 77–78, 91–95, 97, 104, 107, 109, 111–115, 117, 132, 139, 149–150, 154–155, 160 Mitsotakis Collection, 38, 46, 48, 197–199, 200–201 Mochlos, 10, 22, 71, 91–92, 97–106, 108–109, 112–116, 144, 147–149, 151, 154, 158 community, 150 pavement outside IV/V/VI, 108, 114–115, 154, 266, 350 settlement, 26, 92, 124 Tomb I/II/III, 71, 78, 97–99, 101–106, 108, 112– 114, 146–148, 265, 348 Tomb IV/V/VI, 71, 78, 97–99, 101–106, 108, 110, 112–114, 146–148, 266, 349 Tomb VII, 107, 266, 351 Tomb VIII, 266, 352 Tomb IX, 98, 266–267, 353 Tomb X, 267, 354 Tomb XI, 98–100, 103, 109, 115–116, 267, 355 Tomb XII, 98–99, 267, 356 Tomb XIII, 99, 101, 268, 357 Tomb XIV, 268, 358 Tomb XV, 99, 268, 359 Tomb XVI, 99–101, 103, 114, 149, 268, 360 Tomb XVII, 99–100, 149, 269, 361 Tomb XVIII, 99–101, 103, 269, 362 Tomb XIX, 99–101, 103, 149, 269, 363 Tomb XX/XXI, 99, 101, 103, 106, 149, 269–270, 364 Tomb XXII, 99, 101, 106, 270, 365 Tomb XXIII, 98–99, 270, 366 Tomb Alpha, 99, 270, 367 Tomb Beta, 98–99, 270–271, 368 Tomb Gamma, 99, 271, 369 Tomb Delta, 99, 271, 370 Tomb Epsilon, 99, 271, 371 Tomb Eta, 98–99, 271–272, 373 Tomb Iota, 99, 272, 375 Tomb Kappa, 99, 272, 376 Tomb Lambda, 98–99, 272, 377 Tomb Mu, 99, 272–273, 378 Tomb Nu, 99, 109, 115, 273, 379 Tomb Theta, 98–99, 272, 374 Tomb Xi, 109, 115, 273, 380 Tomb Zeta, 99, 271, 372 Unnamed, 98, 115, 273, 381 Monasteraki Amariou, 26 Monastiriako Pigadi, Tholoi A and B, 306, D7 Moni Odigitria, 28, 32, 37–38, 40–41, 43–44, 46–48, 52, 54, 56–57, 62 annex to Tholos B, 37, 39, 41, 43, 49, 51, 53, 198, 94 Eastern Courtyard, 37, 43, 200, 100

Moni Odigitria, cont. Northern Courtyard, 43, 199, 98 osssuary, 52, 198, 95 Outer Courtyard, 43, 200, 101 Room 1, 43, 52, 201, 102 Room d, 198–199, 96 Room e, 199, 97 Southern Courtyard, 37, 43, 199–200, 99 survey, 35–37, 58 Tholos A, 33, 37–41, 47–48, 197, 92 Tholos B, 37, 39, 47–48, 197–198, 93 monumentality, 29, 58, 80–81, 83–84, 88, 139, 155, 164 nonmonumental, 140 mountainous region, 68, 135, 142 mountains, 26, 66, 152, 156 Mousto Latsida, Cave A, 245, 272 Cave B, 245, 273 mudbrick, 84 Mycenae, 10, 153 Mycenaean period, 137 Mycenaean-style tombs, 153 Myrsini, 91, 96, 105, 107, 116, 273–274, 382 Myrtidia, 120 Myrtos Phournou Koriphi, settlement, 24–25, 27, 92–93 tomb, 307, D12 Myrtos Pyrgos, 105, 107 pavement outside tomb, 108–110, 115, 154, 274, 384 tomb, 105, 111, 116, 274, 383

NAMFI Beach, 138, 140, 301–302, 493 Nea Roumata A, 136, 139–140, 162, 95 Tomb I, 23, 139, 302, 494 Tomb II, 139, 302, 495 Nea Roumata B, 136, 139–140, 302, 496 necklace, 68, 72, 101 Neolithic, 25–26, 39, 67, 83, 96, 101, 136–138, 144 burial practices, 40, 83, 138, 141–143 Early Neolithic, 26 Final Neolithic, 25, 33, 59, 86, 93–96, 99, 121, 126, 136–137 Neopalatial, 102, 158 burial customs, 159 reuse of earlier tombs, 99–101 sites, 10, 105 Nopigeia, 71, 135, 138, 140, 162, 302, 497 nuclear family, 35–36, 56, 82, 95, 104, 112, 114, 122, 130–131, 133, 146–148, 163 nucleated settlement, 58, 95

INDEX

obsidian, 25, 55, 67–68, 70, 72, 77, 114, 122–124, 131, 175, 177, 181, 190, 192–194, 197–199, 204, 218–224, 226, 228–229, 237–238, 246, 248, 251–253, 255–256, 264, 273, 275–277, 281–282, 285, 291, 293, 295, 297– 298, 301 access, 149–150 origin, 24 offering table, 169 offerings, 11, 273, 285 ornaments, 47, 55, 174–175, 177–178, 181–183, 187–188, 192–194, 197, 203–204, 206–207, 209–210, 217–221, 223, 226, 229, 231, 239–241, 243, 246, 248, 250–251, 253, 255, 258–260, 264–270, 274, 291, 293–294, 298 orthostats, 84 ossuaries, 43, 51–52, 71, 75–76, 78–80, 88, 96, 98, 103, 105, 108, 128–129, 133, 185, 198, 206, 211, 231, 239– 240, 251, 274, 289

Pacheia Ammos, 78, 92, 105–111, 116, 159, 274–275, 385 palace, 11, 15, 107, 119, 127, 158 appearance, 10, 50 destruction, 159 palace-centered approaches, 3, 14 palace societies, 5 Palaikastro Gravel Ridge, 114, 119, 126, 130, 132–133, 154–155 Tomb I, 123–124, 130, 146, 150, 287, 434 Tomb VIIa, 71, 127–129, 132, 134, 287, 435 Tomb VIIb, 127, 287–288, 436 Tomb VIII, 127, 288, 437 Palaikastro Patema Tomb V, 114, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155, 288, 438 Palaikastro Sarantari, 114, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155 Tomb IVa, 126, 288, 439 Tomb IVb, 126, 128, 288–289, 440 Palaikastro settlement, 26, 119, 132–133, 154 Palaikastro Ta Ellenika, 114, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155 Tomb II, 75, 123–124, 126, 128, 130, 133, 150, 289, 441 Tomb III, 123, 125–126, 128, 132–133, 151, 289, 442 Tomb VI, 75, 123, 126, 128, 133, 289, 443 palette (stone), 173, 188, 190 Partira, 66–67, 86, 143, 246, 274 Partira Ware, 286 Patrikies, 25, 61 patrilineal, 27. See also lineage paved areas/court, 24, 44, 52, 74, 76, 81, 89, 98, 105, 107–108, 116, 121, 153, 155, 169–170, 179–180, 183, 187–189, 205, 221, 237, 243, 266–267, 274 paved road, 105 paved rooms, 98

355

paved walkways, 68 pavement, 23, 51–52, 75, 200, 221, 265–266, 274 peak sanctuary, 26, 134, 155, 157–158, 163–164. See also Juktas; Petsophas Pediada region, 19 survey, 28, 88 Pedino, 96 Tholos I, 290, 444 Tholos II, 290, 445 pendant, 45, 69, 84, 102, 122, 231, 287 Pera Vigla, 246, 275 peribolos wall, 38, 43, 175, 189, 200–201, 229, 291. See also boundary wall Peristeras, 120 Perivolakia, 120, 290, 446 Perivolia, 136, 307, D18 Perivolitsa, 138–139, 302–303, 498 Petras Kephala, 121, 123, 128–129, 132–134, 155 area outside Tomb II, 126, 128, 134, 154, 291, 449 open area, 128, 294, 460 Rock Shelter I, 93, 120, 123, 126, 293–294, 459 Tomb I, 126, 132, 290–291, 447 Tomb II, 125–126, 132–133, 155, 291, 448 Tomb III, 126, 132, 291–292, 450 Tomb IV, 126, 132, 292, 451 Tomb IX, 126, 132, 293, 456 Tomb V, 126, 132, 292, 452 Tomb VI, 126, 132, 292, 453 Tomb VII, 126, 132, 292, 454 Tomb VIII, 126, 132, 292–293, 455 Tomb X, 126, 132, 293, 457 Tomb XI, 126, 132, 293, 458 Petras settlement, 25, 27, 120–121, 143 Petsophas, 134 Phaistos Area 24, 34, 40, 145, 201, 103 Area 83, 40, 201–202, 104 Area 84, 40, 202, 105 Area 85, 40, 202, 106 Area 89, 202, 107 Area 90, 202, 108 Area 99, 40, 202, 109 Area 105, 202–203, 110 palace, 57, 61, 63–64 settlement, 26, 40, 60, 158 survey, 28, 32 phalloi (clay), 54, 206–207 pharaoh, 164 Phrachto, 246, 276 Pigadistria, 73, 77, 246, 277 Pigaidakia, 306, D8 Pigi, 303, 499

356

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

pillar room/crypt, 81–82, 105, 169, 274 pins, 69, 82, 84, 100 pit, 51, 71, 84, 95, 97, 110, 153, 167, 175, 178–179, 198– 199, 201, 209, 216, 228, 231, 235, 241–242, 258–259, 281, 303 pit tombs, 22–23, 77–78, 121 pithoid jar, 108 pithos burials, 11–12, 19, 22, 50, 55–56, 68, 70–71, 73– 74, 76–79, 81, 83, 85, 88, 96, 105–107, 109–111, 115– 116, 126–127, 137–139, 154, 159, 162–164. See also larnax infant, 71 pithos burials and social organization, 15, 56, 76, 83, 162–164 pithos cemeteries, 19, 22, 50, 78, 106–107, 109–111, 116, 159, 163. See also Gournia Sphoungaras; Pacheia Ammos Plakoura, 203, 111 Platanos, 44, 49, 54, 55, 60, 62, 152–153, 155, 164 annex to Tholos A, 50, 53–54, 63, 155, 158, 203– 204, 113 annex to Tholos B, 44, 204, 115 annex to Tholos Gamma, 205, 117 Area AB, 205, 118 rooms south of Tholos A, 53, 63, 155, 206, 120 South Deposits, 50–54, 57, 63, 205–206, 119 Tholos A, 43–44, 48, 54–55, 57, 62, 102, 155, 158, 203, 112 Tholos B, 44, 49, 55, 158, 204, 114 Tholos Gamma, 204–205, 116 Tomb Alpha, 50, 206, 121 Tomb Gamma, 50, 206–207, 122 Tombs Delta and Epsilon, 207, 123 Plates/Charakas, 138–139, 303, 500 Platyvola, 135, 137, 140, 303, 501 pommel, 190, 193, 204 Poros A, 85, 246, 278 Poros B, 85, 247, 279 Poros Katsambas, 25, 69, 143 Porti, 49, 55, 62 annex to Tholos Pi, 50, 53, 57, 207, 125 South and East Plateau, 19, 50, 107, 110, 208, 127 Tholos Pi, 34, 53, 55, 207, 124 Tomb Delta, 50–51, 207–208, 126 ports, 25. See also harbors postprocessualism, 9, 13–16, 26–27 Potamies, 68, 247, 280 Praisos survey 28, tomb, 307, D13 Priniatikos Pyrgos, 26 processualism, 14, 16 production, 55, 146 agricultural, 156, 164

production, cont. ceramic, 4, 21, 24, 25, 92, 152, 160 specialized, 29 Protogeometric, 294 Psathi, 25 Pseira, 92–96, 98, 105, 108, 112–114, 116, 123, 142– 145, 149 East Area, Q31, 94, 109, 111, 115, 279, 406 North west Area, Q27–Q30, 94, 109, 111, 115, 279, 405 survey, 28, Tomb I, 22, 94–95, 98, 106, 111, 275, 386 Tomb II, 94–95, 98, 106, 111, 275, 387 Tomb III, 94–95, 98, 111, 275, 388 Tomb IV, 94, 106–108, 111, 115, 275–276, 389 Tomb IX, 94, 98, 106, 111, 146, 277, 394 Tomb V, 94, 98, 106, 111, 276, 390 Tomb VI, 94, 98, 106, 111, 276, 391 Tomb VII, 94, 98, 111, 276, 392 Tomb VIII, 96, 98, 111, 276, 393 Tomb X, 94, 98, 111, 146, 277, 395 Tomb XI, 98, 111, 277, 396 Tomb XII, 96, 98, 111, 277, 397 Tomb XIII, 94, 98, 111, 277–278, 398 Tomb XIV, 111, 278, 399 Tomb XIX, 95, 279, 404 Tomb XV, 94, 106, 111, 278, 400 Tomb XVI, 94, 278, 401 Tomb XVII, 95, 278–279, 402 Tomb XVIII, 95, 279, 403 Psiloritis Mountains, 31, 65, 135 Psychro, 67, 77, 247, 281 Pyrgos cave, 66–70, 73, 77, 86–87, 143, 146–147, 151, 247– 248, 282 rock shelter, 67, 86, 248, 283 Pyrgos Ware. See Dark Gray Burnished Ware (DGB) pyxis, 33–34, 40–41, 44–45, 55, 68, 70, 79, 97, 120– 124, 126, 130–131, 137, 142, 150, 192, 204, 286, 296 Cycladic style, 131 stone, 44, 55, 120, 123–124

quartz, 251

regions, 154–157, 160–161 ceramic trajectories, 21–22 definition, 4–5, ritual belief, 11, 14, 66

INDEX

ritual, cont. communal, 56, 58, 61–64, 81, 83, 89–90, 116, 134, 151–156, 163–164 deposit, 33 funerary activities, 1–2, 4–5, 7, 9, 11–15, 17, 23, 25–26, 33, 40–43, 51–53, 56, 58–59, 61–64, 66–67, 74–76, 79–83, 86, 88–90, 98, 103–104, 108, 111, 114–116, 122, 130–131, 133–134, 137, 148, 150–159, 163–164, 168, 199, 249, 264, 285 non-funerary activities, 26, 74, 76, 79 spaces, 2, 24–25, 40, 51–52, 59, 80–81, 84, 88–89, 98, 103–104, 115, 133–134 Rizikas A, 208, 128 Rizikas B, 208, 129 rock crevice, 74, 93–94, 107, 112, 123, 143, 182, 211, 224, 239–240, 250, 270. See also rock shelter rock shelter, 10, 19, 22–23, 67–70, 73–74, 77–78, 85–86, 88, 93–100, 102, 105, 107–109, 112–113, 115, 120– 121, 123–127, 129–130, 136–139, 142–143, 146, 154 definition, 22 modified, 85, 107–108

Sabas, 73, 77, 248, 284 Salame, 34, 42, 208–209, 130 Salame Ware, 33, 209 sauceboats, Helladic, 137, 303 scarab, 46, 55, 77, 82, 168, 171, 181, 192–193, 201, 229, 231, 255 Cretan imitation, 55 Egyptian import, 46, 55 Schisma, 279, 407 schnabelkanne, 96 seals, 14, 35, 40, 45–47, 50, 54–55, 61, 70, 77, 82, 89, 97, 110, 115, 123, 128, 133–134, 151–156, 158, 167. See also signet ring Babylonian, 55 cylinder seal, 55, 109, 116 deposition pattern, 151–156 social significance, 35, 46, 82 sealstone, 82–83, 110, 153 secondary burial, 11, 20, 23, 71, 75–76, 108, 113, 127, 152, 180, 188, 229, 240, 251, 258, 264, 287, 291 secondary material deposit, 82, Seli, 77, 248, 285 settlement, 4, 17, 24–29, 32, 35–37, 40, 58–60, 76, 77, 80, 86, 88–89, 92–93, 95–98, 104–105, 109, 111–116, 121–122, 124, 126, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138–139, 149– 150, 152, 155–157, 159, 161, 163 cemetery relationship, 26–29, 36–37, 77, 124, 126, 130 intrasettlement, 114, 153

357

settlement, cont. patterns, 28, 35, 37, 57, 60, 88, 92, 95–96, 112, 115, 117, 152, 156–157, 159 size, 104 Siderokamino annex to tholos, 68, 249, 287 tholos, 68, 248, 286 signet ring, 82, 101 Sissi, 71, 73, 75, 77–78, 85, Rock Shelter A, 23, 249, 288 Rock Shelter B, 23, 249, 289 Rock Shelter C, 23, 249, 290 Space 1.4, 250, 292 Space 1.5, 250, 293 Space 1.6, 73, 250, 294 Space 1.13, 77, 251, 298 Space 1.15, 251–252, 299 Space 1.17, 77, 252, 300 Space 1.18, 252, 301 Space 1.29, 253, 303 Space 1.30, 73, 253, 304 Spaces 1.1/1.2/1.3, 73, 75, 77, 85, 249–250, 291 Spaces 1.7/1.8/1.16/1.31, 73, 77, 85, 138, 250–251, 295 Spaces 1.9/1.10, 73, 77, 251, 296 Spaces 1.11/1.12/1.24, 73, 77, 251, 297 Spaces 1.20/1.22/1.23/1.25/1.28, 73, 77, 252, 302 Spaces 9.1/9.2/9.3/9.4, 77, 253, 305 Siteia, 126, 294, 461 Siva, 31, 39, 306 annex to Tholoi N and S, 209, 132 Tholos N, 34, 43, 209, 131 Tholos S, 34, 43, 209–210, 133 Skalais, 120, 294, 462 Skaphidia, 67, 86, 253–254, 306 skeletons, 83, 96, 126, 139, 162, 177, 240, 248, 265, 295. See also decomposition Skotino, 67, 254, 307 Skotoumeno Charakas crevice, 211, 138 Tholos A, 210, 134 Tholos B, 210, 135 Tholos C, 210, 136 Tomb E, 210–211, 137 skulls, 35, 104, 110, 120–121, 123, 126–129, 132, 162, 177, 188, 192, 194, 198, 219–221, 231, 233–235, 239, 251, 259, 265, 283–284, 287–288, 290, 296–298 slaves, 111, 163 Sokaras, 77, 254, 308 Souda Bay, 135 Sphakia survey, 28 spindle whorls, 207, 256 stairs/staircase, 81, 259

358

MORTUARY BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES IN PRE- AND PROTOPALATIAL CRETE

Stavroplaka, 254, 309 stone vessels, 16–17, 44, 46, 50, 55, 57, 68, 70, 74, 77, 79–80, 82, 84, 94, 97, 99–101, 103, 106, 108–111, 115, 123, 128, 130, 133, 164 bird’s-nest bowl, 47, 54–55 Cycladic import, 71 deposition patterns, 50, 53–55, 62, 63, 89, 115– 116, 122, 134, 151–155, 158 Egyptian import, 54 Egyptian parallels, 10, 54, 61, 100–102 green schist, 123 green steatite, 97 pyxis, 44, 55, 102, 120, 124 storage, 24, 71 storage jar, 22 Stou Petra, 254, 310 stratification, social, 7–8, 83, 87, 116, 157–158 stratigraphy, 20–21, 37, 39, 48–49, 54, 72, 100, 106, 149, 178 stratified deposits, 46, 48, 54, 81, 99, 102, 137 Stravomyti, 66, 73, 254–255, 311 stucco, 51, 79, 179 survey, archaeological, 17, 24, 28–29, 32, 36, 39, 43, 52, 58, 80, 88, 92, 95, 104, 113, 132, 134, 135–136, 159 in relation to cemeteries, 28–29

tankard, 40–41, 67–68 teapot, 25, 49, 71, 124 terrace, outside tombs, 71, 93, 99, 108, 115, 263–264, 266, 273, 275, 283 Theriospelio, 93, 257 tholos tombs, 11–12, 15, 19–20, 22–23, 27, 29, 31–63, 66, 68–69, 72–76, 78, 80–90, 96, 100–102, 105, 107, 110, 113, 120, 123, 129, 133, 138–139, 142–143, 145, 147, 149, 151–155, 159, 161 catalog, 23 construction, 58–59, 139 definition, 22 interred population, 35, 42 location, 29, 36–37 orientation, 15, 43 origin, 12, 142 relation to social organization, 11, 12, 35–37, 42, 58, 60–61, 63, 73, 86–87, 142–143, 145, 147, 151–152, 155 use, 41–42, 53, 56, 62, 161 tombs preservation of, 19, 24–25, 35, 40, 45–47, 60, 72, 77, 93–95, 97, 99–100, 105–106, 113, 126, 130, 209

tombs, cont. reuse of, 20, 34, 42, 58, 73, 75, 78–81, 84, 99, 101, 109, 111, 122, 126, 130, 162, 167, 173–174, 182, 206, 216, 241, 253, 274. See also Neopalatial reuse typology of, 22–23 tool, 170, 172–173, 175, 177, 181–183, 186, 188–190, 192– 195, 197–199, 203–204, 206–207, 209–210, 217–224, 226, 228–229, 231, 238–239, 248, 251–253, 255–256, 258–260, 262–265, 268–270, 272–278, 281–282, 285, 287–293, 295–298, 301 metal, 70, 97, 110, 128, 130, 133 stone, 28, 124 tradition, 3, 9, 142, 144, 158, 163–164 transegalitarian, 7 transhumant, 59 Trapeza, 110 cave, 22, 66–67, 70–71, 73, 77–78, 83, 86–87, 143, 255, 312 Kastellos Trench 4, 255–256, 314 Kastellos Trench 11, 256, 315 outside burials, 78, 110, 255, 313 tripod, 93 triton, 262 Trypiti A, 27, 32–33 annex to tholos, 211, 140 tholos, 27, 33, 211, 139 Trypiti area, 152 Trypiti B, 211–212, 141 Trypiti C, 212, 142 Trypiti D, 212, 143 Trypiti settlement, 24–25, 32, 36 Tsampi, 256, 316 Tsilastra tholos, 212, 144 building, 212, 145 tumblers, 49, 74, 291 Turkish, 307

Vali, 306, D9 Vamies Site 15, 294, 463 Vapheio cup, 261 Vardoiani, 96, 279–280, 408 Vasiliki A, 107, 280, 409 Vasiliki B, 96, 138, 280, 410 Vasiliki settlement, 24, 79, 92, 113, 115, 150 Vasiliki Ware, 21, 24, 70–71, 97, 100, 116, 123, 150, 156 vault, 96, 139 Venetis, 256, 317

INDEX

vestibule, 39, 168, 170–178, 180–188, 190–191, 193, 195– 197, 203, 205, 208–210, 212–215, 217–218, 227–230, 232, 237, 247–248, 273, 283 visibility and location of tombs, 29 archaeological, 139 Vitsilia, 67, 256, 318 Vorou A, 31, 49 North Deposit, 50–51, 54, 213, 147 Southwest Deposits, 50–51, 110, 213, 148 tholos, 53, 55, 57, 212–213, 306, 146 West Building, 50, 53, 213–214, 149 Vorou B, 31, 49, 55, 214, 150 Vrimbokambos A, 138–139, 304, 502 Vrimbokambos B, 138–139, 304, 503 Vrokastro region, 28, 93 settlement, 93, 95 survey, 28, 92

wealth, 13, 15, 28, 32, 80, 148, 153, 164 West Mesara 4, 214, 151 West Mesara 14, 214–215, 152 West Mesara 15, 215, 153 West Mesara 64, 215, 154 West Mesara 81, 215, 155 West Mesara survey, 28, 136 White-on-Dark Ware, 21, 104–105, 124, 156 workshop, 25, 116, 147, 150, 259, 273

359

Yeropotamos River, 42, 58 Yialomonochoro, 215, 156 Yiophyrakia, 73–74, 256–257, 319

Zakros Acherotripa, 119, 124, 129–130, 132–133, 154– 155, 295, 464 Zakros Gorge of the Dead, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155 Cave I, 124–125, 128, 130, 295, 465 Cave II, 124, 128, 130, 295, 466 Cave III, 126, 295, 467 Cave IV, 124, 130, 295–296, 468 Marmaras, 126, 128, 296, 469 Ouranias, 126, 128, 296, 470 Pharanx, 296, 471 Spiliara, 126, 296–297, 472 Zakros Karaviadaina, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155, 297, 473 Zakros Mavro Avlaki, 119, 124–125, 128–130, 132–133, 154–155, 297, 474 Zakros Pezoules Kephala, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155 Tomb A, 126–129, 132, 297, 475 Tomb B, 126–129, 132, 297–298, 476 Zakros Rizes, 119, 130, 132–133, 154–155 Tomb A, 125, 128, 298, 477 Tomb B, 125, 128, 298, 478 Zakros settlement, 119, 154 Zinta, 69, 257, 320 Ziros, 298, 479 zoomorphic vases, 47

Tables

TABLES 1 AND 2

Pottery Phases

High Chronology for LBA (Manning 1995, fig. 5; Momigliano 2007, 7, table 0.2)

Low Chronology for LBA (Warren and Hankey 1989, 169, table 3.1)

Early Minoan I

3100–3000 to 2700–2650

3650–3500 to 3000–2900

Early Minoan IIA

2700–2650 to 2450–2350

Early Minoan IIB

2450–2350 to 2200–2150

Early Minoan III

2200–2150 to 2050–2000

2300–2150 to 2160–2025

Middle Minoan IA

2050–2000 to 1925–1900

2160–1979 to 1900

First Palaces constructed

Middle Minoan IB

1925–1900 to 1900–1875

1900 to 1800

First Palaces destroyed

Middle Minoan II

1900–1875 to 1750–1720

1800 to 1700–1650

Second Palaces constructed

Middle Minoan III

1750–1720 to 1700–1680

1700–1650 to 1600

Architectural Phases

Prepalatial

Protopalatial

Neopalatial

3000–2900 to 2300–2150

Table 1. Absolute chronology of the Cretan Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Gazetteer Name

Goodison Gazetteer Secondary Panagiotopoulos and Guarita Number Name 2002 2005

Branigan 1970b

Blackman Branigan and Branigan 1993 1977

Belli 1984

Pelon Vasilakis 1976, 1994 1990

Antiskari

1

Apesokari A

2

1

Apesokari I

no. 9

no. 61 Apesokari A

no. 18

no. 4A

Apesokari B

5

2

Apesokari II

no. 10

no. 62 Apesokari B

no. 18

no. 4B

Apesokari C

8

Archaiokorapho

9

3

Archaiochorapho

no. 56

no. 8

Archanes Phourni

Aspripetra

s 461

162

Tholos B

165

Tholos Gamma

4

Archanes C

no. 79

no. 5A

166

Tholos E

5

Archanes E

no. 80

no. 5B

Aspripetra

Aspri Petra s 461

10

Archanes B

1994 tc 5C

11

B

30

Christos B

no. 61 Christos

no. 46

12

X

29

Christos X

no. 11

no. 45

Chroni Kalyvi

13

Gangales

31

Chroni Kalyvi

Chrysostomos A

14

69, South Coast 8 A

Lasäa A

no. 12/18 no. 29 Chrysostomos/ ChrysoKali Limenes II stomos A

no. 5 Chrysostomos I

1994 tc 9B; 1984 29A

Chrysostomos B

15

70, South Coast 8 B

Lasäa B

no. 13/19 no. 30 Chrysostomos/ ChrysoKali Limenes III stomos B

no. 5 Chrysostomos II

1994 tc 9C; 1984 29B

Christos

no. 19 Christos

no. 6 Christos s 462 Gangales

Table 2. Tholos tomb names listed alphabetically and their references in different publications.

TABLE 2

Gazetteer Name

Drakones

Goodison Gazetteer Secondary Panagiotopoulos and Guarita Number Name 2002 2005

Branigan 1970b

Blackman Branigan and Branigan 1993 1977

Belli 1984

Pelon Vasilakis 1976, 1994 1990

16

D

17

Drakones D

no. 14

no. 55

no. 26

no. 7A

18

Z

18

Drakones Z

no. 15

no. 56

no. 26

no. 7B

76, Viannos

Galana Charakia

no. 41

no. 89

no. 57

no. 78

Galana Charakia B

198

Gorgolaini

199

19

Gorgolaini

Gouva

19

Gouva

Gouva

Hagia Eirene

20

E

6

Ajia Irini E

no. 1

21

e

7

Ajia Irini e

no. 2

22

A

8

Ajia Kyriaki I

no. 3 Agia Kyriaki

no. 20 Ayia Kyriaki A

w6

no. 4 Aghia Kyriaki A

24

B

9

Ajia Kyriaki IIA

no. 21 Ayia Kyriaki B

w6a

no. 4 Aghia Kyriaki B

1994 tc 26B

25

C

10

Ajia Kyriaki IIB

no. 22 Ayia Kyriaki C

w6b

no. 4 Aghia Kyriaki B

1994 tc 26Ba

Hagia Photia Siteias C

410

Tholos I

11, Ayia Photia/ Kouphota A

Hagia Photia Siteias C

411

Tholos II

12, Ayia Photia/ Kouphota B

29

A

13

Ajia Triada A

no. 4

no. 1

no. 25

31

B

14

Ajia Triada B

no. 5

no. 2

no. 25

no. 2B

no. 1 Agiopharango

S. 461 Agiopharango: 1994 tc27

no. 6 Ag. Antonios I no. 22

Hagia Kyriaki

Hagia Triada

Tholos

Ano Viannos s 462 no. 24

no. 1A

no. 57

no. 24

no. 1B

no. 58

no. 18

no. 4B

no. 92 Agia Photia A

s 461 A. no. 12 Agia Kyriaki; tc Kyriaki IV 26A

2003 Tholos A 2003 Tholos B no. 2A

Hagios Andonis

D1

Ayios Andonis/ Ayiopharango

Hagios Georgios

36

15

Agios Jeorjios

no. 7

no. 25

s 461

Hagios Kyrillos

37

Akonaki

16

Ajios Kyrillos

no. 8

no. 41

no. 3

D13

A

Itanos A

no. 93

D13

B

Itanos

no. 94

Itanos

Kalathiana

Ajios Andonios

no. 6 Agiopharangos

no. 26

40

K

21

Kalathiana K

41

B

22

Kalathiana B

no. 16

no. 71

E22

no. 34

no. 72

Kalergi

206

Kallergi

Kalarji

no. 62

no. 83

Kali Limenes A

42

23

Kali Limenes A

no. 17 Kaloi Limenes I

no. 27

Kali Limenes B

43

24

Kali Limenes B

Kamilari A

44

Grigori Koriphi

25

Kamilari I

Kamilari B

47

Mylona Lakko

26

Kamilari II

Kamilari C

47

27

Kamilari III

Kaminospelio

50

28

Kaminospilio

no. 8 s 462

no. 9A Kali Limenes I

no. 3 Kaloi Limenes II

no. 28

no. 20

no. 3 Kamilari A

no. 21 Mylona no. 4 Lakko Kamilari B no. 22

no. 2 Kaloi Limenes I

no. 27

no. 10A no. 10B

no. 5 Kamilari C

s 462; 1994 tc 10C

no. 12

S 462 Pigaidakia; 1994 tc 30

Table 2, cont. Tholos tomb names listed alphabetically and their references in different publications.

TABLE 2

Gazetteer Name Kato Vatheia

Goodison Gazetteer Secondary Panagiotopoulos and Guarita Number Name 2002 2005

Branigan 1970b

Blackman Branigan and Branigan 1993 1977

Belli 1984

Pelon Vasilakis 1976, 1994 1990

Kato Vatheia

Kato Vathia

53

B, Tou Skaniari o Lakkos

74, Stou Skaniari to Lakko/ Kephali Odigitrias B

Kephali B

57

A, Tou Skaniari o Lakkos

73, Stou Skaniari to Lakko/ Kephali Odigitrias A

Kephali A

no. 23 Kephali Odigitrias

no. 23

Knossos Gypsades

219

Tholos

20, Gypsadhes

Gypsades (Knossos)

no. 24 Knossos (Gypsades)

no. 81

no. 12 Knossos

Kokkiniano

58

32

Kokkiniano

no. 64

no. 60

s 462

no. 42

s 462 Korakies

no. 43

s 462 Korakies

208

Kephali Odigitrias

Kouses

no. 82

no. 23 Stou Skaniari to Lakko

no. 24

59

A

33

Korakies A

no. 25 Korakies N

D4

B

Korakies B (misunderstanding)

Korakies B

no. 26 Korakies S

Korakies

Koumasa

no. 63

no. 7 Kephali Odigitrias

no. 11 no. 23 Stou Kephali Skaniari to Odigitrias Lakko

61

A

34

Koumasa A

no. 27

no. 47

no. 20

no. 13A

62

B

35

Koumasa B

no. 28

no. 48

no. 20

no. 13B

64

E

36

Koumasa E

no. 29

no. 49

no. 20

no. 13C

Sopata

68, Sopata Kouse

Sopata Kouse

no. 80 Pombia

no. 77

37

Koutsokera

no. 30

no. 53

Tholos

38, Krasi A

Krasi I

no. 66

no. 85

no. 15

39, Krasi B

Krasi II

no. 86

s 462

40

Krotos

no. 44

69

Koutsokera

71

Krasi A

237

no. 28

no. 14

Krasi B

239

Tholos

Krasi C

241

Tholos

Krotos

72

Aspra Charakia

Lasaia A

74

71, South Coast 11 A

Chrysostomos A

no. 31 Lasaia A

no. 6 Kali Limenes (Lasea) I

1994 tc 31A Lasea A

75

72, South Coast 11 B

Chrysostomos B

no. 32 Lasaia B

no. 6 Kali Limenes (Lasea) II

1994 tc 31B Lasea B

Lasaia B

76

P1

41

Lebena/Papoura A

no. 31 Lebena I (Papoura)

no. 35 Lebena P1

no. 8 Lebena, papoura IA

no. 16A Lebena IA

77

P1b

42

Lebena/Papoura B

no. 32 Lebena Ib (Papoura)

no. 36 Lebena P1b

no. 8 Lebena, papoura IB

no. 16B Lebena IB

79

Y2a

43

Lenda/ Yerokambos

no. 34 Lebena IIa (Yerokambos)

no. 34 Lebena Y2a

no. 9 Lebena no. 16Ca Yerokabos Lebena IIa IIa

80

Y2

44

Lenda/ Yerokambos

no. 33 Lebena II (Yerokambos)

no. 33 Lebena Y2

no. 9 Lebena Yerokabos II

Lebena Papoura

Lebena Yerokambos

no. 16C Lebena II

Table 2, cont. Tholos tomb names listed alphabetically and their references in different publications.

TABLE 2

Gazetteer Name

Goodison Gazetteer Secondary Panagiotopoulos and Guarita Number Name 2002 2005

Blackman Branigan and Branigan 1993 1977

Lenda/Zervou

no. 35 Lebena III (Zervou)

no. 37 Lebena Z3

Loukia (misunderstanding)

Loukia

no. 79

no. 52

Lebena Zervou

82

Z3

45

Livari

419

Tholos

46, Livari, Skiadhi

Loukia

D5

Marathokephalon

Branigan 1970b

no. 10 Lebena Zervou

Pelon Vasilakis 1976, 1994 1990 no. 16D Lebena III

83

A

47

Marathokephalo A

no. 36

no. 69

no. 35

84

B

48

Marathokephalo B

no. 37

no. 70

no. 35

no. 17

85

A

49

Megali Skini A

no. 38 Megali Skinoi IIIa

no. 17

E10a

no. 12 Megali Skinoi IIIa

no. 18A Megali Skini IIIa

no. 14 Megaloi Skinoi II

87

B

50

Megali Skini B

no. 39 Megali Skinoi IIIb

no. 18

E10b

no. 12 Megali Skinoi IIIb

no. 18B Megali Skini IIIb

no. 14 Megaloi Skinoi II

89

C

51

Megali Skini C

no. 40 Megali Skinoi IIIc

no. 19

E9

no. 11 Megali Skinoi II

s 462; 1994 tc 18C

no. 13 Megaloi Skinoi I

D6

A

Megali Vrysi A (misunderstanding)

Megali Vrysi A

no. 67

no. 75

D6

B

Megali Vrysi B (misunderstanding)

Megali Vrysi B

no. 68

no. 76

Merthies

Myrties

no. 69

no. 50

Monastiriako Pigadhi (misunderstanding)

Monastiriako Pigadi

Megali Skini A

Megali Skini B

Belli 1984

Megali Vrysi

Merthies

90

Messorachi

426

Monastiriako Pigadi

D7

no. 21

Tholos

92

A, Tis Hatzinas to Liofito

52

Odijitria A

no. 14 Moni Odigitria A

1994 tc 32A

no. 31 Tis Hatzinas to Liophyto

93

B, Tis Hatzinas to Liofito

53

Odijitria B

no. 14 Moni Odigitria

1994 tc 32B

no. 31 Tis Hatzinas to Liophyto

Myrsini

375

Galana Kharakia

54

Myrsini

Praisos

D14

Praisos

Vali

D9

Vali (misunderstanding)

Pigaidakia

D8

Pigaidakia (misunderstanding)

Myrtos Phournou Koriphi

D12

Myrtos Phournou Koriphi

Moni Odigitria

no. 41

no. 89

Table 2, cont. Tholos tomb names listed alphabetically and their references in different publications.

TABLE 2

Gazetteer Name

Pedino

Goodison Gazetteer Secondary Panagiotopoulos and Guarita Number Name 2002 2005 437

A

438

B

Perivolitsa

485

Phaistos

103

Plakoura

111

Porti

Hagios Ayios Onouphrios/ Onouphrios Area 24

Blackman Branigan and Branigan 1993 1977

Pedino A

no. 70

no. 90

Pedino B

no. 71

no. 91

Ajios Onuphrios

no. 59

no. 67

Belli 1984

Pelon Vasilakis 1976, 1994 1990

s 461

Plakoura

Plakoura

no. 72

no. 51

no. 17

A

57

Platanos A

no. 43

no. 64

no. 29

114

B

58

Platanos B

no. 44

no. 65

no. 29

no. 20B

116

Gamma

59

Platanos C

no. 45

no. 66

no. 29

no. 20C

124

Pi

60

Porti

no. 46

no. 59

no. 22

no. 21

no. 73

no. 84

no. 30

no. 22

112 Platanos

Pedhino A and B

Branigan 1970b

Potamies

279

Potamies

Potamies

Rizikas A

128

Rizikas

Risikas

Rizikas B

129

Salame

130

Siderokamino

285

Pervolakia

Tholos

no. 20A

no. 68

Pervolakia 61

Salami

no. 48

no. 54

62

Siderokamino

no. 58

no. 87

s 462

131

N

63

Siva N

no. 49

no. 6

no. 31 Siva A

133

S

64

Siva S

no. 50

no. 7

no. 31 Siva B

134

A

65

Skoutomenou Charakas A

no. 9

E27A

1994 tc 28A Agios Ioannis A

135

B

66

Skoutomenou Charakas B

no. 10

E27B

1994 tc 28B Agios Ioannis B

136

C

67

Skoutomenou Charakas C

no. 11

E27C

1994 tc 28C Agios Ioannis C

Trypiti A

139

A and B, Kalokambos

75

Trypiti

no. 51

no. 39 Trypiti A and no. 40 Trypiti B

Trypiti B

141

Lamnassos 55, Phylaka site 7 A

Phylakas

no. 42

no. 38

Trypiti C

142

Lamnassos site 8

Trypiti D

143

Lamnassos site 6 building 2

Tsilastra

144

Siva

Skotoumeno Charakas

Vorou A

146

Vorou B

150

Vrimbokambos A

489

Yialomonokhoro

156

Yiophyrakia

312

no. 23B

no. 24

56, Phylaka B s 462; tc 24B Trypiti II Tsilastra

Tholos

no. 13

no. 23A

Tsilastra

no. 75

no. 16 no. 36

no. 25A

no. 36

no. 25B

77

Vorou I

no. 54

no. 73 Vorou A

78

Vorou II

no. 55

no. 74 Vorou B

S 462

2003 Tholos B Gavaliana

Yialomonokhoro/ Gavaliana

Gavaliana

no. 15 Yialomonokhoro

E17

2003 Tholos A

no. 19

Yiophyrakia

Table 2, cont. Tholos tomb names listed alphabetically and their references in different publications.

no. 18

900

900

900

Many hundreds

Many hundreds

Many hundreds

250

600

400–500

100

Koumasa B

Marathokephalo B

Porti

Hagia Triada A

Lebena P1

Kamilari A

Vorou A

285

785

600

100

200

150

250

100

100

150

ENB

0.88

1.91

0.42

290

525

560

1,225

285

735

860

ELU

1.72

1.9

1.34

1.02

1.75

0.84

0.87

Nuclear Families

Whitelaw 1983

850

175

200

230

ENB

ELU

6.5–9

1–1.5

1.5–2

1–2

Nuclear Families

Branigan 19931

550–650

180–190

180–190

420–430

ENB

ELU

4.5–6

1.5–2

1–2

2–5

Nuclear Families

Branigan 19932

50–300

50–300

50–200

35–100

200–500

100–300

100–300

150–300

ENB

150–430

400–930

725–775

150–550

225–580

725–750

600–930

400–930

750–775

725–775

0.6–10

0.3–3.7

0.3–1.4

0.3–3.3

1.7–11

0.3

1.3–2

0.5–3.7

0.6–2

1–2

ELU Nuclear (Manning Families 1995) (min. and max.)

This Volume

Table 3. Estimated populations in various tholos tombs in South-Central Crete. ENB: estimated number of burials. ELU: estimated length of use in years. Nuclear Families: estimated number of nuclear families per tomb. 1ENB estimates based on number of seals. 2ENB estimates based on total volume of burial deposits.

50

Platanos B

1.72

4.29

6.36

5.6

8.8

4.5

2.9

Nuclear Families

300

290

525

560

1,225

285

735

860

ELU

Platanos A

100

400–500

600

250

Many hundreds

Many hundreds

Many hundreds

ENB

50

1

4–6

4

1

3–4

3–4

3–4

Nuclear Families

Bintliff 1989

Koumasa A

400

500–800

700

1400

ELU

ENB

Tomb

Bintliff 1977b

TABLE 3

TABLES 4A AND 4B Hagia Kyriaki A

EM I–II

Percentage

Lebena Y2

EM I or possible

Percentage

Cups

494

39.68

Cups

18

5.33

8

26

5.19

32

58

Jugs

325

26.10

Jugs

18

5.33

3

21

4.19

25

46

Bowls

150

12.05

Bowls

17

5.03

37

54

10.78

51

105

Spherical Pyxides

32

2.57

Spherical Pyxides

107

31.66

85

192

38.32

156

348

Lids

53

4.26

Lids

66

19.53

6

72

14.37

48

120

Jars

105

8.43

Juglets

13

3.85

15

28

5.59

2

30

Pedestal Bowls

45

3.61

Fruit Stands

2

0.59

2

4

0.80

5

9

Large Bowls

39

3.13

Amphoriskos

2

0.59

—

2

0.40

—

2

Double Vase

1

0.08

Bottles

16

4.73

—

16

3.19

—

16

Crucible

1

0.08

Tankards

69

20.41

—

69

13.77

110

179

Others

10

2.96

7

17

3.39

9

26

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1,310

1,310

Total

338

100%

163

501

100%

1,748

2,472

Total

1,245

100%

EM II or Accumulated Accumulated Sherds (minimum possible Number Percentage number of vessels)

Total

Table 4A. Comparison of Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A and Lebena Yerokambos 2 assemblages (based on data from Blackman and Branigan 1982, 20–39; Alexiou and Warren 2004, 57–115).

Moni Odigitria Tholos A

EM I

Percentage

EM I–II

Accumulated Number

Accumulated Percentage

EM II

Accumulated Number

Accumulated Percentage

Cups

12

15.79

23

35

18.92

195

230

45.82

Jugs

8

10.53

4

12

6.49

25

37

7.37

Bowls

7

9.21

21

28

15.14

43

71

14.14

Pyxides

21

27.63

23

44

23.78

3

47

9.36

Beaker

—

0

4

4

2.16

—

4

0.80

Jars

22

28.95

17

39

21.08

3

42

8.37

Pedestal Bowls

—

0

3

3

1.62

—

3

0.60

Spouted Bowls

—

0

—

0

0

36

36

7.17

Dish

—

0

3

3

1.62

10

13

2.59

Tankards

1

1.32

1

2

1.08

2

4

0.80

Chalice

5

6.58

10

15

8.11

—

15

2.99

Total

76

100%

109

185

100%

317

502

100%

Table 4B. Moni Odigitria Tholos A EM I–II ceramic assemblages (based on data from Branigan and CampbellGreen 2010b).

TABLES 5A AND 5B Lebena

Number of Cataloged Vases in Alexiou and Warren 2004

Minimum Number of Vessels Estimated from Sherds

Y2

524

1,738

Y2a

56

188

P1

80

114

P1b

59

718

Table 5A. Summary of two ceramic assemblages from Lebena Yerokambos and Papoura (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157).

Lebena

Y2a

Y2

P1b

Bowl or Cup Conical Cup

Jug

Bowl

Juglet

Spherical Pyxis

Lid

Fruit Amphoriskos Bottle Stand

Tankard

Other Unknown Total

Lower level complete vessels

—

9

3

3

2

5

—

—

—

—

—

3

—

25

Upper level complete vessels

20

2

2

2

3

—

—

—

—

—

—

2

—

31

Lower level sherds

—

5

2

9

—

2

—

—

—

—

—

1

19

38

Upper level sherds

—

139

1

2

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

7

—

150

Total

20

155

8

16

6

7

0

0

0

0

0

13

19

EM I complete vessels

—

18

17

17

10

100

59

1

—

16

69

7

—

314

EM I or II complete vessels

—

—

1

—

3

7

7

1

2

—

—

3

—

24

EM II complete vessels

—

3

—

18

8

84

6

2

—

—

—

6

—

127

EM II–MM I complete vessels

13

5

3

6

8

2

—

—

—

—

—

2

—

39

EM III–MM I complete vessels

7

1

—

1

—

—

—

—

2

—

—

1

—

12

Unknown complete vessels

1

—

—

4

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

—

8

Sherds

51

32

25

—

2

156

48

5

—

—

110

5

1,304

1,738

Total

72

59

46

46

33

349

120

9

4

16

179

25

1,304

EM II complete vessels

—

2

—

1

—

12

4

—

—

—

—

1

—

20

EM II possible complete vessels

—

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

EM II–MM I complete vessels

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

—

—

2

—

4

Unknown complete vessels

21

1

2

3

4

—

1

—

—

—

—

2

—

34

EM II sherds

—

—

—

—

—

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2

Unknown sherds

152

117

—

21

—

12

—

—

—

—

—

40

374

716

Total

174

121

2

25

4

26

5

0

1

0

0

45

374

Table 5B. Lebena ceramic assemblage (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157).

TABLES 5B, 5C, AND 5D Bowl or Cup Conical Cup

Lebena

Jug

Bowl

Juglet

Spherical Pyxis

Lid

Fruit Amphoriskos Bottle Stand

Tankard

Other Unknown Total

EM II complete vessels

—

7

2

7

5

20

2

—

—

—

—

3

—

46

EM II–MM I complete vessels

6

1

1

2

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

3

—

14

MM I complete vessels

—

3

1

5

2

—

—

—

1

—

—

3

—

15

Unknown complete vessels

—

3

—

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

5

EM II sherds

—

—

—

—

13

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

13

MM I sherds

—

21

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

21

Unknown sherds

41

1

4

28

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

5

—

80

Total

47

36

8

44

9

33

2

0

1

0

0

14

0

P1

Table 5B, cont. Lebena ceramic assemblage (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157).

Cemetery

Tomb

Whole Ceramic Triangular Long Other Copper Gold Silver and Stone Beads Vases Daggers Daggers Items Items Lead Vases

Figurines Seals Obsidian

P1

80

900

1

1

6

2

—

4

—

25

78

P1b

59

65

—

—

3

—

—

3

2

2

11

Y2a

56

200

1

—

1

—

—

3

—

11

37

Y2

52

1,133

—

4

10

22

—

11

5

18

125

Annex

178

22

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

—

Z3

42

1

—

—

1

1

1

3

1

5

9

Lebena Papoura

Lebena Yerokambos

Lebena Zervou

Table 5C. Nonceramic assemblages from Lebena Papoura, Yerokambos, and Zervou (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–191).

Cemetery

Tomb

Stone Vase

Seal

Others

Obsidian

Bead

P1

20

3.2

8

1.03

1,138

P1b

19.67

29.5

6.56

5.36

1.1

Y2a

18.67

5.09

509

1.51

3.57

Y2

47.64

29.11

19.41

4.19

2.16

Y2 without EM I

19.09

11.67

7.78

1.68

5.40

Lebena Papoura

Lebena Yerokambos

Table 5D. Ratios of ceramic to nonceramic items: number of ceramic vessels divided by the number in each category with the exception of the last row, which excludes EM I ceramics from the ceramic vessel figure, and the last column, which is the number of beads divided by the number of ceramic vessels from Lebena Yerokambos and Papoura (based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 27–157).

TABLES 6, 7, AND 8 Moni Odigitria

Minimum Number of Ceramic Vases

Beads

Tholos A and Environs

712

332

Tholos B and Environs

478

324

Annex to Tholos B

294

Ossuary

170

Triangular Daggers

Long Daggers

Other Copper Items

Gold Silver and Items Lead

24

1

5

Other

1

17

1

Stone Vases

Figurines

Seals

Obsidian

3

4

89

4

7

Mitsotakis Collection

Ivory

2

16

191

15

2

54

2

23

127

34

4

106

49

218

2

Table 6. Moni Odigitria assemblages (based on data from Branigan and Campbell-Green 2010b).

Tholos E Archanes Phourni

This Volume1

Tholos Gamma Papadatos 2005

Burial Building 19

This Volume

Soles 1992b

EM III–MM EM III–MM MM IA– IA (early) IA (early) IIA

Burial Building 6

Burial Building 18

This Volume, Soles East Rooms 1992b

This Volume, Three South Rooms

Maggidis This Volume, This Volume, 1994 Stratum I Stratum II

Soles 1992b

MM IA– IIA

EM III– MM IA

MM IB–IIA

EM II– MM IA

EM III– MM IB

MM IA

EM III– MM IA

Period

MM IA–IIB

Number of Years

325–250

200–150

225–175

450

450

300–225

125–100

700–1,000

350–250

250

300–225

Number of Bodies Published

56

55

55

181

193

122

84

201

196

95

84

Number of Bodies Estimated (+30%)

70

69

69

159

109

Number of Nuclear Families

1–1.4

1.7–2.3

1.5–1.9

2.7–3.5

5.7–5.5

2

2.1

255

1–1.45

109

3.6–5.1

1.9

1.8–2.1

Table 7. Estimated population in various tombs at Archanes Phourni in EM III–MM II. 1Based on the chronology published by Manning (1995), and the number of bodies has been estimated including the potential number of infant remains lost due to preservation issues (Papadatos 1999).

Soles 1992b, 253, fig. 81

This Volume

Skull Count

Chronology of Use

Maximum Length of Use

Burials per 100 Years

Population Unit

Skull Count

Estimated Burials (+30%)

Chronology of Use

Length of Use (after Manning 1995)

Population Unit

MM IA–B

45

2050–1700 b.c.e.

350

13

0.65

45

59

MM IA–III

370–300

0.8–1

Zakros Pezoules Kephalas B

MM IA–B

20

2050–1700 b.c.e.

350

6

0.3

20

26

MM IA–III

370–300

0.4

Palaikastro VI

MM IA–B

15

2050–1700 b.c.e.

350

4

0.2

15

20

MM IA–B

175–100

0.6–1

Palaikastro VIIa

MM IA–B

97

2050–1700 b.c.e.

350

28

1.4

97

126

MM IA–III

370–300

1.7–2.1

Tomb

Date

Zakros Pezoules Kephalas A

Table 8. Estimated population in four MM I–II rectangular tombs in East Crete.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 1

Figures

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 2

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 3

FIGURE 1

300

Possible Secure

250 200 150

100 50 0 EM I

EM II

EM III

Figure 1. Funerary contexts in use by period.

MM IA

MM IB

MM II

Used after MM II

496 ! !494

487 ! ! 501

490 481 ! ! ! 485 483 ! 480 ! ! 484! ! 493 488 ! 498

!

489

492 !

278 279

25

50 km

204

282 158 210 194 203 201 245 307 !! ! 288 193 ! ! ! 316 ! !! 228!! ! 268 ! !! 318! 234 !!!! 237 ! ! 209 !! ! 211 463 286 271 220! 191 280 ! ! 200 242 235 227 157 ! 500! ! 461 412 417 ! ! ! 208 207 238 407 ! ! ! 416 240 199 491 ! 425 ! ! 441 434 162 !! 284 311 !! 486 !! ! ! ! ! 205 !! 270 311 ! 386 348 312 206 ! 275 160! ! ! 433 ! !!! 432 !! ! 344 ! ! ! 244 243 ! 306 309 447 ! !! !!!! ! 192 276 320 272 !! ! 419 439 438 ! 408 333 343 382 429 ! 310 385 ! 269 422 ! 274 !!! 321 345! ! 83 477 462 ! 29 103 161 281 !159 277 ! !!! 428! ! 423 465 154 !!40 150 !146 324 ! 285 189 322 ! 129 !!!!! 473 ! 48 152 318 ! 424 ! 153 ! 347 ! 13 ! 409 ! 444 !! 475 ! 44 ! 151 112 2 ! ! ! !! 47 464 474 196 !!198 410 88 ! ! 19 10 5 58 20128 301 ! 446 464 155 !!!! !!! 69 !!!! 71 376 ! 188 51 16 ! ! 131 9 134 8 !! !! 340 ! 383 479 ! ! ! 37 130 61 156 !190 !!! 50 124 !!! 426 ! !11!! 144 !89 !!! 92 90 !1 59!! ! 22 !! !!!!! !!! !!! !!! ! ! 141 111 79 43 53 36 76 82 72 142 139 42 73 28 14 74 91 143 26 ! 499

236

0

Figure 2. EM I–MM II cemeteries on Crete, with list of sites on the facing page. Numbers here correspond to gazeteer entries in Appendix A.

!! 502 503

! 497

! 482

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 4

FIGURE 2

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 5

FIGURE 2 SOUTH-CENTRAL CRETE 1 Antiskari 2 Apesokari A 5 Apesokari B 8 Apesokari C 9 Archaiokorapho 10 Aspripetra 11 Christos 13 Chroni Kalyvi 14 Chrysostomos 16 Drakones 19 Gouva 20 Hagia Eirene 22 Hagia Kyriaki 26 Hagia Kyriaki W8 28 Hagia Kyriaki W11A 29 Hagia Triada 36 Hagios Georgios 37 Hagios Kyrillos 40 Kalathiana 42 Kali Limenes A 43 Kali Limenes B 44 Kamilari A 47 Kamilari B 48 Kamilari C 50 Kaminospelio 51 Kephali Hagios Ioannes 53 Kephali Odigitrias 58 Kokkiniano 59 Korakies 61 Koumasa 69 Kouses 71 Koutsokera 72 Krotos 73 Lasaia A 74 Lasaia B 76 Lebena Papoura 79 Lebena Gerokambos 82 Lebena Zervou 83 Marathokephalon 85 Megali Skini A 89 Megali Skini B 90 Merthies 91 Miamou 92 Moni Odigitria 103 Phaistos 111 Plakoura 112 Platanos 124 Porti 128 Rizikas A 129 Rizikas B 130 Salame 131 Siva 134 Skotoumeno Charakas 139 Trypiti A 141 Trypiti B 142 Trypiti C 143 Trypiti D

144 146 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

Tsilastra Vorou A Vorou B West Mesara 4 West Mesara 14 West Mesara 15 West Mesara 64 West Mesara 81 Yialomonochoro

CENTRAL CRETE 157 Aitania 158 Anopolis 159 Aphendis Kaminaki 160 Aphendis Kastelli 161 Aphrati 162 Archanes Phourni 188 Arkalies 189 Arkalochori 190 Arvi 191 Athimari 192 Avgusti 193 Bairia Gazi 194 Eileithyia 196 Galana Charakia A 198 Galana Charakia B 199 Gonies 200 Gorgolaini 201 Gournes A 203 Gournes B 204 Hagia Marina Maleviziou 205 Hagios Charalambos 206 Hagios Myronas 207 Kalergi 208 Kalivotopos 209 Kato Vatheia 210 Katsambas 211 Knossos Ailias 220 Knossos Gypsades 227 Knossos Hutchinson tomb 228 Knossos Mavrospilio 234 Knossos Teke 235 Knossos Site 123 236 Knossos Site 148 237 Knossos Site 295 238 Krasi A 240 Krasi B 242 Krasi C 243 Kyparisi A 244 Kyparisi B 245 Malia 268 Malia Ilôt du Christ 269 Meliskipos 270 Meskine 271 Milatos 272 Mousto Latsida 274 Partira 275 Pera Vigla 276 Phrachto

277 278 279 280 281 282 284 285 286 288 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 316 317 318 319 320

Pigadistria Poros A Poros B Potamies Psychro Pyrgos Sabas Seli Siderokamino Sissi Skaphidia Skotino Sokaras Stavroplaka Stou Petra Stravomyti Trapeza Tsampi Venetis Vitsilia Yiophyrakia Zinta

MIRABELLO AREA 321 Chrysokamino 322 Evraika 324 Gournia North Cemetery 333 Gournia Sphoungaras 340 Hagia Photia Ierapetras 343 Hagios Antonios 344 Hagios Nikolaos 345 Kalo Chorio 347 Klisidi 348 Mochlos 382 Myrsini 383 Myrtos Pyrgos 385 Pacheia Ammos 386 Pseira 407 Schisma 408 Vardoiani 409 Vasiliki A 410 Vasiliki B

438 439 441 444 446 447 461 462 463 464 465 473 474 475 477 479

Palaikastro Patema Palaikastro Sarantari Palaikastro Ta Ellenika Pedino Perivolakia Petras Kephala Siteia Skalais Vamies Zakros, Acherotripa Zakros, Gorge of the Dead Zakros, Karaviadaina Zakros, Mavro Avlaki Zakros, Pezoules Kephalas Zakros, Rizes Ziros

WEST CRETE 480 Chania 481 Choraphakia 482 Ellinospilaio 483 Gerospilia 484 Hagios Ioannis 485 Kalathas 486 Kalogerospilio 487 Kato Sarakina 488 Kera Spiliotisa 489 Korakia 490 Koumarospilio 491 Maryieles 492 Melidoni Mylopotamou 493 NAMFI beach 494 Nea Roumata A 496 Nea Roumata B 497 Nopigeia 498 Perivolitsa 499 Pigi 500 Plates/Charakas 501 Platyvola 502 Vrimbokambos A 503 Vrimbokambos B

EAST CRETE 411 Chosto 412 Hagia Photia Siteias A 416 Hagia Photia Siteias B 417 Hagia Photia Siteias C 419 Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou 422 Karydi 423 Katelionas 424 Lamnoni 425 Linares 426 Livari 428 Mandalia 429 Maronia 432 Mertydia 433 Messorachi 434 Palaikastro Gravel Ridge

g GG

X

Annex Associated building Cave Chamber tomb Cist

$

X

25

D

i

#

X

$ X

X

#

Nea Roumata Open area Pithos cemetery Pit Pithos/larnax

X

!

$ #

50 km

X

g

R

# #X

Rectangular tomb Rock-cut tombs Rock shelter Tholos Unknown

Figure 3. EM I–MM II funerary contexts by type.

k A

!"

0

D

iA ggg g A!!kg gggg "g g !k! ! kg k k !g! !! !" #! !Ak! k!!!! ! kk ! k ! ! ! "! !! " ! k ""!!"! ! k!

X

Associated building 12

# ##

"" " # "#" "" " "" "i AA # " #" " i# ""# # i # """ $ ## " ""#! " " " # #g # X# iD# " ii " #" D## " "" "" # " g

g " i" "" " " "" " " ! # #" "" " XR! # "g"" "" # i"! ## " " ## X X XXX "X X ### "X##"# ## "" !! G X ! # X

Pithos cemetery 5

Pithoi/larnakes 14

Cave 38 Chamber tomb 15 Cist 11 Nea Roumata type 3 Open area 39 Pit 7

Rectangular tomb 121

Annex 25

#! ! 6i gX # RA " # 6i" """A " " i#!! A # X "X ! g DA " $! "A"AX g 6# !g g g !g #i#"" "i ! !g$ """ 6 !$g # !$ i" " g " ! k "" " ! "" i i i k ! " ! #i " ! g g!gk #X $ """ i g# i! ! "g" # XX## g $ X $X g g # X X $g gX$ # # !! # i! !! i! " X # ! !! "" ##! !i! k ! k k " "i! $ k! ! i " !!! !k !! S D ! "!i k !i !! k! X ! ! k ii ! ! ! " k! k ! k ! ! ! !! !!!

Rock shelter 73

Rock-cut tombs 2

Shaft grave 1

Tholos 98

Unknown 38

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 6

FIGURE 3

! !

!

! !

!! !

!

!

! !!

!

!!! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!!!!!

!

0

!!!

!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! !! !!!!! !

!

!

25

Sites only known through short reports, although they may still include chronological information as well as some general information of the interment type and material found

Sites known through extensive reports

Well-published sites but without a large number of secondary analyses of their material

Sites well published in recent years or sites extensively published in earlier years that have been the subject of later analyses

! !

! !

!

Figure 4. Classification of cemeteries according to data quality.

!!

!

!

! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

50 km

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 7

FIGURE 4

! Psathi

! Trypiti

! Galatas

Kastelli !

Poros Katsambas ! Tylissos Malia ! ! Knossos !

! Apodoulou Patrikies Hagia Triada !!! Phaistos ! Kommos

Monasteraki !

! Chamalevri

Figure 5. Known Pre- and Protopalatial settlements on Crete.

! Debla

25

Palaikastro !

Hagia Photia Kouphota

50 km

Priniatikos Pyrgos Petras Mochlos !! ! ! Kalo Chorio Chamaizi ! !! Chrysokamino !! Katalimata Vasiliki ! Myrtos Phournou Koriphi

0

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 8

FIGURE 5

Kommos

Galatas

Knossos-KULP

Trypiti

West Mesara

Hagiopharango South coast

Moni Odigitria

Hagios Vasilios

Figure 6. Principal archaeological surveys conducted on Crete.

Sphakia

Akrotiri-Chania

Lasithi

Malia

0

Vrokastro

Gournia

50 km

Itanos

Ziros South Coast

Praisos Katelionas Lamnoni

Hagia Photia

Kavousi

Pseira

25

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 9

FIGURE 6

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 10

FIGURES 7 AND 8

Marathokephalon Kalathiana Vorou B Hagia Triada

Kamilari B

Phaistos Cemetery

Vorou A

Rizikas B Rizikas A

Mesara M e a Valley West Mesara 81 West Mesara 4 W Kamilari Kam ri A West Mesa We Mesara 64

Gouva Kamilari C West Mesara 14 Siva K Kouses West Mesara 15 Archaiokorapho Tsilastra

ro Kalyvi K Chroni

Platanos Plat

Aspripetra Apesokari B

Skotoumeno Charakas

Apesokari A

Kokkiniano

H i Eirene Ei Hagia

Drakones

Koutsokera

Apesokari C

Porti Moni Odigitrias Salame ako ou Plakoura Miamou minos ospelio ospe os o K Kaminospelio omo mo ono o horo ho o Yialomonochoro Koumasa Ko o m s Koumasa Hagia Kyriaki Merthies M rthie Meg ega Skini S iin ini A Megali Hagios Kyrillos K ra ie Korakies Hagia Kyriaki W8 Megali Skini B Christos Antiskari Krotos Lasaia A Kephali Lebena Zervou Odigitrias Trypiti A Lasaia B Hagios Georgios Trypiti B Trypiti C Lebena Papoura Hagia Kyriaki W11 Chrysostomos Lebena Yerokambos Trypiti D Kali Limenes B 0 5 Kali Limenes A Kephali Hagios Ioannes

Asterou As Asterousia stter u usia a Mountains M Moun ou un ains untains 10 km

Figure 7. Cemeteries in the Mesara Valley, Asterousia Mountains, and south coast.

Marathokephalon Kalathiana

Vorou B

Tholos Vorou A Hagia Triada Phaistos Cemetery Rizikas B Annex Rizikas A Associated building West Mesara 81 Open area Chroni Kalyvi Kamilari A Rectangular tomb West Mesara 4 Platanos Rock shelter Kamilari B West Mesara 64 Gouva Kamilari C Siva Cave West Mesara 14 Apesokari A Hagia Eirene Kouses Pithos cemetery Aspripetra West Mesara 15 Kokkiniano Pit Drakones Apesokari B Archaiokorapho Salame Unknown Skotoumeno Charakas Apesokari C Tsilastra Porti Koutsokera Moni Odigitria Hagios Kyrillos Kaminospelio Plakoura Kephali Hagios Ioannes Koumasa Yialomonochoro Megali Skini A Antiskari Miamou Korakies Hagia Kyriaki Merthies Hagia Kyriaki W8 Megali Skini B Christos Krotos Lasaia A Kephali Trypiti D Trypiti A Lasaia B Odigitrias Chrysostomos Trypiti B Lebena Zervou Hagios Georgios Kali Limenes B Trypiti C Lebena Papoura Hagia Kyriaki W11 Kali Limenes A Lebena Yerokambos 0

Figure 8. Funerary contexts in the Mesara Valley, Asterousia Mountains, and south coast.

5

10 km

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 11

FIGURES 9 AND 10

Marathokephalon

In use in EM I Possibly in use in EM I Tholos Cave Annex Associated Building Rectangular tomb Open area Pit Unknown type

Phaistos Cemetery West Mesara 4 West Mesara 64 Siva

Aspripetra

Kouses

Hagia Eirene

Archaiokorapho Moni Odigitria Skotoumeno Charakas

Plakoura

Megali Skini A

Megali Skini B Lasaia A Kali Limenes A

Kephali Odigitrias

Salame Miamou

Kaminospelio

Yiamonolochoro Hagia Kyriaki

Koutsokera

Lasaia B Chrysostomos

Hagios Georgios

Lebena Yerokambos

Trypiti A

Kali Limenes B 0

5

10 km

Figure 9. EM I funerary contexts in South-Central Crete.

Marathokephalon In use in EM II Possibly in use in EM II Tholos Annex Associated Building Cave Rectangular tomb Open area Pit Unknown type Kephali Hagios Ioannes Yiamonolochoro Hagia Kyriaki W8 Hagia Kyriaki W11

Kalathiana

Phaistos Cemetery Hagia Triada West Mesara 4 West Mesara 64 Siva

Platanos Kouses Aspripetra

Archaiokorapho Moni Odigitrias Skotoumeno Charakas Hagia Kyriaki

Kephali Odigitrias Hagios Georgios

Kaminospelio Megali Skini B Lasaia A Lasaia B Chrysostomos

Kali Limenes A Kali Limenes B

Koutsokera Salame

Porti Miamou

Megali Skini A

Hagia Eirene

Plakoura Krotos

Koumasa

Trypiti A Lebena Zervou

Lebena Papoura Lebena Yerokambos

Figure 10. EM II funerary contexts in South-Central Crete.

0

5

10 km

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 12

FIGURE 11

Greyareas areas represent - LM buildings Gray representMM MMIIIIII–LM buildings Tholos A M

West Camerette

Annexes G E F D C B A H L I

South Camerette 5 2 10 7 6 1 8 9 4 3

Tholos B MM IA pit

Sepolcreto a ridosso della Tholos

0

10 m

NE court

EM II

EM III

MM IA

MM IB

MM II

Figure 11. Hagia Triada cemetery with development through time, modified from plan in Creta Antica 4 (2003), folded map.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 13

FIGURE 12

θήκη/Thiki

Tholos Y2

0

3m

Room east of M A

M

AN Tholos Y2a D

Room east of D

MM IA

EM I

EM IIA

EM IIB/III

Figure 12. Lebena Yerokambos cemetery with development through time, modified from Alexiou and Warren 2004, fig. 12.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 14

FIGURE 13

5

3

2 bench

Pre-tomb remains

Possible altar

1 Peribolos wall 0

5m

Hagia Kyriaki A Hagia Kyriaki B and C

EM I

C

EM II

B

MM I

0

5m

Figure 13. Hagia Kyriaki A, B, and C, modified from Blackman and Branigan 1982, 45, 47, figs. 15, 16. Includes Hagia Kyriaki A development through time.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 15

FIGURES 14 AND 15

Room 1 Northern courtyard

Tholos B

Outer courtyard

Eastern courtyard

Annex

EM I

Ossuary

Room d

Room e

Southern courtyard

Tholos A EM IIA

0

EM III and MM IA

5m

MM IB

Figure 14. Moni Odigitria cemetery, modified from Vasilakis and Branigan 2010, fig. 14. Light gray areas in small images indicate unclear dating or restricted use.

3 1 EM I cemeteries with rooms Possible EM I cemeteries with rooms EM I cemeteries without rooms Possible EM I cemeteries without rooms 9

14

Figure 15. Annexes in EM I tholos cemeteries.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 16

FIGURE 16

100%

Others Pithoi

80%

Large bowls Pedestal bowls

60%

Lids Pyxides

40%

Jars Bowls Jugs

20%

Cups

Figure 16A. Selected funerary context from South-Central Crete: Hagia Kyriaki A ceramic assemblage, based on data from Blackman and Branigan 1982, 20–39.

n= 311 100%

26

116

43

0% EM I–II

7

21

13

11 15

EM III–MM I

17

Others

80%

Pyxides Lids

60%

Juglets Jugs

40%

Goblets Cups

20%

Bowl-cups Bowls Ea st D Ro Ro om om M M sh er d s Ro om A

D er d s

Figure 16B. Selected funerary context from South-Central Crete: Lebena Yerokambos ceramic assemblage, based on data from Alexiou and Warren 2004, 57–115.

Ro om

sh

Ro om

D

m Ro o

Ro om Ro om AN lev AN el low er

Y2 a

Y2 EM II low er lev el

0%

n= 42 100%

EM III–MM I contexts 50 20 51 36

93

15

Hagia Triada 62 58 217 Unknown Others Dishes Lids Teapots

80% 60%

Jars Juglets Jugs Cups Bowls

40% 20%

Th o MMlos A I ex to Th olo sA Ca me r et te Su M d We M IA st C pi am t in er e tte An n

Figure 16C. MM I ceramic assemblages from selected funerary contexts in SouthCentral Crete.

Ap e An soka ne r i A x Dra Un kon kno es Po wn r ti Th ol o sP i Po r ti Oth er Vo r ou AT ho l os Po Vor st– ou MM Ou I in side clu de d

0%

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 17

FIGURES 17 AND 18

9

6 6

3 3

21

18 One tholos with annex

One tholos

One tholos without annex

Two tholoi

Two tholoi with annex

Three tholoi

Two tholoi without annex

Figure 17B. Annexes in EM II tholos cemeteries (possible tholoi included).

Figure 17A. Number of tholoi in EM II cemeteries (possible tholoi included).

Tomb Gamma

EM II

Area Delta Tholos A

Tholos E

Area AB Area BE Tholos B

MM I

Area Z

0

5m

Figure 18. Koumasa cemetery and development through time, modified from Xanthoudides 1924, pl. 61. Areas in the smaller plans without clear date are shaded.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 18

FIGURES 19 AND 20

Tomb Gamma

EM II

Tomb Alpha

0

Tholos Gamma

10 m

Tombs Delta and Epsilon Annex

Area AB Annex

MM I

Tholos A

Tholos B South Deposits Rooms south of Tholos A

Figure 19. Platanos cemetery, modified from Branigan 1970b, 12, fig. 2. Areas without clear date are shaded in gray.

Pavement and altar Pillar

Altar and rock “idol”

0

3m

Figure 20. Apesokari A cemetery, modified from Schörgendorfer 1951b, pl. 16.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 19

FIGURES 21 AND 22

EM IIB

EM IIA

EM III

MM IA

Hagia Kyriaki Tholos A

F

Hagia Triada Tholos A Kephali Odigitrias A Kephali Odigitrias B Koumasa Tholos B

Gap and fumigation

Lebena Papoura Tholos 1 Lebena Papoura Tholos 1b Lebena Yerokambos 2

F

Lebena Yerokambos 2a Moni Odigitria A

F

Moni Odigitria B Platanos Tholos A

Gap and fumigation

Unclear dating

In use

F

Little evidence for use

Fumigation episode

Figure 21. Trajectories of selected contexts in EM II–MM I South-Central Crete.

Marathokephalon Kalathiana Hagia Triada

In use in EM III Possibly in use in EM III Tholos Annex Associated building Rectangular tomb Open area Unknown type

Vorou A

Phaistos West Mesara 64 Siva

Kouses

Platanos

Aspripetra

Apesokari A

Archaiokorapho Skotoumeno Charakas Moni Odigitria

Kephali Hagios Ioannes Yialomonochoro Megali Skini B Hagia Kyriaki Kephali Odigitrias Hagia Kyriaki W11

Drakones

Porti

Koumasa Kaminospelio Hagios Kyrillos Plakoura Megali Skini A Krotos Antiskari Christos Chrysostomos Lasaia A Lebena Zervou Lebena Yerokambos

Kali Limenes B

Lebena Papoura 0

Figure 22. Funerary contexts in use in EM III in South-Central Crete.

5

10 km

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 20

FIGURES 23 AND 24

Larnax

DD1

DD2

D1

Pithoi DD3

Pithoi

D2

Larnax

0

0

3m

3m

Vorou A

Vorou B

Figure 23. Tholos tombs at Vorou A and Vorou B, modified from Marinatos 1931, 139, 142, figs. 2, 5.

Marathokephalon

In use in MM IA Possibly in use in MM IA Tholos Annex Associated building Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithos cemetery Unknown type

Hagia Triada

Vorou B

Kalathiana

Phaistos Cemetery

Vorou A

West Mesara 81 Kamilari A

West Mesara 64

Kamilari C

Kouses Siva

Platanos Aspripetra

Apesokari A

Apesokari B Skotoumeno Chararakas Porti Moni Odigitrias Hagios Kyrillos Kephali Hagios Ioannes Korakies Kaminospelio Christos Hagia Kyriaki Megali Skini A Antiskari Hagia Kyriaki W11 Megali Skini B Kephali Lasaia A Lebena Zervou Odigitrias Hagia Kyriaki W8

Lebena Yerokambos

Hagia Eirene Drakones

Koumasa

Lebena Papoura

Chrysostomos 0

Figure 24. Funerary contexts in use in MM IA in South-Central Crete.

5

10 km

EM I EM II

0

10 m

EM III

MM IA

MM IA

MM I

MM IB

MM IB

Figure 25. Development through time of selected cemeteries in South-Central Crete. Gray shaded areas mark contexts possibly in use. Scale applies to all plans.

Platanos

Hagia Triada

Koumasa

Hagia Kyriaki A

Lebena Yerokambos

Moni Odigitria

Cemetery

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 21

FIGURE 25

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 22

FIGURES 26 AND 27

Marathokephalon Vorou B

Kalathiana In use in MM IB Possibly in use in MM IB Tholos Annex Associated building Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithos cemetery Unknown type

Vorou A

Hagia Triada Phaistos Cemetery

Kamilari A Kamilari C West Mesara 15

West Mesara 81 West Mesara 4 West Mesara 64 West Mesara 14

Siva

Kouses

Platanos

Aspripetra

Apesokari A

Hagia Eirene Drakones

Apesokari B Porti Skotoumeno Charakas Koumasa Hagios Kyrillos Kaminospelio Korakies Megali Skini A Antiskari Christos Megali Skini B Lasaia A Lebena Zervou

Moni Odigitrias

Kephali Hagios Ioannes Hagia Kyriaki Hagia Kyriaki W11 Kephali Odigitrias Hagia Kyriaki W8

Chrysostomos

Lebena Papoura

Lebena Yerokambos 0

5

Figure 26. Funerary contexts in use in MM IB in South-Central Crete.

gamma beta Pi alpha

0

3m

Figure 27. Porti Tholos Pi, modified from Xanthoudides 1924, pl. 52.

10 km

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 23

FIGURE 28

Ramp

00

m 33m

Figure 28. Kouses cemetery, modified from Hadzi-Vallianou 1989, 434, fig. 4.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 24

FIGURE 29

300

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Number of objects

PLATANOS

Tholos A

South deposits

Copper ornament Ceramic vessel Stone vessel Dagger Gold Silver Figurine Copper tool Beads

Outside areas (including MM II to LM I)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Unknown (probably not from the tholos)

APESOKARI A

Tholos

Annex

HAGIA TRIADA

South Camerette

Annex to Tholos A

Number of objects

Tholos Pi

Seal

110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

PORTI

Tholos B

VOROU A

Tholos

Number of objects

Around Tholos A

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Number of objects

Number of objects

Number of objects

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Tholos A (EM II to MM I)

Sepolcreto

MM I THOLOI

Vorou A

Porti Pi

Drakones Delta

Apesokari A

Figure 29. MM I deposits in selected funerary contexts.

Platanos A

Lebena Zervou

Hagia Triada A (EM II to MM I)

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 25

FIGURES 30 AND 31

Recinto delle offerte Altar

Probable MM III walls g

b a Annex

Tholos

e d 0

5m

Figure 30. Kamilari A cemetery, modified from La Rosa 1992, 112, fig. 14.1.

Pithos burials in rectangular tomb Pithos burials in tholos Pithos burials in annex

Marathokephalon

Vorou B

Larnax burials in tholos Pithos and larnax burials in annex Pithos and larnax burials in rectangular tomb Pithos and larnax burials in tholos Pithos cemetery

Hagia Triada

Vorou A

Phaistos Cemetery Kamilari A

West Mesara 64

West Mesara 14 Siva

Pithos in unknown context

Apesokari B Porti

Kephali Hagios Ioannes Hagia Kyriaki Lebena Zervou

0

5

10 km

Figure 31. Larnax and pithos burials in South-Central Crete.

Hagia Eirene

Drakones

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 26

FIGURES 32, 33, AND 34

Kalathiana Vorou B Phaistos Cemetery

Hagia Triada

MM II Possible MM II Tholos Annex Associated building Open area Rectangular tomb Pithos cemetery Unknown type

West Mesara 81 West Mesara 4 West Mesara 64 West Mesara 14 Kamilari C Siva West Mesara 15

Kamilari A Kamilari B

Moni Odigitria

Kephali Hagios Ioannis

Apesokari A Apesokari B

Koumasa

Megali Skini A Lebena Zervou

Hagia Kyriaki W11

5

Platanos

Porti

Hagia Kyriaki W8

0

Vorou A

10 km

Figure 32. Funerary contexts in use in MM II in South-Central Crete.

100

80

Secure Possible

90

70

80

60

70 60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20 10

10

0

0 EM I

EM II

EM III

MM IA

MM IB

MM II

Figure 33. Number of funerary contexts in use by period in South-Central Crete.

MM I

MM I–II MM I–III MM II MM II–III

Figure 34. Number of ceramic vessels in Kamilari A by period following published material in Levi 1963.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 27

FIGURES 35 AND 36

Vorou B MM III Possible MM III Tholos Annex Open area Rectangular tomb Pithos cemetery Unknown type

Phaistos Cemetery

Kamilari A Kamilari B Kamilari C

Vorou A

West Mesara 81 West Mesara 4 West Mesara 15

Platanos

Siva

Apesokari A

Hagia Eirene

Koumasa

Megali Skini A

0

5

10 km

Figure 35. Funerary contexts from earlier periods in use in MM III and LM I in South-Central Crete. Cemetery included in Chapter 5 Cemetery included in other chapters

Knossos Teke Knossos Site 148 Poros Katsambas

Mesara M e

Dikt

i Mo

unta

ins

silor

itis

Anopolis Eileithyia Gournes B Pyrgos Hagia Marina Maleviziou Gournes A Malia Ilôt du Christ Tsampi Knossos Bairia Gazi Knossos Ailias Skotino Site 295 Yiophyrakia Sissi Knossos Site 123 Kato Vatheia Milatos Knossos Hutchinson tomb Knossos Mavrospilio Malia Knossos Gypsades Athimari Potamies Siderokamino Aitania Archanes Phourni Kalivotopos Krasi C Krasi B Hagios Myronas Stravomyti Sabas Avdou Kyparisi A Kalergi Krasi A Pera Vigla Gorgolaini Kyparisi B Aphendis Kastelli Venetis Gonies Trapeza Skaphidia Phrachto Lasithi Hagios Charalambos Meliskipos Meskine eliskip Avgusti Plateau ea eau Mousto Latsida Stou Petra Psychro Aphrati Zinta Pigadistria Aphendis Kaminaki Stavroplaka Partira Seli Arkolochori Vitsilia Sokaras Galana Charakia A Arkalies

Galana Charakia B Arvi

0

Figure 36. Cemeteries in North-Central and Central Crete.

5

10 km

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 28

FIGURES 37 AND 38

0

Poros

5

Katsambas Kn Hutchinson tomb

Eileithyia

Pyrgos Gournes B

10 km

Sissi Malia Ilôt du Christ Malia

Hagia Marina Maleviziou Kn Teke Gournes A Bairia Gazi Kn Site 123 Kn Site 148 Tsampi Skotino Yiophyrakia Anopolis Kn Ailias Kn Mavrospelio Kn Site 295 Kato Vatheia Milatos Kn Gypsades Athimari Potamies Archanes Phourni Kalivotopos Siderokamino Aitania Krasi C Hagios Myronas Kalergi Krasi B Stravomyti Gonies Krasi A Avdou Sabas Kyparisi A Pera Vigla Aphendis Kastelli Venetis Trapeza Kyparisi B Gorgolaini Meskine Skaphidia Phrachto Hagios Charalambos Psychro Avgusti Stavroplaka Meliskipos Stou Petra Aphrati Zinta Pigadistria Rectangular tomb Partira Mousto Latsida Seli Rock shelter Aphendis Kaminaki Vitsilia Pit Arkolochori Associated building Open area Tholos Galana Charakia B Cist Sokaras Cave Unknown Galana Charakia A Pithos/larnax Arkalies Annex Chamber tomb Arvi Rock-cut tomb cemetery Pithos cemetery

Figure 37. Funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. Context in use in EM I Context in possible use in EM I 0

5

10 km

Gournes B Eileithyia

Pyrgos

Cave Rock-cut tomb cemetery Tholos Rock shelter Open area Unknown

Skotino

Milatos Krasi A tholos

Stravomyti

Gonies

Kyparisi A

Krasi A paved area Trapeza Trapeza Kastellos Trench 11 Skaphidia

Hagios Charalambos Arkolochori Partira Vitsilia

Figure 38. EM I funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 29

FIGURES 39 AND 40

Paved path

0

2m Figure 39. Krasi A tholos, modified from Marinatos 1929b, 104, fig. 2.

Sissi Rock Shelter B 0

5

10 km

Kn Ailias Site 278

Katsambas Hagia Marina Maleviziou

Malia Underwater Building

Sissi Spaces 1.9 and 1.10

Sissi Space 1.15 Eileithyia rock shelter Sissi Space 1.4 Malia Tomb triangulaire 2 Kn Site 123 Malia Chambre funéraire Kn Ailias Site 259 Tsampi Kn Mavrospilio Site 250 Anopolis Kn Mavrospilio Site 254 Kato Vatheia Kn Ailias V Sissi Space 1.5 Kn Ailias site 260 Kn Mavrospilio Site 249 Kn Gypsades Site 313 Sissi Rock Shelter C Kn Site 148 Potamies Malia Ossuary 1965 Athimari Kn Gypsades Site 307 Sissi Rock Shelter A Aitania Siderokamino Annex Kalivotopos Kalergi Krasi C Phourni BB 22 Avdou Krasi B Pera Vigla Aphendis Kastelli Gorgolaini Venetis Phrachto Stavroplaka Psychro Mousto Latsida B

EM date MM date Unknown date

Mousto Latsida A Aphendis Kaminaki Seli

Annex Cave Pit Pithos/larnax Tholos Rock cut Rectangular tomb Unknown type Associated context

Figure 40. Funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete of unclear dating.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 30

FIGURES 41, 42, AND 43

Skaphidia

Trapeza

Tzermiado Village

Kastello

0

0

1 km

2m

Figure 41. Funerary contexts in the Trapeza area, modified from Pendlebury, Pendlebury, and Money-Coutts 1939, 15, fig. 3; 1940, 4, figs. 1, 2.

0

20 m

Figure 42. Stravomyti Cave, modified from Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 29, drawing 3. Not to scale.

Figure 43. Psychro Cave, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 12, fig. 4.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 31

FIGURES 44, 45, AND 46

0

Figure 44. Skotino Cave, modified from Tyree et al. 2008, 52, fig. 1. Not to scale.

0

12 m

Figure 45. Milatos Cave, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 66, fig. 25.

15 m

Figure 46. Eileithyia Cave, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 22, fig. 7.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 32

FIGURE 47

Bowl Pyxis Jug 44

Kernos Bottle Tankard

32

11

39

Fruit stand Teapot Jar

56

40

67

Dish Others

Ceramic items

160

Nonceramic items

140 120

205

Number of objects

100%

Cup Lid Chalix/ goblet

80% 60% 40%

100 80 60 40 20

20%

0 ra

Pa rt i

Ky pa ris i

A

0%

Krasi A Non DGB Tholos DGB

Non DGB Trapeza Cave DGB EM I–II

Eileithyia Cave

Kyparisi A

Krasi A Tholos

Pyrgos

Pyrgos Cave

Tholos Tholos E Gamma EM IIA EM IIA Archanes-Phourni

Figure 47A. EM I wares by shape from the best-known contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 47B. Number of published objects from the bestknown EM I–IIA contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Total Number of Objects

Others

Obsidian

Gold

Ivory

Figurines

Silver-lead

100%

31

38

10

146

Copper

38

Ratio

Contexts Nonceramic

Ceramic

Nonceramic

Ceramic

Krasi A tholos

31

39

1

1.2

Pyrgos

38

107

1

2.8

Kyparisi A

10

44

1

4.4

Archanes-Phourni Tholos Gamma

146

101

1.4

1

Archanes-Phourni Tholos E

38

64

1

1.7

Trapeza (EM I–MM I)

135

522

1

3.9

135

80% 60% 40% 20%

A

Pyrgos

Ky par isi

Kra Lo si A we t st l holos ev els

0%

Tholos E Trapeza Tholos (EM I–MM I) Gamma Archanes-Phourni EM IIA

Figure 47C. Nonceramic assemblages from EM I and EM IIA contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Figure 47D. Ratio of ceramic and nonceramic objects from various EM I–IIA contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 33

FIGURES 48 AND 49

0 Eileithyia Cave Pyrgos rock shelter

5

10 km

Sissi Spaces 1.20/1.21/1.23/1.25/1.28 Sissi Spaces 1.11/1.12/1.24

Malia 1er Charnier Kn Teke Pyrgos Cave Sissi Space 1.13 Kn Gypsades 330 Phourni BB18 Malia Western ossuary Phourni Tholos E Phourni Tholos Gamma Siderokamino Phourni Area of the Rocks Phourni Area Krasi A Tholos between BB18–BB19 Phourni BB26 Krasi A paved area Kalergi Hagios Myronas Phourni BB25 Kyparisi A

Stravomyti Kyparisi B

Trapeza Cave Trapeza Kastellos trench 4

Hagios Charalambos

Pigadistria

Zinta Arkalochori Vitsilia Context in use in EM II Context possibly in use in EM II Tholos Rectangular tomb Cave Rock shelter Cist Pithoi Unknown

Arvi

Figure 48. EM II funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

Contexts possibly in use Contexts in use

120

Number of contexts

100 80 60 40 20 0

Figure 49. Number of funerary contexts in use in North-Central and Central Crete by period.

EM I

EM II EM III MM IA MM IB MM II

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 34

FIGURE 50

0 Eileithyia Cave Pyrgos rock shelter Kn Teke Phourni BB18 Phourni Tholos Gamma Phourni Area between BB18–BB19

Pyrgos Cave

Malia 1er Charnier

Siderokamino

Phourni BB25

Kyparisi A

Stravomyti Kyparisi B

Trapeza Cave Trapeza Kastellos trench 4

Hagios Charalambos

Pigadistria

Zinta Context in use in EM II without an accurate dating Context in use only in EM IIA Context in use only in EM IIB Tholos Rectangular tomb Cave Rock shelter Cist Open area Pithos cemetery Unknown

Vitsilia

Sissi Space 1.13 Malia Western ossuary

Krasi A Tholos Krasi A paved area

Phourni BB26

Hagios Myronas

10 km

Sissi Spaces 1.20/1.22/1.23/1.25/1.28 Sissi Spaces 1.11/1.12/1.24

Kn Gypsades 330 Phourni Tholos E Phourni Area of the Rocks

5

Arkolochori

Arvi

Figure 50. EM IIA–IIB funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 35

FIGURE 51

0

500 m

Teke

Estimated size of Protopalatial city Estimated size of EM I–II settlement Site 123 3 Mavrospilio, IV, IX, XVII Mavrospilio 249, 250, 254

Hutchinson Tomb

Ailias I, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX Site 148 Ailias 260, 259

EM MM Both Tholos Associated building Pithos/larnakes Rock shelter Chamber tomb Unknown

Gypsades 313 307 Building II Tholos 330

Site 295

Ailias 278

Gypsades XVIII and Sunken Court

Modern riverbed Modern road 20 m contour

Figure 51. Cemeteries in the Knossos area, modified from Whitelaw 2004b, 154, fig. 10.4.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 36

FIGURE 52

0

5

10 km

Pyrgos Cave Knossos Teke

Gournes B

Phourni Tholos Gamma

Eileithyia rock shelter

Phourni Area of the Rocks Phourni Tholos E

Kyparisi A

Krasi A

Kyparisi B

Trapeza EM I–MM I Zinta

1–10 Metal objects

1–2 Figurines

11–25

3–6

25–80

7–9

Cycladic style ceramics/stone vessels Other EM I–IIA funerary contexts

Figure 52. Off-island materials in EM I–IIA funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 37

FIGURE 53

EM II

B

6

Annex

12

7

23

5 Area of the Rocks

EM IIA EM II EM IIA and EM IIB

8

3

9

25

26

13

22 Gamma

EM III

24

18

19 E

Walls

16

Walls underneath later building

EM III Paved area Possible EM III MM IA

MM IA Paved area Possible MM IA

Paved areas Deposition of ceramics 0

MM IB

MM IB Paved area Possible MM IB

10

20 m

MM II

MM II Paved area

Figure 53. Archanes-Phourni cemetery, modified from Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 152, drawing 35.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 38

FIGURE 54

Unknown

Other

Tumbler

Bottle

Lid

Bowl

Pyxis

Jug

Goblet

Dish

Cup

Fruit stand

100%

Spouted bowl

2

5 8

13 7

9

21

3

80%

2 4

8

5

60%

14

19

59

6

12

3

28

4

40% 14

3

65

4

26 5

20%

12

13

6

36

1

0% EM I

EM I–II

EM II

EM II–III

Figure 54. Development of the ceramic assemblage at Trapeza Cave through time.

EM III–MM I

Submerged Building

Tholos

Fosse aux Trompettes Terrasses Occidentales

0

Tombs Triangulaires no. 1 and 2

Hagia Varvara Island

Hagia Varvara Coastline

Minoan building not related to cemetery

Other context

Tomb

Chrysolakkos I and II Eastern Ossuary 2 Chambre Funéraire Cist 10 Tomb à Puits no.1

100 m

Troisième Charnier

50

Eastern Ossuary 1

Second Charnier

Maison des Morts

Premier Charnier

Western Ossuary

Palace

Deposit Bord de Mer 1965 Ossuary

Quatrième Charnier

Ilôt du Christ ·

1 km

Figure 55. Malia cemetery, modified from van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan 3, and École Française d’Athènes 1974, folded map.

0

Area of the cemetery

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 39

FIGURE 55

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 40

FIGURE 56

350

980

100%

Number of vessels

300 250

34

5

80%

200

100

Unknown

13

33

0%

25 BB19

Outside BB6

Tholos E

Tholos Gamma

Figure 56B. Percentage of ceramic vessels by period in the three best-known tombs at Archanes Phourni. BB = Burial Building.

Figure 56A. Number of MM I–II ceramic vessels by tomb at Archanes Phourni. BB = Burial Building.

14

51

142

144

499

320

138 Other Unknown Jar Jug Goblet/Tumbler Cup Tripod Bridge-spouted jar Bowl

80% 60% 40% 20%

140 120

Number of Items

100 80 60

Tholos Gamma

M

M

IB –

M M

IIA

IA

0% EM St r III atu –M m M 1 IA EM Str at III um –M M 2 IA

Figure 56C. Ceramic shapes represented in EM III–MM II assemblages at Archanes Phourni. BB = Burial Building.

MM I

88

20%

An ne Th x Th olo olo sG sB am T h ma olo sE BB 5 Ou tsi BB6 de BB 6 BB 7 BB BB 8– 8 BB 9 BB BB 9 1 BB 2 13 BB 18 Ar ea B o EM f th B19 II– e R MM oc II ks

MM I–II 814

50

n= 36 100%

141 MM II

24

136

40%

0

19

6 31

60%

150

3

BB19

MM I–II Tholos E

MM IA

MM IB

MM II

Outside BB6

Stone vase Silver and lead Sealing Seal Obsidian Ivory Gold Figurine Copper

40 20

Th ol o Th s B ol A os nn G ex a Th mm ol a os BBE O ut B 5 si B de 6 BB BB 6 7 BB BB 8– 8 BB 9 BB BB 9 1 BB 2 1 BB 3 18 Ar BB EM ea 19 IIA of t –M he r M oc II ks Th T ol ho os l o G sE am m a

0

EM III–MM II

EM IIA

Figure 56D. Nonceramic assemblage by period at Archanes Phourni. BB = Burial Building.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 41

FIGURE 57

Sissi Spaces 1.20/1.22/1.23/1.25/1.28 Sissi Spaces 1.7/1.8/1.16/1.31

0

5

Sissi Spaces 1.1/1.2/1.3

10 km

Malia 3e Charnier

Sissi Spaces 1.9/1.10

Malia 2nd Charnier Knossos Site 330

Eileithyia Cave

Malia 1er Charnier

Sissi Space 1.30 Sissi Space 1.6 Phourni BB12 Phourni Tholos Gamma Sissi Spaces 1.11/1.12/1.24 Phourni BB18 Siderokamino Phourni BB6 Phourni BB13 Malia Chrysolakkos I Phourni BB24 Phourni area between BB18–BB19 Malia Western Ossuary Stravomyti Phourni outside BB12 Hagios Myronas Krasi A Tholos Phourni Area of the Rocks

Yiophyrakia

Kyparisi B

Phourni BB5 Phourni BB19

Krasi Koprani paved area

Sabas

Trapeza

Hagios Charalambos Mousto Latsida

Pigadistria

Zinta Vitsilia Context in use in EM III Context possibly in use in EM III Tholos Rectangular tomb Cave Rock shelter Open area Pithos/larnakes Unknown

Galana Charakia A Rock Shelter B Galana Charakia A Rock Shelter A Galana Charakia B

Figure 57. EM III funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. BB = Burial Building.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 42

FIGURE 58

0

5

10 m

Other walls Phase I wall Pavement from Phase I Kernos from Phase I Other Phase I features Possible Phase II walls Phase II walls Kernos from Phase II

Figure 58A. Chrysolakkos, modified from Demargne 1945, pls. 38.1, 38.2, 52.2.

I

II

0

VII

VIII

VI III

IV

Walls

IX V

5

Cist Burial pithos

Figure 58B. Maison des morts, modified from van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1963, plan 3.

10 m

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 43

FIGURES 59 AND 60

Poros Ikaros Avenue Kn Ailias V Kn Ailias VII

Kn Ailias I

0

5

10 km

Kn Site 148

Sissi 1.11/1.12/1.13 Eileithyia rock shelter Malia Tomb Triangulaire 1 Pyrgos Cave Sissi 1.18 Malia Ilôt du Christ Sissi 1.1/1.2 /1.3 Hagia Marina Maleviziou Sissi 1.17 Kn Ailias IX Anopolis Tsampi Kn Mavrospelio site 250 Kn Ailias VI Kn Ailias VIII Kn Mavrospelio XVII Sissi 1.29 Kn Hutchinson tomb Kn Mavrospelio site 249 IX Malia tholos Sissi 9.1/9.2/9.3/9.4 Phourni BB12 Phourni BB9 Kn Mavrospelio Aitania Hagios Myronas Phourni BB7 Malia Maison des Morts Phourni BB6 Kalivotopos Phourni BB5 Phourni Area of the Rocks Potamies Phourni Tholos E Phourni Tholos B annex Krasi A tholos Stravomyti Phourni BB18 Kyparisi B Phourni Area BB18–BB19 Phourni Area between BB8–BB9 Phourni Tholos Gamma Trapeza outside Trapeza Cave Phourni BB19 Phourni BB16 Meskine Meliskipos Stavroplaka Bairia Gazi

Pithoi and larnakes Pithoi Larnakes Tholos Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithoi/larnakes Cave Unknown Pit Pithos cemetery Rock cut Open space Annex

Vitsilia

Aphrati

Pigadistria Mousto Latsida A Aphendis Kaminaki

Galana Charakia A rock shelter B Sokaras

Galana Charakia A rock shelter A

Galana Charakia B Tholos Arkalies

Figure 59. Pithos and larnax burials in North-Central and Central Crete. Malia Tomb Triangulaire 1 Malia Terrases Occidentales Malia Cist 10 Malia Second Charnier Malia Eastern Ossuary II Malia Hagia Varvara island 0 5 10 km Malia Deposit Bord de Mer Malia Troisieme Charnier Malia Eastern Ossuary I Malia Chrysolakkos II Malia Fosse aux Trompettes Malia Hagia Varvara coast Poros Ikaros Avenue Malia Maison des Morts Malia Chrysolakkos I Malia Quatriéme Charnier Malia Premier Charnier Eileithyia cave Malia Western Ossuary Malia Tomb à Puits 1 Sissi 1.7/1.8/1.16/1.31 Kn Hutchinson tomb Bairia Gazi Gournes A Tomb A Sissi 1.1/1.2/1.3 Kn Site 123 Sissi 1.9/1.10 Yiophyrakia Kn Ailias 278 Gournes A Ieros Lakos Malia La tholos Kn Gypsades Site 330 Phourni BB 9 Sissi 1.13 Sissi 1.18 Phourni BB 19 Phourni Tholos B Sissi 1.17 Malia Ilôt du Christ Sissi 1.30 Sissi 1.11/1.12/1.24 Phourni Tholos Gamma Phourni BB 3 Sissi 9.1/9.2/9.3/9.4 Sissi Rock Shelter A Phourni BB 18 Phourni BB 5 Phourni BB 22 Phourni Area outside BB 6 Siderokamino Phourni BB 6 Phourni BB 16 Sissi 1.20/1.22/1.23/1.25/1.28 Phourni Area of the Rocks Stravomyti Krasi A paved area Krasi A Tholos Phourni BB 12 Phourni BB 7 Sabas Hagios Myronas Phourni Area between Tholos B and BB 8 Kiparisi B Trapeza outside Phourni Area between BB 8–BB9 Phourni Area outside BB 12 Trapeza Phourni BB 8 Phourni Tholos E Hagios Charalambos Seli Meskine Phourni Annex to Tholos B Phourni Area between BB18–BB19 Meliskipos Phourni BB 23 Phourni BB 13 Avgusti Stavroplaka Stou Petra MM I context Aphrati MM IA context Mousto Latsida Pigadistria MM IB context Aphendis Kaminaki Possible MM I context Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pit Associated building Open area Tholos Cave Unknown Pithos/larnax Annex Pithos cemetery

Sokaras

Galana Charakia A Rock shelter B

Galana Charakia A Rock shelter A

Galana Charakia B

Arkalies

Figure 60. MM I funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 44

FIGURES 61 AND 62

Nonceramic items Ceramic vessels

Ieros Lakkos

100%

3

1 3

80% 60% 40% 0

43

27

1

5

11 6

6 5

20%

5m

1

1 15 10

32

9

5

8

8

Pr em Se ier C c Ea ond harn st e C ier W rn O harn es ter ssu ier ar n Tr Oss y I ian u gu ary lai La re Th 1 Ma olo i so P n d ui s t e Ch s s1 Te rys Mo rra ola rts ss kk es os Oc cid en ta Fo B les ss ord C e a d ist e 1 ux 0 l Tr a M om er pe tte s

0% Tomb A

Figure 61. Gournes A cemetery modified from Hazzidakis 1915, 59, 60, figs. 1, 2; Soles 1992b, 150, fig. 62.

Figure 62A. MM I–II assemblages from Malia.

35 Terracota Stone vessel Seal Ornament Marble Gold Bronze Bone

30 25 20 15 10 5

Pr em ie Se r Ch co ar nie Ea nd C r st e ha rn rn i er W Os es ter sua n O ry I s Tr ian sua gu ry lai re La 1 Th olo Ma s i so P n d uits e 1 Te sM rra Ch or r ss ts es ysol Oc akk cid os en ta les Bo Fo C i r s ss dd t ea e l 10 ux a M Tr om er pe tte s

0

100%

Figure 62B. Nonceramic assemblages at MM I–II Malia.

32

28

80%

Other Jug

60%

Cup

40%

Bridge-spouted jar Bowl

20% 0%

Figure 62C. Percentage of vessel shapes in EM III–MM II ceramic assemblages from Malia.

Premier Charnier Second Charnier (EM III–MM I)

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 45

FIGURES 63 AND 64

Malia Troisieme Charnier 0

5

Malia Terrases Occidentales

10km

Sissi 1.7/1.8/1.16/1.31 Poros Ikaros Avenue Poros 14th public school Malia Quatriéme Charnier Sissi Rock Shelter A Kn Hutchinson tomb Katsambas Sissi 1.1/1.2/1.3 Malia Second Charnier Kn Ailias Site 278 Malia Deposit bord de Mer Kn Site 123 Sissi 1.13 Kn Mavrospilio Site 249 Kn Ailias VII Eileithyia Cave Kn Mavrospelio IX Malia Chrysolakkos II Kn Mavrospelio IV Sissi 1.17 Kn Ailias IX Kn Mavrospelio XVII Kn Ailias VI Malia Fosse aux Trompettes Sissi 1.18 Kn Ailias V Kn Mavrospilio Site 254 Anopolis Malia Ilôt du Christ Kn Ailias VIII Kn Mavrospilio Site 250 Sissi 1.29 Kn Ailias I Kn Site 148 Malia Western ossuary Aitania Sissi 1.30 Kn Gypsades Site 313 Siderokamino Kn Ailias Site 259 Kn Gypsades XVIII Sissi 1.11/1.12/1.24 Malia Tomb Triangulaire 1 Kn Ailias site 260 Kn Gypsades Site 307 Kn Gypsades Tholos Sissi 9.1/9.2/9.3/9.4 Kn Gypsades XVIII sunken court Malia Tomb à Puits 1 Stravomyti Kn Gypsades Tholos Building II Sissi 1.20/1.22/1.23/1.25/1.28 Pigadistria Trapeza Phourni BB19 Phourni Tholos Gamma Phourni Area outside BB6 Hagios Charalambos Meliskipos Stou Petra Stavroplaka Phourni BB18 Phourni Tholos E Phourni BB3 Aphrati Context in use in MM II Phourni Tholos B Mousto Latsida Context possibly in use in MM II Phourni Annex to Tholos B Aphendis Kaminaki Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pit Associated building Open area Sokaras Tholos Cave Galana Charakia B Unknown Pithos/larnax Annex Chamber tomb Pithos cemetery

Figure 63. MM II funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. Kn = Knossos. BB = Burial Building.

Tomb XVII

0

2m

Tomb IX

Tomb XVII

0

2m

Tomb IX

0

50 m

Figure 64. Tombs in the Knossos area: Mavrospilio. Modified from Forsdyke 1927, 244, 265, 277, figs. 1, 19, 32.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 46

FIGURES 65 AND 66

Sunken court

0

2m

Figure 65. Tomb in the Knossos area: Gypsades XVIII. Modified from Hood, Huxley, and Sandars 1959, 221, fig. 21; Hood 2010.

Trial Trenches

Tomb VI 0

20 m

I

VII

0

2m

0

2m

Tomb VII

VI

Stairs V

Figure 66. Tombs in the Knossos area: Ailias Cemetery. Modified from Hood 2010, 163, fig. 16.2.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 47

FIGURES 67 AND 68

Nonceramic objects Ceramic vessels

980

350

Number of objects

300 250 200 150 100

Malia EM III–MM II

Archanes-Phourni EM III–MM II

Phourni Tholos E

Phourni Tholos Gamma

Krasi Koprani Pyrgos Kipyrisi Tichida

Terrasses Occidentales Cist 10 Bord de la Mer Fosse aux Trompettes

Puits 1 Maison des Morts Chrysolakkos

Eastern Ossuaries Western Ossuary Triangulaire 1 Tholos

Premier Charnier Second Charnier

Area of the Rocks (EM IIA–MM II)

BB8–BB9 BB9 BB12 BB13 BB18 BB19

BB7 BB8

Tholos Gamma Tholos E BB5 BB6 Outside BB6

0

Tholos B Annex

50

Other EM I–IIA

Figure 67. EM I–MM II assemblages in various funerary contexts in North-Central and Central Crete. BB = Burial Building.

0

5

10 km

Mirabello and Ierapetra Lasithi

Mirabello Bay

Dikti

Cemeteries Other sites Boundary of modern Lasithi Prefecture

Orno

Thriphti Modern Ierapetra Myrtos Phournou Koriphi

Figure 68. Mirabello Bay, Ierapetra area, and East Crete.

East Crete

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 48

FIGURES 69 AND 70

0

5

10 km

Schisma

Hagios Nikolaos Vardoiani

Mochlos Pseira Hagios Antonios Chrysokamino

Kalo Chorio Gournia Sphoungaras Gournia North Cemetery Klisidi

Myrsini

Pacheia Ammos Evraika

Vasiliki A Vasiliki B

Myrtos Pyrgos

Hagia Photia Ierapetras

Figure 69. Cemeteries in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions. Tholos Associated building Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Cave Pithos cemetery Cist Unknown

Mochlos pavement outside IV/V/VI Mochlos VIII Mochlos X Mochlos IV/V/VI Mochlos IX Mochlos XI 0 5 10 km Mochlos XVII Mochlos XII Mochlos XVIII Mochlos XIV Mochlos Delta Mochlos VII Mochlos Zeta Mochlos XIX Mochlos XIII Mochlos Gamma Mochlos Beta Mochlos XXII Pseira XII Mochlos Theta Mochlos Alpha Mochlos Εpsilon Mochlos Eta Pseira XVI Mochlos Iota Pseira IX Pseira East Area Mochlos Nu Pseira XIII Pseira IV Mochlos XXIII Mochlos XI Schisma Pseira VII Mochlos XX/XXI Pseira NW Pseira XVII Mochlos Kappa Area Pseira VIII Mochlos I/II/III Pseira XVIII Pseira V Mochlos unnamed Pseira VI Mochlos Mu Pseira III Pseira X Mochlos Lambda Pseira II Pseira XI Mochlos XVI Pseira XV Hagios Nikolaos Pseira XIVPseira I Mochlos XV Pseira XIX Vardoiani Gournia S. Deposit B Gournia S. Deposit A Myrsini Gournia S. I Hagios Antonios Gournia S. II Gournia S. IV Gournia S. MM I deposit Chrysokamino Kalo Chorio I Gournia S. Pithos cemetery Gournia N.C. area outside II Kalo Chorio II Pacheia Ammos Gournia N.C. I Evraika II Gournia N.C. II Gournia N.C. VI Evraika I Gournia N.C. VII Klisidi Gournia N.C. V Vasiliki A Gournia N.C. III Vasiliki B Gournia N.C. VIII Gournia N.C. IV Hagia Photia Ierapetras I Myrtos Pyrgos tomb Hagia Photia Ierapetras II Myrtos Pyrgos pavement outside tomb

Hagia Photia Ierapetras III

Figure 70. Funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 49

FIGURES 71 AND 72

0

5

10 km

Pseira XIII Pseira east area Pseira NW area Pseira IV Pseira II Pseira I Pseira IX Pseira VII Pseira III Pseira VI Pseira X

EM I Possible EM I Possible tomb Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Cist Cave

Pseira V Pseira XVI Pseira XV

Hagios Antonios Chrysokamino Gournia S. Rock Shelters I and II Klisidi

Hagia Photia Ierapetras I

Figure 71. EM I funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Stone vases 2

Stone necklace 1 Bronze 6

Silver 3

Ivory 1

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

EM I–II

EM III or later

Unknown

Ceramic 9 Figure 72A. Material assemblage from Hagios Antonios.

Figure 72B. Number of ceramic vessels per period from Hagios Antonios.

MR_FigsPart1_Layout 1 5/23/2014 10:59 AM Page 50

FIGURE 73

Rock Shelter I 100 m

0

0

Deposit B

10 m

Pithoi

Larnax

Pithoi

Possible EM settlement

Deposit A

Pithoi

North Trench

VI

V II

III

Gournia Town

VIII

I IV

VII

0

10 m

Figure 73. Cemeteries in the Gournia area. Map on left modified after Fotou 1991, plan A. Map at upper right of Sphoungaras cemetery modified after Hall 1912a, pl. 15. Map of Gournia North Cemetery at lower right modified after Soles 1992b, plan 2.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 1

FIGURES 74 AND 75

XIX

XVIII

Approximate location of East Area

XVII

Approximate location of Northwest Area

XIV XV

VI

IV

V

XIII

XII

III

XVI

VIII

X XI I II

IX

Figure 74. Pseira cemetery, modified from Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, fig. 2.

VII

0

20 m

TombI I Tomb

Tomb II

Tomb III

Tomb IV

Tomb V

Tomb VI

Tomb IX

Tomb X

Tomb XI

0

Tomb XIII

Tomb XII

Tomb XVI

2m

Tomb XIX

Figure 75. Various tombs from the Pseira cemetery, modified from Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 3–8, 11–14, 17, 20.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 2

FIGURES 76 AND 77

Pseira n= 100%

47

153

Gournia 107

39

37

Kalo Chorio 30

67

100%

80%

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

FN–EM I

EM I–II

EM III–MM II

EM II

EM IIB–III EM III–MM II

MM I–II

0%

Others Larnax fragments Amphora Dish Teapot Closed vessel Pyxis Kantharos Jar Jug Goblet Open vessel Fruit stand Cup Bowl

Figure 76. Ceramic shapes in dated burial deposits in the Mirabello Bay.

EM IIA and EM IIB Possible EM II EM IIA EM IIB Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Cist Cave Tholos Associated building

Klisidi

Mochlos VIII Mochlos Unnamned Mochlos XI Mochlos XIII Mochlos X Mochlos XV Mochlos IV/V/VI Mochlos XVI Mochlos I/II/III Mochlos XVII Mochlos pavement Mochlos Theta outside IV/V/VI Mochlos XIX Mochlos XXII Mochlos VII Mochlos Lambda Mochlos IX Pseira I Mochlos XXIII Pseira IX Mochlos XVIII Pseira XV Mochlos XX/XXI Pseira II Pseira III Pseira XIII Pseira VIII Pseira VII Pseira IV Pseira V Pseira X Pseira VI Pseira East Area Pseira XII Pseira NW Pseira XVI Myrsini Area Vardoiani Hagios Antonios Gournia S. Deposit B Chrysokamino Gournia S. Deposit A Gournia S. Rock Shelter I Gournia S. Rock Shelter II Gournia N.C. VI Gournia N.C. V Gournia N.C. I Gournia N.C. III Vasiliki B Hagia Photia Ierapetras II Hagia Photia Ierapetras I 0

Figure 77. EM IIA–IIB funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

5

10 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 3

FIGURES 78 AND 79

60

Funerary contexts in use by period

50

Possible Certain

40

12 10 8

30

6

20

4

10 0

Cemeteries in use by period

14

2 EM I

EM II

EM III

MM I

0

MM II

EM I

EM II

EM III

MM I

Figure 78. Use of funerary contexts and cemeteries in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions by period.

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Gournia (Sphoungaras pithoi not included)

I I I A II FN EM I M II M IIB EM I MM MM I M II E M E

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Possible Certain

Pseira

I I I A II FN EM I M II M IIB EM I MM MM I M II E M E

Mochlos

I I I A II FN EM I M II M IIB EM I MM MM I M II E M E

Figure 79. Tombs in use in Gournia, Pseira and Mochlos by period.

MM II

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 4

FIGURES 80 AND 81

Bench Stalagmite

0

Rock Shelter V

Figure 80. Klisidi Cave, modified from Younger 1976, 167, fig. 1.

2m

Rock Shelter VI Tomb II

Tomb III

Tomb I?

Tomb I

Tomb IV

Tomb VIII Tomb VII

North Cemetery EM IIA

0

10 m

North Cemetery MM I

0

10 m

Rock Shelter I Rock Shelter II

0 Deposit B

10 m

0 Deposit B

Pithoi Deposit A

Sphoungaras EM II

MM I deposit

Sphoungaras MM I

Figure 81. Gournia cemeteries through time, modified from Hall 1912a, pl. 15; Soles 1992b, plan 2.

10 m

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 5

FIGURES 82 AND 83 EM II North Cemetery 3 n= 9 37 2 100%

10

Sphoungaras 2 2 45

15

37

EM III–MM North Cemetery 24 2 3 34 12

Sphoungaras 30 100%

6

80%

80% 60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

Others Copper

Figurines Ivory

Ivory seal Seals

II

Silver Gold

VII

0%

MM

I

I

Pit in I EM II– MM I

de I

Pit in I EM II– MM I

Ou tsi

VI

de I

V

Ou tsi

III

Ro ck Sh Ro elt ck er I Sh Ro elt ck er II Sh elt er De IV po sit A De po sit B

0%

Id epo sit

60%

Stone vases Ceramic vessels

Figure 82. Gournia assemblages.

Tomb I Pit

Bench

Tomb II

Tomb III Altar

Steps

Kernos

Tomb IV

Tomb VI

Figure 83. Gournia North Cemetery tombs, modified from Soles 1992b, 5, 29, 35, 37, figs. 2, 11, 14, 15.

0

Tomb V

2m

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 6

FIGURE 84 Cemetery

West Terrace

V

IV VI

III

I

II

VII

XXII

II XIII

XIX

XXI

Alpha

XXIII Beta

South Slope Gamma

IX

Delta

XVI XI

X

Kappa

Eta

Tombs Iota, Lambda, Mu, Buildings Nu, Xi, and Unnamed

XV XVII

Epsilon VIII

XVIII

Theta Zeta

0

Figure 84. Mochlos cemetery plan, modified from Soles 1992b, plan 3.

10

20 m

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 7

FIGURE 85

Room III

Room V

Room I

Room IV

Room VI

Altar Paved court Room II

Tomb XIX

Tomb IX

Tomb XI

Tomb XXII

Room XX Room XXI

Tomb X

Tomb XVIII

Tomb Lambda

Tomb Iota

0

2m

Figure 85. Mochlos tombs, modified from Soles 1992b, 44, 52, 66, 74, 79, 95, 111, figs. 16, 20, 25, 28, 31, 40, 52; Soles and Davaras 1992, 422, fig. 4.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 8

FIGURE 86

Pseira

Mochlos

Tomb III Tomb XIII

Tomb IX

Tomb XIII

0

Tomb IV

2m

Tomb Iota

Figure 86. Similarities between tombs in Pseira and Mochlos cemeteries, modified from Betancourt and Davaras, eds., 2003, figs. 6, 11, pl. 10a; Soles 1992b, 74, 111, figs. 28, 52, pl. 32a.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 9

FIGURES 87, 88, AND 89 Constructed in EM IIA Constructed in EM IIB Other features of uncertain date

EM III

EM II

0

Figure 87. Mochlos cemetery through time, modified from Soles 1992b, plan 3.

MM I

20m

MM III–LM I

1.40

160

Total

1.20

140 120

Total, no gold

1.00 meters

Possibly used in MM I Certainly used in MM I Other features of uncertain date

10

100

0.80

80

0.60

60 40

0.40

20 0

0.20 0.00

West Terrace tombs

South Slope tombs

Figure 88. Preserved height of walls at Mochlos as reported in Soles 1992b, 46–49, 51–57.

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

Figure 89. Total number of objects by room in Mochlos West Terrace complexes.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 10

FIGURE 90

1–10 Objects 11–25 26–65 66–142

0

10

1–5 Objects 6–15 16–29 30–47

20 m

0

10

20 m

Figure 90A. Mochlos cemetery: map on left shows number of published objects by tomb; map on right shows number of unpublished objects by tomb, not including gold.

160

Number of published objects by tomb Number of published objects by tomb not including gold

140 120 100 80 60 40 20

X XI I XI V XX I Al II p G ha am m Th a et a Ze ta

IX

VI I VI II

XI XV XV I XV II XV III

XX I XX II

XI II XI X XX

V

VI

III IV

I

II

0

Figure 90B. Number of published objects by tomb in Mochlos cemetery.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 11

FIGURE 91

0–15% 16–45% 46–71% 72–100%

0

10

0–8% 9–20% 21–31% 32–49%

20 m

0

10

20 m

Figure 91A. Mochlos cemetery: map on left shows percentage of objects in off-island materials per tomb; map on right shows percentage of objects in off-island materials per tomb, not including gold.

Percentage of off-island materials per tomb Same percentage not including gold items

1 1 100

100% 90%

118

53

80%

84

70%

31

60% 23

50%

9 7

10

40%

11

3

30% 5 20%

16

3

12 2

10%

22

1

7

6

2

44

11

3 11

1

1

X XI I XI V XX I A II G l ph a am m Th a et a Ze ta

II IX

VI I

VI

XI XV XV I XV I XV I III

II XI X XX XX I XX II

XI

V

VI

III IV

I

II

0%

Figure 91B. Percentage of objects made in off-island materials per tomb in Mochlos cemetery. Number on top of column indicates the absolute figure.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 12

FIGURES 92 AND 93 EM III context Possible Tomb Possible EM III

Mochlos VIII Mochlos pavement outside IV/V/VI

Mochlos XX/XXI

Mochlos XVIII Mochlos XI Mochlos XVII Pseira I Mochlos XXII Pseira II Mochlos Pseira IX Pseira IV XXIII

Tholos Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithos cemetery Cist Unknown Cave

Mochlos VII Mochlos XII Mochlos XIII Mochlos XVI Mochlos I/II/III Mochlos IV/V/VI Mochlos XV

Mochlos Pseira XV Pseira V Lambda Pseira NW area Mochlos XIX Pseira VI Pseira Northeast area Myrsini Gournia S. MM I deposit

Gournia S. Deposit A

Hagios Antonios

Kalo Chorio I

Chrysokamino

Kalo Chorio II Pacheia Ammos Gournia S. Deposit B

Myrtos Pyrgos pavement outside tomb

Hagia Photia Ierapetras I

Myrtos Pyrgos tomb 0

5

10 km

Figure 92. EM III funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

Paved road

Paved area

Ossuary 2 Main chamber 0

Ossuary 1

2m

Figure 93. Myrtos Pyrgos tomb, modified from Cadogan 1978, 72, fig. 5.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 13

FIGURE 94

Tomb I

3 5 4

0

0.5 m

1 72

Tomb I 5

4

3

0

2m

Pithos 6 Tomb II

Figure 94. Kalo Chorio tombs, modified from Haggis 1996, 648, 650, figs. 3, 5.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 14

FIGURE 95 AND 96 MM I Possible MM I Tholos Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithoi/Larnakes Pithos cemetery Cist

Mochlos XVII Mochlos IX Mochlos VII Mochlos X Mochlos IV/V/VI Mochlos XI Mochlos XIX Mochlos XIII Mochlos pavement Mochlos XV outside IV/V/VI Pseira IX Mochlos I/II/III Mochlos XVI Pseira I Mochlos Lambda Pseira East Area Mochlos Gamma Pseira V Pseira III Mochlos XXII Pseira XII Pseira IV Mochlos XX/XXI Pseira VI Pseira II Pseira XII Pseira XV Pseira XVI Pseira VIII Pseira X Pseira XIV Pseira Hagios Nikolaos Pseira XI NW Area Myrsini Gournia S. Rock Shelter IV Hagios Antonios Gournia S. MM I deposit Gournia S. Rock Shelter II Kalo Chorio I Gournia S. pithos cemetery Kalo Chorio II Pacheia Ammos Gournia S. Deposit B Evraika I Gournia N.C. I Gournia N.C. IV Gournia N.C. II Gournia N. C. Area outside II Vasiliki A Gournia N.C. VII Gournia N.C. VIII

Myrtos Pyrgos pavement outside tomb

Hagia Photia Ierapetras II

Myrtos Pyrgos tomb 0

5

10 km

5

10 km

Figure 95. MM I funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions. Possible MM II MM II Tholos Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithos cemetery Cist Cave Pithoi/Larnakes

Hagios Nikolaos

Pseira IV Pseira East Area Pseira XIII Pseira I Pseira II Pseira XV Pseira XVI Pseira XII Pseira III Pseira XI Pseira XIV Pseira Northwest Area Pseira VIII Pseira V Pseira X Pseira VI Pseira IX

Gournia S. IV Gournia S. pithos cemetery Kalo Chorio II Pacheia Ammos Gournia S. MM I deposit Kalo Chorio I

Gournia S. Deposit B Klisidi

Myrtos Pyrgos

Gournia N.C. I

Evraika I Gournia N.C. II

Hagia Photia Ierapetras II

0

Figure 96. MM II funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 15

FIGURES 97 AND 98 Open area Rectangular tomb Pithos cemetery Pithoi/Larnakes

Mochlos

Hagios Nikolaos Pseira Gournia Sphoungaras

Pacheia Ammos Gournia North Cemetery

Myrtos Pyrgos 0

5

10 km

Figure 97. MM III–LM I use of earlier funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions. Pithoi and larnakes Pithoi Larnakes Tholos Open area Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Pithos cemetery Pithos and larnax reported

Hagios Nikolaos

Mochlos Gamma Gournia S. Deposit A

Gournia S. MM I deposit Kalo Chorio II

Myrsini

Gournia S. IV Gournia S. pithos cemetery Pacheia Ammos

Kalo Chorio I Gournia N.C. I Gournia N.C. II Gournia N.C. VIII

Evraika I Vasiliki A Gournia N.C. VIII

Hagia Photia Ierapetras II

0

Figure 98. Pithoi and larnakes in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions (EM III–MM II).

5

10 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 16

FIGURES 99 AND 100 Published context Unpublished context Mixed EM–MM context

Only MM contexts with off-island materials Gournia II Gournia VI

3 Items 5 Items Pseira

0 Items 1–10 11–31 32–132

Mochlos

Myrsini

Vardoiani Gournia Sphoungaras

Hagios Antonios Chrysokamino

Gournia N. Cemetery Klisidi Hagia Photia Ierapetras

0

5

10 km

Figure 99. Deposition of items in off-island materials in EM I–II funerary contexts in the Mirabello and Ierapetra regions.

0

10 km

5

Vamies

Hagia Photia Siteias B Linares

Hagia Photia Siteias C

Hagia Photia Siteias A Palaikastro Sarantari Palaikastro Gravel Ridge Mertydia

Siteia

Messorachi

Palaikastro Ta Ellenika

Petras Kephala

Palaikastro Patema Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou

Maronia Mandalia

Karydi Zakros Mavro Avlaki Zakros Gorge of the Dead Zakros Rizes

Skalais Katelionas

Pedino

Ziros

Zakros Pezoules Kephalas Lamnoni

Perivolakia Livari Chosto

Figure 100. Cemeteries in East Crete.

Zakros Mavro Avlaki

Zakros Karaviadaina

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 17

FIGURES 101, 102, 103, AND 104 Possible funerary context Funerary context Tholos Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Cave Rock-cut tomb cemetery Open area Nea Roumata Unknown Pit

0

5

10 km

Hagia Photia Siteias C Tholos II Hagia Photia Siteias A Vamies Hagia Photia Siteias B Palaikastro TE II Palaikastro TE III

Hagia Photia Siteias C Tholos I Messorachi Petras VI Linares Siteia

Palaikastro TE VI

Unknown chronology EM pottery reported MM pottery reported EM and MM pottery reported

0

Vamies

Palaikastro GR VIIa

Palaikastro GR I Petras I Petras VII Mertydia Palaikastro GR VIII Petras II Hagios Nikolaos Petras III Palaikastro P V Petras IV Petras X Palaikastrou I Petras VIII Petras V Petras IX Petras XI Palaikastro S IVb Petras rock shelter Petras open area Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou II Palaikastro GR VIIb Petras area outside Tomb II Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou III Maronia Spiliara I Zakros GoD Cave IV Maronia Spiliara II Karydi Zakros GoD Marmaras Maronia Kolibos Maronia Spiliara III Zakros GoD Cave III Mandalia Skalais Zakros GoD Cave I Zakros GoD Cave II Zakros GoD Phalanx Zakros GoD Ourania Zakros GoD Spiliara Zakros PK A Zakros Acherotripa Katelionas Zakros Mavro Avlaki Zakros PK B Pedino I Zakros Rizes I Lamnoni Pedino II Ziros Zakros Rizes II Zakros Karaviadaina

10 km

5

Tholos Rock shelter Cave Nea Roumata Rectangular tomb Unknown Open area

Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou I

Palaikastro S IVa

Hagia Photia Siteias B Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou II Maronia Kolybos

Zakros GoD Cave III Zakros GoD Marmaras Zakros GoD Phalanx

Skalais

Zakros GoD Spiliara

Zakros GoD Ourania Zakros Rizes I

Pedino I Pedino II

Ziros

Lamnoni

Perivolakia

Perivolakia

Livari Context II

Livari Context II Livari Tholos

Chosto

Figure 101. Funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 102. Funerary contexts with unclear date in East Crete.

Possible EM I context EM I context Rock shelter Cave Rock-cut tombs Unknown Pit

0

10 km

5

Tholos III Hagia Photia Siteias A

Messorachi Petras Kephala rock shelter

Mertydia

II

IV

Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou III

Maronia Spiliara I Karydi Skalais

VIII

V

VII VI 0

4m

Perivolakia

Livari Tholos

Figure 103. EM I funerary contexts in East Crete.

Figure 104. Tholos at Livari, modified from Schlager et al. 2002, 208, fig. 18. Contexts III–VIII are not EM or MM, as originally reported (Y. Papadatos, pers. comm.).

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:09 AM Page 18

FIGURE 105 AND 106

100%

n= 13

6

26

42

17

23

140 Unknown Others Plate Amphorae Bowl Jar Cup Jug Egg cup Teapot Pyxis

80% 60% 40% 20%

Nik ola os I H. EM I

100%

n=

II III V EM II→ EM III→

VIIa

MM I→

Figure 105. Shapes in the ceramic assemblages of the Palaikastro area tombs.

EM II

27

100% Other

80%

Chalice Pyxis Lid Bowl

60% 40%

9

80%

24

11

60% 282

2

126

248

40%

0%

0%

Figure 106A. Ceramic vessels in anterooms by shape in Hagia Photia Siteias A, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225.

80%

12 Bowl Bottle Kernos Lid

1422

27

40%

19

3

Pyxis Cup

7 Jug Chalice Other

Figure 106B. Ceramic vessels in the whole cemetery of Hagia Photia Siteias A, by shape and ware, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225.

4

2

7

1 13

80% Cycladic Minoan

Minoan

23

100%

100%

Cycladic

83

664

20%

20%

60%

VI

}

II I (a nd are a)

0%

Anterooms Tombs

60%

275

247

674

30

89

Bowl

Lid

Pyxis

Chalice

Other

40%

20% 0%

5 60 Tombs Anterooms

20% 0%

Figure 106C. Ceramic vessels in tombs and anterooms by ware in Hagia Photia Siteias A, bases on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225.

Figure 106D. Ceramic vessels in tombs and anterooms by shape in Hagia Photia Siteias A, based on data from Davaras and Betancourt 2004, 7–225.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 19

FIGURES 107, 108, AND 109 Only EM IIA context Context with EM IIB material Unclear EM II use

Mandalia 0

Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Cave Tholos h Rock-cut tombs Unknown Pit

10 km

5

Palaikastro GR I

Linares

Palaikastro TE II

Messorachi Petras Kephala rock shelter

h

Hagia Photia Siteias A

Maronia Spiliara I Maronia Spiliara III

Zakros GoD Cave I

Zakros GoD Cave II Zakros GoD Cave IV Zakros Acherotripa

Linares

Zakros Mavro Avlaki

0 Chosto

Livari Tholos (EM IIA and EM IIB reported)

Figure 107. EM II funerary contexts in East Crete.

2m

Figure 108. Mandalia and Linares tombs, modified from Soles 1992b, 128, 159, figs. 58, 66.

Ta Ellenika 0

100 m

Rectangular tomb

Gravel Ridge

0

10 m

Area of current excavations

Sarantari

Figure 109. Tombs in the area of Palaikastro, modified from Sackett et al. 1965, pl. 64.

Patema

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 20

FIGURES 110 AND 111

Ta Ellenika

II

VIIa

VIII

VI

Gravel Ridge III Patema

IVa

Sarantari

IVb

Figure 110. Palaikastro tombs, modified from Duckworth 1903b, 352, fig. 4; Dawkins 1905, 270, fig. 4; Soles 1992b, 181, fig. 72.

V 0

10 m

Cave II (located beyond the extent of this map)

Tomb in exact location Tomb in approximate location Tomb without clear location

Rizes II Rizes I Pharanx Cave I

Ouranias

Cave III Spiliara

Marmaras Cave IV

Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Cave 20 m contour line 4 m contour lines

Acherotripa Area of excavations city and palace Pezoules Kephalas A Pezoules Kephalas B

Mavro Avlaki

Karaviadaina

Figure 111. Tombs in the area of Zakros.

0

500 m

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 21

FIGURES 112 AND 113

PALAIKASTRO Tombs constructed by period

Tombs in use by period Possible

6

Secure

4

8 6 4

2

2

0

0

EM I EM II EM III

M M

IA

M M

MM II

IB

M M

III

EM I EM II EM III

ZAKROS

Figure 112. Development of the number of tombs in Zakros and Palaikastro by period.

4

2

2 EM I EM II EM III

M M

IA

M M

MM II

IB

IB

MM II

M M

III

M M

0

III

EM I EM II EM III

M M

IA

M M

IB

MM II

M M

III

ZAKROS

PALAIKASTRO

160

M M

6

4

0

IA

Tombs in use by period

8

Tombs constructed by period

M M

140 Silver Gold Seal

120 100 80

Copper Stone vases Ceramics

60 40 0

I

I area EM II

II

V

III

VI

VIIb

VIIa

EM II→ EM III→

KePez ph ou al l e as s A KePez ph ou al l e as s B

20

} MM I→

100%

4

n= 5

27

PALAIKASTRO 30 23 46

151

10

Figure 113A. Material assemblages from several rectangular tombs in East Crete.

ZAKROS 79 104

80%

Silver Gold Seal

60%

Copper Stone vases Ceramics

40%

0%

I

I area EM II

II

III

V

VI

VIIa

VIIb

EM II→ EM III→

}

Figure 113B. Material assemblages from several rectangular tombs in East Crete by percentage.

P Ke ezo ph ul e al a s sA Pe Ke zo ph ul e al a s sB

20%

MM I→

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 22

FIGURES 114 AND 115 Possible EM III context EM III context Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Tholos

0

5

10 km

Petras rock shelter

Palaikastro TE VI Linares Messorachi Petras III Petras II

Palaikastro TE III Petras V

Palaikastro P V

Maronia Spiliara II Zakros GoD Cave I

Mandalia

Zakros Mavro Avlaki Zakros Rizes II

Chosto

Livari

Figure 114. EM III funerary contexts in East Crete.

Possible MM I context MM I context 0

Rectangular tomb Rock shelter Unknown Tholos Open area Linares

Messorachi

Petras rock shelter

Siteia Petras I Petras II Petras III Petras IV Petras V

Petras VI

5

10 km

Palaikastro GR VIIa Palaikastro TE III Palaikastro TE II

Palaikastro GR VIII

Palaikastro TE VI Palaikastro S IVa

Petras open area Petras X Petras area outside Tomb II

Palaikastro S IVb Palaikastro GR VIIb Palaikastro P V Zakros Acherotripa

Mandalia

Zakros Rizes II Zakros PK A Katelionas

Zakros PK B Zakros Mavro Avlaki

Figure 115. MM I funerary contexts in East Crete.

Chosto

Livari

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 23

FIGURES 116 AND 117

0

5m

EM III

EM II

MM IA

MM IB

MM II

MM III

Tomb I

Tomb VIIb

Figure 116. Use of tombs in Palaikastro through time. 16

ul a

r to

12

25

10

20 15

8

10

6

5

4

0

mb

14

EM I EM II EM III

M M

IA

M M

IB MM II

Figure 117A. Number of funerary contexts in East Cretan cemeteries by period.

2 0

cta ng

30

Funerary contexts in use Funerary contexts possibly in use

Re

35

k R oc

lter she

Cave

los Tho EM I

EM II

EM III

MM I

MM II

Figure 117B. Number of secure funerary contexts in East Cretan cemeteries by type and period.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 24

FIGURES 118, 119, AND 120

Palaikastro Tomb VIIa

Palaikastro Tomb III

Palaikastro Tomb II

Large material deposit Small material deposit Large bone deposit Small bone deposit Zakros Pezoules Kephalas A

Palaikastro Tomb VI

Zakros Pezoules Kephalas A

0

5m

Figure 118. Distribution of human bones and ceramic material in various rectangular tombs in East Crete.

Zakros Pezoules Kephalas B

Ga m

m a

B

A

Figure 119. Tombs located at Zakros Pezoules Kephalas, modified from Soles 1992b, 196, 199, figs. 77, 78.

160

0

2m

Palaikastro VIIa

Number of objects

140 120

Zakros PK A

100

Zakros PK B

80 60 40 20

Palaikastro VI

0 0

20

40 60 Number of skulls

80

100

Figure 120. Scattergram of number of skulls and objects in best-known rectangular tombs in East Crete.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 25

FIGURES 121 AND 122 Possible MM II context MM II context Tholos

0

Rectangular tomb

10 km

5

Rock shelter Cave

Hagia Photia Siteias C Tholos A Petras open area Petras X Palaikastro GR VIIa

Petras I Petras II Petras III Petras IV

Hagia Photia Siteias C Tholos B

Petras V

Petras VI Petras rock shelter

Petras area outside Tomb II

Zakros Mavro Avlaki Mandalia

Zakros Acherotripa

Skalais

Zakros PK A Katelionas

Zakros PK B Zakros Karaviadaina

Perivolakia

Figure 121. MM II funerary contexts located in East Crete.

Chosto

Livari

20 18 16 14 12

Silver/lead Ivory

10

Gold

8 6

Copper

4 2

Figure 122. Metal and ivory objects in selected cemeteries from East Crete.

0

Hagios Maronia III Nikolaos III EM II–III EM I

Palaikastro (all tombs)

Zakros (all tombs)

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 26

FIGURE 123 AND 124

Cemetery included in Chapter 8 Cemetery included in other chapters Ellinospilaio

Chania

Hagios Ioannis Gerospilia

Nopigeia

Kumarospilio Choraphakia Kalathas M beach NAMFI Souda Bay

Kera Spiliotisa

Perivolitsa Kato Sarakina Platyvola a

Nea Roumata B

Nea Roumata A Vrimbokambos A Vrimbokambos B

LeLeffkkaa MoMMount Mounttains

Melidoni Mylopotamou m

Korakia

Pigi

Pssiloritis i iti

Plates/Charakas Kalogerospilio

0

40 km

20

Figure 123. Cemeteries in West and West-Central Crete.

Possible tomb Tomb Tholos Rock shelter Cave Pithos Nea Roumata Rectangular tomb Unknown

Chania Chalepas Ellinospilaio

Kumarospilio

Hagios Ioannis Gerospilia Nopigeia Kera Spiliotisa

Choraphakia Kalathas

Perivolitsa Kato Sarakina Nea Roumata B Platyvola

NAMFI beach

Melidoni Mylopotamou

Korakia

Nea Roumata A

Pigi

Vrimbokambos A Vrimbokambos B

Plates/Charakas Kalogerospilio

0

20

40 km

Figure 124. Funerary contexts in West and West-Central Crete.

Maryieles

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 27

FIGURES 125, 126, 127, AND 128

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Figure 125. Number of tombs in West and West-Central Crete by type.

100%

2

Possible Secure

Cave

Rock shelter

Pithos

Tholos Rectangular Nea Unknown tomb Roumata

3 5

14

18

40

80%

8

Burial Nonburial

60% 61

167

40%

15

20% 0%

EM

MM I–II Chania (Moody 1987a)

EM MM I–II EM Hagiopharango West Mesara (Watrous et al. 2004) (Blackman and Branigan 1977)

Figure 127. Kera Spiliotisa, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 57, fig. 22. Not to scale.

Figure 126. Comparison of burial and nonburial sites found in diverse surveys.

Figure 128. Melidoni Mylopotamou, modified from Rutkowski and Nowicki 1996, 64, fig. 24. Not to scale.

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 28

FIGURES 129 AND 130

Figure 129. Nea Roumata A tomb. Photograph by the author.

Cycladic material Individual interment tomb Off-island type of interment Tholos Rock shelter Cave Pithos Nea Roumata Rectangular tomb Unknown

Chania Choraphakia

Nopigeia

NAMFI beach Platyvola

Nea Roumata B Nea Roumata A

0

20

Pigi

40 km

Figure 130. Off-island influences in EM I–II tombs in West and West-Central Crete.

g GG

X

X

# #

X

Figure 131. EM I funerary contexts and mortuary behaviors.

Rectangular tomb Cist Rock-cut tomb Open area Unknown

X X

EM I site Possible EM I site Tholos Cave Rock shelter Annex Nea Roumata

X

#X !

! ggg g g g g !! ! !! k !j ! ! ! !i ii A!!6 X ! ! ! i !!!!! ! " k!!!!!! ! ! ! !

X

#

X

##

X

X # XR X !

X

X X

i X #X ! g! g

X

0

X

Pseira

#

ii " # "" A # # X ##

25

X

!!

!

# X X

# !

6# # Rg

X XX X

# #

g

Hagia Photia Siteias

50 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 29

FIGURE 131

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 30

FIGURE 132

0%

EM I

20%

40%

60%

80%

Kiparisi A Partira Krasi Eileithyia, non DGB ware Eileithyia, DGB ware Pyrgos, non DGB ware Pyrgos, DGB ware

100%

Unknown Others

Lebena Y2 EM I Pyxides

Pseira EM I Hagios Nikolaos Palaikastrou III

EM I–II

Chalices and goblets Tankards

Hagia Kyriaki EM I–II Trapeza Cave EM I–II

Bottles

Pseira EM II Gournia EM II 3 2

Apesokari Annex Drakones Unknown Porti Tholos PI Vorou Tholos A H. Triada Tholos A Y2 EM III–MM I Y2a upper level Y2a upper level sherds H. Triada Tholos A Annex H. Triada South Camerette H. Triada West Camerette Porti other areas Vorou outside, post-MM I included Y2 Room AN Y2 Room AN lower level sherds Y2 Room AN sherds unknown Y2 Room D Y2 Room D sherds Y2 Room D sherds EM III–MM I Y2 Room M Y2 Room M sherds Y2 Room A Y2 Room A sherds Malia Premier Charnier Malia Second Charnier Trapeza EM III–MM I Phourni Tholos Gamma EM III–MM II Phourni BB19 EM III–MM II Phourni Tholos E MM I–II Gournia EM III–MM II Kalo Chorio Pseira EM III–MM II Palaikastro III Palaikastro V Palaikastro VI PalaikastroVII

Fruit stands

Figure 132. Ceramic assemblages in different funerary contexts by period.

Kernoi Dishes Lids Teapots Jars Jugs Cups Bowls

X X

# #

Figure 133. EM II funerary contexts.

EM II context Possible EM II context Tholos Rectangular tomb Cist Cave Rock-cut tomb Rock shelter A Associated building Annex Open area Nea Roumata Unknown Pithos/larnax

$

X A

g !ggg g g g ! k ! !k "!!! i i k ! i 6 A ! i k! !! ! "!! !! "! " ""! ! !

X

$

! !! ! !!!! X !i " ! !k ! !! ! !

i!! !!

i

! !!

!

i"" !!# # X" " #

gg

#

gX

X # X#

!

X

" "" #

X X$g

X#

g ! i!

!k

X

X

0

X

##

i X g"## #" # #

" "! # "

" ""

# # "AAi" " "" ii " " # "" " "#""

25

X

!!

"

X

#!

# #X X

# gR6

"" "

g

XX X X## #

50 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 31

FIGURE 133

Figure 134. Distribution of folded-arm figurines in Crete.

7–9

3–6

Number of folded-arm figurines 1–2

Archanes Phourni

0

25

50 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 32

FIGURE 134

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 33

FIGURE 135

0

EM II–IA

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

I/II/III IV/V/VI XI XIII XV Mochlos XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX/XXI XXII Hagios Antonios EM I–III III Gournia V Pit in I Deposit B Krasi A lowest levels Pyrgos Kyparisi A Archanes Tholos E EM IIA Tholos Gamma EM IIA Phourni Area of the Rocks Trapeza EM I–MM I

EM III–MM II

Vorou A Porti Pi Drakones Delta Apesokari A Platanos A Lebena Zervou Hagia Triada A Porti Unknown Vorou outside Hagia Triada A Annex Sepolcreto Apesokari A Annex Platanos South deposits Platanos around Tholos A Platanos B III V VI Palaikastro VII VII bis Pezoules Kephala A Zakros Pezoules Kephala B Tholos B Annex Tholos B Tholos E BB5 BB6 Outside BB6 BB7 BB8 Archanes BB8–BB9 Phourni BB9 BB12 BB13 BB18 BB19 Second Charnier Eastern Ossuary I Tomb Triangulaire La Tholos Maison des Morts Malia Chrysolakkos Chambre Funéraire Deposit Bord de Mer Fosse aux Trompettes I II Outside II Gournia VII MM I deposit Mochlos XI

Figure 135. Nonceramic assemblages in different funerary contexts by period.

Others Dagger Ivory Obsidian Figurines Seal Stone vessel Copper based Silver-lead Gold

#

X

# #

EM III context Possible EM III context Tholos Rectangular tomb Cave Cist Rock shelter Pithos cemetery Annex Open area Pithos/larnax Unknown

X

Figure 136. EM III funerary contexts.

!

$

X

! ! !

!

i ! i"

$

!k gg gg kik g !!! !k !k ! ! " i!k! k! i i !!! k ! i i ! A!k!! ! i ! ! ! k k " " !! !! !i ! !! " ! !!!! !! ! " ! k

X g

#

# g

X #

i " "#""" " #X i" !

gg !

X

# # !

X

g ! !i

X Xg

!k

"

" "" " " "" #" X #i

0

i

#

## i i# X " " gD ii

"

25

" """ " "" " " " #i "" " "# ! " "

#

" "# "

X

"X

X

!!

"

!

50 km

"# XXX

"" "

g

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 34

FIGURE 136

X

#

X

X

MM IA context Possible MM IA context Rectangular tomb Tholos Cist Cave Pithos cemetery Rock shelter Associated building Annex Open area Pit Pithos/larnax Unknown Chamber tomb

!

6

Figure 137. MM IA funerary contexts.

!

X #

$

#

D

#X

#

# A # " " " gg!gg X g$ g $ g$g g ! $ g " " ""i" " " !i#i X" ! "i! # $ #i " "" g k g !! ! !" i!i Ak gg A!ggggg ! i" kki !!kgk ! !" k !!k "! k ii !! ! ! ! ! k! "iA!! # k k! D!!i i k ! i ! " ! ! !! " "! ! ! k! !i! ! " !!! ! ""k!!! ! kk

X i

$

#! i "

" 6 "i 6i# " " # 6 " A" " i# "" " # k! 6" " ! i! #X # 6 g X 6 g # X gg

0

"

" " "" "

"" "

" " i ""i" "# " " i # " $ # " ! i i # "" DD # "" #i " "" #

25

X X

#

" "

#" """# ii" " !!

"

!

50 km

X

"X #" "X X

""" " ""g "

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 35

FIGURE 137

X

$

Tholos Cave Rock shelter Annex Pit Pithos/larnax

#

X

X

Rectangular tomb Cist Pithos cemetery Associated building Open area Unknown Chamber tomb

MM IB context Possible MM IB context

!

Figure 138. MM IB funerary contexts.

!

X #

$

#

D

#X

! !!

gggg "i!! A" i ggg !!gg " g k i g i! ! k !k!" i gk k! ! "!i!kki !!k! !k ! !#! i" i ! !"D!! ! "i k! ! k! k k!i! ! ! ! "! " ! ! !! " "k ! !k!!

X g

#

$

!# " $ gX # A" ! ! ! g $ !gg g gg$ $ #i!"i " g "!" " "i" # #X g k "" ! g

X#

!k

$

!

6 """

g $gg

# X## X$ X $

##!

g

!

i "

" 6 6 "i ii i # "" " # "A " "D## ""

0

"

#

ii# # " ""# D# i D "" ii # " "" # $

25

" "i " " " """ !

X

"

X

#

""

""

#i #"" i "

50 km

XX# " " X#

" " ""g" ""

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 36

FIGURE 138

X

Tholos Cave Rock shelter Annex Pit Pithos/larnax

#

X

Rectangular tomb Cist Pithos cemetery Associated building Open area Unknown Chamber tomb

MM II context Possible MM II context

!

Figure 139. MM II funerary contexts.

!

X

$

# #X

X

iAAg "!!ggggg g!kg !!gk ik j" k " ! """ !

"

i!!i

! ! D" i

i!! i i !k!

!

#

$

! #! " !gg!g X# !g ! ! !$ ! $ g !! $!i! g!!"! $ g " i!! X"k!"" g g

X#

g

!

!

X $gg

X $

k!

"

"

i D "i " A "" # ii #6""" " i6"

0

"

#

# i" i "# # i "" # iD " " # $

25

X X

"X

#

"

!#

i""" i # "" ! X

"X# "X##

50 km

"

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 37

FIGURE 139

X

Rectangular tomb Cist Pithos cemetery Associated building Open area Unknown Chamber tomb

X

# #X

Figure 140. Funerary contexts reused in MM III and later periods.

Tholos Cave Rock shelter Annex Pit Pithos/larnax

MM III context Possible MM III context

X

$

X

!

gggg g i!!gg !k! "" i k! !

!

"

i!!i

$

!! # " !!!!!X ! !g! "gg! i$!g $gg $ k! X " $

!##

X g $ X# gg

!

6D ""6iA i6##6 !k

X "i

#

0

$

" "D

i iD

" ""

" ii "" "

25

X

"X

#

#

"

#" X X X

# "

50 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 38

FIGURE 140

X

#

Rectangular tomb Cist Rock shelter Annex

Open area Unknown

Figure 141. EM I–MM IA continuity in funerary contexts.

Tholos Cave

Funerary context possibly in use in EM I and MM IA 44 contexts, 9% of total number of contexts known

Funerary context in use in EM I and MM IA 27 contexts, 5.5% of total number of contexts known

X

X

#X

X

g gg gk k !!! i!A! ii ! !! k!!!!!! !

!

!

!!

X

X #

X

i! X#

0

#

#

"

#

" "# ii

25

X

!!

#

!

XX

50 km

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 39

FIGURE 141

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 40

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 41

MR_FigsPart2_Layout 1 5/23/2014 11:10 AM Page 42