-
SUBMYCENAEAN CREMATION BURIALS lN THE ARGOLID ?
The introductionof the new rite of cremationin the Aegean and
its subsequent
wholesaleadoptionin
certainregionsareaphenomenonlongconsideredoneof
theimportanthallmarksof the transitionfrom the Bronze to the Iron
Age in Greece1. The historicalexplanationconnectingthe new rite
with the arrivaIof a new people,the Dorians,had,however,to be
abandonedlong agoandcremationis now usuallyseenratheras a
fashion
spreadingfromtheeastwithoutnecessarilyanyconsiderablemovementof
population2.The allegedlynewrite is notevena
completeinnovationatthebeginningof theIron
Age; even is we disregardtheoccurrenceof cremationin Thessalyand
otherregionsinNeolithictimesandthescatterof
singlecasesthroughouttheBronzeAge 3, our traditionalpicturewas
radicallychangedby thediscoveryof a fair numberof cremationsin
theLate
Mycenaeanchamber-tombsatPeratiin eastAttica,excavated1953-63by
Sp. Iakovidis.Thedefmitivepublicationof thiscemeteryby
theexcavatorin 1969-704andthesubsequentstudyof thecrematedbanesby
M. PaidoussisandCh. N. Sbarounisin 19755
areindispensablereferenceworksforall subsequentstudyof
theintroductionof cremationin Greece.
ln theArgolid, theregionon whichthispaperwill
focus,inhumationcontinuedto
bepracticedalmostexclusivelythroughthefollowingDarkAgeswhencremationhadbecomethepredominantrite
in many otherregions6. There exist,
however,throughoutthesefourcenturiesa numberof instancesfor which
the interpretationas cremationburialshasbeen
(1) See,for instance,MP. NILSSON, A historyof
Greekreligion2nded. (1964),p. 99.(2) DESBOROUGH, Last Mycenaeans,p.
71; DESBOROUGH, Dark Ages, p. 266-268;DESHAYES.
Deiras, p. 246;butcf. J. BOUZEK, HomerischesGriechenlandimLichte
derarchiiologischenQuellen,Acta
UniversitatisCarolinae,Philosophicaethistorica,Monographia29 (1%9),
p. 126.
(3) Sp. IAKOVIDIS, nEpCL'tft.To VElCPO'tCL
-
208 Robin HGG
suggestedby theexcavatorsalthoughtheirconclusionshavenot
beengenerallyaccepted7.Herel shalldealwitha smallnumberof
suchinstanceswhicharedatedin theSubmycenaean
or early Protogeometricperiod in an attemptto clarify
whetherthey are really casesofcremationornot.
A first groupconsistsof amphorasof Submycenaeanor
Protogeometricstylefoundat
variousplacesin
Argos.ThoseexcavatedbyJeanDeshayesintwoMycenaeancharnber-tombsin
theDeirasnecropoliswereinterpretedbytheexcavatorascremationurnscomparabletothecontemporaryAnic
exarnples8. ln tombXXIV (Pl. LI, a) two arnphoraswerefoundin
theinnermostcornerof the chambertogetherwith a bronzering but
withoutany associatedskeletalremains9. lt is certainthatthey
hadbeenintroducedhereaftertheroofof thecharnberhadcollapsed.The
samemaypossiblybutlesslikely be truealsoof
thesinglearnphoraintombxxxm(Pl. LI, b) 10. ln anycaseaIl
threeamphorasarestylisticallylaterthanthelastnormalburialsin thetwo
tombsandgiveevidenceof a reuseof thetomb.The fact
thatno"ashes"orcrematedboneswerefoundin
themwasexplainedbyareferencetoanobservationby C. Wells thatin
sornecasestheremainsfromcremationscoulddisappearwithoutleaving
anytrace11. Anotheramphoraof
thesamestyle,found"completelyisolated"in thetownofArgos in 1955 12,
was also seenby Deshayesas a cremationurn 13. If we
accepthishypothesisthatfor
sornereasonthecrematedremainshaddisappearedcompletelyin
thesecases,wewouldhaveatArgosthreeor fourinstancesof
aburialcustomwithexactparallelsincontemporaryAthens:cremationswithamphorasascineraryurns.
However,my suspicionagainstthishypothesiswasawokenby
thecompletelack ofcrematedremainsin aIl threecases.ln
general,crematedboneis weIlpreservedin anurn.ToquoteProf. N.-G.
Gejvall,oneof theforemostspecialistson thematterandwhoml
hadtheprivilegeof consultingfor
thispaper,"asageneralrulethebonesfromcremationburialshaveundergonelittle
alteration.Only theremainsof
abortedfoetusesandnew-bornbabies,and
poorly crematedbonesmay,on occasion,crumbleinto a
morphologicallyunrecognizable
(7) For the most recentdiscussionconcerningpossible cremationsin
the Argolid see P. COURBIN,
Tombes gomtriquesd'Argos 1 (EtPlop VII [1974]),p. 115-117.Doubt
conceming Deshayes'
interpretationof the Deirasamphorasas cineraryurnswas
expresseda1readyby c.-G. STYRENIUS,
SubmycenaeanStudies.Examinationof Finds from Main/and Greece,
with a chapter on Attic
ProtogeometricGraves,Skrifterulg.av Svenskainstituleli
Athen,8:0,7 (1967),p. 155.
(8) DESHA YES, Deiras, p. 66-69, 98-101 and 246; cf. R. HGG, Die
Griiber der Argolis in
submykenischer,protogeometrischerundgeometrischerZeit 1 : Lage
undForm der Graber (1974),p.
26.For thedateseeSTYRENIUS op. cit.,p. 131-132.
(9) DESHA YES, Deiras,p. 66-69with pl. 67:2-4and69:3.PI. LI, a-b
andLII, a-barereproducedby the
k.indpermissionof Ecole franaised'archologie,Athens.
(10) DESHA YES, Deiras,p. 98-101with pl. 10:4and91:1and3.
(11) DESHA YES, Deiras, p. 246 with n. 1 (referenceto C. WELLS,
Antiquity34 [1960],p. 29-37,esp.p.
29).
(12) P. COURBIN, BCH 80 (1956),p. 376 with fig. 22 (c.
857),found in the BakaIoiannisproperty.Cf.
HGG, op. cit.,p. 27.
(13) DESHA YES, Deiras,p. 246.
-
SUBMYCENAEAN CREMATION BURIALS lN THE ARGOLID ? 209
state"14. ln fact, burntbonesare
moreresistentthanunburntskeletonsto the chemicaI
reactionstheyaresubjectedtoin theearth.ThereferencetoWells is
notquiterelevantsincehisexampleof disappearingasheswasin
acemeteryin Englandwithmuchmorehumidclimatic
conditionsthan in dry Greece.The
contemporaryandlatercemeteriesin
Athensshowtheexpectedsituation:crematedremainswerenorrnallyfoundweIlpreservedin
all urnsandevenin simplepits,so-calledBrandl6cher,in whichthey
werelessweIlprotectedagainsttheeffectsof thesurroundingearth15.
Sirnilarly,in thePeratitombstheburntbonesseemto havebeenweIl
preserved16. Two of theDeirasarnphoras,theonefromtombxxxm(Pl. LIT,
a) andoneof thosefromXXIV (Pl. LII, b)
17,werefoundalmostintactandwouldhaveprotectedthe"ashes"or bonesin
aperfectway.Of thesecondamphorafromtombXXIV
thelowerhaIfwasmissing18 andthespecimenfoundin thetownwasbrokenin
sherds19, whichmeansthatit wouldbeeasiertoexplaintheabsenceof
bonesandashesin thesecases.
To find analternativeinterpretation-which mustnotbethesarnein
aIl
thesecases-wemustlookcarefullyatthefindcontexts.Thecompleteamphorain
tombXXXIII restedona layerof humanbonesin disorder(Pl. LI, b) 20;
ata distanceof ca 1metreandatthesame
levelwerefounda pin anda fingerring,bothof bronze21. The
easiestexplanationseemstobethatweare,afterall,dealingwithanordinaryinhumationof
anadultandthatthearnphorawasplacedthereasa burialgift. ln
contemporaryAttica,arnphorasoccurasburialgifts,notonly as
ashurns22. ln anycase,this amphoracoulddefmitelynot havebeenusedfor
the
inhumationof an infantsinceits mouthis too narrowfor
theinsertionof an infant'scorpse;otherwisethiswouldhavebeena
theoreticalpossibility.This explanation,however,probablyappliesto
thesecondtomb(XXIV) wherethedamagedamphoramayweIl
haveservedasacoffin for aninfant.If so,it
musthavebeenintentionallybrokenin
ordertoaccommodatethesmallcorpse.A furtherindicationis thefactthata
bronzering seemsto haveIainclosetoor
amongthesherds.Thatthesizeof thering-22 mmdiametre- wastoobig
for a babydoes
notcarryweightasanobjection,sincearingfoundassociatedwith a
childin thegraveneednothavebeenwornby it in life 23. It is
moredifficultto explainthefunctionof thesecond
(14) N.-G. GEJV ALL, in Sciencein archaeology,00.by D.
BrothwellandE. Higgs,2nd00.(1969),p. 468-479 (quotationfrom p.
470);cf. PAIDOUSSIS, SBAROUNIS, op.cil.,p. 130.1 wish to
thankProf.Gejvall wannly for discussingtheseproblemswith meandfor
givingmebibliographiereferences.
(15) Kerameikos.ErgebnissederAusgrabungen1 (1939),p.
10-11,180-182,257-261;IV (1943),p. 1-3;V:l (1954),p. 7-11.
(16) IAKOVIDIS, op.cil.,p. 31-43and423;PAIDOUSSIS, SBAROUNIS,
op.cil.(17) DV 158from 10mbXXXIll : DESHAYES, Deiras,pl. 91:1;DV 98
from 10mbXXIV: DESHAYES,
Deiras,pl. 67:34.(18) DV 107: DESHA YES, Deiras,pl. 67:2.(19)
BCH 80 (1956),p. 376fig. 22.
(20) DESHA YES, Deiras,p. 99.(21) Ibidemwithplanpl. 10:4(herePl.
LI, b).(22) See,for instance,thediagramgivenby STYRENIUS,
op.cil.,p. 106.(23) ln a ehild's10mbat Tiryns (10mb30, Tiryns1
[1912],p. 132)werefoundthreebronzeringsandtwo
iron rings of thesamediametre,22 mm,as thering DB 12 from
10mbXXIV; the ageof theburied
-
210 Robin HGG
amphorain thistomb(Pl. LI, a).Sinceit wasfoundintactit
cannothavebeenusedfor a childburial,againbecauseof its
toonarrowmouth.Maybeit wassimplyanaccompanyinggift to
the infant in the brokenamphora.Finally the amphorafound in the
town area,likewisebroken,mayalsohavecontainedaninfantof whichno
traceswerevisible;it is weU knownthatunburnt banes of foetuses and
babies may disappear completely in the
earth24. There is alreadya smallnumberof recognizedinstancesof
pot burialsof smallchildrenin Submycenaeanand ProtogeometricArgos
25 and 1 think at least two of ouramphoras,tombXXIV andtheonefrom
thetownarea,belongdefmitelyto
thisgroup.Thesuggestedinterpretationis a
simpleandeconomiconewhichdoesnotcaUfor
anyexceptionalexplanations.
If the Deiras amphorascan now be discardedfrom the discussionof
possiblecremations,two othercasesassociatedwith cist tombsat
Mycenaeand Argos are moreproblematic.TombGamma21in
theCitadelHouseareaatMycenae26 is notc10selydatablebecausetheonly
fmd was a fragmentaryiron pin; however,thematerialof thepin
andthegeneralcontextpoint to a Submycenaeanor early
Protogeometricdate.It containedtheskeletonof a youngwomanin a
crouchedposition.Many of thebanesseemedto
havebeenaffectedbyastrongfIfe aswerethewallsof
thecistandtheundersideof thecoverslabs.Thisis
veryfarfrombeingacanonicalcremation,butwhatexactlyhasbeengoingonhere?
Prof.P. Courbin has suggestedthatthis was a cremationon top of
thecist, "uneincinrationdistincte,pratiqueau-dessusdecetteciste"27,
butthisexplanationis notsatisfactory,sinceitdoesnot accountfor
theburningunderneaththecoverslabs.To me it looks like a
primarycremation,or ratheranattemptat a primarycremation,with
thepyrebuilt in or on theopencist. It is
thenunderstandablethatthecorpsewasnotcompletelycremated.To
explaintheburningof theundersideof
thecoverslabsonehastoassumethattheslabswereputin place
child is unknown,but it is likely to havebeenan infant, sinceone
of the pots in the tomb was a
feeding-bottle.It canthusbeconcludedthatat leastin
thiscasethesire of theringswasnotrightfor an
infant'sfinger.A ring mayhavebeenwom as anamuletin a
stringaroundtheneck; it mayalsohave
beengiven as a highly symbolicgift to the deceasedchild. For the
symbolicvalueof the ring : M.
RIEMSCHNEIDER, Symbolon.Jahrbuchfr Symbolforschung3 (1%2), p.
46-63; A.A. FOURLAS,
Der Ring in derAntileeundim Christentum.Der Ring ais
HerrschaftssymbolundWrdezeichen(1971).(24) Seeabove,with n. 14.
(25) HGG, op. cil., p. 137-138.Of special interestis
anotherSubmycenaeanamphorafound by P.
Courbin in the townareain 1954(BCH 79 [1955],p. 312; for
thedateseeHGG, op. cit., n. 23, p
27). The excavatordesignatedit as an "amphorefunraire"and,ashe
haskindly informedme,by this
expressionhemeansa potburialof anuncrematedsmallchild.
(26) V.R. DESBOROUGH, BSA 68 (1973),p. 92 with pl.
33a-b;Wel/Built Mycenae.The Hel/eno-British
excavationswilhin theciladelat Mycenae1959-1969,ed.by W.D.
Taylour,E.B. French,K.A. Wardle,
Fasc. 1 : W.D. TA YLOUR, The excavations(1981),p. 36 and 40. 1
am greatlyindebtedto Lord
William Taylour and Mrs. E.B. French for lettingme study the
relevantnotebooksin the Nauplia
Museum in August 1986,for discussingthe interpretationwith me
and for puttingthe photograph
(Neg.nO2431)herereproducedasPl. LU, c at mydisposai.
(27) P. COURBIN, Tombesgomtriquesd'Argos1(EtPlopVII [1974]),p.
116.
-
SUBMYCENAEAN CREMATION BURIALS lN THE ARGOLID ? 211
on top of the cist whilethefire wasstill burning.Ali in all, a
very strangeprocedureand onethatseemsto indicatelack of
experienceof theart andtechniqueof cremation28.
The secondcaseis a cist tomb found 1954in the town areaof Argos
29.On top of the
cover slabs of a Protogeometriccist were found the remainsof a
pyre. The inhumationinside
thecist containeda finger ring andthreeProtogeometricpots. ln
thepyre, which is obviously
also PG (since Courbin did not include it in his publication of
the Geometric tombs of
Argos)30 were found bumt bones,a finger ring and a calcined
oinochoe.The relation between
the original tomb and the pyre on top is not clear, and with the
present lack of further
published information 1can only point to this find as apossible
exampleof a cremationof an
uncanonical type,reflecting perhapstheabsenceof a local
tradition by which theconventions
andtechniquesof cremationwould havebeenhandeddown to new
generations.
1 have found no parallels to the two casesdescribed, neither in
Athens nor in Perati.
Even in Lefkandi, wherePG cremationsare found inside
cisttombs31,thereare no instances
of primary cremationin thecistsor on top of thecoverslabs.
To conclude 1 shall only give a brief referenceto a
recentdiscovery near Monastiraki
southof Mycenae, which shows yetanotheraspectof theimpactof
therite of cremationin this
region. ln a stonetumulussornesix pots of Submycenaean(or LH
IIIC) style were found and
in themcrematedbones32.Thanks to thekindnessof theexcavator,Miss
Eleni Paleologou,of
the Nauplion ephorate,1 have seen the pots and their contentsand
without anticipatingher
publication 1 can only statethat this is the very first (and so
far unique) instanceof regular
cinerary ums in the Argolid. This new find appearsto give the
final confirmation of my
conclusion thattheDeiras amphoraswerenotcineraryums.
Robin HAGG
(28)
Whenthisarticlehada1readybeensubmittedforpublication,Dr.J.H.
MusgravestudiedthebonesfromgraveGamma21.As
Mrs.Frenchkindlyinformsme(IetterofAugust23,1986)hereportedthat"thereareabsolutelyno
signsof cremationorotherburning".If
theboneswerethusuntouchedbyanyfIre,ilbecomesevenmoredifficulttoexplaintheburningof
thewallsandcoyerslabsof
thecistthatwere"verywhitenedbyfIre".Dr.Musgravesuggestedthatthestonesmighthavebeenreused.Thiscannotbecompletelyexcluded,butit
seemsunlikelysincethetracesof bumingaredescribedas
occurringconsistentlyontheinner surfacesonly.Althoughtheideaof
acremationcannowbefInallydiscarded,thegraveremainsenigmatic.
(29) P. COURBIN,BCH 78(1954),p. 177withfig.35.(30) ID.,
Tombesgomtriquesd'Argos1(EtPlopVII [1974]).(31) P. THEMELIS,
Lefkandi1: TheIron Age,BSA suppl.11(1980),p.210-212.(32)
H.W.CATLING,
ArchReports31(1984-85),p.21basedonEleftherotypia12Dec.1984:
"Ofunusual
interestis thediscoveryin 1984,reportedin theGreekPress,of a
substantial12thcent.B.e.
funerarytumulusatChaniabetweenMycenae-PhichtionandMonastiraki.Inurnedcremationswerefoundin
thetumulus ln a
letterdatedOctober15,1986,theexcavatorbaskindlyinformedmethatthepotteryassociatedwiththecremationsisnowdatedtoLateHelladicIIIC
Middle.Cf. forthcomingsummaryinBlCS (MycenaeanSeminar).
-
212
Pl. LI, a :Pl. LI, b :
Pl. Ln, a :
Pl. Ln, b :
Pl. Ln, c :
Robin HGG
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Argos, Deirasnecropolis,planof tombXXIV.
Argos, Deirasnecropolis,planof tombXXXIII.
Argos, Deirasnecropolis,amphoraDV 158fromtombXXXIII.
(Ecole franaised'archologie,Athens,Neg.nO29878).
Argos, Deirasnecropolis,amphoraDV 98 fromtombXXIV.
(Ecole franaised'archologie,Athens,Neg.n 29896).
Mycenae,CitadelHouseArea,graveGamma21 fromNE.
(Excavationphotograph,August26, 1964).
-
LI
a
b
1o
TOMBE XXIV
1
50
1
lOOc",
\N
TOMB~ XXXII}
-
LU
b
c