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