Proceedings o f the
Danish Institute at Athens •
Edited by Seven D ie tz
T h e pub licatio n was sponsored by:
C o n su l G eneral G osta E nborns Foundation.
T h e D anish R esearch C o u n cil for th e H um anities.
K onsul G eorge Jo rck og H u stru E m m a J o rc k ’s Fond.
© C o p y rig h t T h e D anish Institute at A thens, A thens 1995
Proceedings o f th e D anish Institute at A thens G eneral E d ito r: Seren D ietz
G raphic design and P ro d u c tio n by: Freddy Pedersen P rin te d in D e n m ark on p e rm a n en t paper IS B N 87 7288 721 4
D istrib u te d by
A A R H U S U N IV E R S IT Y P R E S S U niversity o f Aarhus
D K -8 0 0 0 A rhus C Fax (+45) 8619 8433 73 Lim e W alk
H e ad in g to n , O x fo rd 0 X 3 7AD Fax (+44) 865 750 079 B ox 511
O akville, C o n n . 06779 Fax (+1) 203 945 94 9468
T h e cover illustration depicts a B ronze Statuette o f a H o rse fo u n d at th e Argive H eraion. N M 13943.
D raw in g by N iels Levinsen. See p. 55, Fig. 19.
A ckno w led g em en ts:
A n earlier version o f this article form s p art o f m y Ph.D . thesis, Buried Virtues. D eath R ituals in Kerameikos, A thens, 7 0 0 - 4 0 0 B .C ., C o p e n h a g e n 1993.
I w o u ld like to take this o p p o rtu n ity to th a n k w arm ly m y supervisor A n n e tte R a th je fo r co n stan t su p p o rt across all bord ers w h ile I was w ritin g m y thesis. I also th a n k c o r
dially H e n rik Jacobsen fo r th e laborious u n d e rta k in g o f h elp in g m e to use SPSS P C + , B e n g t P etterso n fo r his p a tien t red raw in g o f m y figures and valuable suggestions. T h e p resent article also p ro fited greatly from th e criticism applied to m y earlier m an u scrip t by L o n e W rie d t Sorensen, B e rit Wells, M ogens H e rm a n H an sen and A n th o n y S n o d grass - b u t o f course n o o n e ex cep t m yself sh o u ld be held responsible fo r the result.
I also heartily th an k th e Faculty o f Classics in C am b rid g e for h o u sin g m e as a visiting scholar fo r h a lf a year and th e D anish R esearc h A cadem y fo r financing this stay.
I ow e a very special thanks to N ovo N ordisk Fonden fo r having financed m y p articipa
tio n in conferences and th e re -d raw in g o f m y figures and also to th e State R esearch C o u n c il fo r th e H u m an ities fo r financing th e English revision o f this article. A n d I th a n k P e te r C ra b b fo r having revised m y English.
H ow ever, I am unable to describe the g ratitu d e I feel tow ards A nders n o t on ly fo r his c o n stan t readiness to discuss, criticize and furnish ideas o n this article, b u t also to take over so m any o f those roles w h ic h I o ften failed to fulfil.
“Burial language” in Archaic and Classical Kerameikos
Sanne H elene H ouby-N ielsen
N O T E 1
Unless stated otherw ise, all dates in this article are B.C.
N O T E 2
B inford 1971; Saxe 1970;
for a h istory o f archaeolog
ical th o u g h t, T rigger 1989, 289-263.
N O T E 3 Snodgrass 1977.
N O T E 4
Ker. V I.1, 16 and V II.1, 199-201; B o u rrio t 1976, 831-1039.
N O T E 5
M o rris 1987, 57-71 and 1992, 70-102.
N O T E 6
H o d d e r 1985 and 1986, 18-33.
N O T E 7
M o rris 1987, 57-1 5 5 , esp.
94-95.
N O T E 8 W h itley 1991b.
N O T E 9
W h itley 1991b, 96, 105, 110-111, 132-136, 156-158.
Abstract
In this article I attem pt to present m ain tenden
cies in the archaeological record o f Kerameikos 7 0 0 - 4 0 0 B .C . In Part I, I seek to clarify the general principles o f fa m ily self-representation.
Changing conceptions o f age groups and the male and fem a le sex in A th e n ia n society will be seen to pla y a dom inant role and be respon
sible fo r a general lack o f fa m ily burial plots, but also fo r the difficulty o f deciding whether A ttic burial customs reflect the existence o f larg
er kinship organizations. M a in structuring principles in vase painting are seen as useful
analogies to the way gender roles were expressed in the actual burial contexts.
In Part II, I deal w ith the several large tum uli excavated in Kerameikos and in the A ttic coun
tryside. Contrary to current scholarly opinion, which regards these tum uli as some o f the fe w certain cases o f true fa m ily burial plots, I inter
pret them as extreme examples o f the will to express gender roles in burial practice. I thus argue that some o f these tum uli rather com
memorate socio-political associations such as sympotic and priestly associations.
Finally, in Part III, I briefly com ment upon the relation between the archaeology o f Kerameikos and the reforms o f Kleisthenes.
Introduction
T h e m ain p u rp o se o f th e p resen t article is to show som e o f th e vast possibilities w h ic h th e study o f A rchaic and Classical burials m ay afford fo r a u g m e n tin g o u r k n o w led g e o f A th e n ia n society.1
T h e re is a lo n g archaeological tradition
fo r stu d y in g th e relationship b e tw e e n m o rtu a ry p ractice an d social structure.
T h e th eo retical basis has b e e n fo rm u lated in p articu lar by A n g lo -S ax o n arch aeo lo gists. F o r m any years, th e u n d e rly in g b e lie f was th a t social stru ctu re is m irro re d in burial practice: th e m o re co m p le x th e b u rial custom s, th e m o re co m p le x was the b u ry in g society.2
In classical archaeology, in terest in the relatio n b e tw e e n b u rial custom s an d the rise o f th e G reek city-state is lin k ed to this deb ate.3 In o th e r c o n n ectio n s, an cien t G reek b u rial p ractice has som etim es b een used as a d irect source fo r elu cid atin g k in ship relations and genealogies.4
R ecen tly , I. M o rris has, a m o n g o th e r things, d e m o n stra te d h o w th e ritu al and sym bolic aspects o f b u rial custom s in som e cases im p ed e a direct d e c o d in g o f aspects o f th e b u ry in g society (e.g. d e m ography, invasions, trade, h ealth c o n d i
tio n s).5 In this h e follow s re c e n t criticism o f fo rm e r “processual” archaeology p u t forw ard by “ c o n te x tu a l” archaeologists .6 Still, M o rris also sees a ra th e r d irect rela
tio n sh ip b e tw e e n m o rtu a ry p ractice in A t
tica 1 1 0 0 -5 0 0 and social o rganization.
T his is p articularly ap p aren t in his arg u m e n ta tio n fo r “la w -lik e” relations
b e tw e e n certain social groups (agathoi and kakoi) and certain fu n erary practices.7
J. W h itle y has lately p resen ted a study o n th e relation b e tw e e n ceram ic style, fu
n e rary ritu al and social o rg an izatio n in G reece 1 1 0 0 -7 0 0 , in w h ic h he focuses es
pecially on A th e n s.8 In this w o rk , he e m phasizes among other things how in Ath
ens differences in ceram ic style an d fu n e r
ary p ractice are in several p e rio d s clearly related to age an d sex.9 O n th e o th e r hand, he also correlates variations over
tim e in grave assemblages (e.g. w ealth) to a d ev elo p m en t from a less institu tio n alized h ierarchical org an izatio n to a firm ly estab
lished o n e w ith a w ell-d efin ed elite.10 T h e p resent study focuses o n K eram ei- kos 7 0 0 -4 0 0 . I h o p e to show th a t in this p e rio d th e relation “ burial custom s - liv
in g so ciety ” is very indirect. I w ill argue th at a b u rial p ro ced u re was m ainly p e r
ceived as an occasion to elaborate u p o n th e re p u tatio n o f th e b u ry in g group, the close family. F or this reason, burial p rac
tice was defin ed by th e so ciety ’s c h an g in g m o ral concepts p e rta in in g to age and sex.
T h e im plications o f m y a rg u m en tatio n are i.a. th at n o t on ly do burials n o t m irro r ge
nealogy, b u t th ey are also m ost difficult to use in re c o n stru c tin g th e size o f fam ily units and the strength o f fam ily ties.
M oreover, an cien t age concepts and g e n d e r roles im p ed e the rec o n stru c tio n o f so
cial hierarchies and p ro p e rty classes. O n th e o th e r hand, burials are fo u n d to offer valuable in fo rm a tio n o n aspects and expres
sions o f fam ily self-representation and o f elite status.
M y arg u m en t th a t burial practice - in ways very sim ilar to fu n erary art and epi
taphs - serves to express and form ulate m e n ta l im ages p e rta in in g to age and sex does n o t m ake m aterial rem ains o f fu n e r
ary rituals stand apart from o th e r aspects o f m aterial culture in A th e n ian society - o n th e contrary. F o r instance, several scholars have em phasized a lack o f c o n crete actions o r instantaneous situations in A ttic vase p a in tin g and instead p o in te d to th e ir reference to su p erio r n o tio n s relating to n o tio n s o f w om anliness, m anliness, le
g itim ate m arriage, and uncivilized and an
im al-like b e h a v io u r.11
All in all, th e result o f m y research has b e e n an insight in to w h a t I th in k can best be called a “b u rial language” .
Part I.
Family self-representation in Archaic and Classical Kerameikos
F or a lo n g tim e, early G reek society was th o u g h t to have b e e n d o m in ated by few,
b u t large kinship groups (gene), w h o re
ferred to a c o m m o n m ythical ancestor, possessed th eir o w n cults an d based th eir p o w er o n hereditary, extensive landed property. T h ese pow erful families w ere th o u g h t to b u ry th eir dead in private ce
m eteries, situated o n th e ir estates in o rd er to create a m o re p ro fo u n d sense o f p ro p erty and a ttach m en t to the land. F. B o u r- rio t has delivered a 1421-p a g e -lo n g study o f this c o n c e p tio n .12 In a critical analysis o f w ritte n sources and h isto rio g rap h y he argues th at o u r n o tio n o fgenos is anach
ronistic, b e in g co lo u red by th e role genos plays in 4 th cent, an d later sources. To stren g th en his arg u m en t, he devotes ab o u t 200 pages to a survey o f funerary practice - in clu d in g th at o f K eram eikos - in w h ic h he attem pts to prove a lack o f evidence for kinship b u rial plots e x ten d in g over m o re th an o n e o r tw o generations, ex cep tio n al
ly fo u r generations, before the 4 th cent.
Generally, scholars w o rk in g w ith in fu n er
ary archaeology seem to accept B o u r r io t’s conclusions o n A ttic b u rial p ractice.13 N evertheless, as p o in te d o u t by S. H u m phreys14, even (nuclear) fam ily burial groups are n o t easily identified before the 4th cent, in A ttica. B urials, especially in th e A rchaic p e rio d , te n d to be ind iv id u al
ly m ark ed by a tum ulus o r grave building.
Such burials o ften lie in groups, w ith in w h ic h it is m ost difficult to distinguish fam ily units. A n d for reasons discussed in P art II, I do n o t th in k h u g e m o u n d s cov
e rin g m any burials necessarily are tradi
tional fam ily tom bs. H o m e r never m e n tions fam ily tom bs. O n th e contrary, w e h ear o f sema, a m o u n d heap ed up over an individual o r over frien d s.’3 Also the m any A rchaic funerary inscriptions and th e ic o n o g rap h y o f grave m o n u m e n ts (kouroi, ko- rai and grave steles) never stress fam ily ties o f the deceased, b u t rath e r c o m m em o rate th e deceased in term s o f public values (w hich I w ill discuss in m o re detail later on). E ven in th e 4 th cent., w h e n rows o f grave enclosures (periboloi)lb and th e ic o no g rap h y o f grave m o n u m e n ts do stress fam ily u n ity ,17 w e still find isolated burials in between grave enclosures.18
T h is im pression o f a re c u rrin g lack o f
N O T E 1 0
W h itley 1991b, 96-97, 136-137; see also W h itley 1991a, 357.
N O T E 1 1
H offm ann 1977; Sourvi- n o u -In w o o d 1987; M eyer 1988.
N O T E 12 B o u rrio t 1976.
N O T E 1 3
H um phreys 1980, 123 w arns against the co n cep t o f “ squirearchy” ; M o rris 1987, 90; W h itley 1991b, 67; for som e reservation towards B o u rrio t’s study, see D ’A g o s tin o /D ’O n o frio 1993, 42.
N O T E 1 4 H u m p h rey s 1980.
N O T E 1 5
O d xi 75-6; II. xxiii 245- 248; xxiv 797-801 N O T E 1 6 Garland 1982.
N O T E 17
H um phreys 1980, 112- 121.
N O T E 18
For n o n -p e rib o lo i burials, see A M 1966:1, 77 and Garland 1982, n.s 37, 63, 68.
130
N O T E 19
Littman 1978; O ber 1989, 56.
N O T E 2 0
L ittm an 1978, 18; Just 1991(2), 55.
N O T E 21
B o u rrio t 1976, 831-1039.
N O T E 2 2 B o u rrio t 1976, 984
n o t e 2 3
B o u rrio t 1976, 933-934, 948, 978, 982
N O T E 2 4
B o u rrio t 1976, 934, 944, 948-949
N O T E 2 5
B o u rrio t 1976, 955-956, n. 237
N O T E 2 6 Ker. V I.1, 16.
N O T E 27 Ker. IX , 10.
N O T E 2 8 See above n. ..
N O T E 2 9
D e sb o ro u g h 1952, 5-6;
Krause 1975, 45-47.
N O T E 3 0
W h itley 1991a, 356-357 and 1991b, 131, 160.
N O T E 31 B oardm an 1988.
N O T E 3 2
K okula 1984, 13, 146-148.
N O T E 3 3
B o ard m an 1988, 178, has som e doubts.
N O T E 3 4 M astrokostas 1972.
N O T E 3 5
M o rris 1987, 57-71.
interest in stressing kinship in b u rial cus
tom s certainly conflicts w ith a h isto ric line o f research th at em phasizes th e im p o r
tan ce o f oikos and in te r-oikos c o -o p e ra tio n as a social an d p olitical facto r in A rchaic and Classical A thens, and sees th e oikos o f P ericlean A th en s as th e fo u n d a tio n stone o f th e p olis.V) I f th e oikoi died o u t, so w o u ld th e city -state.20
It is certainly n o t m y in te n tio n to argue against B o u r r io t’s general conclusions a b o u t genos. O n th e o th e r h an d , I do h o p e to show th a t a closer lo o k at th e stru c tu r
in g p rinciples o f fam ily self-representation in K eram eikos can solve som e o f the problem s o u tlin e d above an d also to show th a t it is n o t ap p ro p ria te to use burial cus
tom s to argue against th e existence o f larger kinship organizations.
Age and gender: the main structuring principles
B o u r r io t fo u n d , as m e n tio n e d above, n o evid en ce fo r kinship burial plots e x te n d in g over m o re th a n o n e o r tw o, ex ce p tionally four, gen eratio n s before th e 4 th c e n t.21 It appears from his study th at in o r
d e r to speak o f a genos b u rial p lo t, B o u r r i
o t req u ire d o n e o r m o re o f th e follow ing c o n d itio n s to be fulfilled. Firstly, all m e m bers o f th e genos sh o u ld be rep resen ted g en e ra tio n after g en eratio n . Secondly, a certain fo rm al sim ilarity b e tw e e n burials o f th e fam ily m em b e rs sh o u ld o b tain w ith respect to in te rm e n t-fo rm s and b o d y -o r- ie n ta tio n .22 T hirdly, th e genealogy o f the genos sh o u ld be c o m m e m o ra te d in in scrip tio n s.23 Fourthly, m e m b ers sh o u ld be b u rie d in th e sam e tu m u lu s o r enclosure.24 In fact B o u r rio t is sceptical tow ards the idea th a t a fam ily m ay have b een rep re
sented th ro u g h a g ro u p o f individually m ark ed graves25, as K. K iibler h ad sugges
te d .26
U . K nigge, th e excavator o f the Sudhugel in K eram eikos appears to share som e o f B o u r r io t s view s. T h u s, she b e lieves th a t Grabhiigel G is possibly a fam ily burial p lot, since several o f its burials are form ally very sim ilar.27
In m y o p in io n , how ever, B o u r r io t’s re
je c tio n o f evid en ce fo r^ m e b u rial plots lacks a co n sid eratio n o f th e general p rin c i
ples o f fam ily self-rep resen tatio n in A rch a
ic and Classical b u rial practice.
As im m ed iately appears from a q u ick survey o f various studies o f A ttic b u rial p ractice in th e A rchaic an d Classical p e ri
ods, b u rial p ractice appears to b e related to age and sex. It has, fo r instance, b e e n sh o w n th a t Iro n A ge b u rial custom s in th e K eram eikos w ere o ften o rg an ized along lines o f age and sex in term s o f ch o ice o f grave gifts, grave fo rm , vessel type used as co n ta in e r fo r th e rem ains o f th e deceased and ch o ic e o f grave m ark er.28
In th e earlier Iro n A ge th e n e c k -h a n dled amphora generally m ark ed m ale b u r i
als and th e belly- (or sh o u ld er-) h an d led amphora fem ale burials.29 In th e later p art o f th e Iro n A ge (Late G eo m e tric ) craters m ark ed m ale burials and amphorae fem ale burials. Stylistic features in th e G e o m e tric p e rio d apparently also played an increasing role in expressing differences in sex and age.30 T h is strict se x -d e te rm in e d use o f m arker-vases characteristic o f th e Iro n A ge in fact persisted in A rchaic an d Classical tim es in th e shape o f th e fu n era ry ioutro- phoros-amphora (male) and th e loutrophoros-
hydria (fem ale).31 T h ese vase shapes have b e e n c o n n e c te d w ith a rem ark m ade by p se u d o -D e m o sth e n e s (contra Leochrem X L IV 18) an d later lex ico g rap h ers stating th a t a loutrophoros m ark ed th e grave o f a y o u n g m a n o r w o m a n w h o had d ied u n w e d .32 W h e th e r o r n o t th e archaeological loutrophoros is th e sam e as th e literary o n e ,33 these rem arks co rrelate nicely w ith th e P h rasik leia-ep itap h c o m m e m o ra tin g an u n w e d girl o f th e 6th c e n t.34 and show th at certain publicly defined age groups and g e n d e r roles co u ld define b u rial cus
tom s.
I. M o rris has p o in te d o u t th e rem ark able flu ctu atio n in A ttica o f b u rial plots and cem eteries, w h ic h som etim es exclude (P ro to g e o m etric to M id d le G e o m e tric ), sometimes include children (Sub-Myce- naean, Late G e o m e tric an d E arly R e d F igure).35 C ertainly, this flu ctu atio n m ust b e caused by differing attitudes to children in th e society as a w h o le.
T h e e x te n t to w h ic h sex, o r rath er co ncepts o f sex and age, d e te rm in e d b u ri
al custom s is especially strik in g in the ch o ice o f grave m o n u m e n t and fun erary in scrip tio n s in th e A rchaic and Classical perio d s. T h u s grave m o n u m e n ts w ere p r i
m arily erected to h o n o u r th e y o u n g m an in th e shape o f kouroi and grave steles. In scriptions o f th e latter ren d e r th e y o u n g m an an o n y m o u s (w ith o u t patrinom ikon), and he is c o m m e m o ra te d fo r public v ir
tues, n o t private (or family) ones: kalos, agathos, sophrosyne, pistos, euksunetos, eudo- kos, prom axos, and n o tio n s o f “beautiful d e a th ” .36 Probably, funerary inscriptions w ere regarded as a public (here in the sense o f “ state”) m e d iu m , since this was h o w w ritin g o n stone m arkers in general was conceived o f ,37 As w o m e n h ad no place in politics, this circum stance co u ld certainly help to explain w h y 6 th cent.
A ttic fu n erary epigram s alm ost exclusively c o n c e rn m en , w h ile representations o f fe
m ale prothesis scenes are m o re c o m m o n th a n m ale ones o n funerary plaques.38 Still, in th e 4 th cent, epitaphs still c o m m em o rate m e n tw ice as often as w o m en ,39 w h ile representations o f w o m e n o u tn u m b e r those o f m e n o n contem porary steles ,40 A lready A. B ru e c k n e r drew atte n tio n to this p rin c ip le o f c o m m e m o ra tin g m e n th ro u g h n am e inscriptions o n fairly plain steles and w o m e n th ro u g h ico n o g rap h y o n elaborate reliefs.41
Finally, in an en te rta in in g study on tragedies, N .L o ra u x has sh o w n h o w in these, m e n d ied v io len t, b lo o d y - an d thus h ero ic - deaths (usually by th e sword), w h ile w o m e n died “p riv a te ” , u n b lo o d y and thus u n -h e ro ic deaths (usually by h anging) inside th e house. A n d w h e n w o m e n d ied “v irile ” deaths and m e n “ fe
m a le” deaths, this h ad a special signifi- cance.4 2
In th e follow ing descrip tio n o f m ain ten d en cies in the archaeological re co rd o f K eram eikos 7 0 0 -4 0 0 , I h o p e to show in m o re detail th e e x te n t to w h ic h society’s co ncepts regarding age and sex d e te r
m in e d burial custom s.
M ain tendencies in the archaeological record o f Kerameikos 700-400 B.C.
A g e 43
C ertainly, social evaluation o f age plays a significant role in b u rial custom s in K era
m eikos. As b ecom es ev id en t from Table 1, th e frequency o f adult burials ranges b e tw e e n 60.0 and 85.6% (exceptionally 50.0%) in th e 7 th and 6th cent. A ro u n d 500, th e p ictu re suddenly changes, and child burials o u tn u m b e r adult burials, b e in g slightly over 50%. T his change acco m panies a drastic increase in th e n u m b e r o f burials p e r a n n u m (Table 2).44 Suddenly, adult b u rial activity doubles, w h ile child burial activity alm ost quadruples as p a rt o f a co n tin u o u sly rising curve cu lm in atin g b e tw e e n 475 and 450. M o rris has argued convincingly th a t w h e n children are n o t represented (or heavily u n d er-rep resen ted ) in form al, archaeologically m anifested b u rial plots, this c an n o t b e a m a tte r o f p o o r preservation, b u t m ust b e d ue to exclusion o f children o n th e basis o f rank w ith in age g ro u p .45 In o th e r w ords, children w ere b u rie d elsew here.46 C h ild necropoleis and child burials w ith in settlem ents su p p o rt this view .47 Conversely, I th in k a sudden
“ o v er-rep resen tatio n ” o f children testifies to a different n o tio n o f children in the b u ry in g society. I w ill discuss this in m o re detail below.
E ven w h e n children w ere b u rie d in K eram eikos, they o ften seem to have b e e n b u rie d apart from adults: b etw een 700 and 560, child burials te n d to cluster at the fringe o f groups o f tu m u li and grave buildings each m ark in g a single adult b u rial, o r in separate areas tow ards th e west and n o rth -w e st o f the Ay. T riadha hill and in a burial p lo t (“ F ”) situated n o rth o f the E rid an o s (Figs. 1-3). T h e y certainly m ay b e m ix ed w ith som e adult burials, b u t interestingly e n o u g h in several cases such n o t m arked by a tu m u lu s o r a grave b u ild ing, ju s t as child burials w ere never m arked by such m o n u m en ts. In o th e r w ords, child burials seem to be g ro u p ed w ith adult burials o f a certain (low?) status m ak in g status a m ajo r organizing prin cip le
N O T E 3 6
In general, see H um phreys 1980, esp. 92; for 6th cent.
B .C . A ttic funerary epi
grams con tain in g the q u o ted virtues: Peek 1960, 50; R ic h te r 1961, no. 34, no. 36, W illem sen 1963, no. 2, no. 4, no. 11, no.
12; Jeffery 1962, 118 no.
3, 120 n o s.8 and 9, 121 no. 12, 130 no. 23, 130 no. 25, 132 no. 31, 136 no. 41, 137 no. 45, 140 nos. 49 and 50, 141 no.
51, 143 no. 56, 147 nos.
66-68. For the o ver-repre
sentation o f funerary k o u roi in relation to funerary korai, see D u cat 1976.
n o t e 37
Thomas 1989, esp. 45-47, 55.
n o t e 38
Shapiro 1991, 639 n. 55 based o n B rooklyn 1981, 162-219.
N O T E 3 9
Hansen et al. 1990, 26, n. 11.
n o t e 4 0
Shapiro 1991, 158 based o n a rou g h tabulation o f C o n ze 1890-1922; see also G arland 1985, 87.
N O T E 41
B r u e c k n e r 1 9 0 9 ,1 0 6 N O T E 4 2
Loraux 1991, 7-30, esp. 14.
n o t e 4 3
For convenience I use the te rm “ adults” , although in reality I deal w ith n o n children. For definitions o f age groups, I refer to A p
p e n d ix 2.
N O T E 4 4
Compare Morris 1987, 73, fig. 22.
132
( j Adult burials
7 0 0 6 7 5 6 5 0 625 6 0 0 5 7 5 5 6 0 5 3 5 5 1 0 5 0 0 475 4 5 0 4 2 5 400 YEARS B.C.
Table 1 The frequency o f child and adult, burials in Kerameikos 7 1 0 /7 0 0 -4 0 0 B .C .
No, of b u ria ls
Y E A RS B.C.
Table 2 The number o f child and adult burials per annum in Kerameikos 7 1 0 /7 0 0 -4 0 0 B.C .
N O T E 4 5
M orris 1987, 57-109, esp. 93.
N O T E 4 6
For “invisible” burials, see M orris 1987, 62, 93, 94, 105.
N O T E 47
Y oung 1942 and 1951;
M o rris 1987, 62-71.
N O T E 4 8
O ly n th u s X I, no. 364.
even w ith in fam ily groupings. T h is te n d en cy to separate adults and children (or perhaps to g ro u p ch ild ren w ith adults o f a sim ilar - possibly lo w e r - status as th a t o f children) also characterizes K eram eikos in th e re m ain in g p a rt o f th e 6 th cent, and in th e 5 th cent. F o r apart from area “D ” - to b e discussed b elo w - child burials are g ro u p e d w ith ra th e r sim ple adult burials in th e p e rio d 5 6 0 -5 0 0 (Figs. 4 -6). A gain, like th e ch ild burials, these adult burials w ere alm ost never m ark ed individually by a tu m u lu s o r grave b u ild in g an d th eir grave co n tex ts w ere rarely gender-specific.
T u rn in g to th e 5 th cen t., w e n o w see a clear te n d e n c y to keep child burials away fro m groups o r series o f tu m u li an d grave buildings. Instead th ey te n d to be g ro u p e d w ith “p o o r ” ad u lt burials o r sub-adults (m any o f these skeletons w ere n o t fully preserved n o r th e le n g th o f th e a p p u rte n ant grave), and they are b u rie d at som e distance from th e road. M oreover, K era
m eikos develops a tru e child necropolis sit
u ated in Grabhugel G and Sudhugel (Fig.7).
W ith som e ex cep tio n s - treated b elo w - it is therefore a so m ew h at fruitless task to a tte m p t to trace “ tr u e ” fam ily plots.
T h e general p a tte rn is ch aracterized by burials g ro u p e d to g e th e r o n p rin cip les o f c o m m o n age groups and status, th at is to say acco rd in g to pu b lic - n o t fam ily - c o n cepts. Perhaps w e have a parallel case in O ly n th u s. H e re 26 p ersons (25 adults and 1 child) w ere b u rie d to g e th e r in a shallow p it.48 T h e y lay n e x t to o n e an o th er, facing in th e same d irectio n . N e a r som e o f th e persons a few grave gifts w ere deposited, w h ic h w ere very sim ilar from p e rso n to p erso n . Ju d g in g from these grave gifts, m o st o f th e persons w ere m ale and only o n e fem ale (grave gifts consisted m ostly o f strigils, skyphoi, bow ls and in o n e case a p yx is). C e rtain ly a general (low?) social value m ust be responsible fo r this collec
tive burial.
T h e c o m m u n ity ’s n o tio n s o f age also structures m eans o f in te rm e n t an d grave furnishings. In th e 7 th an d 6 th cen t., child-graves w ere n ev er m ark ed by a tu -
Fig. 1 Kerameikos 7 1 0 /7 0 0 - 6 0 0 B .C .
(drawn by B. Petterson).
Fig. 2 Kerameikos 600-5 7 5 B .C .
(drawn by B. Petterson).
134
Fig-3 Kerameikos 5 7 5 - 5 6 0 B .C .
(draum by B . Petterson).
Fig. 4 Kerameikos 5 6 0 -5 3 5 B.C .
(drawn by B. Petterson).
Fig.5 Kerameikos 5 3 5 - 5 1 0 B .C .
(drawn by B. Petterson).
Fig. 6 Kerameikos 5 1 0 -5 0 0 B.C .
(drawn by B. Petterson).
136
F ig.7 Kerameikos 5 0 0 - 4 0 0 B .C .
(drawn by B. Petterson).
n o t e 49
S chlorb-V ierneisel 1964.
N O T E 5 0
See C atalogue 1 and A p p en d ix 2 for ag e-g ro u p definitions.
N O T E 51
F or exceptions to this rule, see n. 348
N O T E 52 Ker. IX, 29-30.
N O T E 5 3
I have discussed this in m o re detail in a previous article, H o u b y -N ielsen 1992.
N O T E 54
A M 1966:1, 6 5 /h S 175 and 9 1 /h S 97.
N O T E 55
Houby-Nielsen 1992, table 8.
m ulus o r grave b u ilding, unless th e child was b u rie d to g e th e r w ith an adult. In the 5 th cen t., w e have ev id en ce fo r on ly tw o (older) children w h o w ere c o m m e m o ra te d above g ro u n d (th ro u g h grave steles).49 A dults, how ever, w ere freq u en tly in d iv id ually m a rk ed by a tu m u lu s o r grave b u ild in g in th e 7 th an d early 6 th cent. H e re after this cu sto m declines (Table 3).
B e tw e e n 700 and 560, adults w ere p r i
m a rily crem ated , w h ile in h u m a tio n was p referred th ro u g h o u t th e rest o f th e 6 th an d in th e 5 th cent. (Table 4). In th e 7th, 6 th and 5 th cen t., infants an d small chil
d ren w ere generally in h u m e d in vases and th u s fo rm a distinct age g ro u p in term s o f b u rial custom s (age g ro u p l ) . 50 O ld e r ch il
dren , aged 3 /4 - 1 2 / 1 4 (age g ro u p 3), seem to have b e e n treated ra th e r like adults, since th ey w ere b u rie d directly in th e g ro u n d o r in w o o d e n coffins in th e m a n n e r o f adults. T h e m ain difference b e tw e e n adults an d ch ild ren seem s to be th at ch ild ren w ere only very rarely cre
m a t e d / 1
F ro m aro u n d 500, th e o ld er baby and up to 3 o r 4 year old child (age g ro u p 2) also b ecam e form ally expressed th ro u g h standardized form s o f in te rm e n t. T his
h a p p e n e d th ro u g h th e in tro d u c tio n o f 8 0 - 100 cm lo n g te rra c o tta basins used as cof
fins.52 T h e le n g th o f these basins an d th e few cases o f preserved skeletons indicate th a t th e basins w ere used fo r th e 1 to 3 o r 4 year old children.
R e g a rd in g grave gifts th ere is o n e m a j o r difference b e tw e e n ad u lt and child b u
rials in th e 7 th an d early 6 th cent. A dults p rim a rily receive gifts placed in separate o fferin g -tren ch es o r offering-places and rarely grave gifts (Table 5) w h ile c h ild ren receive o n ly gifts placed inside th e grave.53 H ow ever, tw o Classical ch ild burials m ay b e c o n n e c te d w ith o fferin g -p laces.54 T his difference persists even after 560, w h e n th e ritu al o f th e o fferin g -tren ch es (and - places) declines. U n til 560, b o th adults an d ch ild ren m ainly receive vases for d rin k in g and eating. H ere a fter d rin k in g - and eating-vases disappear ab ru p tly as gifts to adults in favour o f lekythoi placed inside th e grave.33 C h ild ren , how ever, co n tin u e to receive m any d rin k in g - an d eating-vas- es until around 500 (Table 6 x-line). In th e 5th cen t., w h e n th e n u m b e r o f child burials, and accordingly th e n u m b e r o f grave gifts, are m u c h higher, it is possible to ob tain a clearer idea o f th e relation
7 0 0 6 7 5 6 5 0 6 2 5 6 0 0 5 7 5 5 6 0 5 3 5 5 1 0 5 0 0 4 7 5 4 5 0 4 2 5 40 0 YEA RS B.C.
Cremation Unknown
Table 3 The frequency o f tumuli and grave buildings in relation to the total Table 4 The frequency o f adult inhumation and cremation burials
number o f adult burials 7 1 0 /7 0 0 -4 0 0 B.C.
b e tw e e n categories o f grave gifts and age groups. As is sh o w n in Table 7, th e n u m b e r o f le k y t h o iclearly increases w ith age, w h ile th e n u m b e r o f d rin k in g -, eating- and p o u rin g -v ases declines. E ven w ith in th e large category called “ o th e r gifts” , a p a tte rn is detectable, as d em o n strated in Table 8. T h e o ld er th e p erso n , th e few er th e special child vases, toys and small bow ls w ith lid, w h ile p y x i d e s (w ith cylin
drical body) and terracottas and “v ario u s”
increase w ith age. A n d in th e latter cate
g o ry w e find m any objects w h ic h are es
pecially c o n n e c te d w ith g e n d er roles (soap, m ak e-u p , leb e s, strigit) (see A p p e n d i
ces 4 -5), as are p y x i d e s .
G ender and the structural principles o f the burial context
It is c o m m o n in grave archaeology to c o n sid er certain objects o r features as spe
cific for e ith e r th e m ale o r the fem ale sex.
For this reason, burials w h ich have n o t
b e e n analysed osteologically are often id en tified as m ale o r fem ale th ro u g h the presence o f such apparently sex-specific features.36 H ow ever, burial contexts are al
ways th e p ro d u c t o f th e social values o f the b u ry in g group. T h e se contexts (choice o f in te rm e n t, o f grave gifts, o f m odes o f dep o sitin g grave gifts) therefore can n o t express th ebiological sex, b u t rath er co n c ep tio n s o f th e biological sex, th a t is the cultural g en d er.57 Since g en d er categories som etim es overlap, sim ilar b u rial contexts, an d even so-called “sex-specific” objects, are som etim es fo u n d in c o n n e c tio n w ith b o th m ale an d fem ale burials. T h is lack o f a sharp distinction b etw een grave contexts o f osteologically m ale and fem ale burials has therefore o ften puzzled archaeologists, and it is c o m m o n in such cases to assume th a t it was u n im p o rta n t to distinguish b e tw e e n males and fem ales.38 T h is is also th e conclusion w h ic h A. S tro m b erg reaches in h e r recen t study o n se x -id en - tification in Iro n A ge burials in A thens b etw e e n 1100 and 700, since th e m ajo rity
n o t e 5 6
See recently S trom berg 1993, w hose identification o f burials as eith er m ale o r female rests on an attem pt to isolate grave goods as m ale o r female.
n o t e 57
F or the im p o rtan ce o f dis
tinguishing b etw een sex and gender in archaeology, see recently G ero Sc C o n - key (eds.) 1991; Sorensen
1992.
N O T E 5 8
See recently W hitley 1991b, 96, 105, 110, 158.
1 3 8
V V A
•'>v<
G ifts from offerfng-tre nche s (or -p la c e s) G ifts from adult graves
'K r* ''
Inc rea se caused by a few extrem ely ric h offe ring -p le c e s
7 0 0 6 7 5 6 5 0 6 2 5 6 0 0 5 7 5 5 6 0 5 3 5 5 1 0 5 0 0 4 7 5 4 5 0 4 2 5 4 0 0 (43 ) (2 2 ) (76 ) (7) (22 ) (0) (1 4 0 ) <25)<77)(396)(340) (5 6 7 ) (1 2 5 )
Table 5 The frequency o f gifts from respectively offering-trenches (and - places) and adult graves.
x Categories of grave g ifts in child gra ve s 6 0 0 - 5 0 0 B.C.
(55 objects)
• Categories of grave g if t s in child gra ve s 5 1 0 - 5 0 0 B.C.
(69 objects)
| C ate gories of grave g i f t s in child gra ves 5 0 0 - 4 0 0 B.C.
(13 60 objects)
It H I IV V VI V II V III IX CATEGORIES OF GRAVE GIFTS
I : le ky th o i
II : D rin k in g -, e ating-, p ou rin g-vase s III : Sp e c ia l child va se s
IV : T e rra c o tta s V : Pyxide s V I : V a rio u s V II : T oys V l i l : perfum e va se s IX : Personal objects X : Je w e lle ry
Table 6 A comparison between the frequency o f categories o f grave gifts in child graves 600-510, 5 1 0 -5 0 0 and 5 0 0 -4 0 0 B .C .
% ioo
90 80 - 70 - 6 0 -
5 0 -
4 0 - 3 0 “
2 0 -
10 0
X— X Drinking-, eating-, and pouring-vases Lekythoi Q □ Other gifts
N ew -born Sm all Older
children children
(580) (482) (305) (1027)
Table 1 The relationship between categories o f gifts and age groups in the 5th cent. B .C . (The actual number o f gifts is shown in brackets.)
New-born Sm all
children children AGE GROUPS
Special c hild -vose s | Perfume vases
Pyxides Sm ell bow ls with
lid
T oys
□
Table 8 The relationship between categories o f grave gifts and age groups in the 5th cent, (lekythoi and vases for drinking, eating and pouring are excluded).
o f th e burials c o u ld n o t be sex -d e term in ed according to her ow n m ethodology d9 It is, how ever, in tere stin g to n o te th at aro u n d 23.4% o f th e burials w h ic h did n o t c o n tain sex-specific objects are in fan t o r child burials, as against 0.5% o f th e se x -d e te r
m inable burials.60 In th e Iro n A ge, chil
dren o ften b elo n g to a low -status g ro u p in b u rial co n te x ts61 and are therefore seldom given grave eq u ip m e n t, w h ic h again m akes sex o r g en d er id en tificatio n diffi
cult. A n d in th e Classical p e rio d , as w e shall see below , g e n d er appears to be less expressed in graves o f infants and small ch ild ren th a n in graves o f o ld er children and adults. Such a c o n c e p t o f small chil
dren as “ gender-less” - w h ich is w ell- k n o w n from o th e r cultures62 - is certainly also an expression o f g en d e r attitude.
A clear exam ple o f th e im p o rta n c e o f w o rk in g w ith g e n d e r rath er th an sex in studies o n b u rial custom s is a 4 th cent, b u rial in th e Eckterrasse in K eram eikos.63 T h e skeleton is th at o f a y o u n g m an, b u t a m o n g th e n u m e ro u s grave gifts several objects are rep resen ted th a t are n o rm ally considered to be u n am b ig o u s indicators o f a fem ale grave (pyxides, m irro r, m ake-up).
T h is to u c h o f fem inism has convincingly b een in te rp re te d as an in d icatio n th a t the deceased was an actor. Perhaps it is th e ac
to r M akareus, w h o is c o m m e m o ra te d in a fu n era ry in sc rip tio n fo u n d nearby.64 T h e b u rial is certainly an unusual one, b u t it is a nice exam ple o f h o w grave contexts ex press g e n d er roles (here “ a c to r”), w h ic h som etim es c a n n o t be categ o rized as strict
ly fem ale o r m ale - th o u g h in this case the presence o f an ivory o b je ct d eco rated w ith aggressive scenes o f antithetical pairs o f m ale anim als (lions, p anthers, bulls) and griffins65 m ay c o n fo rm w ith a m o re tradi
tional m ale g e n d er role.
Interestingly e n o u g h , w e find a sim ilar c o m p lex o f problem s a tten d in g A ttic vase p ain tin g . H ere, only th e total co m p o sitio n o f elem ents indicates w h a t g en d e r roles (or settings, buildings,) are m e a n t.66 O ften , im ag ery consists o f re c u rrin g co m p o si
tions o f elem ents, form ulas: for instance
“ w o m a n sitting o n a stool h o ld in g a m ir
ror, b e h in d h e r an alabastron on th e wall,
in front o f h e r colum ns w ith p a rt o f the architrave visible” , alto g eth er signalling
“ F rau en g e m ach ” . W ith this form ula, var
y in g elem ents m ay be associated, thereby giving th e scene its specific m eaning. In o u r exam ple, it can be a m an h o ld in g a purse tow ards th e w o m an , thereby placing h e r in th e category o f hetairai - o r sim ply em phasizing th e role o f w o m e n as desir
able sexual objects.67 T hese form ulas m ay be e x ten d ed o r reduced, th e latter recall
in g th e fo rm er, and different elem ents m ay be added, w h ic h changes the m ean in g o f the form ula. If, fo r instance, a y o u n g w o m a n holds a baby tow ards a sit
ting w o m an , th e w o m a n ’s role as m o th e r o r rath er the m en tal im age o f “ chastity” is stressed. T h e in te rd e p e n d e n cy o f im agery causes scenes o f daily life to overlap w ith m y thological scenes w ith respect to form al sim ilarity as well as to m ean in g .68 A nd, as n o te d in th e in tro d u c tio n , vase p a in tin g w ith genre scenes seems less c o n c e rn e d to d ep ict co n crete actions o r instantaneous situations, b u t rath er refers to su p erio r n o tions o f g en d e r roles.69
M y approach to th e problem o f gen d er id en tificatio n has therefore b e e n to regard burial contexts as stru ctu red according to principles sim ilar to those w h ic h apply to vase paintings. I thus seek to define m a te rialized expressions o f g e n d e r roles. In A t
tic fu n erary epigram s the range o f virtues is rath er n a rro w an d intim ately co n n e c te d w ith social values o f respectively the m ale and fem ale sex. F o r this reason w e m ay e x p ect a sim ilar restricted rep e rto ire o f m aterialized co n cep tio n s in b u rial cus
tom s, and fu n erary objects and rituals lin k ed to these co n cep tio n s m ay therefore appear to b e “ sex-specific” . W e o u g h t, how ever, to be aware th at co n cep tio n s o f th e fem ale and m ale sex change over tim e and according to co n tex t. F or instance a so-called “ sex-specific” o b ject m ay be c o n n e c te d w ith m aterialized expressions o f th e m ale sex in a certain p e rio d and in a certain situation (here funerary), w hile in o th e r p erio d s a n d /o r situations (for in stance dom estic) it m ay fo rm p a rt o f ex pressions o f th e fem ale sex. B u t as lo n g as w e keep this pro b lem in m in d , it is very
n o t e 59
S trom berg 1993, 108-109.
S tro m b erg ’s catalogue C registering burials that did n o t contain sex-specific grave gifts com prises sever
al (around 25) grave co n texts that express gender:
crem ations in n e c k -h a n dled o r belly-handled am phorae, one o f w hich (no.
400) is a neck -h an d led am p hora w ith a sword w rap p ed around its shoul
der (nos. 336, 410, 411, 413, 417, 440, 442, 443, 448, 459, 460, 462, 474, 483, 490, 494, 504, 508 possibly m ore); crem ations in bronze urns (that is H o m eric “ h e ro ic” style) one o f w h ich was m arked by a crater w ith an ekphora- m o tif (nos. 217, 351, 363);
double burials consisting o f an adult and an infant, w here the infant may signal a “m o th e r role” o r o f the adult (nos. 344, 346).
n o t e 6 0
S trom berg 1993, catalogue G.
N O T E 61
M o rris 1987, 57-69.
N O T E 62 W h elan 1991.
N O T E 6 3
Ker. XIV, no. 2 4 /E c k 64.
N O T E 6 4 Ker. XIV, 31-33.
N O T E 65
Ker. XIV, 37 fig. 26.
N O T E 6 6
B erard et al. 1989, 23-37, w ith fu rth er references.
N O T E 6 7
C o m p are M eyer 1988.
n o t e 6 8
Lissaraque & Schnapp 1981.
N O T E 69 See n. 11
140
N O T E 7 0
Beazley 1 9 2 7 /2 8 , 196.
n o t e 71
G ericke 1970, 75-77;
K o c h -H a rn ac h 1983, 155;
Schreibler 1983, 22-23.
N O T E 7 2
M etr. M us. 11. 185 (R ic h ter 1961, no. 37); M etr.
M us. 23.160.38.; A D elt 29, 1 9 7 3 /7 4 B, pin. 52d.
N O T E 7 3
Gol. C zart. 83 W arschau 142313; C V A P o len 1, G oluchow , M us. C zarto ry - ski, pi. 36, figs. a-d. G e- ricke 1970, 75.
n o t e 7 4
K reu zer 1992, no. 125.
n o t e 75
Ker. V II.1, no. 5 (p. 17), nos. 234, 478.
N O T E 7 6
W eh g artn er 1983, 112 w ith references (do n o t in clude the exam ples from K eram eikos).
N O T E 77
Agora P 12628; ABV 155, 64.
N O T E 7 8
B erlin, A ntikenm us.
31390; K o c h -H a rn ac k 1983, 110-112, f i g . 48.
N O T E 7 9
Fogg A rt M u seu m 1925.
30.50: CVA C am b rid g e (1) H o p p in C ollection pi. 19.2.
N O T E 80
G ericke 1970, 72-75;
Schreibler 1983, 24; Keuls 1985, 120; M eyer 1988, esp. 90; Reilly 1989, 414, 420.
N O T E 81
A th en , K eram eikos M u seum , w ith o u t nu m b er;
Koch-Harnach 1983, fig. 1.
N O T E 8 2
G erick e 1970, 77-82;
W eh g artn er 1983, 102.
o fte n possible to identify th e sex o f the deceased by reco g n izin g th e expressed g e n d e r role o f th e b u rial co n te x t, as I h o p e to show below.
O n analogy w ith vase p ain tin g , I c o n sider b u ria l co n tex ts to consist o f different elem ents, each o f w h ic h is m eaningful only w h e n v iew ed in relatio n to th e total grave c o n tex t. R e c u r r in g co m b in atio n s o f elem ents I call form ulas. As I have show n in E xcursus 1-3, a fo rm u la can b e e ith er co m p lete ly o r p artly “ q u o te d ” . A “re
d u c e d ” fo rm u la recalls an “ e x te n d e d ” fo r
m ula. H ow ever, th e fo rm u la obtains a spe
cific m e a n in g on ly th ro u g h th e ad d itio n o f extra elem ents, be th ey objects o r r itu als, w h ic h m ay in d icate to us th e sex o f th e deceased. T h e se m ay also fo rm fo r
m ulas w h ic h can be e x te n d e d o r reduced.
It is, I h o p e, needless to say th a t I regard this burial p ractice to have w o rk e d at an u n co n scio u s level.
It was o utside th e lim it o f this w o rk to id en tify g e n d er roles system atically in all burials. Instead, I have a tte m p te d to lo o k m o re closely fo r th e p rinciples o f express
in g g e n d e r roles by selecting burials c o n tain in g aryballos a n d /o r alabastron a n d /o r lekythos. T h e reason for this ch o ice was th a t these vases w ere th e c o m m o n e st ones in burials. T h e y are also k n o w n to change
“ sex” acco rd in g to co n te x t, as th e follow in g su m m ary m ay serve to illustrate, and w h ic h m akes it especially in terestin g to analyse th e grave con tex ts in w h ic h they are fo u n d .
T h e aryballos first appeared in A ttic vase p a in tin g a b o u t 55070 and was m ostly asso
ciated w ith m e n , b e in g a co n v en tio n al p a - laestra-a ttrib u te and an erotic gift, given by th e m a tu re m an (erastes) to his y o u n g er lover (eromenos).71 T h e same associations are im p lie d w h e n it appears in funerary ico n o g rap h y .72 H ow ever, on an Early Classical b o w l it was used by b a th in g w o m e n .73 A n d o n a skyphos-sherd, like
w ise E arly Classical, w o m e n in a proces
sion carry arybalhi, alabastra and bow ls w ith eggs.74
Alabastra m ade o f glass an d alabaster - as are th e earliest ones in K eram eikos75- w ere m ad e since th e m id d le o f the 6th
Fig. 8 Lekythos found as a stray find in the Kerameikos.
(Neg. no. Ker. 6730, courtesy The German Institute in Athens.)
cent., b u t little is k n o w n o f th eir c o n tex t ,76 T h e A ttic te rra c o tta alabastron d id n o t ap
p ear u n til th e last q u a rte r o f th e 6 th cent, (w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f th e o n e by the A m asis-painter from aro u n d 5 5 0 77). A t this tim e it co u ld be c o n n e c te d w ith m en , since it co u ld carry m otifs alluding to the erastes-eromenos relationship m e n tio n e d above.78 A n d o n e carries a scene o f m en offerin g m o n e y to a w o m a n .79 B u t Classi
cal alabastra are c o m m o n ly regarded as typical fem ale vases, o w in g to th e ir fre
q u e n t presence in fem ale scenes in vase p ain tin g .80
A lekythos o f th e early type - a stray find in K eram eikos - carries th e earliest k n o w n rep resen tatio n o f an erastes-eromenos scene81 (Fig. 8), an d th erefo re an o rig in al association w ith a m ale c o n te x t is h ighly possible. H ow ever, in th e 5 th cen t.,
“B a u ch lek yth m ”
and shoulderlekythoi
, especially those w ith w h ite g ro u n d , are of
te n th o u g h t o f as exclusively fem ale vases, since th ey m ostly carry fem ale scenes and often appear in scenes o f “Frauengem ach”.82
A p art from burials co n tain in g these vase shapes, I have also lo o k ed at burials c o n ta in in g soap, m irro r o r strigil.
B elo w follow s a sum m ary o f th e g e n e r
al conclusions I have reached, w h ile I refer to E xcursus 1-3 for a detailed arg u m en ta
tion.
G ender
F rom 700 to 5 7 5 /6 0 , adult burial contexts are p rim arily crem ations som etim es c o n n e c te d w ith o fferin g -tren ch es (or -places) co n ta in in g a reference to an elaborate b a n q u e t set, and o ften m ark ed by a tu m u lus o r grave building. T h e co m b in atio n and n atu re o f these features appear to re
call H o m e ric heroic values.83 F o r this rea
son, the adult b u rial p o p u la tio n seems to b e d o m in a te d by m e n in this p e rio d . A n d an analysis o f those burials w h ic h c o n tain ed an aryballos even indicates th e ex
pression o f different social values o f the m ale sex, o n e o f w h ic h appears heroic, the o th e r n o n -h e ro ic (see E xcursus 1).
B etw een 560 and 535, a m o st in terest
in g situation arises. T h e e n o rm o u s m o u n d Grabhugel G, w ith a d ia m eter o f 36 m , was raised above a m o n u m e n ta l shaft grave.
W ith in th e n e x t 10-20 years, 11 burials, all adults,84 w ere d u g in to th e m o u n d , fo rm in g a circle (Fig. 4).83 F ro m n o w on, I shall refer to these burials as “ circ le -b u ri
als” . T h ese 12 burials w ere separated in th e so u th -w e st from th e tu m u li J and H and th e ir successors (Fig. 4) by a h u g e earth fill, th e so-called “peisistratische A u ffu llu n g ” .86 T h e in terestin g th in g a b o u t th e circle-burials is th at th e ir grave c o n texts o n th e w h o le appear very similar.
W ith o n e ex cep tio n , all burial contexts appear to express a certain m ale gen d er role related to th e lu x u rio u s Lydian life
style k n o w n to th e G reeks as truphe. T h e Stidhtigel, e rected aro u n d 540 and m easur
in g 40 m in diam eter, covered a shaft grave w ith a m ale in h u m a tio n w hose grave c o n te x t expressed a n o tio n sim ilar to that o f the circle-burials87 (see Excursus 2).
In contrast, th e series o f tu m u li b o rd e r
in g o n Grabhugel G in the so u th -w e st and grave buildings situated in area D m ark
b o th “fe m in in e ” and “m asculine” grave contexts, w h ic h are therefore an y th in g b u t u n ifo rm . T h e same is tru e o f these tw o areas in th e latter p art o f th e 6 th cent, and in th e 5 th cent. (Figs. 4-7). T h u s, the ea rth en b u ild in g “ c” to the so u th -w est o f Grabhugel G appears to m ark a m ale burial 88 (Fig. 4), w h ile “ d ” rath er m arks a fe
m ale b u rial89 (Fig. 7). T h e b ig tum ulus
“K ” was erected over a w e ll-ap p o in ted fe
m ale b u rial.90 Tum ulus “L” m arked a cre
m a tio n burial, and a secondary fem ale b u rial.91 Tum ulus “ N ” m ark ed a fem ale b u rial,92 w h ile its seco n d ary burial is m ale.93 T h e tu m u lu s “ O ” m ark ed an extrem ely fine bro n ze cauldron w h ic h co n tain ed the crem atio n ashes w ra p p e d in a fine p u rp le cloth in a H o m e ric heroic way.94
In area D, grave buildings “s” and “ u ” m arked a fem ale burial 95(Fig. 4). In the last decade o f the 6 th cent., tw o tum uli w ere erected, “ Q ” and “R ” , w h ic h ap
pear to have m ark ed fem ale burials96(Fig.
6), and likew ise th e grave b u ild in g “ o ” o f the 5 th c e n t.97(Fig. 7). T h e burials o f the rem ain in g tu m u li and grave buildings w ere to o badly d isturbed to give in fo rm a
tio n a b o u t gender.
As appears from this survey, fem inine qualities b eg in to be highly stressed in b u rial practice after ab o u t 560.
T h e m any burials w h ic h lay outside clusters o f tu m u li and grave buildings ap
peared to be “n e u tra l” in term s o f gen d er expressions. H ow ever, as stated earlier, we sh o u ld be aware th a t even a lack o f in te r
est in expressing specific g e n d e r roles m ay be c o n n e c te d w ith certain g en d er roles th at are n o t fo u n d w o rth y o f expression in a burial co n tex t.
Family groups
K. K iibler and S. H u m p h rey s have sug
gested th a t som e o f the very closely situat
ed o r su p erim p o sed tu m u li and grave buildings fo rm e d fam ily groups.98 T his m ay b e so, b u t in general there seem to m e to be n o im m ed iately clear groupings w ith th e e x cep tio n o f the tu m u li and grave buildings in m y Figs. 1 -2 area A.
H u m p h rey s also regarded the burials
N O T E 83 See n. 53.
n o t e 8 4
C o m p are A ppendix 4, es
pecially for Ker. VII. 1, no. 9.
n o t e 85
Ker. V II.1, nos. 2-12.
N O T E 8 6 Ker. VII. 1, 63.
N O T E 87
In P art II, I w ill discuss Grabhugel G and Sudhiigel separately
N O T E 8 8 Ker. V II. 1, no. 243 N O T E 89 Ker. V II.1, no. 256 N O T E 9 0 Ker. V II.1, no. 242 N O T E 91 Ker. VII. 1, no. 247 N O T E 9 2 Ker. VII. 1, no. 261 N O T E 9 3 Ker. V II.1, no. 262 N O T E 9 4 Ker. V II.1, no. 264 N O T E 95
Ker. V II.1, nos. 478, 613 N O T E 9 6
Ker. V I I .l, nos. 465, 475 N O T E 9 7
Ker. V I I .l, no. 443 N O T E 9 8
Ker. V I .1, 16; H um phreys 1980, 106-108.
