 Είναι εδώ για να ευχαριστήσουμε να εγγραφήσουμε στους συμφωνές της εργασίας για να εγγραφήσουμε εδώ. Και είναι πολύ καλύτερη να εγγραφήσουμε στο EAA. Η 38η εργασία μου ήταν στην Σταβούλή, στην 2014. Στη εργασία όπου η Γιονλόμπ και η Κρίσκ Νουζελ, κομμάτι της Βαθμικής Φινάρης Παχόνομι, έδωσε το εμμερικοίδιο που έγινε να συνεχίσει με εργασία. Σε αυτές τις 5 χρόνια έχουμε δει μεγάλο αδύσσεις, as έχουμε εδώ. Η μία εξοδεία μου εξαφαλείται σε την κοινωνική μυαρκεολογία της κοινωνικής γνωρίς. Είμαι μεγάλος με ανθρώπους, με την αγγή να καταλαβαίνω... το καλογημένο σχεδίδιο με τη δημότητα... και τη δημότητα της κοινωνικής δημότητας. Σήμερα δεν θα μιλήσω πολύ για τις συμβάσεις τεκνικές... αλλά θα δοκιμάσω γιατί η δημότητα της τεφόνομι... είναι σημαντικά για ένα αμήκο αμήκο της εξοδείας της δημότητας. Η εξοδεία της δημότητα της μυαρκής γνωρίς... είναι ένα εξοδεία φασιντικό στις συμβάσεις κοινωνικών. Η αρχαιολογία προσπαθεί να καταλαβαίνει τις μεταλλογές... που μεταλλογηθούν τον αγγή της εξοδείας... their consolidation, as well as their demise and the transitional phase... that followed, the late Helladic III se period. Η εξοδεία της εξοδείας είναι σημαντικά για αυτή η εξοδεία. At the start of this new era, new collective burial customs are used. A complex funerary ritual becomes the standard Mycenaean custom. It involves new types of tombs, specifically designed for multiple burials, the chamber tombs and the following. These tombs receive successive internments for many generations... and show evidence of burials, funerary episodes, both primary and secondary. The funerary activities can be very diverse between different times and places, but even within the same cemetery, even within the same graves sometimes. The result is a complex funerary record, usually dominated by commingled, disarticulated bone deposits, affected by both natural and cultural factors. And under this umbrella term secondary burial, we often lump so many, so many different things. So on top of all that, which is a problem, the cumulative nature of these tombs has serious inherent problems, especially in terms of correctly dating the actual material, but also the various activities that took place, because sometimes the bones can be of a very specific date, but the act that moved these bones to the secondary location is of a different date, and we have to be very careful and clever there how can differentiate. To shed light on these complex acts, we need to move beyond a typical bio-archeological analysis. The key, in my opinion, is a dual, but in trying to approach the bones, both as subjects of their own lived experiences, but also as objects of the act of the living. My focus is on the latter today, the acts of the living, the burial practice in other words. To understand them we need to reconstruct details rather than generic activities, and this is where funerary tafonomy comes into play. Assemblages of mixed up bones are the hardest to understand and pose several questions. First we need to understand how its assemblages was created and to distinguish between natural and cultural factors that affected its preservation. Then we need to estimate the number and sequence of burial events and then work all the way up to identify specific choices and organizing principles below all this diversity. The key to all these questions is the successful tafonomic analysis of human remains and their context. The study of common bones in particular, it is very important to apply strong foodological packets that includes a very detailed recording and refitting of bones from the same skeleton, the study of articulations and bone dispersals with techniques coming from archaeopharatology, the optimal estimation of the minimum number of individuals and most importantly a thorough analysis of preservation patterns and bone frequencies. In order to enable meaningful comparisons, the key is to standardize and apply systematically all of those. We don't have the time now to get into more details about that but this is really the key. Our methodology is currently improving in so many different directions. These are only some issues that I'm particularly interested in but we are not going to discuss them today. As I said at the beginning, I prefer to take the time to fully present the potential of even a low-tech tafonomical approach when applied thoroughly on a large body of evidence and I believe this is important because this will allow us to see how deeply the tafonomy can assist complex ideological interpretations. So, in my case, 30 is the cemetery of Boudini in Achaia, one of the largest and most interesting Mycenaean cemeteries excavated so far in Greece. Achaia in West Peloponnes is a key region for Mycenaean research, especially because of its role in the last Mycenaean phase, the late Helladic 3C period that follows the collapse of the palaces. In contrast to what happens in the main palatial regions like Mycenae or Pilos, Achaia seems to flourish during that transitional phase, raising various questions about the social changes that may have taken place there over that period. So, Boudini, a cemetery that we are going to talk about, is a very large cemetery in this region with over 70 rock-cut chamber tombs. The sample I worked on included 20 tombs, the ones in blue here, that span the entire Mycenaean period with most of them being used in both the palatial and the post-palatial phases. To explore differences between the two periods is of special interest to these questions about the social situation in Achaia, especially after the collapse of the palaces. The total sample from the 20 tombs comprised 206 people from 75 different contexts within these 20 tombs. In general, both sexes were equally represented and all ages were included, with adults predominating as is usual for this period and for the record that we have. However, we'll see briefly some interesting shifts between the two periods. So now, its tomb contains several burial episodes of various types. The first assessment was the first thing that it was necessarily to be done on each deposit in order to thoroughly assess the character of the deposit. The deposits were mainly classified in five categories, from intact primary burials to isolated those scattered bones. The next step was to establish specific toponomic criteria, both qualitative and quantitative, in order to infer specific actions. The actions could be broadly distinguished as you see in two main categories, acts of removal from the tomb and acts of pretension, either random or selective. No need to read all these, I just want to stress that having very clear systematic criteria is indispensable for meaningful comparisons when we try to infer details of activities like that. Indeed, some form of secondary treatment was confirmed in the majority of our cases, almost all these articulated assemblages were the result of human actions and not natural disturbance alone. And my focus today is on the secondary treatment, but let me just say that toponomic analysis of the primary burial was also extremely interesting, not only because it provided a very strong comparative basis for the interpretation of the secondary assemblages, but also because in some cases it was possible to figure out very specific human choices, motivations, even sentiments in these primary burials. But now let's tell to the secondary treatment. As I said already, we detect two main types of activities, the tension of bones inside the grave and bone removal from the tomb to another location that we don't know where it is, but it is outside of the grave. These two activities, these two patterns are not mutually exclusive. They usually take place together, in different degrees. Both forms include a variety of specific acts that reflect specific choices with different motivations. The secondary treatment inside the grave usually shows extensive and random commingling of skeletons. Sometimes, however, we could clearly detect the intention to keep an individual together. This happened in some primary burials that only part of the skeleton was detected in situ. It also happened in the what I call the single secondary deposit where only one skeleton comprises the secondary assemblages, but also an interest in keeping the skeleton together was a test when several bones of the same individual were placed together in a secondary deposit and not widely mixed up. Another different choice was the selective retention of prominent bones, usually crania, sometimes together with this interest for selection, we also observed special attention for their placement with clustering or ordered arrangements. The other aspect now is the removal of bones out of the tomb. The removal of material, the removal of material objects like vases, vessel and stuff is something which is very difficult to detect in this kind of graves. With bones we are a little bit more likely because exactly of the bone frequencies we are able to detect the removal through their analysis if some part of the skeleton is left behind, of course. In wood and ear removal was evident in the majority of the tombs to different extents. Sometimes the most prominent bones were taken leaving behind also only small hand and feet bones like here. Other times we had the opposite, crania and long bones were kept inside while the small ones were removed. The extensive bone removal that we had tested suggests that the frequency of human events is of course much higher than what the MNI suggests. In wood and ear we had an average MNI of 10 people per tomb but it is interesting to notice that this does not correlate with the length of use of the tomb not even with tomb size but with the removal and maybe some other social things that we can come up to that later. As for the sequence of depositional episodes it was in some cases possible to confirm successive stages in the formation of an assemblage. This was inferred by significant differences in bone preservation suggesting different prior histories basically and also by the simple observation that sometimes the skeletons in the secondary deposit were moved from the number to primary barriers that the floor could accommodate in one particular time. Therefore it is evident that the tomb was opened more times than the MNI and that the term secondary for all this treatment is possibly problematic. Maybe it is time to think of some alternatives like compound perhaps or I don't know. This is something probably to discuss how it is best to describe these assemblages and time now. Although it is not possible to precisely determine the time between these different episodes the degree of bone dysarticulation sometimes helps. The bones were usually found completely dysarticulated suggesting they transferred at least one to two years after the death but in some exceptional cases both these were clearly transferred before complete decay of the soft tissues. Ok, in the few minutes that we have left let's try to point there on the meaning of these acts. First, this study confirms that secondary treatment clearly surpasses practical needs. At the same time it is also clear that strict opposing dualities like practical versus ritual and stuff like that this is false, this is not the case. We had a tradition on ritual in the Mycenaean period, this is for sure we can see patterns that they confirmed but this ritual was loose enough to allow space for alternative choices often meaningful in social terms. Specific aspects of the secondary treatment such as bodily fragmentation are closely attached to the notion of personhood and thus they are of special significance for social interest. During these acts both the ideological image of the person and its material form, the bones shift from hole to fragment to a new hole from living, dead to bones and ancestors. This is how bone manipulation and dispersal materialize links between times and spaces this is how dead bodies become key elements for social unification. In wooden we saw to the instinct yet complementary paths of fragmentation bone manipulation inside and removal to outside the tomb. These choices are not mutually exclusive as we said and the same skeleton can actually participate in both but despite this fluidity a conceptual distinction is evident. The former emphasizes a more bounded group identity limiting the potential associations within the occupants of one grave while the latter is open to broader associations between people spaces and times. Similarly we came across various degrees of fragmentation all kind of secondary manipulation is to some extent a shift from individuality but the degree of this shift how far the body gets from the individual identity can be meaningful in social terms. To see how all this connects to wider social developments let's focus on the changes between the palatial and post-palatial sooner treatment in wooden. Demographically we saw an increase of male burials and especially young ones in the later period. This reflects a combination of preferential inclusions possibly and some increase in violent counters as well. Also infants and young children appear much less now indicating that the tombs were not any more reopened so often for them. In terms of specific mortuary practices the post-palatial period in wooden shows mixed signals of continuity and change. The funerary practice remains very close to the palatial tradition emphasizing the collective identity of the corporate group. The tombs stay the same the ritual also remains more or less the same but within this collective outline a subtle yet distinct shift towards more bounded and individual notion was clearly observed. We saw that the introduction of pits using pits for both primary and secondary burials happened only in that period. We saw the marking of individual burial areas we saw a decrease in random commingling and an increase of keeping fairly complete skeletons even in the secondary deposits. And finally we saw an increase in selective retention of prominent bones like skulls. Last but not least an emphasis on the male identity was clear both in the special treatment of some male burials but also in the general shift to higher male inclusion in contrast to women and young children. As said in the beginning the region of Achaia thrives in the post-palatial times taking advantage of the vacuum left after the collapse of the palaces. This period is full of new opportunities and seems to involve new negotiations of power. This tension is I think what we saw in this funeral shift. In the palatial era the society was broadly united as a common group emphasizing the common descent. Now people remain close to the collective tradition of course but strategies of differentiations come also into play. There is an emphasis on individual preeminence mostly male and on more bounding notions. Certain persons seem to operate as special links between the past and the present probably as props for the determination. The emphasis now seems to be a specific lineat rather than an abstract descent. I hope I was able to show that changes in funeral practices no matter how subtle represent meaningful social acts and funeral autonomy is our best chance to approach them. Thank you very much.