Migration on Rhodes during the myceanian period.pdf

Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 4, No 1, pp. 61-72

MIGRATION ON RHODES DURING

THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

MERCOURIOS GEORGIADIS

The Uviversity of Liverpool

Melville Grove, Room 146,

81 Grove Street,

Liverpool L7 7AD, England

Received: 21-10-2002

e-mail: merkourisgeorgiadis@hotmail.com:

Accepted: 10-9-2003

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews issues of migration and ethnicity as far as Rhodes is concerned during the

Mycenaean period. Thus a better understanding of these terms is offerred by highlighting their

meaning and they ways they operate. The next step is to present the migration hypotheses that

affect directly Rhodes and their basic points. The analysis used here is one that derives from the

burial context due to the amount of evidence that is available in sharp contrast to the limited data

coming from settlements. The local characteristics, the similarities and differences with mainland

Greece and more particularly with the Argolid are also discussed. The conclusion proposes that on

Rhodes there seems to be a strong local character with close interaction with the Argolid. Moreover

the available evidence argues against a migration and an ethnic origin of the local poluation from

the Argolid during the Mycenaean period.

KEYWORDS: ethnicity, thalassocracy, chamber tomb, emblemic insignia

INTRODUCTION

Migration is a term evoked very frequently

by archaeologists in order to explain changes

in material culture. Thus any new element at-

tested in the period and region under review is

easily atributed to the arrival of new people.

The degree of change is in quality and quanti-

ty analogous to how suddenly the new ele-

ments occur. In the research on Rhodes during

the Mycenaean period migration plays a

prominent role. It is not only used for explain-

ing the introduction of the Mycenaean culture

to Rhodes, but for all the LB III period. Thus

we will review the arguments related to the

migration hypothesis associated with the

Mycenaean culture on Rhodes. The ultimate

focus of these questions is the ethnicity of the

people on this island, with all the conse-

quences this may have had. The origin of the

M. GEORGIADIS

MIGRATION ON RHODES DURING THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

people living on Rhodes this period has been

proposed to be from the Argolid with a special

relationship existing between the two regions.

This has haunted research conducted on

Rhodes, making it a central issue. An analysis

of the available burial evidence will be offered

here since the settlement data are rather limit-

ed, in order to review the hypotheses pro-

posed. Hence an attempt will be made to un-

derstand better the local practices and at the

same time to compare and contrast the burial

traditions of Rhodes and the Argolid (Voutsa-

ki 1993).

be found in the area of origin, as well as the ef-

fect of the migrants on their destination. In ar-

chaeological explanation there is a tendency to

invoke migration only for interpreting the

changes in the destination area, while the rea-

son all too often offered for the movement is

population pressure. However migration

should be seen rather as a social strategy and

not as an automatic response to overpopula-

tion (Anthony 1997; 22). Population density

is dependent on subsistence strategies, techno-

logical capacities, resource management and

cultural characteristics and idiosyncrasies of a

specific region and period.

The variables that affect the decision to mi-

grate are a result of highly selective conditions

and a combination between ‘push’ and ‘pull’

factors; the first is the negative situation in the

area of origin and the second is the positive

condition in the destination region (Anthony

1997; 22; Lee 1966; 56). The decision-mak-

ing can be individual, kin-based or more col-

lective and can have personal or wider socioe-

conomic causality, while rationality should

not always be expected (Lee 1966; 51). Fur-

thermore people do not respond in the same

way to a specific problem, but according to

various factors such as sex, age, cultural con-

text, social status, economic conditions and

belief-systems. When migration does occur it

is rather as a stream and perhaps with tempo-

ral intervals, long or short, rather than broad

waves that cover entire landscapes as single

events in the time scale.

Ethnicity is but one of the identities a per-

son has, often overlapping with others or be-

ing one of its dimensions. It is a product of di-

alectics, since at least two individuals or

groups are needed to create a difference, that

ultimately form ethnic groups (Eriksen 1993;

1; Gosden 1999; 190). Contacts and interac-

tions are central in order to base an identity on

what one is not, therefore the idea of ‘Us’ ver-

sus ‘Them’ is fundamental (Eriksen 1993; 9-

10; Jones 1996; 66; 1997; 84).

A good start is to use the broad processual

definition of ethnicity, that ethnic groups have

ascribed culturally identities, which are ex-

pressed with real or assumed common culture

and descent based on shared mythologies.

Although much criticism has been launched at

such a general expression, it is better to use it

as a starting point and apply it in each social,

cultural and temporal context (Jones 1997; 87).

In order to understand better the role of

ethnicity in society Bourdieu and his habitus

has been used. He believed in the constant

transformation of social structure, a structur-

ing structure and a structured structure at the

same time (Bourdieu 1977; 72). The agent

plays an important active role in this process

by participating positively or even by resisting

new conditions of whatever character. Thus it

becomes clear that ethnicity is not a passive

image of society, but an intersubjective belief

based on the shared discourse that shapes and

is shaped by everyday practices (Jones 1996;

68-9; 1997; 90).

Thus ethnicity underlines the cultural dif-

ferences between groups. In that process the

temporal, spatial and social variables and con-

texts create a number of different cases, there-

fore it is unlikely that there will be a one-to-

one correlation between ethnicity and the en-

tire range of cultural practices in any society

(Jones 1996; 70). The manifestation of ethnic-

ity in the material culture, or the emblemic in-

signia may vary in different social contexts as

well as forms and scales of interaction, that

can change through time (Barth 1969; 35;

Jones 1996; 72). Thus a diachronic analysis is

a necessary tool for the archaeologist to view

the shifts in the expressions of ethnicity and

the dimensions of the material culture that

highlight it (Jones 1996; 73; 1997; 126).

Nonetheless there is also a fear of treating cul-

ture as an epiphenomenal symbolic set whose

only purpose is to serve the expression of eth-

nicity or other social identities (Jones 1997;

119-20). We should rather view material cul-

ture as both structuring and structured by eth-

nicity (Jones 1997; 120).

It is certain that ethnic groups have never

been well formed as territorially bounded cul-

tural units either in the present and definitely

not in the past (Jones 1996; 75; 1997; 104).

Ethnicity should not be projected into the past

or present it as homogeneous, but it should be

seen in its own historical context (Jones 1996;

75-6). Thus diversity and local characteristics

should be expected in the same ethnic region.

The importance of ethnicity derives from the

correlation between culture, identity, social

organization, the multivocality of symbols,

continuity and change, whilst it is expressed

by a limited set of cultural characteristics

(Barth 1969; 38; Eriksen 1993; 162).

For many researchers ethnicity is cultural

differentiation, closely connected to the exis-

tence of social, cultural and political resources,

as well as contacts that have common charac-

teristics (Eriksen 1993; 147). Perhaps the two

fundamental points for identifying identities

are the degree of interaction and the power re-

lations between groups of people in each cul-

tural context (Jones 1997; 128). However it is

quite difficult to pinpoint in a definite way the

item(s) that symbolize ethnic identity, since

objects tend to have many ascribed meanings

and roles depending on their context.

MIGRATION AND ETHNICITY

Migration and ethnicity are the main is-

sues that are directly linked with the Myce-

naean culture on Rhodes. Therefore it is high-

ly important to define and understand the

meaning of these terms, the ways they operate

and how they are visible in the material

record.

Studies about human migration are nu-

merous, however no unified field exists and

the approaches can be characterized as inter-

disciplinary, conducted by sociologists, an-

thropologists, economists and geographers

(Lewis 1982: 3-4). All look at different aspects

of migration, but their common element is that

the researchers review contemporary cases.

Thus for a diachronic perspective or research

into the past some general points can be used

from these analyses, but not their totality.

Defining the term migration is not as easy

as one would think, the shift of permanent or

semi-permanent residence from one point to

another is not enough to describe it, since the

movement of a household from one house to

another in the same neighborhood cannot be

taken as migration (Cohen 1996; xii; Lee

1966; 49). Thus a significant spatial distance

between the two points should be considered

essential.

Migration studies are concerned with the

causality of the human movement that should

THE MIGRATION AND ETHNICITY

HYPOTHESES FOR RHODES

It is also necessary to demonstrate the his-

torical background in this region and the

processes that were under way to the extent

that we can recognize them today.

The initial problem of the Mycenaean mi-

gration hypothesis is the MBA as well as the

earlier parts of the LBA which are inextricably

linked to the Minoan thalassocracy. The rea-

son for discussing this hypothesis is that it af-

fects the whole of the region under review in

the preceding period, but there is no intention

of addressing this issue here.

M. GEORGIADIS

MIGRATION ON RHODES DURING THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

The Minoan cultural characteristics found

in this region were introduced from the MM II

period (Benzi 1984; 100; Marketou 1990; 44;

Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1982; 181-2). The

available evidence are rather limited and spo-

radic without allowing to have a broader view

and understanding of the processes under way

on Rhodes. The presence of Cretan material

culture was increased with a variety of ele-

ments during the LM IA and B period (Davis

1992; 748; Furumark 1950: 177-80; Marke-

tou 1988; 30-2; 1998; 63-5; Papazoglou-Man-

ioudaki 1982; 149-81). Many scholars tend to

see the Minoan cultural influence in this re-

gion as an economic, social and political con-

trol from Crete (Niemeier and Niemeier 1999;

552-3). The similarities in pottery, architec-

ture and small finds between Rhodes and

Crete are evoked, but in a rather superficial

way as Marketou (1998; 63-5) has convinc-

ingly demonstrated. Nonetheless during the

LM II period more mainland pottery was

found in the settlements, while in the LH IIB

period Mycenaean chamber tombs appeared at

Ialysos (fig.1, 1) as well as other sites in this

region such as Kos (Mee 1982; 81-2; Papa-

zoglou-Manioudaki 1982; 184). The spread of

the Mycenaean culture continued in LH IIIA1

and intensified during LH IIIA2 in the whole

of the South-eastern Aegean including

Rhodes. Nevertheless in the LH IIIB period

there is a decline on Rhodes, something that

does not happen with the rest of the South-

eastern Aegean. Surprisingly in LH IIIC there

is an important increase of tombs used and

pottery deposited at Ialysos.

The thalassocracy model has been used to

highlight the role of the Minoan or Mycenaean

intervention and presence since Furumark

wrote (1950; 180-1; Niemeier 1984; 214).

Thus the central problem of these approaches

is that the analysis of the data for the Minoan

cultural elements and the social, political and

economic description of the structures during

the LB I period are applied automatically with-

out change for LB III. In other words the

Mycenaean culture on Rhodes was taken as a

simple transfer of control from Crete to the

Greek mainland and more specifically to the

Argolid. The same applies for the migration of

the Minoans to Rhodes that allegedly has tak-

en place with the first appearance of Minoan

style pottery, a process repeated in the LH IIB

period with the construction of the first cham-

ber tombs on the island.

The backbone of the ethnicity issue is the

character and provenance of the pottery found

on Rhodes. The initial belief in a strong local

pottery character was proven false after clay

analysis conducted on a large sample both

from the Trianda settlement as well as the

Ialysos cemetery (fig.1, 1). The quantities of

Argolic pottery found at Ialysos were about

85% for LH IIIA2, almost 60% for LH IIIB and

less than 10% for the LH IIIC period (Jones

and Mee 1978). The strong Argolic presence

made scholars suggest migration of Myce-

naeans from the Argolid in LH IIB and LH

IIIA1 and their gradual spread throughout the

rest of the island in LH IIIA2. The imports of

pottery from the so-called homeland of the

migrants continued in all these periods and al-

so subsequently. Thus the broad image given

is that of streams of migrants coming in each

period and spreading across the whole island.

Some researchers went a step further claiming

this as evidence for the whole South-eastern

Aegean. The recent excavations conducted at

Aspropilia on Rhodes, a site close to Pylona,

were supplemented by clay analysis (fig.1,

11). The results were in accordance with

those conducted at Ialysos suggesting a similar

tendency for importing large quantities of Ar-

golic pottery throughout the island as well as

imports from other areas (Karantzali and

Ponting 2000; 230, 234). Thus Argolic im-

ports were not confined to one settlement,

Trianda, but it was most probably a common

practice. However it must be stressed that this

KEYS TO MAP

6 Ayios Minas

7 Passia

8 Kalogrios

9 Apsaktiras

10 Lardos

11 Aspropilia

12 Archangelos

13 Aphandou

1 Trianda/Ialysos

2 Paradeisi

3 Kalavarda

(Kaminaki-Lures)

4 Lelos

5 Apolakkia

Fig. 1: Map of Rhodes (circles for cemeteries and square for settlement), contours at 200m intervals

M. GEORGIADIS

MIGRATION ON RHODES DURING THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

picture, as far as the quantities of Argolic im-

ports seen on Rhodes is concerned, has no oth-

er parallels in the South-eastern Aegean.

Interestingly enough during the LH IIIC

period this process was reversed with more

pots being locally produced. The cemetery of

Ialysos seemed to expand, while the quantity

of pottery deposited in the tombs was unparal-

leled in any previous period. Some of the

tombs on Rhodes were re-used in this period,

a phenomenon found in several cemeteries

across the island (Benzi 1982; 325-33; 1992;

225, 227; Cavanagh and Mee 1978; 36-8).

This picture presents a sharp contrast to the

evidence of destruction of palaces, abandon-

ment of settlements and the samller size of the

newly built tombs in mainland Greece. Thus

although the pottery was locally produced and

in fact with a lot of Cretan elements, it was at-

tributed to fleeing migrants from the mainland

either stopping permanently on the island

(Mee 1982; 90), or on their way to Cyprus.

Other scholars opposed this idea by proposing

an internal migration on Rhodes from the rur-

al sites to the central one (Benzi 1992 224-5;

Macdonald 1986; 149). This was based on the

decline in the number of sites and quantity of

pottery recovered from sites outside

Trianda/Ialysos. Thus through pottery and its

provenance the history of Rhodes is reviewed,

but during the LH IIIC period the criteria

change. The pottery style and its provenance is

unimportant, the quantity of the pottery and

the increased use and re-use of tombs. This

hypothesis is more importantly connected to

the theory of Greek migration to Cyprus

(Lakovidis 1995; 217, 222; Leriou 2002;

169-71). Rhodes is strategically placed and all

migrants have to pass from this island one way

or another due to its geographical position.

Thus more migrants from the Greek mainalnd

have to be present on the island during the LH

IIIC period and to these people all changes of

whatever character are attributed.

THE BURIAL TRADITION ON

MYCENAEAN RHODES

In order to assess the relationship between

Rhodes and mainland Greece, and particular-

ly the Argolid the burial tradition of this island

will be reviewed.

The cemeteries on Rhodes share one char-

acteristic, tombs in a given cemetery tend to

have the same orientation. This can be seen at

Paradeisi, Kalavarda, Lelos, Apolakkia, Ayios

Minas, Passia, Kalogrios, Apsaktiras, Lardos,

Aspropilia and Archangelos, in other words in

all the cemeteries where more than one tomb

has been recovered and preserved (fig.1) (Di-

etz 1984 21-86; Hope Simpson and Lazenby

1973). The only exception to this pattern is

Ialysos. In this cemetery tombs range from a

north to south-east orientation, but it should

be noted that no tomb is oriented to the west

or south, revealing some kind of order.

The tombs and consequently the cemeter-

ies have as a focus one point on the horizon. It

seems that the majority of the tombs on Rhodes

face to the east (south-east and north-east), as

well as north. At Ialysos there is a preference

for north and north-east, while in southern

Rhodes east and south-east were preferred.

The overall picture of Rhodes is unlike the

strict preference for a common eastern orienta-

tion of tombs as seen on Crete or the trend for a

south-west orientation attested in the Greek

mainland (Blomberg and Henriksson 2001;

78-84, figs 6.6, 6.7). This common orientation

of tombs in the same cemetery is not attested

on mainland Greece as a practice, while paral-

lels are found in the South-eastern Aegean and

Anatolia since the Early Bronze Age (Wheeler

1974: 418-9). Actually the LB I cemetery at

Trianda had a number of pithos, pit and cist

graves with a common orientation north to

south (Marketou 1988; 615-7; 1998; 61).

In addition it is common to find in the

same cemetery more than one burial cluster.

This happens mainly in the larger cemeteries

of the island such as Ialysos, Paradeisi, proba-

bly Kalavarda, Apolakkia, Ayios Minas and

possibly Aphandou (fig.1). Although such a

practice is also common in the Greek main-

land, on Rhodes the clusters are placed on dif-

ferent hills or at opposing edges of the settle-

ment, as was probably the case at Paradeisi.

From the limited settlement evidence

available it seems that the cemeteries are locat-

ed to the north or more often to the west of the

habitation area. Their distance from the ceme-

teries seems to range from few metres up to a

kilometer. A similar trend, as far as the orien-

tation and the distance is concerned, can be

found in the Argolid, except that the variation

is far greater (Cavanagh and Mee 1990; 64).

As for the diachronic use of cemeteries,

Ialysos was the earliest one founded in LH IIB.

In LH IIIA1 six cemeteries were in use, main-

ly in the northern part of the island with the

addition of Apsaktiras (fig.1, 9) in the south-

ern part and perhaps Lardos (fig.1, 10). Dur-

ing LH IIIA2 there is an expansion of cemeter-

ies used to 28, which decreased to 25 in LH

IIIB. During LH IIIC 20 cemeteries were is

use, slightly less than in the previous period,

but we certainly do not see the same degree of

settlement and cemetery abandonment as in

mainland Greece. In this period it is interest-

ing to note that in the southern part of the is-

land the settlement pattern seems more or less

unchanged from LH IIIA2 until LH IIIC,

whereas in the north there is more abandone-

ment of settlement, especially during the LH

IIIC period. This is even stronger in the area

close to Ialysos, perhaps indicating that there

might have been some kind of limited internal

migration that in this case could be called nu-

cleation.

The tombs are structurally canonical, but

they are smaller in size than those found in

mainland Greece. Interestingly enough tombs

at Ialysos become larger over time reaching

their largest size in LH IIIC. This trend is ex-

actly the opposite of the development seen in

the mainland, where tombs became smaller in

time. Especially when one is considering the

LH IIIC cemetery at Perati, the contrast is im-

portant (Iakovidis 1970B; 11). Moreover the

tombs in the cemeteries outside Ialysos tend to

be slightly larger than the ones in the largest

cemetery on Rhodes. As a whole the prefer-

ence for a rectangular shaped chamber is over-

whelming. Structural arrangements in the in-

terior of the chambers are not uncommon

such as pits or benches, but they are not found

as frequently as in the mainland. Interestingly

enough stepped dromoi are found at Ialysos

and Aspropilia. In southern Rhodes there is

one of the largest concentration of tombs with

side-chambers. There are four of them at Pas-

sia, Apsaktiras and Aspropilia, compared with

about 30 in the whole Mycenaean world

(fig.1) (Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1987; 147-8).

These three cemeteries are also geograpically

close revealing a local characteristic. Moreover

at Ialysos we have the extremely rare occur-

rence of two tombs having antechambers

(Benzi 1992; 228). It should be also noted

that in cemeteries pit or cist graves rarely oc-

cur, while no tholos tomb has been recovered

so far on the island. Nevertheless the diversity

that exists and the characteristics that are pre-

sent highlight canonical Mycenaean cemeter-

ies with some strong local features.

It may be significant that the breaking of

pottery in the dromos is uncommon at Ialysos,

while it is rarely reported in the rest of the

cemeteries. Nonetheless the recently excavated

Aspropilia cemetery casts doubts on this point

since all six tombs had broken pottery in their

dromoi that chronologically corresponded to

the deposited pots (Karantzali 2001; 21-2).

As for the burial inside the tomb, at Ialysos

the characteristic is for rather few dead to be

deposited when compared to the Argolid.

There is also a strong tendency to retain the

primary burial and for the deceased to be

M. GEORGIADIS

MIGRATION ON RHODES DURING THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD

placed in an extended position with the head

close to the stomion. Cremation is sporadical-

ly attested and apart from an uncertain case at

Kaminaki-Lures dating to LH IIIA2 (fig.1, 3)

(Benzi 1992; 418; Mee 1982; 53), all the rest

were found at Ialysos in tombs used during LH

IIIC.

In the cemeteries outside Ialysos the popu-

larity of secondary treatment is clear, since it is

attested in all of the cemeteries on the island.

Secondary treatment entails the disarticula-

tion of the skeleton of the deceased along with

all the rituals performed as part of this process.

This activity highlights continuity and a very

consistent practice for the deceased through a

more frequent re-opening of the tomb and re-

arrangement inside. In my opinion it reveals a

closer and more frequent interaction between

the living and the dead, something that high-

lights the importance of the deceased in the

everyday conduct of life in the local context.

Inside the tombs clay vessels and small

finds were placed by the deceased. The quanti-

ty of pottery at Ialysos is very high in LH

IIIA2, but severely decreased during LH IIIB.

Nonetheless in LH IIIC there is an extraordi-

nary increase in the amount of pottery de-

posited in tombs. In the sites outside Ialysos

yet again a peak is reached in LH IIIA2 and a

decrease is attested for the LH IIIB period.

However there is no further decrease in LH

IIIC, as some scholars have suggested, but

rather a stability in the quantity of the pottery

placed in the tombs. Moreover if one takes in-

to account the decrease in the number of ceme-

teries in use during this period, it seems that

the tendency to deposit more pots was fol-

lowed in the sites outside Ialysos as well. As for

the pottery types, at Ialysos, jars and unguent

containers were preferred, while in the rest of

the sites on Rhodes open vessels were particu-

larly popular. Nonetheless there is the same

preference as far as oil containers, jugs and rit-

ual vases were concerned.

As for the small finds it is particularly in-

teresting that Ialysos was rich in goods made

out of semi-precious stones, silver, gold and

bronze. Moreover there was a tendency for

more silver items and bronze tools to be buried

during the LH IIIC period. In the sites outside

Ialysos there are fewer small finds both in

quantity and diversity in the same tomb and

even cemetery. Special mention should be

made of the rarity of figurines in tombs, which

has long been underlined and seems to be true

for the whole of the South-eastern Aegean as

far as the burial context is concerned. Apart

from the fact that a similar situation exists in

other regions of mainland Greece, such as At-

tica and Achaea (Cavanagh 1998; 109-10),

the limited evidence from settlement suggest a

more frequent presence of figurines with all its

symbolic value (Benzi 1999; 278-81; Pilali-

Papasteriou 1998; 44-5). Therefore premature

conclusions about the local religious beliefs

should be treated with caution and limited on-

ly to the burial context.

most probably idealistic image of the local so-

ciety. The orientation of the cemetery in rela-

tion to the settlement is similar to the Argolid,

however the preference for a common eastern

or northern orientation has no exact parallels

in the mainland or Crete. Perhaps they are

highlighting the presence of some older beliefs

that continued to be active, carrying the same

or similar symbolic meaning. Furthermore the

fondness for small rectangular chamber

tombs, and the development of tomb size from

smaller to larger is a local characteristic. This

undermines the idea of Mycenaean noblemen

coming in LH IIB and IIIA1, when offerings

were rather few and no impressive funerary

tombs such as tholoi were constructed. The

same applies to the relatively few burials de-

posited and the preference at Ialysos for pri-

mary burial in contrast to the secondary treat-

ment found in the rest of the cemeteries on

Rhodes. The deposited offerings reveal a

strong local character that remains, with small

fluctuations through the periods, stable and

with many differences to the pattern seen in

the Argolid. In fact the closest parallels for the

type of pottery deposited are found at Pylos, al-

though of course I do not argue that the people

buried in the Rhodian cemeteries were from

Messenia. Especially during LH IIIC when de-

structions are found in the Greek mainland,

on Rhodes it is either a period of stability or of

further development, with a continuation of

the local burial tradition.

The abundance of Argolic provenance pot-

tery both in the settlements and the tombs un-

derlines its widespread use at Ialysos and else-

where on Rhodes. This rejects, in my opinion,

the hypothesis of a few noble Mycenaeans who

were the elite and exsercized political or social

control over the locals. Moreover it means that

no special symbolic significance is attributed

to the Argolic pottery when deposited in

tombs. Thus it seems rather unlikely that only

the provenance of pottery functioned as em-

blemic insignia of the people’s ethnicity.

Summarizing I would like to add that I do

not reject the movement of a limited number of

people in any one period, inside the island or

outside of it. What I suggest is that it did not

have a vital role in the local socio-political de-

velopment. From the available burial evidence

diversity is the picture seen among the ceme-

teries on Rhodes, but a number of common el-

ements reveal a socio-cultural unity, if not a

political one. The relationship between

Rhodes and mainland Greece, and particular-

ly the Argolid, might have been close as far as

exchanges were concerned. However there is

no positive evidence in the burial context to

suggest migration or large scale population

movement from the mainland to Rhodes.

CONCLUSIONS

As discussed in the theoretical part about

migration there must be a causality for people

moving from one place to another. There

seems no adequate reason to suggest waves of

migrations from the Argolid to any place. This

is further emphasized when considering the

distance and organization that such a move-

ment would need to reach Rhodes.

Returning to the identity of the people

buried in the tombs, I would like to stress that

methodologically as much as theoretically it is

misleading to equate ethnicity with pottery

style or clay provenance. Thus the whole bur-

ial context was analyzed in order to compare

the local tradition with mainland paradigms.

What we can say is that there is a tendency

on Rhodes to present tombs spatially as equal

in cemeteries, having the same orientation.

Perhaps they represent an egalitarian and

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude for all the help and advices my supervisor Prof. C.B. Mee

has provided and I would like to thank Dr. N. Leriou for the useful and enlightening discussion

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: