² For MH graves, see Tymvoi; ATMA 132–6, 275–6; for the LH chamber tombs, see Vollgraff, W., ‘Fouilles d'Argos’, BCH 28 (1904), 365–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deshayes, J., ‘Les vases mycéniens de la Deiras, Argos’, BCH 77 (1953), 59–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deiras.

³ Tomb Ξ2: Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., ‘Μυκηναϊκός τάφοσ ἐξ Αργουσ’ in Χαριστήριον εἰς Αναστάσιον Κ Ορλάνδον Β´ (Athens, 1964), 239–47Google Scholar. Tomb 29: Tymvoi, 54–9.

⁴ For a preliminary report, see Banaka-Dimaki, A., ‘Πάροδος Περσέως ἠ Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου οικόπεδο Δημ Τρικκα Ανδρομάχης Κουτσαχεϊλη’, A. Delt. 46 (1991), Chr. 95–6Google Scholar.

⁵ Tymvoi.

⁶ Ibid. 27.

⁷ It has to be stressed that another four cist-graves (T. 165–8) and a burial pithos (T. 163) were found close to T. 164 but remain unpublished (FIG. 2; T. 167, not indicated in the plan, lay next to grave 83).

⁸ Its small size suggests that it was not part of the original construction. It may have been placed there at an advanced stage of the tomb's use, when the dromos had been already filled up to a considerable height and an additional steppingstone was needed in order to provide access to the chamber.

⁹ This interpretation is supported by the discovery of a vertical cutting at that point of the east side of the dromos, which could only have the meaning of providing space for the sliding of the door, see PLATE 4 c.

¹⁰ For the prothesis in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, see Cavanagh, W. and Mee, C., A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125; Göteborg, 1998), 108–9Google Scholar.

¹¹ It is interesting that the blocking wall occupied the whole of the space between the entrance and the north end of the prothesis (FIG. 3).

¹² It has to be stressed that the south end of the dromos had been disturbed by modern building activities prior to excavation and may have originally carried on for another 0.5 m southwards (FIG. 3; PLATE 4 a).

¹³ The layer is not easily visible in the photographs.

¹⁴ Tymvoi, 27–8.

¹⁵ Ibid. 54–5, 130 n. 32, 134.

¹⁶ As we have seen, building activities had removed most of the earth accumulation over the tomb.

¹⁷ This has been originally suggested for another BCT (T. 29) with identical arrangement in the rear side, Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., ‘Ἂργος’, A. Delt. 28 (1973), Chr. 94–122, at p. 98Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Admittedly, there is no direct evidence for the suggested development. It seems more probable, however, that the observed breaks reflect a reconstruction of the tomb at a later stage of its history rather than two phases of the original building process. The exclusively early (LH I II A) contents of pit A further suggest that the floor had been cleared before the reconstruction activities begun.

¹⁹ Depth 3.12 3.36m.

²⁰ Lots 13, 13¹, 15. The numbers refer to lots as they were recorded in the excavation notebook. A list of all the lots excavated can be found in TABLE I, at the end of the article.

²¹ For the prefixes and the numbering of the finds see below.

²² The numbering of the skeletons reflects the sequence in which they were found.

²³ No measurements are available for this or for any other skeleton.

²⁴ Clay-lined graves are quite common in MH Argos, Tymvoi, 150. The custom of surrounding the dead with clay, however, is observed in several LH chamber-tombs in Deiras, Deiras, 243.

²⁵ It is very probable that some of the long bones in FIG. 8, as well as the small ones seen resting on top of and around vase P 1, correspond to the tibiae, fibulae and metatarsals of skeleton no. 3. However, the rest of the long bones and the skull belong to a distinct skeleton no. 1.

²⁶ Lot number 17K.

²⁷ Found under skull no. 6.

²⁸ Lot number 19.

²⁹ Lot number 19a.

³⁰ Lots 20 and 21.

³¹ The excavator divided the fill into three levels (lots 20, 21, 22) according to the increasing depth: upper level: 3.70 3.80 m; middle level: 3.82 3.87 m; lower level: 3.87–3.95 m (the area between 3.80 and 3.82 m consisted of crumbled skeletal material only). This, however, proved to be an artificial division, for sherds from the upper level were found to join with sherds from the lower one (and two vases, P 24 and P 27, were mended from sherds coming from all three levels). We have, therefore, to conceive the pit as a single unit.

³² For the rite of toasting the dead and its rare occurrence in pre-LH III contexts, see Cavanagh and Mee (n. 10), 115.

³³ Argos Museum Number.

³⁴ Furumark Shape.

³⁵ The standard abbreviations are used throughout the catalogue: D. = diameter, L. = length, W. = width, H. = height, Th. = thickness.

³⁶ The various features of the vases (rims, handles, bases, etc.) have been described according to Mountjoy's terminology, MDP 201 fig. 270. When necessary, however, Furumark's terms (MP tigs. 22 4) have been also used to describe the form of a particular feature (especially handles and bases, for which his terminology is more detailed).

³⁷ The abbreviated form ‘deco’ is often used instead of ‘decoration’.

³⁸ Small variations of this format occur, according to the nature of the finds (e.g. in the case of beads, the material employed is indicated, while this is not necessary for the bronze finds).

³⁹ MP 134 and fig. 7.

⁴⁰ MDP 74 fig. 85 and 100–1 figs. 120–1; RMDP 120 fig. 25 and 133 fig. 31.

⁴¹ Deiras, 83 and pl. 80. 7.

⁴² See above, n. 40.

⁴³ MDP, 100–1.

⁴⁴ Ibid. 203.

⁴⁵ Ibid. 40 fig. 42, 202.

⁴⁶ Ibid. 55 fig. 61. 6 and 40 fig. 41. 1, 2.

⁴⁷ An identical vase from Prosymna has been dated to LH III Λ1, Blegen, C. W., Prosymna: the Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), fig. 717Google Scholar; Shelton, K., The Late Helladic Pottery from Prosymna (SIMA Porketbook 138; Jonsered, 1996), 171Google Scholar. However, see Kalogeropoulos, K., Die frühmykenischen Grabfunde von Analipsis (südöstliches Arkadien) (Athens, 1998), 25Google Scholar and pl. 15. 71, where a vase of identical profile is dated to LH II B/III A1.

⁴⁸ MDP 46.

⁴⁹ Shelton (n. 47), 280.

⁵⁰ MP 360 fig. 61.

⁵¹ Kalogeropoulos (n. 47), 16 and pl. 12. 45.

⁵² Demakopoulou, K., ‘Μυκηναϊκά ἀγγεῖα ἐκ θαλαμοειδῶν τάφων περιοχῆς Αγ. Ιωάννου Μονεμβασίασ’, A. Delt. 23 (1968), Mel. 145–94, at pp. 160–2Google Scholar and pl. 72 α–γ.

⁵³ MP 54.

⁵⁴ Mountjoy, P. A., Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction (Oxford, 1993), 62 no. 111 and 69 no. 146Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Immerwahr, S. A., ‘The use of tin on Mycenaean vases’, Hesp. 35 (1966), 381–96, at p. 386Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Ibid. 387–8, 392. Gilhs dates the same technique to LH III Gillis, A. C. C., ‘Tin-covered Late Bronze Age vessels: analyses and social implication’, in Gillis, C., Risberg, C. and Sjöberg, B. (eds), Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the craftsman (SIMA Pockctbook 143; Jonsered, 1997), 131–7, at p. 136Google Scholar. Elsewhere, however, she lists a number of early (MM III/LM I II) Cretan examples, among them several conical cups, and nothing later than LHIII A2; ead., ‘Tin in the Aegean Bronze Age’, Hydra, 8 (1991, autumn), 1–30, at p. 30Google Scholar Appendix 1.

⁵⁷ MDP 43–5, 203.

⁵⁸ Ibid. 29 fig. 26. 3 and 43 fig, 46. 1; RMDP 102 fig. 18 and 210 fig. 65.

⁵⁹ For Ephyraean decoration in shapes other than goblets, see RMDP 25 and 99 fig. 17.

⁶⁰ MDP 57.

⁶¹ Mountjoy, P. A., ‘The Marine Style pottery of LM I B/LH II A: towards a corpus’, BSA 79 (1984), 161–219, at pp. 175Google Scholar fig. 4, 183 fig. 11, 184 fig. 12.

⁶² Mountjoy, P. A., Jones, R. E. and Cherry, J. F., ‘Provenance studies of the LM I B/LH II A Marine Style’, BSA 73 (1978), 143–71, at pp. 147Google Scholar fig. 3. 5, 148. The only example of starfish in a Mainland site is to be found on a sherd from Ay. Stephanos, Mountjoy (n. 61), 187 fig. 15, 216.

⁶³ Argos is not included in the list of Argolic sites with Marine Style vases, Mountjoy (n. 61), 206 13.

⁶⁴ MDP 29 figs. 27. 1, 3, and 30.

⁶⁵ Ibid. 30.

⁶⁶ Karo, G., Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (Munich, 1930–1933), pl. 169Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ MDP 30.

⁶⁸ Dickinson, O. T. P. K., ‘The definition of Late Helladic I’, BSA 69 (1974), 109–20Google Scholar, esp. no fig. 2; MDP 18 fig. 12. 16; RMDP 86 fig. 12.

⁶⁹ MDP 26.

⁷⁰ Ibid. 14.

⁷¹ Gillis, C., ‘Tin at Asinc’, in Hägg, R. and Nordquist, G. C. (eds), Asine, iii. Supplementary Studies on the Swedish Excavations 1992–1930 (Stockholm, 1996), 93–100, at pp. 95, 99Google Scholar.

⁷² MDP 32.

⁷³ Ibid. 14 fig. 7. 4 and 32 fig. 31.

⁷⁴ Ibid. 13 fig. 5. 1.

⁷⁵ Ibid. 14–15.

⁷⁶ ATMA 234 fig. 73; Cummer, W. W. and Schofield, E., Keos, iii. Ayia Irini: House A (Mainz, 1984), pl. 69 (no. 1054)Google Scholar; Davis, J. L., Keos, v. Ayia Irini: Period V (Mainz, 1986), pl. 20. 13Google Scholar, 38 a (H4).

⁷⁷ Immerwahr (n. 55), 385, 394–5; Gillis 1991 (n. 56), 30 app. 1.

⁷⁸ Immerwahr (n. 55), 393.

⁷⁹ French, pers. comm.

⁸⁰ See above, n. 56.

⁸¹ ATMA 180, 182.

⁸² Ibid. 176.

⁸³ For the shape, see MDP 13–4, esp. fig. 5. 2 (for LH II A examples, see MDP 25); ATMA 211 fig. 65. ED 1. For the decoration, see Dickinson (n. 68), 110 fig. 1; MDP 12 figs. 3–4; ATMA 211, fig. 65. EB–2.2.

⁸⁴ Nichoria, ii. 475 and pl. 9-1–3.

⁸⁵ Yialouris, N., ‘Μυκηναϊκός τύμβος Σαμικοῖ’, A. Delt. 20 (1965Google Scholar), Mel. 6–40, at pp. 16–7 and pl. 11 α–γ Dietz, S. and Divari-Valakou, N., ‘A Middle Helladic III/Late Helladic I grave group from Myloi’, Op. Ath. 18 (1990), 45–62, at pp. 57 fig. 22, 58 fig. 26, and 61 (cup VII)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ MP 597; Shelton (n. 47), 278, 281.

⁸⁷ MP fig. 36; MDP 42 figs. 43–5 and 57 fig. 64. 2.

⁸⁸ Concentric circles are characteristic of LH III (and wavy spoked wheel is typical of LH II), MDP 51; see, however, RMDP 25. See also another LH III A1 example of FS 83 in S. Immerwahr, A., The Athenian Agora, xiii. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton, 1971), pl. 65. VIII-7Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ ATMA 31, 207–8 fig. 64; Dietz, S., Asine, ii. 2: Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–1974. The Middle Helladic Cemetery. The Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Deposits (Stockholm, 1980), 66–7 figs. 77–9Google Scholar; Zerner, C., ‘Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I pottery from Lerna: part II, shapes’, Hydra, 4 (1988), 1–46, fig. 21. 8, 9 and figs. 22. 10Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ For a similar dark burnished cup, see Zerner, C., ‘Ceramics and ceremony: pottery and burials from Lerna in the Middle and Early Late Bronze Ages’, in Hägg, R. and Nordquist, G. C. (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (Stockholm, 1990), 23–34, at p. 31Google Scholar n. 21 and p. 28 fig. 19. 21. Very similar shapes are also found in the LH I ‘White on dark burnished ware’, see ATMA 32, 212–3.

⁹¹ We have to remember that all those studies cover the periods MH II–LH I. It is very probable that MH wares remained in use in the next LH II A period too.

⁹² Mylonas, G. E., Ο Ταφικός Κύκλος Β᾿ τῶν Μυκηνῶν (Athens, 1973), pl. 232–3: T-61, M-151Google Scholar.

⁹³ MP fig. 13.

⁹⁴ Dietz (n. 89), 87–8 and fig. 8 (no. 14); Blegen (n. 47), fig. 104 (no. 397); Shelton (n. 47), 194.

⁹⁵ Dickinson (n. 68), 110; MDP 17.

⁹⁶ MP 66. For more examples see Leonard, A. Jr., An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria–Palestine (SIMA 114; Jonsered, 1994), 127Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Mountjoy (n. 54), 69, no. 150.

⁹⁸ French, pers. comm.

⁹⁹ MDP 42.

¹⁰⁰ See MDP 25 fig. 21. 1.

¹⁰¹ Ibid. 13, 25.

¹⁰² Ibid. 25 fig. 21. 3.

¹⁰³ Nichoria, ii. 225–6 (where he dates the vase to LH II A or late LH I with a preference for the later date) and pl. 4-18.

¹⁰⁴ MDP 25 fig. 21. 1.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. 13–25.

¹⁰⁶ MP fig. 59.

¹⁰⁷ MDP 13.

¹⁰⁸ Agallopoulou, P. I., ‘Ανασκαφή Μυκηναϊκῶν τάφων παρά τὸ Καμπί Ζακύνθου’, AAA 5 (1972), 63–5, esp. 65Google Scholar [for the LH II A date, see Hope-Simpson, R. and Dickinson, O. T. P. K., A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The Mainland and the Islands (SIMA 52; Göteborg, 1979), 193Google Scholar]; Kalogeropoulos (n. 47), 21 and pl. 15. 55, 22 d; Yialouris (n. 85), pl. 11 ε [for the LH II A date, see Lolos, Y., The Late Helladic I Pottery of the South-Western Peloponnesos and its Local Characteristics (SIMA Pocketbook 50; Göteborg, 1987), 217Google Scholar].

¹⁰⁹ MDP 56 fig. 63; Furumark, A., Mycenaean Pottery, iii. Plates, ed. Åström, P., Hägg, R. and Walberg, G. (Stockholm 1992), pl. 46Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Furumark (n. 109), pl. 46. 77 and 77 a.

¹¹¹ MDP 56.

¹¹² Blegen (n. 47), fig. 669; for the LH III A1 date, see Shelton (n. 47), 42.

¹¹³ LH II B squat jugs are much more pressed, MDP 42.

¹¹⁴ Ibid. 13–4 (LH I), 25 (LH II A).

¹¹⁵ MP 398.

¹¹⁶ MDP 17.

¹¹⁷ Ibid. 46–7, 204.

¹¹⁸ Ibid. 35 fig. 35.

¹¹⁹ Ibid. 35 fig. 35. 4 and 47 fig. 53. 2-4; RMDP fig. 16. 65.

¹²⁰ Wace, A. J. B., Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide (Princeton, 1949), pl. 70Google Scholara, bottom right.

¹²¹ Or ‘horizontal sloping’ lip in Furumark's terminology (in any case, as in MDP fig. 44. 12).

¹²² Furumark (n. 109), pl. 48. 82 (LH II B); see also MDP 42 fig. 44. 1 (LH II B) and 24 fig. 19. 1 (LH II A).

¹²³ MDP figs. 19. 1, 20. 1.

¹²⁴ MP 269 and fig. 35.

¹²⁵ MDP 57.

¹²⁶ Ibid. 42. fig. 44. 3; Furumark (n. 109), pl. 49. 84.

¹²⁷ MDP 42, 72–3.

¹²⁸ While LH III A1 examples have rounded ends, see Blegen (n. 47), figs. 433, 438; for the LH III Ai dating, see Shelton (n. 47), 171.

¹²⁹ MP 359, FM 48. 1.

¹³⁰ MDP 38. But see Shelton (n. 47) who dates alabastra with this style of decoration to LH III A1.

¹³¹ MDP 57 but see Shelton (n. 47), 280–1.

¹³² MDP 15–16.

¹³³ See MDP 15–16 (LH I), 33–4 (LH II A), 45 (LH II B).

¹³⁴ Ibid. 25. Vapheio cups with stylized foliate band and spiral on the base are characteristic of the period, RMDP 25.

¹³⁵ Dickinson (n. 68), 110.

¹³⁶ MDP 42.

¹³⁷ Yialouris (n. 85), pl. 10 β, 12 δ for the LH II A dating, see Lolos (n. 108), 217.

¹³⁸ MDP 47–8.

¹³⁹ Immerwahr (n. 55), 386; Gillis 1991 (n. 56), 30.

¹⁴⁰ Younger, J. G., ‘Aegean seals of the Late Bronze Age: stylistic groups, iv. Almond- and dot-eye groups of the fifteenth century BC’, Kadmos, 24 (1985), 34–73, at pp. 66–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴¹ Id., ‘Aegean seals of the Late Bronze Age: masters and workshops, iii. The first-generation Mycenaean masters’, Kadmos, 23 (1984), 38–64, at pp. 48–51.

¹⁴² Sakellariou, A., Die minoischen und mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athen (CMS 1; Berlin, 1964), 312Google Scholar n. 276.

¹⁴³ Younger (n. 140), 53–63.

¹⁴⁴ Ibid. 57–8.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid. 52.

¹⁴⁶ Ibid. 66; see also fig. 7. 74, where the front boar has an almond-shaped eye rather than a dotted one.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid. 66.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid. 66 (Couchant Boars); 57, 65 (Knossian Bulls). For the synchronism, see RMDP 17.

¹⁴⁹ Sakellariou (n. 142), 312.

¹⁵⁰ Younger (n. 141), 48.

¹⁵¹ Tripathi, D. N., Bronzework of Mainland Greece from c. 2600 BC to c. 1450 BC. (SIMA Pocketbook 69; Göteborg, 1988), 75, 179Google Scholar.

¹⁵² Papadopoulos, J. Th., The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean, i: The Greek Mainland (PBF vi. 11; Stuttgart, 1998), 14Google Scholar.

¹⁵³ Ibid. 15.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid. 55.

¹⁵⁵ Tripathi (n. 151), 328 g.

¹⁵⁶ Papadopoulos (n. 152), 55.

¹⁵⁷ Possibly similar to two much later rounded bowls from Tiryns, H. Matthäus, Die Bronzegefȧße der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur (PBF ii. 2; Munich, 1980), pl. 49 (nos. 417–18Google Scholar).

¹⁵⁸ Tripathi (n. 151), 188–9.

¹⁵⁹ Poursat, J.-C., Les Ivoires mycéniens: Essai sur la formation d'un art mycénien (Paris, 1977), 26Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid. 26.

¹⁶¹ Ibid. 43–4; Dickinson, O. T. P. K., The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation (SIMA 49; Göteborg, 1977), 76 fig. 10Google Scholar.

¹⁶² Poursat (n. 159), 43–4; esp. Mycenae MN 1030 and MN 1033 and Kakovatos MN5675; Id., Catalogue des ivoires mycéniens du Musée National d'Athènes (Paris, 1977), pls. 1, 43.

¹⁶³ Karo (n. 66), 270–2.

¹⁶⁴ Poursat (n. 159), 128.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid. 180.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid. 185.

¹⁶⁷ Ibid.

¹⁶⁸ Furumark, A., Mycenaean Pottery, ii: Chronology (Stockholm, 1972), 42Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ MN 1030 and MN 1033, see above, n. 162.

¹⁷⁰ Poursat (n. 159), 181.

¹⁷¹ MP, fig. 67.

¹⁷² French, E. B., ‘The development of Mycenaean terracotta figurines’, BSA 66 (1971), 101–87, at pp. 154–5Google Scholar.

¹⁷³ Ibid. 151–3.

¹⁷⁴ This object has the same AMN as the previous one because they were found in the same lot 5α.

¹⁷⁵ Mylonas, G. E., ‘Seated and multiple Mycenaean figurines in the National Museum of Athens, Greece’, in Weinberg, S. S. (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman (New York, 1956), 110–21, pl. 14. 5 aGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷⁶ French (n. 172), 173.

¹⁷⁷ Mylonas (n. 175), 114.

¹⁷⁸ French (n. 172), 167.

¹⁷⁹ Ibid. 173.

¹⁸⁰ Ibid. 116–23.

¹⁸¹ Ibid. 120–1.

¹⁸² Ibid. 113.

¹⁸³ Ibid. 117–18.

¹⁸⁴ Conuli are classified and dated according to the typologies presented in Furumark (n. 168), 89–90 (‘Fur’); Iakovidis, S., ‘On the use of Mycenaean buttons’, BSA 72 (1977), 113–19Google Scholar (‘Iak’); Nichoria, ii; 677 80 figs. 11. 1–4 (‘Nich’).

¹⁸⁵ Perforation.

¹⁸⁶ But with smaller diameter and flat base.

¹⁸⁷ But with taller lower part.

¹⁸⁸ ‘Sakellariou type’, referring to the typology presented in Xenaki-Sakellariou, A., οἰ Θαλαμωτοί Τάφοι τῶν Μυκηνῶν (Paris, 1985), 292–302Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁹ As in no. 3390 from Nichoria, , Nichoria, ii. pl. 12–251Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁰ Nichoria, ii. 756 no. 3390.

¹⁹¹ Ibid.

¹⁹² Ibid. 754–5 and pls. 12-236–42.

¹⁹³ Ibid. 755 and pl. 12–247.

¹⁹⁴ Ibid. 755 no. 3376 and pl. 12-244.

¹⁹⁵ Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archmschen Zeit von der Peloponnes (PBF xiii. 8; Munich, 1984), 51Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁶ This object has the same AMN as the previous one because they were found in the same lot 4γ².

¹⁹⁷ The mingling of material in that pit (with sherds of the same pot having been found in different depths of the filling) suggests that it was used only once in LH III A1, when the floor had become too crowded. For some reason (possibly because the flesh of the dead body had not yet decomposed?) the remains of the LH II B/III Ai burial no. 2 were not discarded in the pit.

¹⁹⁸ For the problems in distinguishing between LH II B, LH II B/III A1 and early LH III Ai pottery, see MDP 51; RMDP 26.

¹⁹⁹ Touchais, G. and Divari-Valakou, N., ‘Argos du Néolithiquc à l'époque Géometrique: synthèse des données archéologiques’, in Pariente, A. and Touchais, G. (eds), Argos et l'Argolide. Topographie et urbanisme (Paris, 1996), 9–19, at pp. 12–3Google Scholar.

²⁰⁰ For one should expect that pit B was dug only after pit A was sealed.

²⁰¹ Most of the published LH I and LH II A Lustrous Decorated vases from Argos are listed in ATMA 132–40 and 209–11. To these, we should add an LH II A semiglobular cup from tomb Ξ2 in the area of the Hospital, Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 3), pl. 41 α. An LH II A alabastron has been found in tomb VIII in Deiras, Deshayes (n. 2), 81 fig. 22. 3. An LH II A sherd is illustrated and more are reported from another chamber-tomb excavated on the slopes of Larissa, Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., ‘Νεκροταφεῖον Δειράδοσ’, A. Delt. 26 (1971), Chr. 76–8, at p. 78Google Scholar and pl. 65 ε. Finally, two ‘Early Mycenaean’ conical cups are reported from a cist-grave in the Panagiotopoulou plot, Kaza-Papageorgiou, D., ‘Πάροδος Διομὴδους οἰκόπεδο Νικήτα και Εὐαγγ. Παναγιωτοπούλου’, A. Delt. 35 (1980), Chr. 119Google Scholar.

²⁰² Tombs I, III, VI, VII, and IX in Deiras, Deshayes (n. 2). Several miniature LH II Bil l A1 vases have been discovered in a cist-grave in the Giannakis plot, KazaPapageorgiou, D., An Early Mycenaean cist-grave from Argos’, AM 100 (1985), 6–21Google Scholar. Six vases (nos. 1–6) from tomb Ξ2 also date to LH II B–III A1, Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 3), pls. 42–4. An LH II B kylix was found in a built tomb in the Georgopoulou plot, Psychogiou, O., ‘῾ Οδός Ξενοφώντος και Αθ. Διάκου οικόπεδο Παν Γεωργόπουλου’, A. Delt. 47 (1992), Chr. 87–8, at p. 89Google Scholar. LH II B/III A1 or ‘LH II’ sherd material is occasionally reported from settlement deposits but has never been illustrated, see, for example, Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 17), 100; Kaza-Papageorgiou, D., ‘Πάροδος Ηρακλέους οἰκόπεδα Χρ. Αντωνοπούλου καὶ Εἰρ. Σπυροπούλου-Κυριμῆ’, A. Delt. 35 (1980), Chr. 116, 118Google Scholar; Divari-Valakou, N., ‘Ευρήματα από το Μεσσελλαδικό οικισμό τού Αργους Ανασκαφή οικοπέδου Β. Τζάφα’, in Pariente and Touchais (n. 199), 85–101, at p. 86Google Scholar.

²⁰³ For an analysis of the pottery from Deiras, see Deiras, 139–196. Much LH III is reported from setttlement deposits, see, for example, Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 17) 100–2; Kaza-Papageorgiou (n. 201), 118; Papadimitriou, A., ‘Άργος’, A. Delt. 49 (1994), Chr. 128–30Google Scholar.

²⁰⁴ LH I: P 10, P 12, P 13; LH II A: P 8, P 9, P 11, P 15, P 16, P 18, P 19, P 21, P 26, and possibly P 23; LH II B: P 22, P 25, P 27, and possibly P 23; LH II B/III Ai: P 2–7, P 24, and possibly P 14; LH III A1: P 17, P 20, and possibly P 14; LH III Bi (or LH III Aa): P 1.

²⁰⁵ See above, n. 66.

²⁰⁶ ATMA 171 fig. 52.

²⁰⁷ For the persistence of MH wares until LH I, and possibly LH II A in the Argolid and Argos in particular, see ATMA 255–8.

²⁰⁸ For references, see above nn. 55, 56.

²⁰⁹ The discovery of bronze implements embedded in the rear walls of the tomb III in Akones [Parlama, L., ‘Καρποϕόρα’, A. Delt. 27 (1972), Ghr. 262–4, at p. 264Google Scholar] and of the MH/LH I tomb in Peristeria (G. S. Korres, ‘Ανασκαφαὶ ἐν Περιστεριᾷ Ο μικρὸς ΜΕ ΓΕ Ι ὐπό καὶ παρὰ τόν περίβολον τάφος’, PAE 1976, 486–506, at pp. 492–3) suggests a specific custom, possibly associated with the funerary rite or, more probably, with the construction and the inauguration of the tomb.

²¹⁰ E.g. the conuli SF 12–14 accompanying the LH II B/III A1 burial no. 2, or the bone pin SF 23 found with the LH III B1 (or LH III A2) burial no. 1.

²¹¹ The animal figurine SF 7 and the throne SF 8 were found together in the upper part of the dromos' filling (lot 5 α). This particular combination of animal (bull) figurine and throne has been also encountered in another two cases in Argos, that is in the dromos of tomb T. 29 and on the floor of an LH III A2 house. For the former see Tymvoi, 54; for the latter, see Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 17), 112.

²¹² Tymvoi, 54–9.

²¹³ This interpretation has been based on the gable shape of the upper part of the rear short side, Tymvoi, pl. T18. 4. It is obvious, however, that this shape is due to the poor preservation of the wall. The long walls rise vertically and are levelled on top with a continuous row of flat stones, arrangements that would not allow for any kind of roofing other than with flat slabs. Note, also, the mention of slab fragments from the filling of the tomb, Tymvoi, 55.

²¹⁴ The Vapheio cups 3673 and 3674 (Tymvoi, pls. F39. 3–4, T40. 2–4) have unslipped interiors and should be dated to LH I, Dickinson (n. 68), 114–5. The piriform jar 3675 (Tymvoi, pl. T39. 5) also has good LH I parallels, see MDP 12; its fabric indicates an early date, too. Both the form and decoration of the semi-globular cup 3677 fit better with LH I rather than with LH II A examples, MDP 14–15, 32. See also ATMA 210.

²¹⁵ Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 3).

²¹⁶ Ibid. 241–2.

²¹⁷ Other types of BCT include the L-type graves of Eleusis and other areas, the apsidal tombs of Messenia, etc. Two recent studies have dealt in detail with BCTs, Müller, S., ‘Les Tombes mycéniennes de Médéou de Phocide. Architecture et Mobilier’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis; Université Lumière-Lyon III, 1995Google Scholar); Papadimitriou, N., Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands (BAR S925; Oxford, 2001)Google Scholar.

²¹⁸ Attica: Marathon: Vrana, tumulus I, graves 2 and 3: S. Marinatos, ‘Ἀνασκαϕαί Μαραθῶνος’, PAE 1970, 5–18, at p. 13; Thorikos: tomb Servais, J. and Scrvais-Soyez, B., ‘La tholos oblongue (tombe IV) et le tumulus (tombe V) sur le Velatouri’, in Thorikos, viii (Ghent, 1984), 14–71, at pp. 61–6Google Scholar; Eleusis: tombs of type Beta: Mylonas, G. E., Το Δυτικὸν Νεκροταφεῖον τῆς Ελευσῖνοσ (Athens, 1974–1975)Google Scholar; Boeotia: Dramesi, the ‘tholos’: Blegen, C. W., ‘Hyria’, in Commemorative Studies in Honour of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesp. Suppl. 8; 1949), 39–42Google Scholar; Phocis: Medeon, tombs S2, 99, 29, 29bis: Vatin, C., Médéon de Phocide, (Paris, 1969), 13–23Google Scholar; Müller, S., ‘Ιδιομορφίες στην ταφικἠ αρχιτεκτονική του Μεδεώνα Φωκίδασ’ in Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού κόσμου Α διεθνές διεπιστημονικό συμπόσιο Λαμία Σεπτεμβρίου 1994 (Lamia, 1999), 223–34Google Scholar; Thessaly: Pharsala tombs I and II: N. M. Verdelis, ‘Ανασκαφικαὶ ἔρευναι ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ Β. Ανασκαφή Φαρσάλοι’, PAE 1952, 185–98, at pp. 190–8; id., ‘Ανασκαφικαὶ ἔρευναι ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ Β Ανασκαφή Φαρσάλων’, PAE 1953, 127–32, at pp. 128–31; Ay. Antonios, tomb II: D. R. Theocharis, ‘Αγιος Αντώνιοσ Φαρσάλων’, A. Belt. 21 (1966), Chr. 253–4. In the Peloponnese, similar tombs have been recently excavated at the Achaean site of Portes and at Sparta: Portes: Moschos, I., ‘Prehistoric tumuli at Portes in Achaea. First preliminary report’, in Isager, S. and Nielson, I. (eds), Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens, iii (Athens, 2000), 9–49Google Scholar; Sparta: E. Zawou, pers. comm. More tombs of that type have been found in the Aegean islands, namely at Aigina, Psara, and Lesbos: Aigina: Efstratiou, K., ‘Λαζάρηες’, A. Delt. 34 (1979), Chr. 253–4Google Scholar; Psara Papadopoulou, A., Karelli, N., Zapheiriou, N., Moschouris, S., and Tsaravopoulos, A., ‘Ανασκαφική ἐρευνα στα ψαρὰ’1986’, Τα ψαρά 73–5 (1986), 2–7Google Scholar; Lesbos: Charitonidis, S., ‘᾿ Αρχαιὀτητες καὶ μνημεῖα τῶν νήσων Αἰγαίου’, A. Delt. 17 (1961/1962), Chr. 261–7, at p. 266Google Scholar.

²¹⁹ Cavanagh and Mee (n. 10), 29, 46–8.

²²⁰ Pelon, O., ‘L'architecture funéraire de la Gréce continentale à la transition du Bronze moyen et du Bronze recent’, in Laffineur, R. (ed.), Thanatos: Les Coutumes funéraires en Egée à l'Âge du Bronze (Aegaeum I; Liège, 1987), 107–16, at pp. 113–4Google Scholar; Cavanagh and Mee (n. 10), 29. Dickinson, O. T. P. K., ‘Cist graves and chamber tombs’, BSA 78 (1983), 55–67 (p. 65)Google Scholar regards them as local developments but ‘with a clear foreign inspiration’.

²²¹ Tymvoi, 156–7; ATMA 276–7.

²²² Morou, E., ‘Ἂργος’, A. Delt. 36 (1981), Chr. 107–14, esp. 107–9Google Scholar.

²²³ Psychogiou (n. 202), 89. The Georgopoulou plot is not indicated in FIG. 1 but, according to the excavator, lies opposite to the Giannakis plot (FIG. 1. 5).

²²⁴ Pelon (n. 220), 113–14; see also tomb Bπ1 in Eleusis, Mylonas (n. 218), 15–19 and pl. 4 γ.

²²⁵ Caskey, J. L., ‘Investigations in Keos. Part I: excavations and explorations, 1966–1970’, Hesp. 40 (1971), 358–96, at pp. 381–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²²⁶ Servais, J., ‘Le secteur mycénien sur le haut du Vélatouri’, in Thorikos, i (Brussels, 1968), 27–46, at pp. 41–6Google Scholar.

²²⁷ Müller (n. 217), 47–9.

²²⁸ Mylonas (n. 218), 15 -19 and pl. 4 β.

²²⁹ For the MH cemetery, see Tymvoi.

²³⁰ ATMA 275–6.

²³¹ Graves 27, 28, 33, 64, 73, 79 (FIG. 2). For the dating, see ATMA 132–6, 275–6.

²³² Kaza-Papageorgiou 1980 (n. 202), 118.

²³³ Psychogiou, O., ‘Οδός Ηρακλέους αποχετευτικόσ αγωγὀς λυμάτων Εργα Δημου’, A. Delt. 47 (1992), Chr. 90–2, at p. 91Google Scholar.

²³⁴ Psychogiou (n. 202), 89. For the location of this plot, see above, n. 223.

²³⁵ Kaza-Papageorgiou 1985 (n. 202).

²³⁶ Touchais and Divari-Valakou (n. 199), 12 n. 20.

²³⁷ Deshayes (n. 2), 81 fig. 22. 3.

²³⁸ Protonotariou-Deilaki (n. 201), 78.

²³⁹ Tombs I, III, VI, VII, IX, see Deshayes (n. 2).

²⁴⁰ Vollgraff (n. 2), 376–89.

²⁴¹ Deiras, 139, 253.

²⁴² For, as we have seen, MH wares persisted in Argos well into the early LH period, see above, n. 207.

²⁴³ Or if the late MH pit-grave with the earthen dromos (see above n. 222) had accommodated multiple burial.

²⁴⁴ According to Gillis, tinned vessels were conceived as ‘prestige items’ conferring status and are only found in ‘upper class’ tombs, that is, rich chamber-tombs and tholoi, Gillis 1997 (n. 56), 135–6. Immerwahr notes, too, their occurrence in rich chamber-tombs and stresses that they need not be seen as ‘substitutes for more costly articles’, Immerwahr (n. 55), 384, 386.

²⁴⁵ for the most recent discussion on the increase of the material wealth deposited in tombs in the Shaft Grave period and the phenomenon of conspicuous consumption, see S. Voutsaki, ‘Mortuary evidence, symbolic meanings and social change: a comparison between Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean period’, in Branigan, K. (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield, 1998), 41–58Google Scholar, at pp. 44–8.

²⁴⁶ Dickinson (n. 161), 107–8; Mee, C. and Cavanagh, W. G., ‘Mycenaean tombs as evidence for social and political organisation’, OJA 3 (1984), 45–64, at pp. 48–9 and 61–2Google Scholar; Touchais, G., ‘Le passage du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent en Grèce continentale: état de la question’, in Laffineur, R. (ed.), Transition: le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent (Aegaeum 3; Liège, 1989), 113–22, at pp. 114, 118–19Google Scholar; Voutsaki (n. 245), 46.

²⁴⁷ Alden, M. J., Bronze Age Population Fluctuations in the Argolid from the Evidence of Mycenaean Tombs (SIMA Pocketbook 15; Göteborg, 1981), 199Google Scholar.

²⁴⁸ T. 164 remained in use until LH III B, Ξ2, until LH III A1, while it is possible that the robbed T. 29 was also used during LH III, as suggested by the discovery of two figurines in the lower levels of the dromos and very close to the entrance.

²⁴⁹ The missing bags are: Level 3a, Lot 5 (16/4/91), Depth 0.85/1.41; Lot 6 (17/4/91), Depth 1.47/1.60; Level 3a, Lot 9 (18/4/91), Depth. 1.86/2.68; Lot 11 (23/4/91) masonry below ‘bench’, Depth 1.88/2.86; Lot 12 (23/4/91) soil below masonry, Depth 2.86/3.12. Lot 4³ is not considered here because it comes from a later wall found SE of the dromos.

²⁵⁰ See also TABLE 1.