Agency and personhood at the onset of the Mycenaean period

Abstract

This paper offers a critical evaluation of the debate on agency and personhood in archaeology. Despite some very interesting and sharp discussions, the debate has suffered from the projection of anachronistic definitions of the person and an overreliance on specific ethnographic readings. In addition, little attempt is made to integrate abstract theoretical discussions with close analyses of empirical data. I would like to suggest that this should be our priority. In the second part of the paper, I will apply these ideas by examining notions of personhood and agency held by the inhabitants of the southern Greek mainland between ca 1800 and 1600 B.C. The analysis will be based on the mortuary practices and imagery of the period.

Commingled burials and shifting notions of the self at the onset of the Mycenaean era (1700–1500 BCE): The case of the Ayios Vasilios North Cemetery, Laconia

“…In this period therefore status differences are stressed, as well as kinship and descent. It has been argued elsewhere that we see a shift of emphasis from the household to the wider kin group (Voutsaki, 2010a(Voutsaki, , 2010b(Voutsaki, , 2016. In addition, age and sex divisions become more pronounced: children are underrepresented in extramural cemeteries, as they are still buried primarily among the houses.…”

“…Mycenaean, 1700-1100 BCE), and especially the custom of multiple burial and secondary treatment of the body, have in the last decades become a central focus in Aegean mortuary studies (e.g., Voutsaki, 1998Voutsaki, , 2010aVoutsaki, , 2016Cavanagh and Mee, 1998;Boyd, 2002Boyd, , 2015Boyd, , 2016. Most recently, our understanding of mortuary rites has received a new impetus from current theoretical approaches drawing on theories of practice (e.g., Boyd, 2002Boyd, , 2015Boyd, , 2016Voutsaki, 2010a, forthcoming), as well as from a growing bioarchaeological interest in the treatment of the body (especially for Mycenaean material: Triantaphyllou, 2001Triantaphyllou, , 2010Papathanasiou, 2009;Moutafi, 2015;Lagia et al, in press;Jones, in press).…”

“…Finally, in some elite precincts, notably in the Grave Circles of Mycenae, men predominate (Voutsaki, 2004(Voutsaki, , 2016. The transformation of the funerary practices is an integral element of the pervasive changes in the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age: the introverted, conservative, kinship-based and materially austere mainland societies give way to the expansionist and competitive Mycenaean polities (Voutsaki, 2010a(Voutsaki, , 2010b(Voutsaki, , 2016.…”

¿Por qué la arqueología oculta la importancia de la comunidad?

“…Desde esta posición sólo se respeta a quien es como nosotros, lo que constituye una versión distinta, pero de igual contenido que la de aquella primera fase del capitalismo colonizador. Fuera del ámbito norteamericano son más frecuentes los intentos de escapar de la ontología moderna para pensar el pasado, insistiendo en la cualidad relacional y mítica de esas identidades (Brück 2001;Thomas 2004;Fowler 2005;Chapman y Gaydarska 2007;Voutsaki 2010;Alberti et al 2011;Gnecco 2012aGnecco , 2012bHaber 2012aHaber , 2012bSalerno 2012). Sin embargo, en general, se trata más de describir casos concretos o de defender la inadecuación de la aplicación de las categorías modernas al pasado que de construir una heurística para pensar en esas 'otras' sociedades.…”

“…Algunos aceptan que, dependiendo del grado de complejidad, en muchos de esos grupos se conjugan componentes relacionales e individuales en la constitución de la identidad personal (Shweder y Bourne 1982;Spiro 1993;LiPuma 2000), lo que, como vimos, también empieza a ser reconocido en arqueología por algunos estudios ajenos al contexto norteamericano (Brück 2001;Thomas 2004;Fowler 2005;Chapman and Gaydarska 2007;Voutsaki 2010). No me interesa entrar ahora, sin embargo, en la cuestión de la identidad de estos grupos, o al menos, no de forma directa.…”