¹ Many thanks are due to Mrs Eleni Konsolaki for inviting me to study the animal bones from her excavations and for providing all the necessary information as well the photographs in Plate 35 a and b; also for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Many thanks also to Paul Halstead for comments and to Graeme Barker and Annie Grant, who in their capacity as referees made many useful suggestions. Conventional rules of responsibility apply, Fig. I was redrawn by D. Schofield from an original by N. Kalliotzis of the 2nd Ephoreia, and Fig. 2 was done by Vangelio Kiriatzi. The identification and recording of animal bones were undertaken while I was Faunal Research Fellow at the Wiener Laboratory of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Special abbreviations:

Bp = proximal breadth

Bd = distal breadth

GL = greatest length

GLP = greatest length of the glenoid process

² Meadow, R., ‘Animal bones: problems for the archaeologist together with some possible solutions’, Paléorient, 6 (1981), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Schmid, E., Atlas of Animal Bones (Amsterdam, 1972).Google Scholar

⁴ See, among many others, Gilbert, A. and Singer, B. H., ‘Reassessing zooarchaeological quantification’, World Archaeology, 14 (1982), 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gautier, A., ‘How do I count you, let me count the ways? Problems of zooarchaeological quantification’, in Grigson, C. and Clutton-Brock, J. (eds), Animals and Archaeology, iv: Husbandry in Europe (BAR S227; Oxford, 1984), 237–51Google Scholar; Grayson, D. K., ‘On the quantification of vertebrate archaeofaunas’, in Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, ii (New York, 1979), 199–237Google Scholar; id.Quantitative Zooarchaeology (New York and London, 1984); Ringrose, T. J., ‘Bone counts and statistics: a critique’, JAS 20.2 (1993), 121–58.Google Scholar

⁵ Silver, I. A., ‘The ageing of domestic animals’, in Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E. (eds), Science in Archaeology (London, 1969). 283–302.Google Scholar

⁶ Binford, L. R., Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths (New York, 1981).Google Scholar

⁷ von den Driesch, A., A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Harvard University, Peabody Museum Bulletin, 1; Cambridge, Mass., 1976).Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Lyman, R. Lee, Vertebrate Taphonomy (Cambridge, 1994). 375–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Cf. Ibid. 194–5.

¹⁰ Measurements for m/carpal III: GL 31.71; Bd 4.26.

¹¹ Only the distal epiphysis present, measuring Bd 12.06.

¹² Cf. Binford (n. 6), 111.

¹³ Harcourt, R. A., ‘The dog in prehistoric and early historic Britain’, JAS 1 (1974), 151–75.Google Scholar

¹⁴ von den Driesch, A. and Boessneck, J., ‘Die Tierreste von der mykenischen Burg Tiryns bei Nauplion/Peloponnes’, in Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte (Mainz am Rhein, 1990), 87–164 at 145.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Stanzel, M., Die Tierreste aus dem Artemis-/Apollon-heiligtum bei Kalapodi in Böotien/Griechenland (Munich, 1991), 84.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Nobis, G., ‘Archäozoologische Untersuchungen von Tierresten aus dem “Palast des Nestor” bei Pylos in Messenien/SW-Peloponnes’, Zeitschrift für Archäologie, 27 (1993), 151–73 at 171.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Teichert, M., ‘Brachymel dogs’, Archaeozoologia, 1.1 (1987), 69–75 at 72.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Ibid. 71.

²⁰ O';Connor, T., ‘Pets and pests in Roman and Medieval Britain’, Mammal Review, 22.2 (1992), 107–13 at 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sadler, P., ‘Useful small dogs’, Circaea, 11.1 (1994 for 1993), 6.Google Scholar

²¹ Fisher, J. W., ‘Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2.1 (1995). 7–68 at 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Ibid. 17.

²³ Shipman, P. and Rose, J., ‘Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass-processing behaviors: approaches to the fossil record’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2 (1983), 57–98 at 81–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Binford (n. 6), 107; Lee Lyman (n. 8), 309.

²⁵ e.g. Studer, J., ‘Entre chien et homme au Bronze Final’, Archaeozoologia, 2.1–2 (1988), 269–80 at 273.Google Scholar

²⁶ Shipman and Rose (n. 23), 86.

²⁷ e.g. Trolle-Lassen, T., ‘Human exploitation of fur animals in mesolithic Denmark: a case study’, Archaeozoologia, 1.2 (1987), 85–102 at 88Google Scholar; Payne, S., ‘Bones: identification and related aspects’, in Greenewalt, C. H., jun., Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis (Berkeley, 1976), 19–26 at 24Google Scholar; this criterion, however, mainly applies to large game animals, since experimental or ethnoarchaeological studies on dog-skinning are lacking. Skinning of animals in association with a funerary ceremony is testified in Patroklos’ funeral (Il. xxiii. 165 ff.):

πολλἁ δὲ ἴφια μῆλα χαὶ εἰλίποδας ἔλιχας βοῦς πρὁσθε πυρῆς ἔδερόν τε χαὶἄμφεπον ἐχ δ᾿ ἄρα πάντων δημὸν ἑλὼν ἐχάλυψε νέχυν μεγάθυμος ᾿Αχιλλεὺς ἐς πὁδας ἐχ χεφαλῆς , περὶ δὲ δρατά σώματα νήει

²⁸ Silver (n. 5).

²⁹ Day, L. P., ‘Dog burials in the Greek world’, AJA 88 (1984), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ Ibid. 29.

³² Wapnish, P. and Hesse, B., ‘Pampered pooches or plain pariahs? The Ashkelon dog burials’, Biblical Archaeologist, 56.2 (1993), 55–80 at 58.Google Scholar

³³ Boulotis, Chr., ‘Mycenaean wall painting’, in Demakopoulou, K. (ed.), The Mycenaean World: Five Centuries of Early Greek Culture 1600–1100 BC (Athens, 1988), 35–7 at 36Google Scholar; Morris, C., ‘In pursuit of the white tusked boar: aspects of hunting in Mycenaean society’, in Hägg, R. and Nordquist, G. (eds), Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid (Stockholm, 1990), 149–56 at 150.Google Scholar

³⁴ Especially on sealstones, rings, and vessels: Mylonas, G. E., Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966), 127Google Scholar; Laffineur, R., ‘Iconography as evidence of social and political status in Mycenaean Greece’, in Laffineur, R. (ed.) ΕΙΚΩΝ: Aegean Bronze Age Iconography. Shaping a Methodology (Aegaeum, 8; Liège, 1992) 105–12 at 108–9.Google Scholar

³⁵ Morris (n. 33).

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ Helms, M., Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade and Power (Austin, 1993), 153–7Google Scholar; in addition, the association between hunting in farming societies and symbolic distance has been repeatedly demonstrated in the anthropological literature. For example, it has been shown that in classical Greece the realm of hunting represents a gendered space (dominated by the male identity) beyond the conventional social limits: see Detienne, M., Dionysos Slain (Baltimore and London, 1979), 24–6Google Scholar; Schnapp, A., ‘Eros the hunter’, in Bérard, C., Cristiane, B., Durand, J. L., Frontisi-Ducroux, F., Lissanague, F., Schnapp, A., and Vernant, J.-P., A City of Images: Iconography and Society in Ancient Greece (Princeton, 1989), 72, among many others.Google Scholar

³⁸ Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society (Cambridge, 1984), 258.Google Scholar

³⁹ N. Marinatos, ‘Celebrations of death and the symbolism of the lion hunt’, in Hägg and Nordquist (eds) (n. 33), 143–8; for lion bones in Mycenaean contexts see Boessneck, J. and von den Driesch, A., ‘Ein Löwenfund aus Tiryns’, AA (1979), 447–9Google Scholar; eid., ‘Ein Beleg für das Vorkommen des Löwen auf dem Peloponnes in “herakleischer” Zeit’, AA (1981), 257–8; von den Driesch and Boessneck (n. 14); Nobis (n. 16), table 3.

⁴⁰ Halstead, P., ‘Man and other animals in later Greek prehistory’, BSA 82 (1987), 71–83 at 74.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Mancz, E. A., An Examination of Changing Patterns of Animal Husbandry of the Late Bronze Age and Dark Ages of Nichoria in the Southern Peloponnese (diss. Minnesota, 1989), 77.Google Scholar

⁴² Von den Driesch and Boessneck (n. 14).

⁴³ Gejvall, N. G., Lerna: A Preclassic Site in the Argolid, i: The Fauna (Princeton, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Mee, C. B., and Cavanagh, W. C., ‘Mycenaean tombs as evidence for social and political organisation’, OJA 3.3 (1984), 45–64Google Scholar; W. Cavanagh and C. Mee, ‘The location of Mycenaean chamber tombs in the Argolid’, in Hägg and Nordquist (eds) (n. 33), 55–64; O. Pelon, ‘Les tombes à tholos d'Argolide: architecture et rituel funéraire’, Ibid. 107–12; Voutsaki, S., ‘Social and political processes in the Mycenaean Argolid: the evidence from the mortuary practices’, in Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W. D. (eds), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum, 12; Liège and Austin, 1995), 55–66Google Scholar; K. Lewartowski, ‘Mycenaean social structure: a view from simple graves’, Ibid. 103–14.

⁴⁵ Cf. Cannon, A., ‘The historical dimension in mortuary expressions of status and sentiment’, Current Anthropology, 30.4 (1989), 437–58 at 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ e.g. Wright, J., ‘Death and power at Mycenae: changing symbols in mortuary practice’, in Laffineur, R. (ed.), Thanatos: les coutûmes funéraires en Égée à l'Âge du Bronze (Aegaeum, 1; Liège, 1987).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ e.g. Mee and Cavanagh 1984 (n. 44), 50.

⁴⁸ Mee and Cavanagh 1990 (n. 44); on the basis of attributes related to grave offerings.

⁴⁹ Frödin, O. and Persson, A. W., Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922–1930 (Stockholm, 1938), 359–377.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Symeonoglou, S., The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton, 1985), 54.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Kanta, A., The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution (SIMA 58; Göteborg, 1980), 47.Google Scholar

⁵² Demakopoulou, K., ‘Κόϰλα, μυϰηναϊϰή νεϰρόπολη’, A. Delt. 37 (1982 [1989]), Chr. 83–5.Google Scholar

⁵³ Iakovidis, S., Περατή (Athens, 1970), i. 159–60.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ e.g. Parkin, D. J., Palms, Wine and Witnesses (San Francisco, 1972), 77.Google Scholar