Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in the West Mediterranean: A social and economic analysis 9781841718750, 9781407328829

Table of contents :
Untitled
Untitled
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
List of abbreviations
CHAPTER 1: HISTORY OF THE STUDIES
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 3: LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN POTTERY: ITS FORMS AND FUNCTIONS IN THE AEGEAN
CHAPTER 4: OVERVIEW OF FORMS AND FUNCTIONS IN THE WEST MEDITERRANEAN
CHAPTER 5: CONTEXTS OF USAGE AND DEPOSITION
CHAPTER 6: AEGEAN-TYPE POTTERY IN THE WEST MEDITERRANEAN: A NEW PERSPECTIVE
APPENDIX
Gazetteer of sites
Bibliography
TABLES AND FIGURES

Citation preview

BAR  S1439  2005  VIANELLO LATE BRONZE AGE MYCENAEAN AND ITALIC PRODUCTS IN THE WEST MEDITERRANEAN

9 781841 718750

B A R

Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in the West Mediterranean A social and economic analysis

Andrea Vianello

BAR International Series 1439 2005

Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in the West Mediterranean A social and economic analysis

Andrea Vianello

BAR International Series 1439 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1439 Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in the West Mediterranean © A Vianello and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781841718750 paperback ISBN 9781407328829 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718750 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS

Acknowledgemts..................................................................................................................................................iii List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................iv Chapter 1..............................................................................................................................................................1 A short history of discoveries and studies...............................................................................................................2 Bernabò Brea and the Aeolian Islands....................................................................................................................3 The time of catalogues: Taylour and Biancofiore ..................................................................................................4 Lucia Vagnetti and the first theoretical approach ...................................................................................................6 The congresses and the rediscovery of Sardinia......................................................................................................7 Alternative views...................................................................................................................................................8 The results of archaeometric analyses: the recent research......................................................................................9 a critical review of current research .....................................................................................................................11 Explanatory models.............................................................................................................................................11 Chronology ........................................................................................................................................................14 Archaeometric analyses........................................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2............................................................................................................................................................17 Definitions ..........................................................................................................................................................17 Essential terms.....................................................................................................................................................17 Functional context ..............................................................................................................................................19 Depositional context ...........................................................................................................................................19 Cultural context..................................................................................................................................................19 Database..............................................................................................................................................................20 Visits to sites........................................................................................................................................................21 Recognition of patterns of usage .........................................................................................................................24 Theoretical Models .............................................................................................................................................25 Models of production and consumption..............................................................................................................25 Two researchers of consumption models.............................................................................................................26 Contextual archaeology.......................................................................................................................................27 Inductive-analogical model .................................................................................................................................27 The comparative anthropological model: globalisation ........................................................................................28 Consumption approaches ....................................................................................................................................29 Last word on the exchange models......................................................................................................................30 Chapter 3............................................................................................................................................................31 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................31 Form and function in Aegean LBA pottery .........................................................................................................32 Linear B ideograms .............................................................................................................................................37 Chapter 4............................................................................................................................................................43 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................43 General Observations ..........................................................................................................................................46 Regional studies..................................................................................................................................................51 Eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands ..................................................................................................................51 Western Sicily.....................................................................................................................................................54 Ionian Apulia ......................................................................................................................................................55 Ionian coast.........................................................................................................................................................57 Two “minor” routes: the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic coast .....................................................................................58 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................................60 Chapter 5............................................................................................................................................................63 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................63 Settlements..........................................................................................................................................................64 Funerary contexts................................................................................................................................................65 Regional studies..................................................................................................................................................67 Eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands ..................................................................................................................67 Monumental multi-chambered buildings.............................................................................................................74 The spring chamber in Lipari ..............................................................................................................................76 Western Sicily.....................................................................................................................................................77 Ionian Apulia ......................................................................................................................................................80 i

Ionian coast.........................................................................................................................................................81 Vivara .................................................................................................................................................................83 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................................84 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................85 Chapter 6............................................................................................................................................................87 A Past hypothesis in new light.............................................................................................................................87 Evidence other than pottery................................................................................................................................89 Figurines .............................................................................................................................................................89 Amber.................................................................................................................................................................89 Glass....................................................................................................................................................................90 Ivory...................................................................................................................................................................90 Metalwork ..........................................................................................................................................................91 Copper oxhide ingots..........................................................................................................................................92 Architecture ........................................................................................................................................................93 Long and not so long distance trade routes ..........................................................................................................94 Pottery and social identity ...................................................................................................................................96 The inheritance of Aegean-type contacts into the Iron Age ................................................................................97 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................99 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................... 102 Geological contribution to the understanding of Ionia ...................................................................................... 102 Gazetteer of sites ............................................................................................................................................... 106 Additional data from visits to Sicilian archaeological museums........................................................................... 176 Additional data from visits to Ionian and Apulian archaeological museums ........................................................ 177 Additional data kindly provided by Dr M. Gorgoglione, Superintendence of Apulia......................................... 184 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 191 Tables and figures.............................................................................................................................................. 201

ii

Acknowledgments This book is an adaptation of a PhD dissertation defended at the University of Sheffield in 2004. It would not have been possible to arrive so far without costant encouragement from my supervisor, Prof. Keith Branigan. I am also indebted to those who provided or facilitated access to the materials in several museums in Italy. Dr Voza of the Superintendence of Antiquities in Siracusa kindly ensured I had free access to the archaeological museum “Paolo Orsi” in Siracusa, where the director Dr Ciurcina and Dr Storace were extremely helpful, and the site of Thapsos, where I benefited from the expertise of an excavator, Mr Ventura. My thanks go also to the staff of the museum “Paolo Orsi” for their cordiality and patience in handling thousands of members of the public and a researcher at the same time. The museum has also kindly agreed the puclication of a few pictures of ceramics taken during my visit there in 2002. In the Aeolian Islands Prof. Cavalier provided access to the local archaeological museum, dedicated to the memory of her husband, Prof. Bernabò Brea, and several sites in the islands. She also discussed with me some results of her researches, provided advice on my research and tried to help me in any way. I still remember her vigour and true passion for anything connected with archaeology. Dr Martinelli and Mr Famularo helped in several ways during my visit. At Taranto Dr Gorgoglione was most helpful in discussing with me my research and opening for me the closed rooms of the archaeological museum of Taranto. She was very kind in accompanying me throughout Taranto and dedicated plenty of time to my questions. Many others should be thanked for their support, in several ways, during my stay in Italy. In Sheffield, I would like to thank all the people in the Department of Archaeology and particularly the PhD candidates that shared space, time and thoughts with me. My thanks to Dr David Davison and Gerald Brisch, who also helped in the copy-proofing. Special thanks go to my parents, Dobrillo and Franca, who are a constant source of love and joy for me. They supported me in everything from the start, including financial and practical support much needed in several occasions.

iii

List of abbreviations Chronology BA

Bronze Age

EBA

Early Bronze Age

MBA

Middle Bronze Age

LBA

Late Bronze Age

IA

Iron Age

EIA

Early Iron Age

MH

Middle Helladic

LH

Late Helladic

Others RAF

Royal Air Force 1

iv

Chapter 1: history of the studies This work focuses on Late Bronze Age exchanges in the West Mediterranean by studying Aegean-type materials found in the area, especially the commonest of these materials: pottery. The research presented here will concentrate on the preparation of an updated data set and a study of the impact made on the Italics by exchanges of Aegean-type material. Although the latter was intended to be the primary objective behind the research, the collection of the data was the more time consuming and produced distinctive results. The site of Punta Tonno (also known as Scoglio del Tonno, Taranto) is a model illustration of the problems faced in gathering reliable data. The location, on a small hill just beyond the urban area of the famous Greek colony of Taranto, has yielded some of the finest examples of Aegean-type pottery in Italy and appears prominently in the archaeological literature. The main extent of the site is bordered by the railway station and the commercial harbour. The stratigraphy dates from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Discovered by chance, over a century ago, during work on expanding the harbour, the importance of the remains became clear as soon as archaeological excavations began. The total misunderstanding of the Bronze Age period at the time of these early excavations prevented any attempt to preserve the remains or, at least, complete the investigation of the area, which was not awarded the status of a major site. Progress had to be made quickly and dynamite was used, archaeologists only being allowed to pick up the best-preserved fragments between explosions. Although flattened, the site still existed when Mussolini decided to make Taranto one of the more important of the Italian naval bases. The project, once approved, resulted in the complete remodelling of the harbour, which became the base of the Italian fleet until bombed by the RAF on 11th November 1940.

gaging read; the author had a deep knowledge of the topic and a rare eye for detail. Written after almost a century of discoveries, his book was at the time the definitive publication on the argument. However, most of the sites and material presented in this present volume have been discovered only in recent years and have dramatically changed our knowledge of Late Bronze Age exchanges. Indeed, the growing volume of material has deterred the publication of an update to Lord Taylour’s book, which would be impossible today without sacrificing readability. The most noticeable departure from Taylour’s argument is, perhaps, the focus of research, which has shifted from the Aegean to the West Mediterranean. Taylour was primarily interested in finding Aegean vessels most similar to those found in the West Mediterranean, and tracking the movements of Aegean ceramic styles. More recently, scholars have applied petrographic and chemical analyses to distinguish imports from imitations.Taylour’s stylistic studies and contemporary scientific analyses both emphasise the Aegean connection. Ideally, the reconstruction of exchange networks should be as straight forward as tracing on a map the lines between provenance sites and the discovery locations of the Aegeantype pots. However, the archaeometric analyses carried out to date (Jones, Levi, and Vagnetti 2002), although limited in the amounts of pots tested, confirm that most Aegean-type vessels found in the West Mediterranean were not produced in the Aegean. Albeit Mycenaean- and other Aegean-type pottery found in the West Mediterranean may have been produced within that region, such pottery only constitutes a tiny minority of the ceramic assemblages, in which influenced pottery is often present in larger quantities. The division between the two categories is based on modern stylistic analyses, which, since their inception, have tried to recognise and isolate original imports from imitations. As there is no sharp distinction between imports and indigenous production, it is possible that the Italics made no distinction at all. Aegeantype vessels employ more sophisticated techniques and technologies than ordinary vessels, which represent the vast majority of ceramic assemblages. As a result, the division of Aegean-type pottery between imports and imitations on the basis of provenance alone does not appear to have been meaningful to the Italics. In fact, the indigenous production ranges from close imitations to new regional styles which capably merge the Aegean and Italic traditions. If the Italics were attempting mere imitations, mistakes and lack of skill would appear frequently in their production, but this is not the case. Thus, the Italic production of Aegean vessels is often original enough to be considered an independent style, borrowing its meanings from the originating culture – the Italic. It is therefore of paramount value to the understanding of the presence of Aegean materials and cultural

Meanwhile, the excavator published only a few preliminary findings, keeping the detailed records of his excavations to appear in a final report. Unfortunately, he died before this could be accomplished and his succinct preliminary reports constitute all the published material to date. Sadly, the case of Punta Tonno is not unique and other important sites have been similarly neglected. For instance Thapsos was subjected to “centuries of devastation”, in Orsi’s (1895: 95) own words, before his late-nineteenth-century partial excavations. Lord Taylour’s Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas (1958) provides both a good start to the subject and an en-

1

influence in the West Mediterranean to present the perspective of the Italics, who were both producers and consumers. Furthermore, it is possible that the Italics produced and also utilized non-ceramic items, which are ordinarily linked to the Aegean. The resulting scenario diminishes the significance of Aegean people arriving on western shores in the light of the active role of the Italics, but recognises the fundamental importance of such contacts for the development of regional and inter-regional cultures.

Reinecke (Reinecke et al. 1965), Müller-Karpe (1974, 1981) and Kilian (1975) contributed to the creation of an European-wide relative chronology, taking into consideration the “Mycenaean” material from Italy, but they did not have an impact on the actual study of the material. However, their work provided the foundations for research into Italic relative chronologies, which is perhaps the most rewarding fruit from the labours of all the previous research. The very earliest studies were limited to reporting any discoveries as curiosities, or, at best, as objects of exchange. It was the time of “dilettantism of local antiquarian traditions” (Leighton 1999: 2). The first true “pioneer” archaeologist in this field of study was Paolo Orsi. He began an intensive campaign of excavations throughout Sicily (especially in the years 1889 to 1893), unearthing most of what is known from there today. He was less biased than other scholars of the time (and later), recognising at least the presence of a pre-classic “culture”. During his career, he worked on sites of prehistoric, classical and medieval periods. His interests shifted gradually from the earliest to the latest times, in a way that gave him an understanding of the continuity between the periods, and thus in his later writings he still recognises the importance for the classical period of what happened before. His standards of work were very high for the time, and although few of his interpretations can be considered valid as they were written, it is impossible not to admire an archaeologist who took care, in equal measure, of his excavations, publications, and the preservation of his finds. Not only is almost all that he did well documented in a long series of papers, but he also gave all the material he discovered to the Syracuse museum to be safeguarded for future generations and made publicly available.

It seems useful, however, to present here a short history of these studies before anything else. Interest in Aegean-type material in previous researches often stemmed from the finding of unusual, Aegean-style pottery, which has been regarded essentially as proof of overseas exchanges. Even Taylour (1958) in his monograph goes no further than substantiating this view by collecting information on a significant corpus of material and then proving its Aegean cultural origin on the basis of stylistic analysis. As a result, the Aegean-type material is often associated with the actual arrival of Aegean people (sailors, traders, potters, or other travellers and migrants) in ancient Italy.

A short history of discoveries and studies The study of the connections between the Aegean and the West Mediterranean began with the first discoveries of Aegean material in Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula and in the late-nineteenth century. In 1871, Luigi Mauceri discovered the first Aegean material in the West Mediterranean. Although the excavations at Mycenae had only started in 1874, Mauceri felt confident enough to publish his finds, in 1877, as possible “Mycenaean” material from Sicily. However he was heavily biased towards the view that his finds represented a more “primitive” western Mycenaean civilisation, according to the diffusionist view of the time (Montelius’ ex oriente lux, i.e. light from the East). From the Near East, through the pre-Hellenic civilisations (Minoan and Mycenaean), the light of knowledge and civilisation slowly arrived in the West – but only via Rome, and possibly the preceding Etruscans, whose origins were, and are, often connected with eastern civilisations. Therefore, the discovery made in 1871 was first overlooked and then reconsidered twenty years later, after the new discoveries made by Orsi. Sicily was, at that time, the first area to open up this field of studies, and is still today a key area. Soon afterwards Mycenaean vases were recognised in Apulia, and included with the Mycenaean pottery from Greece in Furtwängler and Löschke’s comprehensive catalogue. There is no doubt, at least reading Biancofiore (1967) and his report of the Oria vessels, that some other material was probably discovered even earlier, but was not properly recognised. The case of the Serra Ilixi ingots, discovered in 1857 but published as “Aegean” only in 1904 (Pigorini 1904), supports this statement. Montelius (1869, 1899, 1912, 1986),

More specifically, he recognised and spoke openly of a Mycenaean presence in Sicily, but he also stressed the presence there of more or less “developed” indigenous cultures that were in contact with Greece and the Aegean. In this way it was possible later for Pugliese Carratelli (in Bernabò Brea 1956) to argue that these contacts were the very beginning of what became the Greek colonisation of Magna Graecia. It was the relative abundance of material and the idea of continuous contact that led many scholars to think of a Mycenaean colonisation of Sicily and South Italy that was not very different from later Greek colonisation. The concentration of sites in the eastern part of Sicily, so important in Greek times, as well as the presence of buildings such as the anaktoron and tombs recalling tholos tombs, and to a lesser degree Aegean metalwork, were for a long time considered powerful evidence. This first hypothesis of Mycenaean colonisation persisted for over a hundred years and has only recently been convincingly refuted; and even today such a simplistic theory, which allows little room for speculation, is a tempting one. Another considerable argument following Orsi’s work, and still unresolved, is the level of importance that should

2

be given to the associated local finds, often influenced by Aegean ones. At first, these were only recorded in a few fortunate cases and were never considered a potentially illuminating group: their significance remains underestimated.

evidence from the Aeolian Islands. He recognised in eastern Sicily (including the Aeolian Islands) a more developed series of cultures than in western Sicily, and all of these were influenced by Aegean cultures. Classical historical and mythological accounts suggested to him that the origin of some local populations had to be identified with the arrival of people from elsewhere (in this case the East). Consequently it is not surprising that he considered the Capo Graziano culture, the first in the Aeolian Islands to show an eastern connection, to have been influenced by immigrants from Greece, nor that he interpreted Thapsos as a Mycenaean colony. However his meticulous excavations, and the data he obtained from them, soon contradicted these views and he was among the first to reconsider his theories; for example he rejected a foreign origin for the vessel from Monte Sallia, considered Mycenaean by Taylour. Even if the approach of using classical sources was occasionally fruitful, as in the case of the Ausonian period, which effectively originated from the aggressive influx of settlers from the Italian peninsula, Bernabò Brea would sometimes overstress the importance of eastern contacts. The diffusionist-mythological approach re-emerged when, between 1962 and 1964, he excavated in the vicinity of the anaktoron at Pantalica: the finding of Thapsos pottery in the north-eastern sector there (Bernabò Brea 1990) was used as an occasion to reaffirm an eastern primacy.

Orsi’s research was unequalled until the end of World War II. He was outstanding for many reasons, not least for the accuracy of his recording of finds. Archaeology in his day, however, employed different methods and had other objectives; many of today’s techniques and approaches were unknown to him. Apart from Orsi’s studies, the largely unpublished excavation of Punta Tonno at Taranto, an “emergency excavation” carried out in 1899-1900 by Quagliati, is the only other significant discovery in this early period. Punta Tonno is even today considered one of the most significant sites for both the quality and quantity of its Mycenaean finds, and since the time of its discovery has been considered the final proof of Mycenaean colonisation in Italy. On the route from Greece to Sicily, in a place well known to later Greeks, it was the perfect site to demonstrate such a theory. Nevertheless, what is Punta Tonno for today’s scholars if not a confused and confusing collection of material? No levels have been preserved or studied, and no stratum with almost exclusively Mycenaean material has ever been recorded. Taking into account the quantities of material found subsequently all over Italy and nearby areas, Punta Tonno, from a modern perspective, may be considered with less astonishment; its irremediable destruction, however, is mourned as deeply today as it was a hundred years ago. Quagliati also began research in other important settlements: the wholly unrecorded early excavations of Porto Perone (1900), where copious material was found, as well as at Coppa Nevigata (1904), where the finds were divided among different collections and the studies remained incomplete.

Thapsos was thought to be an Aegean colony, or at least a major point of contact with that region. As a result of changes in the political situation, Pantalica became the successor of Thapsos, but the inhabitants were local people strongly influenced by Aegean culture – although not themselves Aegeans. Bernabò Brea argued, alternatively that the Aegean settlers resided, as tradition suggests, within the harbour area of Pantalica, which was linked with the historical Hybla. He then identified Hybla with Syracuse, more precisely the inner, historical part of the city – the city-island of Ortygia. This also became his contribution to Pugliese Carratelli’s thesis that there was continuity from the Mycenaean to the Greek colonies: he saw a continuous east-west contact between Aegean Thapsos and Greek Syracuse. From the viewpoint of the Aeolian Islands he was cleverly able to envisage the entire Sicilian Bronze Age, as demonstrated in his Sicily before the Greeks (1957). This was the first comprehensive book on the topic, where, in his typically descriptive style, he summarises all the discoveries in Sicily to that date.

Bernabò Brea and the Aeolian Islands After Orsi’s death in 1935, and before the campaigns of the 1950s in the Aeolian Islands by Bernabò Brea, little was done apart from the researches at Vivara (1936-7) by Buchner. However, Bernabò Brea began his studies on the prehistory of Sicily in 1941, and at the end of World War II, he reorganised the materials in the Syracuse museum according to the current knowledge of Sicilian cultures. Thus he specialised in the prehistory of Sicily and his name, with that of Madeleine Cavalier, is inextricably linked with the archaeology of the Aeolian Islands, where he founded the local museum and continued Orsi’s policy of preserving finds in an accessible and nearby location.

Like Punta Tonno, Thapsos and Vivara, Lipari was immediately recognised as a main trading harbour, in a strategic position and at the heart of that network of sea-routes connecting Sicily, Sardinia and Southern Tyrrhenian Italy. The presence of prehistoric antiquities was already known from sporadic finds, especially those made by local antiquarians, but Bernabò Brea was undoubtedly the first fully to recognise their importance.

In formulating his ideas Bernabò Brea followed Childe’s diffusionist approach (Childe 1939), as well as the study of classical mythology, while also paying heed to the strong

3

Bernabò Brea and Cavalier conducted exceptional work in these islands, meticulously recording each layer and finally publishing their results. Bernabò Brea linked the evidence he found with that from the known Sicilian centres, proving that the Aeolian Islands were more a point of contact among cultures than simply part of some already defined culture. Bernabò Brea dedicated his entire career to the Aeolian Islands, making them the most thoroughly surveyed, excavated, and studied area of Sicily – indeed, perhaps one of the best in Europe.The comprehensive material evidence he excavated is the basis of all his writings on the islands and these are hard to criticise in any way. Some of his conclusions threw light on important aspects of eastern contacts. For example at a certain point most of the material culture was influenced by the contemporary cultures of the Italian peninsula rather than Sicily (Ausonian periods), while the settlements were reduced to just one, Lipari, located in a highly defensible position. It might be noted that fortification walls have also been found at some sites in Apulia (Punta Tonno, Satyrion, Porto Perone and Torre Castelluccia) and Sicily (Thapsos and Timpa Dieri). Did trade also bring war? Bernabò Brea suggested a simple equation: “fortification = trade”. He argued that the need for defences was created by contacts with foreigners. According to Bernabò Brea the presence of Mycenaean pottery in just two sites in the Aeolian Islands (the acropolis at Lipari and Montagnola di Capo Graziano in Filicudi), proves that increasing wealth was associated with threat and a reduction in the number of settlements. The culture, and Aegean pottery, from Capo Graziano was then considered earlier – contemporary to the Minoan and Cycladic cultures – because a few pots found on the islands were identified as belonging to these cultures, a theory supported by Taylour’s non-scientific visual comparisons. The absence of scientific analyses is a weakness in Bernabò Brea’s research, as only a small amount was belatedly undertaken. He preferred to use his firsthand knowledge of Mycenaean artefacts, acquired especially during his own excavations in Poliochni. Later, he appointed others to analyse the imported pottery, specifically Taylour and, later,Vagnetti.

ted themselves to the task of producing catalogues. Taylour was able to produce a complete volume that is still a reference point today, its main merit being that it included many unpublished finds. Biancofiore specialised in Apulian material, presenting new discoveries, but especially focussing new attention on scientific studies.Taylour’s work is still essential for scholars studying Mycenaeans in Italy, and no one (other than Biancofiore) has ever tried to compile a similar catalogue although the need for one has been stated many times (most recently in Leighton 1999: 28, note 21). Biancofiore includes the first complete and reasoned publication of the Punta Tonno material (unearthed over sixty years previously), and is the first to employ scientific, i.e. petrographic, methods to discover the origins of the material. Although apparently different, the works of these authors are methodologically similar: they classified the same type of evidence (either found in the whole of Italy or in Apulia) to produce a catalogue. They both then tried, using the available methods of the time, to prove that the pieces examined were of Mycenaean origin. Apart from the presentation of fresh material, the new element they introduced was an attempt to identify precisely the origins of the material, and consequently to know more of the exchanges represented, albeit purely from the point of view of pottery distribution alone. These two catalogues have shaped all the subsequent research and defined its limits. The publication of Taylour’s work generated renewed interest in prehistoric studies throughout Italy, most of which was focussed on finding Mycenaean sherds. The weaknesses of this new research, which included and followed Biancofiore and Taylour’s approach, can be better understood by thinking of the three keywords in the title of Taylour’s monograph: Mycenaean, pottery and Italy. Each of these words imposes a limit, as well as a theoretical assumption. First, the term “Mycenaean” alone was used, and not Cypriot as well, because the Mycenaean was considered the most developed civilisation of the period, direct ancestors of Greeks and then Romans. Today the term “Aegean” is much preferred. “Pottery” was the focus because it was the best-known material for many scholars at the time. Additionally it was thought that in the Central and West Mediterranean nothing was exchanged apart from pottery and perishable organic goods: the anaktoron in Pantalica and a few metal daggers were the exceptions. After many years of research the approach of studying mainly pottery is still successful. The majority of imports is pottery, although some metalwork, especially oxhide ingots, and many influenced materials, such as architectural remains (the anaktoron, the “tholos” of Lipari, Thapsos’ plan, etc.) and locally produced Aegean-type pottery, complete the picture. Many other potential products have left tenuous evidence or no traces at all, such as perishable goods, including slaves if they were traded, and these can only be hypothesised starting from the pottery imports. Finally, “Italy” was considered the only place where the contact with the West could have effec-

The time of catalogues: Taylour and Biancofiore When Bernabò Brea began to unearth the evidence in the Aeolian Islands, the discoveries were sufficient for a separate catalogue of the Aegean material to have been compiled, but the opportunity was missed. Most of the material was collectively published and available elsewhere, with only a few new items, which, as Biancofiore in the preface of the first edition of his catalogue said, had been difficult to access (Biancofiore 1963). Taylour and Biancofiore were the archaeologists who, almost simultaneously (respectively 1958 and 1967), commit-

4

tively happened. Today a broader term such as Central (or Western) Mediterranean is preferable, although real direct contact probably never went further than southern, and, perhaps to a lesser degree, the central Italian peninsula. Today a better title for a catalogue such as Taylour’s might be “Aegean-type pottery from southern Italy and adjacent areas”.

ing the precise areas in contact (Biancofiore 1967: 22). This premise was very original for its time, but now an important critique to this approach is summarised by the question: was the imported pottery really traded by the people who manufactured it? The recognition of a complex network of exchanges, where the traders were not necessarily the producers of the objects, as suggested by the Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks, represents today’s challenge in the research. Biancofiore, like Bernabò Brea, used pottery found particularly from Italian excavations in the Aegean, or from only a small number of well-known sites, for comparative purposes. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that Attica and Rhodian wares were recognised as the most similar to Italian finds, along with the Peloponnesian wares, especially from Mycenae and the Argolid, the Dodecanese, and, in part, Cyprus. Of course, the petrographic analyses carried out at the time of Biancofiore’s book were minimal: it was only the dawn of this new series of studies. The petrographic examination in Biancofiore’s work has more importance for its didactic value rather than for the results achieved.This is true, too, of his entire book. Reading it, the impression is that Biancofiore was suggesting a new way of doing things rather than presenting the results of completed research.

Biancofiore’s book was a completion of, rather than an alternative to, Taylour’s volume, and Biancofiore, rather than Taylour, was recognised as a pioneer of archaeometric researches in our field. Biancofiore had in mind a book about Mycenaean civilisation in the southern Italian peninsula, as the title confirms (Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale), but the work in fact focussed on just one region – Apulia. Even with this geographical limitation, it was impossible to analyse all the evidence. Unlike in Sicily, the material was in the main widely dispersed in different museums, in Italy and abroad, in part scarcely recorded, and partly still “in publication” (in some cases, unfortunately, much delayed (Biancofiore 1967: 19-23). Biancofiore was as critical in his book as he was innovative. He heavily criticised the typological studies (ibid. 21) such as those of Furumark, based on groups of “similar” pots, and also, perhaps, Taylour’s work, for his presentation of the evidence in a series of separate groups without sufficient links between them, and his general comments. He suggested that a good description of an imported vase should be more than a declaration of similitude and an approximate optical description. A precise, short description together with petrographic analyses and a general interpretation integrating the whole evidence was, in his opinion, the only way to classify particular materials such as imports.

Biancofiore was able to construct a chronology of exchange, not yet verified, in conjunction with his provenance identifications. According to him, during LH III A there were exchanges with the Peloponnese and Attica; in LH III B these continue, while new contacts began with Cyprus and Rhodes that almost entirely replaced the previous ones during LH III C. Finally, some contacts with the Ionian Islands are identified. Biancofiore, like Bernabò Brea and, more cautiously, Taylour, concluded that many centres with Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and certainly Punta Tonno, were “colonial centres chiefly with trading purposes” (Biancofiore 1967: 118). This affirmation was supported even by the quantity and typological variety of the pots, according to Biancofiore, since they covered a wide range of functions, “their presence leads us to think of a permanence and stability” (ibid. 121). The identification of colonies was strengthened by Biancofiore on the basis of a stylistic and decorative analysis, recognising Aegean-like motifs on the local pottery belonging to the period of the contact.

Biancofiore recognised the regionalisation of Mycenaean pottery, i.e. the fact that each area in Mycenaean Greece produced slightly different variants, while for the first time he introduced the study of materials showing Mycenaean influence into this branch of research. Although in his view these were still Aegean materials (but not specifically from Mycenae) to be compared with those found in Italy, it became clear that speaking of “Mycenaean” as a unitary civilisation while analysing the Italian imports was quite inadequate. In the same year Vagnetti stated that imported objects were difficult to identify purely by visual examination, but that both stylistically and technically they showed clear connections with Aegean pottery, particularly with matt-painted ware, as well as with that of preceding periods (Tiné and Vagnetti 1967: 8). Biancofiore argued that by petrographic analyses (and using visual examinations as part of the scientific observations), rather than a mere stylistic or artistic evaluation, it would be possible to recognise local wares rather than a generic Mycenaean ware. The target was, and still is, to identify the exact provenance of imports, because each Greek region appears to be different, with its own identity, as in classical times, and thus the connection can be understood properly only by recognis-

5

1871

First discovery by Mauceri at Milocca, Sicily (Mauceri 1877).

1880

First discovery in peninsular Italy (Oria).

1886

Furtwängler and Löschke include Aegean-type pots found in the West Mediterranean in a general study on the Mycenaeans for the first time.

1889

Paolo Orsi begins his excavations in Sicily.

1899

Quagliati excavates Punta Tonno, Taranto.

1956 1958

Bernabò Brea and Cavalier begin the publication of their excavations on the Aeolian Islands. The first volume of Meligunìs-Lipára is published in 1960. Taylour publishes his monograph Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas.

1967

Biancofio re publishes a comprehensive review of Apulian sites with the first petrographic report. Vagnetti publishes her first study.

1982

Proceedings of the congress in Taranto. First volume with contributio n from multiple scholars. Some authors report on new discoveries while others present generalisations. This volume sets a new model for publishing in the field after it clearly becomes impossible to follow Taylour’s single-author model. Smith proposes the first theoretical models to interpret the evidence. Bietti Sestieri follo ws one year later with a more successful model.

1987 1998

Publication of first volume of the excavations at Monte Grande. It revives the study of non-decorated ceramics and introduces archaeometric analyses as part of the excavating process.

Table 1: Key dates in the discovery and study of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean

Lucia Vagnetti and the first theoretical approach

mainly on imports, essentially pottery, found in Italy, and thus following Taylour. They justified this approach because of the quantity of pottery available and the virtual nonexistence of identified imports outside Italy, and it was stressed that pottery was the only medium that could enable a chronology of exchanges to be constructed. Italian BA absolute chronology, in fact, derives from the finding of Mycenaean pots together with local ones, and chronology was the main issue for these two researchers. They mentioned also a few non-ceramic items, including metalwork and exotic/luxury objects of bone. They even tried to distinguish a preMycenaean moment of contact, but the results suggested an “episodic and fragmentary” situation, not different from the contemporary hypothesis. Together with a chronology based on pottery styles, the other main point examined in detail was the distribution of the pottery. They speak of findings in Sardinia, referring to the oxhide ingots, but these were too few to allow a study in depth of the island. However, they included objects found as far away as Britain, arguing that they were products of secondary exchanges; they suggested that direct connections were limited to the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily, with the limit set at the Aeolian Islands.

Although Biancofiore’s use of such sources is more moderated than those of other scholars, the idea of considering anything new in a culture as a sign of the arrival of a wholly new population is an inheritance from the classical tradition. Another interesting conclusion is the precise interpretation of the meaning of the exchanges: “the Mycenaean routes towards the Mediterranean and European West were determined by the economic need of keeping commercial relations with the metalliferous centres” of Spain and Cornwall (Biancofiore 1967: 118). Italy was not considered a probable source of metals, and therefore a final destination, but instead was regarded as a region en route. While it should be noted that Italy could have been a mid-point on some routes between Europe and the Mediterranean, and thus a land where it was possible to find goods from various European regions, today it is unclear if the Aegeans really only wanted metals, and if what they wanted could or could not be found in Italy. Östenberg, for example, suggested that Mycenaeans were in search of slaves (1975), while Biancofiore later added that the Mycenaeans could have been looking for amber (1973, in Monte Rovello). However, more recently Dickinson has suggested that Mycenaean pottery should be seen only in the perspective of a long-distance trade in metals (1994: 251). In conclusion, Biancofiore argued for a transition to a more scientifically based archaeology, but was unable to adhere fully to his own suggestions, as his few petrographic analyses, his adherence to stylistic studies, and the use of classical sources reveal. At the time of Biancofiore’s second edition, another scholar entered the field for the first time – Lucia Vagnetti.

In Biancofiore, the hypothesis of Punta Tonno as a colony – the possible precursor of the Greek settlement, was revived – but with less conviction than in Taylour. They argued that exchanges were motivated by the need for metals (as Pugliese Carratelli and other scholars had suggested since the 1950s), and also other materials, such as amber. This came via an Adriatic route connecting the northern Italian Terremare and Apulia. Evidently, most of our knowledge of Aegean contacts came from Apulian sites and the Aeolian Islands. Rhodes and Cyprus were regarded as the Mycenaean regions most in contact with Italy, while Cycladic materials were attested in the Aeolian Islands. Little was mentioned of Sicily, probably considered an en route area towards the Aeolian Islands – although Pantalica was mentioned by Vagnetti (1968b), who identified the only imported pot from the site. Finally, they supported the hypotheses of Pugliese

Vagnetti devoted her research almost entirely to the presence in Italy of Aegean objects. Vagnetti and Tiné, in the 1967 catalogue to the Taranto exhibition (the first to display publicly many of the finds together), took a prudent line interpreting them as a general phenomenon. They focused

6

Carratelli (1956), on the possibility of continuous contact from Mycenaean to Greek times in Italy.

lished in 1986) provided both an opportunity for all interested parties to meet and an appropriate forum to advance current thinking.

In this brief overview of Vagnetti’s 1967 publication it is possible to recognise many hypotheses that were already current at the time, but also some new ones. Vagnetti expressed doubts as to the possibility of Punta Tonno, and other sites with Mycenaean materials, being colonies. Although Quagliati was confident of this, Taylour was not fully convinced (but he openly supported the idea) while Biancofiore effectively “proved” this with his stylistic analyses in 1963, subsequently reaffirming his position in 1967. Vagnetti suggested that the reasons for contact were several, and varied from one area to the next, a situation which could only be illuminated by new excavations and discoveries. She tried to consider all the available evidence from the whole of Europe, including Italian objects in Greece, although she suggested that direct contact and imports were limited to the southern Italian peninsula and then re-exported by local populations. This is a fascinating hypothesis, re-examined but never fully explored by Harding (1984). He, like Bouzek (1985), was principally interested in the contacts between Mycenaean Greece and East and Central Europe, rather than with the West Mediterranean area. Today the identified area of direct contact is changing continuously, with blurred borders that have recently, for example, included Sardinia. Regarding provenance,Vagnetti, without reference to scientific analyses, identified Rhodes and Cyprus as the most probable areas for the origin of much of the pottery and metalwork. In 1968, in I bacili di bronzo di Caldare sono ciprioti ?, she argued that some bronze-work found at Caldare came from Cyprus. She subsequently developed her research specifically on contacts between Cyprus and Italy, which have recently produced interesting results, widening the scope from Mycenaean (mainland Greece only) to Aegean contacts (Vagnetti 1968a: 133). In conclusion,Vagnetti went much further than simply reporting and reviewing the previous hypotheses; she put forward new ideas that have led to significant advances in this field of research.

The congresses and the rediscovery of Sardinia There were two main developments in this period: new evidence (a constant), and the first results of archaeometric (petrographic) analyses. For example, Benzi (“Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo”, 1982: 353-4) reported the improbability of Punta Tonno having had direct contacts with Rhodes during LH III A. Analyses carried out on materials in Rhodes excludes the production (and hence the exportation) of certain shapes in this period (Jones and Mee 1978). Vagnetti (ibid. 363-6) recognises for the first time variations in the significance of certain sites. She compares the case of Luni sul Mignone, a totally excavated and published site (like Monte Rovello) that revealed only five Mycenaean sherds, found in separate strata and locations and belonging to different periods, and, on the other hand, the sites of Punta Tonno, Termitito, Thapsos and Broglio di Trebisacce, with large quantities of imports. She concluded that a “diverse quality of relations” (ibid. 364) between sites with varying degrees of influence could be made out by investigating the quantity and types of influences of pottery and other materials. She re-affirmed her 1967 identification of a zone (southern Italian peninsula and Sicily) inside which direct contacts took place. Nevertheless, probably her most important affirmation at this time was the acknowledgement of Aegean-influenced material as a true reflection of contact, and therefore her ambivalence to the idea that only imports could mean real contact, which was questioned by scholars at the round table during the same congress. The problem of Cypriot imports, especially those related to metal hoards and Sardinia, became a main theme of her research, although her attention focused principally on provenance and differences among the types of contacts, site by site, region by region. This is a much-discussed topic which is still unresolved.

Between 1967 and the 1982 Congress: “Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo”,Vagnetti wrote several articles on discoveries such as the bronzes found in Contigliano (1974), a potsherd from Fondo Paviani (1979), and material from Latium (Peruzzi and Vagnetti 1980). There was little attempt to update the general overview of the topic, and no theoretical developments, she simply added new sites to the catalogue (see Peruzzi and Vagnetti 1980). Apart from Vagnetti’s articles, and other excavation reports, only Marazzi and Tusa’s Die mykenische Penetration im westlichen Mittelmeerraum is particularly noteworthy, applying various theoretical methods to compare provenance/contact points. Continuing from the congress of 1982 in Taranto, the new researches carried out in Broglio di Trebisacce (from 1982 onwards) and in Sicily (Filicudi, Lipari, Cypriot imports), produced further material for discussion, and the congress in Palermo (pub-

At this point it is appropriate to comment on Sardinian discoveries and the study of Cypriot imports. The first important discoveries of Aegean material in Sardinia were made in the 1980s (Lo Schiavo and Vagnetti 1980), although these were not the very earliest – the first being published by Pigorini in 1904. In 1968, while examining the Caldare bronzes, Vagnetti proposed that “a contemporary sea-route existed around the south coast of Sicily to Sardinia” (Lo Schiavo, Macnamara and Vagnetti 1985: 2), a thesis perhaps supported by the finding of an Eastern bronze figurine in the sea at Selinunte (Bisi 1968). Lilliu (1973) recognised a miniature tripod-stand found during 1968 in a votive cave in Santadi (Sardinia) as an object influenced by Late Cypriot III bronze-work. Lo Schiavo later began research targeted at

7

finding the connection between Cypriot contacts and Sardinian metallurgy. This research originated from oxhide ingots and other metalwork found in Sardinia and converged perfectly with the studies being undertaken by Vagnetti on metal hoards with Cypriot-type bronzes and the discovery of Cypriot pottery. Lo Schiavo was able to identify a Cypriot influence in Sardinian metallurgy extending through the whole of LH III C, and perhaps beginning during LH III B, which could have played a role in spreading Cypriot elements in Europe.

nian Apulia were ports of call. He heavily criticised the current distribution maps because the sites were divided on a chronological basis, undetermined potsherds were included without any attempt to separate them from recognised pots, and the absence of any quantification. Translating on maps of geographical distribution such a mixture of uncertain and imprecise data resulted only in unreliable and unusable maps. Vagnetti has just recently (1999) offered statistics on quantities, but never corrected the distribution maps. Bietti Sestieri (1988) in the same edition of the journal tried to apply some theoretical models to the “Mycenaean connection”: in particular, she developed a processual model. Contrary to the preceding paper, which used a coreperiphery model to identify Italy initially as a periphery of Greece and then as a new core for Mycenaean traders, she emphasised the need for future interpretations to consider both the Mycenaean activities and the impact that these had on the local communities. She criticised the two contemporary and contrary views of the time: those scholars specialising in the Aegean who suggested a leading role in contacts by local communities, and those specialised in Italian prehistory who argued for a dominant Mycenaean role. She was the first and only scholar to use theories applied to this field of the research. She conveniently divided Italy into regions, each of which had a rather different type of contact, for example, recognising in Sicily the importance of early contacts in creating the subsequent situation. She linked social differences to the archaeological evidence and from there assessed the contacts, looking at the same time to the role of Aegeans and local people in the exchanges. The results were mixed, affected in part by using unproved assumptions, such as the presence of Mycenaean potters in Italy, and in part by using a set of data that lacked at the time any results from scientific analyses. However her attempt to develop a model was of great value and showed clearly the possibility of obtaining more from the data. The use of archaeological evidence was important, but not balanced: too little of the material belonging to the context was presented.

The 1985 paper (Lo Schiavo, Macnamara andVagnetti) was a major summary of what was known at the time and opened up a new field of research. It remains important because it is a comprehensive catalogue of the evidence, and innovative, at least, in presenting the whole evidence and not just one class of material, as in the case of Taylour and Biancofiore. Among the conclusions suggested they found the White Shaved pottery from Thapsos (14th century B.C.) to be the earliest evidence of Cypriot contacts in the West. Otherwise there was nothing more than a descriptive commentary, but the importance of the paper lies more in demonstrating a contact previously only suspected (and thereby opening up a new chapter in the research) rather than in drawing conclusions. The new discoveries in Sardinia also stimulated a new series of studies in Iberia (De la Cruz 1990, 1991; De la Cruz and Perlines 1993) that identified a close similarity between Sardinian and Iberian metalwork and a few sites where Aegean pottery was found, as already suspected by Taylour (1958).

Alternative views Other, alternative, views and ideas existed, but they have had scarce influence so far. Several papers published in Dialoghi di Archeologia, sadly now discontinued, presented highly interesting and stimulating articles which can be considered together as confirmation from experienced archaeologists of the need of a new approach, or, at least, alternate views worthy of integration into the core of the research. Although these papers dealt with specific arguments they merit comment in relation to this present study.

In the following years a paper by Mammina, Marazzi and Tusa (1990) – on the “tokens” found at Vivara and probably used as aids to computation – made extensive use of statistics and computer science in proving that the contacts had a cultural dimension as well. They investigated the context at Vivara, as well as other examples in Italy, in a fruitful work that revealed a more advanced Italy rather than a further innovation brought by the Mycenaeans. Another paper, on Sub-Apennine pottery, by Damiani (1991) continued to explore Italy before interpreting Aegean material, this time from the unusual starting point of a particular Italian ware. Finally, the preliminary report on the Vivara excavations in 1986 by Marazzi and Tusa (1991) appears to be highly accurate and exceptional, considering excavation reports from other sites, certainly in the authors’ attempt to imitate the publication of the Aeolian Islands by Bernabò Brea, which

Marazzi (1988), in his article about the Mycenaean presence in the West Mediterranean, argued that there is enough evidence in Italy to compare trades in the East with those of the West. He still supports the view of one-way trade (Mycenaeans in the West), essentially originated by difficulties in the East, but he suggests that the trade network in the West was very similar to the eastern one, in particular based on many ports of call where sailors could exchange their goods. He identified the Aeolian and Phlegrean Islands as the most ancient point of contact, islands being, in his opinion, necessarily more open to foreigners and better organised for sea trade. Furthermore, he suggested that some centres in Io-

8

is the natural comparison in view of the similarity between the two island groups. The Appendix, on the application of computer science to the management of the gathered data, is of the greatest interest when describing the database: the need to categorise all the data requires the adoption of a univocal terminology. The authors divide the pottery found at Vivara into three main classifications: imported Mycenaean ware, non-Mycenaean imported ware, and local ware. However they still focus on Aegean pottery, especially the imported type, choosing a descriptive approach which, even if presenting comprehensive data, is not helpful towards a critical interpretation indistinguishable from the work that Bernabò Brea began around thirty years earlier, and ignoring all the suggestions in the previous papers. It is not a coincidence that in the editorial of the same volume, Bietti Sestieri writes about a failure in introducing new approaches within the scientific world of Italian prehistory.

ranean Sea as a unique and unifying entity.

The results of archaeometric analyses: the recent research In the 1980s the attention of Vagnetti and other scholars was mainly concentrated on the chronological ordering of the material, a task which is still in progress. In the 1990s, after the surprising results of archaeometric analyses of sherds (especially those from Antigori, Broglio di Trebisacce, Punta Tonno and Termitito), which revealed many “imports” to be local products, the goal is now a better identification, classification and understanding of the Aegean-type material.These currently can be divided into three classifications: imports, local productions, and partial imitations. Before the results of the archaeometric studies, Vagnetti argued that most of the Aegean-type pottery was imported. Subsequently she accepted that at sites like Broglio di Trebisacce and Termitito “the percentage of Mycenaean and Aegeantype pottery in the general ceramic assemblage of a specific site is rarely above 5% and usually much lower” (Vagnetti 1999: 141). At other sites there are probably no imports at all present, although a small percentage is possible. Vagnetti (ibid.) reported that in 39% of the 78 sites known at that time only one sherd was found, and in a further 33% a maximum of ten potsherds were discovered. Furthermore, in 14% of sites there were up to fifty potsherds and only in 14% of sites was the quantity considerable (more than fifty). Interestingly only four years earlier she supposed the percentage of Aegean-type pottery to be 10% on average (Arancio, Buffa, Damiani, Trucco et al. 1995). Statistics for true imports are generally unknown since the archaeometric analyses are not yet numerous enough, but in the case of Broglio di Trebisacce, Vagnetti reports that 3% of the catalogued (i.e. in the inventory) material originates from the Peloponnese, central Greece and Crete (Vagnetti 1999: 143).Vagnetti argues that because the production of “Mycenaean” pottery in Italy is limited in both quantity and its period of production, very probably only a few potters came to Italy. This situation revived the ideas expressed by Biancofiore about the necessity of petrographic analyses to determine correctly the provenance of pots, and gave new impulse to the research, but it also cast doubts on the quality of the existing data. However in most, if not all, cases it is nearly impossible to distinguish correctly the three classes of pottery by purely visual inspection, although all are testimony to a time when the Italian coasts were in contact with the Aegean. New data from petrological and chemical analyses of pots from Apulia and the Ionian coast have been published from 2001, but they are unusable for general statistics. Up to 10% of the thin-sectioned Aegean-type pots have been recognised as genuine imports, but about 80% of the samples do not match any clay source. In addition the

In 1988, Fisher tried to answer three main questions in her PhD thesis: What is the origin of pottery? Why was it in Italy? And does it tell us anything about the relationships between Greece and Italy? (Fisher 1988: 1-2) She tried especially to shed light on the third question, but her re-working, around twenty years later, of Biancofiore’s propositions has its own limitations in the same areas: only pottery from a restricted region of Italy was considered. Is this enough to answer the questions posed and build a solid knowledge of the relationships between Italy and Greece, West and East, in the Bronze Age? This present work seeks to abandon the inappropriate modern ideas of “Italy” and “Greece”, as well as any distinction based on Greek colonisation or any other non-contemporary period. Ancient shipwrecks have demonstrated that pottery itself cannot identify a specific “nationality” or provenance, but just bears witness to a complex portby-port network of exchanges (Phelps, Lólos, and Vichos 1999). In 1991, several papers on Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean appeared in a volume edited by Gale (1991). In particular copper oxhide ingots were at the centre of many of the contributions. Preliminary results of archaeometric analyses on oxhide ingots from Sardinia (see figure 21 p. 239) and Aegean-type pottery from Italy were combined by Jones and Vagnetti (1991). Although copper oxhide ingots are an important indicator of long-distance exchanges across the Mediterranean Sea, they can only provide further proof that Mediterranean-wide exchanges in the Bronze Age existed and probably involved both materials and ideas at least. Cherry and Knapp (1991) began a critique of quantitative provenance studies, continued later by Knapp (2000), which avoided reaching any conclusions, including Gale’s (2001) unambiguous statement of the Cypriot origin of the Sardinian copper oxhide ingots. On the positive side, Mediterranean-wide studies (e.g. Cline 1994; van Wijngaarden 2002) began to appear, focussing on the Mediter-

9

samples are normally chosen by the excavators and curators of the material, who collect many of the possible imports and some representing the whole of the assemblage. So far, we know neither where many of the supposed imports come from nor how many possible imports are in each analysed assemblage, as the sampling is biased towards possible imports.

consumption and context-related analyses also fail to provide a convincing picture, as this can be built only by combining different analyses. Van Wijngaarden follows Hodder’s theoretical views in order to understand the functional context, particularly consumption and demand, and a purely contextual approach is adopted. Much of the Mediterranean is targeted, specifically the Levant, Cyprus and Italy, but only in the period of LH I – III B ceramics. Three sites were chosen for each of the main areas and analysed in the most rigorous detail, reporting each documented potsherd. In spite of these limitations, the work seems impressive, and indeed its spatial range excludes little, just two potsherds from Iberia and a few other potsherds scattered across an area larger than the Mediterranean, but all mentioned in the text. The catalogue of sites is not updated with the latest sites, but very recent discoveries may be pardoned.The depositional contexts appear missing, but for the nine sites, and, finally, the non-ceramic evidence is only occasionally reported.

Vagnetti’s current research is focussing on the refinement of her chronology of Aegean-type pottery, which corresponds essentially to the three main periods of Mycenaean culture, adding and reviewing materials as much as possible. She suggests a first phase corresponding to LH I-II, when the Mycenaeans were not yet organised but were searching for supplies of metals, and entering into contacts with the islands at the centre of metal trade: the Aeolian and Phlegrean Islands. Vagnetti argues that islands would have been safer points of contact because they were small and also more beneficial as they were at the crossroads of trade. In both groups of islands there is evidence of metal being worked. Contacts with Apulia were minimal and sites there were probably used as ports of call. A second phase (LH III A – B) would have seen an expansion of routes, probably due to better organisation and awareness of traded and tradable materials, and expanding Mycenaean presence and influence in the southern Adriatic, Ionian and eastern Sicilian coasts – even reaching as far as Sardinia. Sardinia, in particular, would have attained significant levels of contact starting from LH III B. The final phase, LH III C, after the fall of many Mycenaean palaces, is noted for stronger contacts with all the Adriatic and Ionian coasts, as well as with Sardinia, while Sicily and the Aeolian and Phlegrean Islands had much less contact. The changes evident in the three phases of contact evidently resulted from other socio-economic changes, and in turn stimulated further socio-economic developments.Vagnetti argues that a search for metals cannot be supported as the reason for contact beyond the first phase. Metals, in this view, provided the initial reason for Mycenaeans to establish contact with Italy, but probably not the motivation for the following exchanges.

Concentrating on Italy, some errors can be spotted with the quantities reported for some sites, but this also tells us that Van Wijngaarden addressed the main problem of spatial analysis, albeit using it as a secondary tool. The three sites chosen (Lipari, Thapsos, Broglio) do not represent the whole of the West Mediterranean and it is probably an attempt to create a balance among all the variables. For instance Lipari and Broglio are settlements, whereas the pottery from Thapsos comes mainly from a necropolis; Lipari is an important early site, Thapsos a LH III A 2 – B 1 site, and Broglio is essentially a LH III B 2 – C site. However, both Lipari and Thapsos represent the same area, i.e. eastern Sicily, and Broglio returned largely undetermined fragments from uncertain contexts; it is also largely outside the chronological boundary set from LH I to III B and its importance lies in the regional production of late Aegeantype and Aegean-derivative ceramics, all of which are represented there.Vivara or Punta Tonno would, perhaps, have made better choices.

Van Wijngaarden (2002) has pioneered the studies of the context of Mycenaean pottery outside Mycenaean Greece in a work deriving from his doctoral studies. His work is closely associated to this current doctoral programme and thus it is appropriate to review and single it out in more detail. A short critique to approaches relating to trade immediately paves the way to a new, consumption-based approach. However, the author’s exclusion as unsuitable of all other approaches, while understandable in such a broad work, may be considered an inadequate, rather than an effective choice. For example, spatial analysis is proposed as “a tool to describe the archaeological distribution pattern” (2002: 25), but it “does not seem to be a suitable framework for investigating the exchange of Mycenaean pottery in the Mediterranean” (ibid.) as it is unable to reveal the complex mechanisms of such a wide exchange network. However,

Several remarkable observations have been made at these sites, but the conclusions on the cultural significance of Mycenaean pottery (2002: 249 ff.) suffer greatly from lack of data. For this reason, several short notices about minor sites are provided to support the few arguments, and the descriptive approach continues in the following sections – on the social groups using the pottery and the differentiation within the repertoire. Van Wijngaarden argues that Italic people expressed preferences towards some shapes from the outset. He fails to recognise any social group (“it is difficult to identify social groups” 2002: 255), though he suggests that the pottery was exchanged by “specific groups”. In conclusion, some observations appear acute, the number of sites considered throughout the book is enormous, and new directions are proposed for the first time. However in

10

such a large work real conclusions could not be achieved as none of the three main areas is adequately generalised and pottery cannot account for all of the consumption, especially when limited both chronologically and spatially. In addition, the fact that we are largely restricted to pottery does not allow us to ignore all the remaining evidence (including Aegean-derivative and non-Mycenaean imported wares – to name but a few) still within ceramics. It is not possible, as Van Wijngaarden has clearly demonstrated, to recognise social groups, taking into consideration a very small fraction of the available material evidence.

(e.g. excavations in urban areas) and time (e.g. emergency excavations) constraints, or natural causes (e.g. the landslip at Broglio). Archaeometric evidence is also problematic because after decades of analyses only partial, preliminary and inconclusive results are offered. New research and discoveries have demonstrated an active Italic production, which is often recognisable on the basis of stylistic analyses. As a result, archaeometric analysis has lost its importance as a unique tool to aid distinction between imports and Italic production.The focus of research has also drifted away from provenance itself, which was paramount in the monographs of Taylour (1958) and Biancofiore (1967). The reason for this is the recognition that imported Aegean-type material circulated in exchange networks, where there were no specific points of departure or arrival. The study of the Uluburun shipwreck (Pulak 1998), in particular, has demonstrated that long-distance ships used circular routes and any material could be exchanged at any stopover point. The ship, with its varied cargo, often acted as a kind of cultural ambassador for overseas people, none of who appear from the archaeological record to have maintained direct links with any Italic or western populations. Cultural integration and dilution happened within the ship; people receiving and consuming goods from these vessels would have entered into contact with the ship, and its special, multicultural world, which may also have included the crew. Thus, the provenance of a specific object does not imply a direct link, and, with the limited data available, it can scarcely help in reconstructing ancient sea routes with any precision.The lack of geological studies on Italian clays is also problematic: most archaeometric analyses compare indigenous pots with Aegean-type examples, assuming that the clays used in the indigenous pots are local. However, Aegean-type pottery normally uses fine clays and different techniques, unlike most indigenous production, and therefore it is possible that different claysources were used. This seems the case from discoveries of kilns in Apulia that are associated prevalently with residuals from the production of either Aegean-type or indigenous wares. Because the production techniques varied, it is possible that the differences extended to include kilns, and perhaps potters as well.

a critical review of current research In this section the major current explanatory models are briefly reviewed. All the models presented here have received recent support and appear to be actively developed. They also share an aspiration to explain the whole phenomenon of the presence of Mycenaean pottery in the West Mediterranean. In many cases authors have built their model using their own experience at some specific site or region. As the present work will try to show, regional variations are a fact and a single model may just not be possible in such a complex spatial and chronological scenario. No one model has been accepted by all scholars, although Vagnetti has produced the predominant and most influential one. Her model has benefited from decades of study, during which she has gained knowledge of most sites and material. Several studies have stemmed from Vagnetti’s work, most notably Bettelli (2002) and, in part, Smith (1987), as well as van Wijngaarden (2002). Regional studies are also important and often no rival model, whether universal or specific, can offer better explanations of issues affecting the regions addressed. For instance, works such as those by the excavation team at Broglio di Trebisacce, lead by Peroni, on Late Bronze Age Calabria, and those by Castellana (the excavator of Monte Grande), Marazzi (the excavator of Vivara), and Tusa (an expert on BA Sicily and a member of the Vivara team) on Early Bronze Age exchanges, remain at the forefront of research. The Meligunìs-Lipára series, published by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier on the Aeolian Islands, is the finest example of regional studies in its clarity and depth. Thanks to a secure stratigraphy, provided by careful excavation, and the many overseas objects found there, the Aeolian Islands have produced the only chronological reference independent from Mycenaean wares in the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily.

The following review of activities and problems related to the research on Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean will provide a snapshot of the current state of the research.

Explanatory models A number of explanatory models have been proposed in order to interpret part or all of the evidence. Among the researchers elaborating models to explain part of the evidence, Vagnetti has been very active in analysing some assemblages in Apulia (Broglio, from 1982 onwards) and Sardinia (1985). Marazzi and Tusa (since the 1970s) for Vivara, as

Chronology, both relative and absolute, is a persistent problem for any research on the Bronze Age Western Mediterranean. Absolute dates are all too few and the relative chronologies are generally unreliable because of flaws in the excavation methodologies (e.g. early excavations), spatial

11

well as Castellana (1998, 2000) for Monte Grande, have all elaborated complex visions of the exchanges, working together as a result of the similarity of their approach. Tusa (1999) and Leighton (1999) focussed on Sicily and tried to produce theoretically aware studies, although strictly regional and with limited attention to Aegean-type material.

pottery was the main indicator of the exchanges and therefore two possible regions could be distinguished: one being in direct contact along the southern coasts of the peninsula (Apulia and the Ionian coast), and one located inland. In the first case, “organised trade” between the Aegeans and the developed Italic cultures was regular, whereas exchanges between coastal and internal centres were the result of a more vague and “diffused trade”. In summary, the sites in direct contact with the Aegeans were active participants in the exchanges. As a result, they then distributed certain products more widely by further regional exchanges. Five years later, Smith (1987) named the redistribution centres gateway communities, and proposed the term “dendritic” to describe their regional exchanges.

Broader models focussing on the Aegean-type material in the West Mediterranean begin with Taylour (1958), who was the first to recognise possible Italic imitations in the assemblages. His book, though now outdated and largely invalid in its conclusions, remains a model for his interpretation, based on rigorous archaeological evidence, some of which has never since been re-analysed. Vagnetti, from 1967 onwards, introduced distribution maps as part of her efforts to identify the main periods and areas of exchange. She (Vagnetti and Tinè 1968) used the relative chronology derived from Aegean-type pottery to divide the sites into three broad chronological groups that were then compared with the supposed contemporary situation in the Aegean, actively using the Aegean chronology in order to analyse the exchanges diachronically. In particular, Vagnetti (1993, 1998, 1999, 2001) argues that the main reason for the exchanges was the search for metals, caused by the Minoans supposedly impeding Mycenaean access to Cyprus and its ores.Vagnetti (1999) recognised a shift in the exchanges during late LH III B, the same period that seems to have witnessed the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces, with some artisans previously working for the palaces moving westwards. They would have created community colonies as defined by Branigan (1981) in his discussion of Minoan “colonies”, with small groups of Aegeans inserted into the indigenous communities, facilitating and promoting further exchanges. Continuing this theme, Vagnetti suggested that, later, the access to Sardinia and its ores conditioned the exchanges. In her opinion, this affected the exchanges more than the fall of the palaces, as the exchanges continued long after those events. Interestingly, much of the recent English literature seems to start from Vagnetti’s view, with Fisher (1988) accepting the search for metals as the main reason for the contacts in Apulia, and Smith (1987) agreeing with the idea of community colonies.

Bietti Sestieri (1985: 306) noticed that “the problem of the ‘Mycenaean’ presence in Italy is an extremely complex one, since it actually represents the intersection of a wide range of archaeological questions: the determinants of the movements from east to west in the different local situations in the east Mediterranean and Aegean regions; the variation in provenance, impact, intensity, direction and time-span of the contacts in Italy; the different local situations and economic and social interactions with the ‘Mycenaeans.’” Later, in 1988, she wrote one of the most acute analyses of Aegean-type material found in the West Mediterranean, trying, as Peroni did earlier, to unify the two approaches, which considered either the Aegeans or the Italics as main players in the exchanges. However, on this occasion she advanced a forced parity between the two, as both had a role she could not measure, though as a specialist in Italian prehistory she was evidently more comfortable with the possibly predominant action of the indigenous cultures. Applying processual arguments, she interpreted the preference of islands for the exchanges, particularly the Aeolian Islands and Vivara, as due to the familiarity with insular environments. Bietti Sestieri further distinguished the area of exchanges into two separate macro-regions: the southern Italian peninsula and the Tyrrhenian region, including Sicily. She argued that different circumstances motivated the exchanges in each area and that very probably these began earlier, and terminated later, than we can deduce by using the evidence of imports alone. She supposed direct contacts in both regions; in the southern Italian peninsula the situation was one of equality between Aegeans and Italics, whereas in Sicily the Aegeans were dominant and exploited the territory. The case of Pantalica and Thapsos, where the Aegean influence is widespread and prolonged, is used to suggest that they were Mycenaean colonies.

Marazzi and Tusa (1979), unlike Vagnetti, suggested that while the Mycenaeans had a modifying action within the Italic cultures, those cultures in direct contact were receptive to this and were as developed as the Aegeans. The exchanges therefore were partly inspired by Aegean incentives and partly by the dynamism of some Italic communities, with the latter often being the most important element. Peroni (1982) builds up an interpretative model mediating between Marazzi and Tusa’s approach and that of Vagnetti. However he remains closer to Vagnetti, admitting the dominant position of the Aegeans in the exchanges, and believing that they would have contributed to the development of the Italic polities. Following her ideas, he also accepted that

Bettelli (2002) is close toVagnetti in several of his views. His work largely concentrates on the analysis of data, perhaps in answer to Smith’s modelling which was weak on data analysis. Bettelli programmatically excludes Sicily, limiting his work to southern peninsular Italy, implicitly accepting Bietti Sestieri’s view of a difference in patterns between the two areas, although there is no agreement on what the pat-

12

terns were. Bettelli did not produce a general model because he could not identify recurring patterns, but for the first time he attempted an interpretation of the material evidence taking into account some results from archaeometric analyses. He also presented pottery and bronzes from the Aegean, arguing that their origin should be traced to similar types found in the southern Italian peninsula.

of the others – those of Vagnetti, Peroni and Bietti Sestier. The model by Vagnetti is the oldest and the most Aegeancentric, but it is also the most successful and was developed and refined over a long career. Since it fails to take into account the role of indigenous people, the principal criticism must be its marked Aegeocentrism. Building from this critique, Peroni proposed an alternative model, and Bietti Sestieri a corrective, more balanced, one. Although these paradigms are apparently “spin-offs” or variants of Vagnetti’s ideas, they all present an original and different perspective. The model by Bietti Sestieri is perhaps the real alternative to that of Vagnetti as a theoretical and interpretative one, while Peroni largely agrees with Vagnetti and often simply integrates the role of the Italics into her Aegeancentric vision. Among the more recent developments, Van Wijngaarden has contributed significantly, introducing for the first time both the significance of context and a wider Mediterranean framework.

Finally, Van Wijngaarden (2002) focussed on Mycenaean pottery and its distribution outside mainland Greece, considering its context. This post-processual point of view is alert to the importance of the local situation (the context), as, to some extent, was Bietti Sestieri previously. But unlike previous discussions, the author endeavours to place the whole phenomenon within the framework of the Bronze Age Mediterranean, analysing common aspects and local diversities. Some of the general results are interesting, such as the most frequent finds of certain shapes in places far from their area of origin, or the possible pattern of drinking vessels being kept apart from other vessels in the West Mediterranean. In particular,Van Wijngaarden recognised that in the settlements, drinking vessels were normally concentrated in one (or a few) huts located in a central position. He also noticed a marked diversity in the depositional and functional contexts, i.e. no recognisable patterns, which agrees with the results of Bettelli in the southern Italian peninsula and suggests a cultural independence of the various groups exchanging Aegean-type pots in the West Mediterranean from Aegean and interregional influences. He recognises the significance of imitations but he cannot always offer an interpretation, for example in the case of the presence of figurines. It should be noted that Bettelli focussed on one entire region and Van Wijngaarden selectively analysed a few sites in each area, thus they are both partial views.

Other researchers are commendable too, such as Bettelli, who introduces the study of possible Italic evidence in the Aegean. Both Van Wijngaarden and Bettelli are close to Vagnetti’s view, at least in their Aegeocentrism. Marazzi and Tusa, who originally formulated the critique to the work of Vagnetti, leading to Peroni’s Italic-centric perspective (Peroni 1994), are now also Aegean-centric in their model. There is no problem in accepting that the initiative for eastwest relations lies with the Aegeans, but this does not mean that the Italics were totally passive in the process. It seems that, for some scholars, the idea of colonisation is still alive, although it often masquerades as recognition of Aegean cultural and technological predominance. Another unproven speculation is that of the exchanges being trade, which is emerging again among Spanish researchers. Dickinson (1994: 234) wrote that when it comes to exchanges involving the BA Aegean, there are behind them three tendencies that can be synthesised by the keywords: trade, surplus and Aegeocentrism. In our case, “surplus” might be replaced by “colonisation”, but it remains evident how the models simply import old and unsatisfactory ideas from Aegean studies, as in the case of chronology, without starting from, and perhaps without analysing at all, the regional evidence.

In Iberia, of particular importance is the work by Martín de la Cruz on two Mycenaean potsherds found in the Guadalquivir Valley and their possible connection with the emergence in the region of local wheel-made pottery. Also significant is the work by Mederos Martín (1999), who reformulated Vagnetti’s interpretation. The Spanish school of thought emphasises an apparent early attention of the Mycenaeans to the West Mediterranean, as documented by the MH matt-painted pottery found in several Italic sites, which proves the early arrival of Aegean sailors. In turn, this makes irrelevant the hypothesis of possible impediments to the eastern routes being an initial reason for attention switching towards the West. Interestingly, the Spanish researchers consistently use the term “trade” to define exchanges and try to interpret the evidence as a product of commercial trade, often referring, more or less explicitly, to the World Systems theory.

Colonisation and trade are recurring themes, quite acceptable as a basis for discussion, but not to be taken as assured. This is due to the overwhelming position of Vagnetti’s perspective, which any other model has to confront. Vagnetti initially considered the possibility of colonisation and trade, but then she rejected the former and remained cautious on the latter. However, her personal position seems to have conditioned too many authors, perhaps revealing a dearth of alternatives. This is not so much a critique of Vagnetti, but of others, who have failed to explore other possibilities. At present, this weakens the overall picture we have of the exchanges, because, although a sound generalised thesis about the most probable situation has been built, there is a worrying lack of alternatives. As the work by Bettelli dem-

The explanatory models developed to date have two main drawbacks: they offer only partial views or analyses, and in many cases they are simply variants of a few general models. Of the subject-specific models, three are the basis for most

13

onstrates, the general models are not yet sufficiently tested on the evidence, which, when not deliberately overlooked (Smith 1987), is largely sampled (Van Wijngaarden).

Aegean shapes and styles and their regional counterparts. In addition it would provide a refined chronology for at least some of the cemeteries, giving a more precise idea of the duration of the exchanges. For example the re-used tombs of Thapsos have largely Aegean-type pottery in the chronological range LH III A 2 – early B 2, suggesting a relatively short, but intense, period of exchanges.

Chronology The application of the Aegean chronology to Italic sites “as is” has some considerable drawbacks. Obviously, the ceramic-based Aegean chronology was not created for the Italian peninsula and will never fit there so well as in Greece. The Aegean chronology is very tightly defined both stylistically (Furumark 1941a, 1941b; Mountjoy 1986) and chronologically (Warren and Hankey 1989: 137-169) and the straitjacket it provides has been donned in the West Mediterranean with little thought for the degree of flexibility that might be required in this region. The three main periods in the Italic cultures are the Middle, Late and Final BA, which do not match the phases of Aegean chronology. Evidently, the imposition of Aegean chronology in the West Mediterranean effectively means that researchers are ignoring the regional evidence, and treating a minority of the evidence (Aegean-type pottery) as dominant. In addition, it should be remembered that Aegean-type pottery was a product of exchanges, and therefore circulating and being stored before final deposition. For this reason, it was probably used in the West Mediterranean beyond its life span in the Aegean. In the case of the Aegean-type products of Italic manufacture, because they were imitations of Aegean prototypes, they must certainly have appeared in the West Mediterranean after they were first produced in the Aegean and, very probably, their production ceased later as well, in a delayed life-cycle. The effect would have been exacerbated because of their value as prestige items (a question that we shall discuss later), and their possible retention as “heirlooms”. The asynchrony between Aegean and Italic relative chronologies, as well as the possible problem of heirlooms, can only be suspected, but the review of Italic finds associated with Aegean-type material that has been conducted while visiting museums and sites with Aegean-type material, suggests that this probably had been the case in some instances. In particular, the analysis of material from eastern Sicily suggested some delay that may alternatively be explained as delay in some items reaching inland sites farther from the sea. The hypothesis of heirlooms appears acceptable in tombs of eastern Sicily and in the settlements of the Aeolian Islands. On both Ionian and eastern Sicilian coasts during the Final BA and Early Iron Age there is some general evidence of retention of shapes and motifs, some of which remain in the southern Italian peninsula well after the arrival of Greek colonisers.

The acute lack of absolute dates in the West Mediterranean leaves the chronology dependent solely on the association of Aegean-type ceramics with Italic pots. Obtaining independent absolute dates (principally by use of C14) is not an easy task, especially once the excavations are concluded, but they are the only way to verify the validity of the Aegean chronology in the West Mediterranean, and to produce the much needed independent absolute chronology to replace that “borrowed” from the Aegean. A secure synchronisation of relative and absolute chronologies encountered in this present research has not yet been accomplished. Absolute dates are often dependent upon the Mycenaean relative chronology, which in turn depends on correctly dating the main eruption of the volcano at Thera during the Bronze Age. Dating one ancient eruption of an active volcano is a daunting task for geologists; they need to analyse materials erupted from the specific eruption, which ideally needs to have remained preserved and as uncontaminated as possible by material expelled in other eruptions. As the island of Santorini (Thera) is almost entirely formed of superimposed layers left by various eruptions this is not an easy task. Ice cores seem more promising as they contain a sample of all materials and gases expelled from each eruption conveniently sealed, but the reduced quantities, and the fact that they keep a record of all eruptions (regardless of the volcano), makes it hard to find the data for the correct eruption. It is no surprise therefore that the chronology of the eruption at Thera has become one of the most debated topics in Aegean Archaeology. Regardless of the absolute date of the Bronze Age main volcanic eruption at Thera, Mycenaean ceramic styles can only provide a date post quem for the western contexts. This translates into western and Aegean relative chronologies not being synchronised. The regional variation in the West Mediterranean adds further complications to an already complex situation. The terminology used in the Italic relative chronologies, especially where Aegean-type material has been found, borrows its terms from Aegean chronology. Despite the awareness of the possible confusion deriving by using similar terms for two regions with distinct historical periods, the consistent adoption of these chronologies in all the other works leaves no possibility open but to follow accepted practice. The system works almost flawlessly for the early (up to LH II A) periods, when Aegean imports are most abundant and the chronology has some meaning. However, in later periods the Aegean chronology is often used for material, none of which has been imported. In

An in-depth look into the chronological homogeneity of ceramic assemblages, particularly those from funerary contexts, has not been undertaken systematically. Such a study would help in recognising any chronological link between

14

particular, material from the very late periods (LH III B onwards) extends into the Italic and western Iron Age, and its sequence depends on broad indigenous cultural and stratigraphic changes rather than ceramic styles. Terms such as the enigmatic LH III C 3 or even the Attica-specific sub-Mycenaean vaguely refer to the last Mycenaean or postMycenaean wares for the decorative style of the Aegeantype Italic wares. The need for the division of the LH III C period into three or four (when sub-Mycenaean is taken into account) sub-periods suggests that this period was a culturally fecund moment for the West Mediterranean; indeed it corresponds to the Early Iron Age of the Italian peninsula just before Greek colonisation. To be fair to early adopters of the Aegean chronology for Italic stratigraphic sequences, the two were believed to overlap, as it was the current opinion of many archaeologists that the Mycenaeans invaded areas of the West Mediterranean. Today no invasion can be proved and direct contacts can be proposed only by the evidence left by a very small number of migrant potters and other artisans, or a few minority communities living in a handful of settlements.

As already mentioned, the limited number of petrological analyses yet undertaken on Aegean-type pottery found in the West Mediterranean is, and will remain, a problem for many years to come. To date, the few archaeometric analyses carried out, particularly by Day and Jones (Jones 1986; Jones and Day 1986), have been mostly on pots from Punta Tonno, Broglio di Trebisacce, Termitito, Antigori,Vivara and the Po Valley, producing only preliminary results that sometimes remain unpublished. Preliminary reports are available for Punta Tonno and Antigori, while more comprehensive studies are available for the Sybaris plain (Broglio and Termitito).Vivara, and to a lesser extent the Po Valley, have not yet produced appreciable results (Jones, Levi and Vagnetti 2002: 178) because of the shortage of clay samples from these areas. In recent years Jones and Levi have carried out further analyses, with the participation of Vagnetti, while Vagnetti and Jones are publishing more and more results from the previous analyses carried out by Day and Jones. Archaeometry has made us aware of the problem of accurately identifying Aegean imports and, importantly, has alerted us to the scale of that problem. It will eventually be resolved, but for the present we have to cope with a situation where we know that many of the sherds and vessels in our “Aegean” assemblages are not of Aegean origin, but we do not know which. Even when vessels or sherds have been analysed there remains a major problem with all those examples that prove not to be of Aegean origin. In only a very few cases can the petrologist go further and suggest with any precision where the vessel may have been produced. This is because, unlike the Aegean, the West Mediterranean has seen little activity directed towards identifying and then characterising clay sources. Normally the recognised clays in Aegean-type pots found in the West Mediterranean account for less than half of the samples, with the remainder producing no intelligible results (the provenance remains unknown), or being assigned to Italic or Aegean manufacture according to similarities recognised as dubious. As we have seen, analyses on material from the important site of Vivara have been altogether inconclusive for this reason. Regional projects to identify clay sources are planned (in the Aeolian Islands and Apulia) following the good results from the single case of the Sybaris plain. However until they have been undertaken and their results published we shall be unable to attribute more than a handful of analysed potsherds and vessels to a specific production area anywhere in the West Mediterranean.

Archaeometric analyses Studies on provenance began very early and by 1958 Taylour already suspected a local origin for a few pots. Biancofiore (1967) focused his attention principally on this topic and was the first to apply petrological analyses to the material. However, almost none of the original identifications by these pioneers of imports or local wares are still considered valid by contemporary research: this is the result of progress made in petrological and chemical analyses, also referred to as “archaeometric” analyses. These have now proved that some Aegean-type vessels were of Italic manufacture, demonstrating the presence also of true imports, although around 80% of the sampled material is often left without any certain identification (Gorgoglione, pers. com.). When the Italic manufacture is recognised, the analyses can also help in tracing the centres of manufacture and the distribution areas of their products – such as in the Sybaris plain. Today, analyses are sometimes carried out on particular specimens to prove or disprove their Aegean origin, as in the case of Casale Nuovo (Vagnetti 1993), where none of the vessels is an import, or Monte Grande (Castellana 1998, 2000), where, amazingly, at least one potsherd is apparently of Near Eastern origin among many others of Aegean provenance.The results of early preliminary analyses, carried out up to twenty years ago, are being published. However no area has been methodically screened, whereas some, notably Sicily, remain largely excluded. Meanwhile, extensive analyses on Sardinian copper ingots have supported the conclusion that “presumably they are imports from Cyprus” (Begemann, Schmitt-Strecker, Pernicka and Lo Schiavo 2001: 73).

Integration between projects is another key problem. It appears that petrological analyses are often carried out in a patchy way, analysing a few potsherds here and there, either as a response to requests by their excavators, or as occasional studies by small teams of researchers. As a result all but one of the projects remains at the stage of work in progress. However, another level of integration is missing: petrological analyses should be part of comprehensive projects

15

involving both traditional archaeology and other types of archaeometric analyses. For example, Cypriot material should be targeted by a single project, as they are few and concentrated in Sicily and Sardinia. Instead, the study of lead isotopes in Sardinian copper oxhide ingots has reached definitive conclusions autonomously while only in one Sardinian site, Antigori, have some petrological analyses of pottery been carried out. In Sicily, only a few ceramic vessels have been analysed, but none of the metal objects. The present section, after reviewing the planned objectives, will focus on the understanding of datasets. The following case presents an issue regarding social archaeology, but it depends upon the reading of data. It offers an opportunity to reflect on the general trend of easily substituting techniques and technologies when new ones become available. As we shall see, the results from petrological and chemical analyses constitute a powerful new tool in the interpretation of the evidence, but cannot provide some information previously available through style-based analyses. The circulation of Aegean-type and -derivative products has been examined only for the Sybaris plain in the West Mediterranean (Levi and Bianco 1999; Levi and Bettelli in Bettelli 2002: 104-106). Although these studies are still at an embryonic stage, it appears that in almost all of the sites pottery travelled medium distances (about 20 – 50 km) at least. Petrological and chemical analyses help modern archaeologists on this front, but they also contribute to possibly distorted perspectives, such as the idea that Aegean-type products of Italic origin, when exchanged regionally, should be treated as local pots (see Bettelli 2002 for some examples). Given that the analyses concentrate largely on separating “true” from “false” Aegean imports, the Italic products seem to acquire importance only when connected to something “Aegean”, following the Aegean-centric approaches already noticed among the explanatory models. Examples are the supposed Italic pots found in the Aegean area (Bettelli 2002) and the hypothesis suggesting Aegean potters in southern peninsular Italy manufactured them (Vagnetti 1999), to name but a few. However, since the visual differences between Aegean and Italic pots become increasingly blurred during LH III, and the overall quality drops whatever the provenance, the role of Aegean-type pots in the Italic communities needs to be reconsidered.

As we cannot distinguish between local and imported Aegean-type pots, it is very probable that early communities could not either, suggesting that the physical provenance might not have corresponded to the “cultural provenance” (culture), which is what matters from a social point of view. So far the emphasis remains on strict scientific criteria (physical provenance and eventually distance travelled by the products), yet it is possible to reveal cultural aspects by looking into the manufacture of the pots, recognising cases of uncertain (as in Broglio), innovative (Termitito) or accurate (Punta Tonno) imitations. These could help in detecting possible sites in direct contact with the Aegean (possibly Punta Tonno) and sites where the Aegean culture merged with the local one (such as Termitito). In the latter case, such sites could have been alternative centres for the spread of what we recognise today as “Aegean” culture, simply by adopting some forms and shapes from overseas. Clearly, the correct identification of exchanges with overseas people and regional interactions is central to any interpretation. Thus the modern categorisation of materials, according to their Aegean or Italic origin, blindly following scientific analyses is missing the opportunities offered by possible style-based categories. In summary, the results from the analyses have great potential, but they have proved little more than the presence of imports along with imitations. Moreover the results, even after translation from numbers and statistics into words, remain too dependent on scientific arguments. While a distinction between Aegean and Italic imports allows us to quantify Aegean imports (and again numbers), the determination of their role and effects in human societies requires other information.Today we have both the instruments and the motivation to investigate the deep structure of a pot to certify its Aegean origin, but at the time when probably neither was present can we convincingly argue that an Aegean provenance was really so important? In addition, if some Aegean potters really moved to the Ionian coast, or aspects of Aegean culture merged into the culture of some coastal sites, did our present day concept of “Aegean” make any sense for those societies?

16

Chapter 2: methodology This chapter addresses the objectives of the present work and reviews the methodological approaches available, weighing the possibilities they provide and the issues they suggest. As put forward in the previous chapter, the primary objective is the understanding of the reasons for the people of Bronze Age West Mediterranean to consume and eventually produce Aegean-type pottery and derivative products. A secondary objective for compiling an updated catalogue of materials has been dictated by the need for one to undertake the present research.

vessels, a fact which urged the study of depositional contexts. However this is rarely clear, unsurprisingly considering the history of excavations, and often needs to be reconstructed taking into account whole sites. It has therefore been necessary to divide the data from precise contexts and data from site-wide contexts. The cultural context serves this purpose; it is not a programmatic expansion of the research, rather a necessity. By considering data from closed or properly reported contexts in the analysis of the depositional context and site-wide data in the analysis of the cultural context, all data from the depositional contexts as available are used. Because the depositional and cultural contexts are in fact one single context, at least in the data-sets, they are often considered together and divided where meaningful and possible.The analysis of depositional contexts alone can provide the backbone of an interpretation, while the inclusion of the broader cultural context is usually of real value.

The focus of the research is therefore firmly on the people living in the West Mediterranean. This line of inquiry towards Aegean-type products acknowledges that most of them were manufactured in the West Mediterranean. As this study concentrates on the reasons why the Italics received, utilised and produced Aegean-type pottery, the part played by Aegean people in the appearance of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean is deliberately overlooked at times. It appears that the role of Aegean peoples was negligible during the most productive and final periods, bearing in mind that the vast majority of Aegean-derivative and -type pottery seems of western production. However, the presence of imports is not balanced; the vast majority of these concentrates on the earliest periods. Imports and western productions polarise the extremes of the period Aegeantype pottery found in the West Mediterranean. As a result, the presence of Aegean-type pottery peaks with pottery of MH and LH I style, which appears entirely imported, and peaks again at a late moment with pottery of LH III B style, when pottery is almost exclusively produced outside the Aegean.The transition from imports to western production is progressive and marks a trend, but the overall amounts of pottery do not show a steady increase or decrease.The overall picture is dynamic with volumes, types of ceramic wares and regions varying substantially throughout the periods. Because the phenomenon can be best described in terms of polarity rather than progressive trends, it is possible that the Aegean-centric perspective may be best suited to describe the earliest phases, whereas the Italic-centric best describes the later moments. Although the Italic-centric perspective has been preferred in this work because of its specific objectives, the two views should coexist and complement each other. This present study is a direct consequence of some courageous people of Aegean origin sailing westwards at a certain period in history with considerable courage, entrepreneurship, a few ships - and a lot of pots.

Yet in this study none of the three contexts alone can provide the backbone of any interpretation. In many cases, where only a handful of preserved pots from a test pit or from an early site-wide excavation are available, the cultural context is the only context that allows any inference. Similar cultural contexts have allowed the determination of the regions and broader areas used in this work, which are not based on any ancient or modern boundary. Uniting the functional contexts from these regions has allowed, for most sites, the analysis of their functional context, which would have been negligible if considered alone. The depositional context, where available at all, has effectively enhanced any analysis. Given the particularity of the contexts, a general theoretical model has been constructed essentially to validate any basic analysis used in formulating an explanation. A better general model would have tried to validate the interpretation deriving from one context in terms of the others, as contextual archaeology advocates (Hodder 1987; 1991), but the model presented here addresses a need stemming from the material evidence and is not intended to be a general model, or, worse, an exercise in abstraction. Incidentally, it is the wide perspective necessary to analyse the available material evidence that makes the proposed model broad and therefore possibly “general.” Smith (1987) has offered the best general model based on the evidence analysed, but the material evidence does not support it and it has therefore been ignored here. Before proceeding further, it is time to make the terminology clear.

Definitions

Three types of indigenous contexts have been analysed – functional, depositional and cultural. In other words, where the shape and possible use of Aegean-type pots, the associated materials, and the broader culture of the people who used the pots, have been paramount.The functional context has its major limit in the scarce amounts of Aegean-type

Essential terms There is one final problem which needs to be resolved

17

– and it has largely been ignored in previous works – and that is the terminology used to describe the Aegean-type pottery. Historically, and rightly, the terminology used has changed as our understanding of this pottery has improved. Originally it was simply called “Mycenaean”, and it was recognised that there were other pots made locally which reflected the influence of this pottery and which might be called “Aegean-derivative”. When Cypriot-style pottery was recognised amongst the corpus, the term “Aegean” was adopted. The publication of the first archaeometric analyses led, inevitably, to another revision of terminology, and locally produced pots, which closely copied the Mycenaean or Cypriot style, were labelled as “Aegean-type”. Vagnetti (in Peroni 2000: 75), arguing for itinerant Aegean potters producing these vessels in Italy, suggested that the pottery be called “Italic-Mycenaean”.

and Aegean-made wares. The terminology I adopt for the present study is determined by this unsatisfactory but inescapable dilemma. I see no alternative but to use the term Aegean-type for all pottery which appears to be of Aegean manufacture and which cannot be ascribed a more specific origin, in either the Aegean or the West Mediterranean, without recourse to thin-sectioning. I have preferred to use Aegean-type rather than just Aegean since it carries the implicit reminder that the pottery may not have been actually manufactured in Greece. Using this term does not preclude us from noting proven Aegean or Italic origins in the small number of cases where thin-sectioning has been applied. In such cases we may refer to imported Aegean-type or indigenous (Italic origin) Aegean-type pottery. The pottery which, in terms of shape, style and decoration, was clearly not made in the Aegean, but which reveals varying degrees of Aegean influence, I shall call Aegean-derivative (a term proposed by Vagnetti in 1998). We may recognise two levels of derivation and influence in this material. On the one hand are the vessels which imitate or copy, but do not precisely replicate, Aegean pottery: the imitations. On the other are the many locally produced pots that reveal Aegean influence in their decoration or form, inspired or borrowed from the Aegean repertoire, but which remain unquestionably indigenous.

D’Agata (2000: 63) has made the most concerted effort to grapple with this unresolved problem and discussing the pottery from Thapsos divided the “ceramic classes of Aegean origin” into three groups. These were: “Imported vessels of Aegean production”, “Ceramic material of Aegean origin (that) includes close imitations of Aegean vessels, which were probably produced locally”,

In short, I divide the ceramic evidence that I will analyse throughout this work into two broad categories: “Aegean-type”, i.e. what is identified as possible imports, and “Aegean-derivative”, i.e. local pottery influenced by Aegean elements. This classification is empirical; it does not pretend to take account of the meaning of the pottery for the ancients. Very probably modern archaeologists are studying pots to such a level of detail that they know more about them than the potters who produced them!

“Ceramic material of Aegean inspiration, which (…) includes vessels imitating forms (…) of Aegean derivation, but crafted in the local, handmade pottery class”. D’Agata went further, however, and divided the groups according to their more specific east Mediterranean inspiration (Mycenaean, Cypriot) and identified specific ceramic groups such as Base-Ring II, White Shaved, etc. She never used the term “Aegean-type” at all, although she does use terms such as “Cypriot-style”.

The term “Italic” also needs clarification. In its original meaning it denotes any pre-Roman native population located in the Italian peninsula, but in this study it will refer to any population in the southern Italian peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia. This is the area where local production of Aegean-type pottery has been proved, yet because petrographic analyses are unable to specify the precise origin of pots, the employment of a broad term such as “Italic” has been favoured to express this indeterminacy, while clearly remarking that the area is within modern Italy.

This is the first careful and serious attempt to deal with this problem of terminology, but it is clearly still confused and confusing. Even before the complexities and uncertainties introduced by petrographic analyses, the separation of groups one and two is problematical. Once we take into account that petrographic analyses have demonstrated that it is often impossible, without them, to distinguish between a pot made in the Aegean and one made in the West Mediterranean, then the application of this terminology becomes totally ineffective, or rather, impossible. The identification of vessels belonging to group one can only be made with confidence when a pot has been petrographically analysed and proved to be from an Aegean source. At present the vast majority of vessels cannot be assigned to, or excluded from, group one, because they have not been thin-sectioned.

The term “exchange” will refer to both regional and interregional exchanges of material as well as exchanges of ideas and techniques. This is due to the uncertainty of the provenance of pottery, which would permit a distinction between regional and interregional exchanges, and the presence of Aegean-derivative pottery, which is not an exchanged product itself, but proves some form of intangible contact, like the exchange of ideas. The exchanges researched in this study always imply a contact with Aegean

Any acceptable terminology must take into account that we cannot macroscopically distinguish between Italic-

18

Depositional context

people or material, but the type of contact and its relationship with the products analysed will be highly variable. The physical exchange of Aegean products imported into the West Mediterranean is common in the early period LH I – III A 1, but the subsequent (LH III A 2 – C) Italic production originated via the knowledge of Aegean techniques and styles is most prolific. The Italic production of LH III pottery proves that there was at least an exchange of ideas when it began because the areas of production were scarcely involved in the exchanges in the early period, and the style copied is newer.

The depositional context is the situation in which the pottery was disposed of, and to study this we obviously need access to published excavation reports, preferably with full and detailed descriptions of the find circumstances of the pottery. The early excavations at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries were standardised in providing some details of the sites, although not with the same attention archaeologists would provide today. Later, after Taylour’s monograph, potsherds became the centre of attention. Consequently, little is known of the depositional context of early excavations, especially in the case of tombs, which were subject to looting since antiquity. However, even in the cases where good site descriptions are available (the Aeolian Islands, Vivara, Monte Grande, Broglio, Leporano, Monte Rovello, etc.), little has been done to relate potsherds and context.

Finally, terminology is often imprecise and confusing in defining geographical regions. Sometimes, the region of modern Italy is referred to as “Central Mediterranean” (Vagnetti in particular) and Iberia as “West Mediterranean”, in contrast to the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. In addition, because the topic has been studied mainly by Italian scholars focussing particularly on Italian findings, the term “Italy” can often be found used to describe the area of exchanges, although the area covered by modern Italy is dissimilar from the area of exchanges in antiquity. The region considered in the present study stretches from the Adriatic coast of Apulia to Iberia, excluding some areas, notably the Mediterranean coast of France. However, since there is no reason to doubt that the Aegean-type products in Iberia were linked to the traffic in Italy, there is the possibility of further discoveries, and provenances from petrological studies are often still indefinite. The use of a broad, geographically correct term such as “West Mediterranean” is therefore preferable for the study area as a whole.

The problem is not only that adequate information about depositional contexts is missing from some excavation reports, but also that in those reports where it is recorded, the depositional context often appears separate from the discussion and the presentation of the material, and is treated like a technical note of little value for the interpretation. Only once has Vagnetti studied depositional context, and with significant results. She was able to substantiate her claim of the absence of Mycenaean colonies in Italy stating that the Aegean-type products were never found in depositional contexts where the majority of the assemblage was not of Italic production.

Functional context Cultural context

By functional context we refer to the uses to which the pottery was notionally put during the time it was in circulation. Given the circumstances of excavation and publication, the study of functional context has to be undertaken mostly by the study of the various vessel shapes and types and their identifiable functions.

The cultural context is not only the consideration of indigenous assemblages or material culture, but also the reaffirming of the role of the Italics in the exchanges. As we have seen, Marazzi, Tusa, Peroni and Bietti Sestieri have all suggested taking into consideration the counterpart in the exchanges. However, none of the researchers has so far tested any of the models on evidence, nor has anyone built a model starting from the evidence. The present work seeks to give a voice to the other side of the exchanges, believing that any exchange must have two players. However, unlike other works, material evidence will be used to determine what relationship existed between the two sides at the time of the exchanges.

In a situation where often only potsherds are published, it is unsurprising how little attention has been paid to shapes and their functions. The shapes are normally reported in the more recent publications, but they do not follow any conventional system to identify unequivocally the shapes, while the earlier publications provide only basic descriptions for the understandable reason that Mycenaean pottery was not well known at the time. In recent publications only the closest parallels in Furumark’s catalogue of shapes and motifs are usually referred to, but in the reports of Monte Grande and Vivara brief comments on functional context are given.

Although the cultural context can be downplayed simply as the remaining material evidence of the assemblages, part of the functional and depositional contexts, it is the other side of any exchange and it is the side where the exchange takes place. Since previous research has tried to shed light on the reasons motivating the Aegeans and the effects on the Ital-

19

Database

ics and other indigenous cultures, this work should perhaps forget “cause and effect” and consider “interactions” instead. Because of the large time- and space-span, different interactions at different times and places were the norm, rather than any slow progression according to a single model. Generalisations can and must be made, but they are effective and tested only when they are modelled on general patterns recognisable in the interactions. Since the principal critique of the best general model is exactly a failure to consider interactions, and only from the viewpoint of the Aegeans, then this will be a crucial line of research.

The first step in this evidence-centred research has been the collection of the most reliable information available, which has been organised as a database. Data have been extracted from the publications of excavations and preliminary reports. The information gathered through publications (see table 2) was verified and expanded through a series of macroscopic analyses of many materials, but only for a few sites (e.g. Roca Vecchia) where ongoing excavations made the published preliminary reports the only source of information. However, about 95% of the Aegean-type pots reported have been seen, either reproduced in good publications and often with colour images, or in museums.

preliminary publication

substantial publication

Agrigento (Marina di Agrigento) Capo Colonna (Trani) Coria del Río Cozzo del Pantano Cozzo la Torre (Torano Castello ) Cozzo Marziotta (Palagiano) Erbe Bianche (Campobello di Mazara) Floridia Giovinazzo Ischia Jesi Madre Chiesa (Licata) Milocca Molinella Molinello Montagnolo (Ancona) Motta di Cirò (Cirò) Nora (Pula) Oria (San Cosimo) Orosei Orroli (Nuraghe Arrubiu) Palmi Parabita (Masseria Vecchia) Parco Tumpagno Polla Porto Perone and Satyrion Punta Le Terrare Roca Vecchia San Giovenale San Vito di Pisticci Santa Maria di Ripalta (Cerignola) Sant'Angelo Muxaro Scirinda Su Fraigu (San Sperate) Taranto (Punta Tonno) Tas Silg Termitito Thapsos Tharros Timmari (Matera) Timpone Motta (Francavilla Marittima) Toppo Daguzzo (Rapolla) Torre Guaceto Treazzano Tursi (Contrada Castello) Tursi (Cozzo San Martino) Ustica (Faraglioni) Villabartolomea (Fabbrica dei Soci) Zambrone

Avetrana Bari Borg en Nadur Broglio di Trebisacce Buscemi (Contrada Maiorana) Cannatello Capo Piccolo Casale Nuovo Castello del Tartaro (Cerea) Coppa Nevigata Crotone Eboli Egnazia (Fasano) Filicudi (Montagnola di Capo Graziano) Fondo Paviani Frattesina (Fratta Polesine) Lipari Llanete de los Moros (Montoro) Luni sul Mignone Madonna del Petto (Barletta) Manaccora cave (Peschici) Milena Monopoli Monte Grande Monte Rovello Otranto Panarea (Capo Milazzese) Pantalica Pietraperzia Plemmyrio n Porto Cesareo (Scalo di Furno) Praia a Mare (Cardini cave) Salina Santa Maria di Leuca (Punta Meliso) Sarroch (Nuraghe Antigori) Sarroch (Nuraghe Sa Domu s'Orku) Sassano (Pino cave) Syracuse Taranto (San Domenico) Torcello (Mazzorbo and Torcello) Torre Castelluccia Torre Mordillo Torre Santa Sabina (Carovigno) Vivara

Table 2: List of sites for which either a preliminary or substantial publication is available

20

For most sites with Aegean-type pottery, it has been routine to see the material in museums and, whenever feasible, visit the excavations. In addition, material from major sites and areas has been studied in detail, with the relevant permission of the local authorities.

In addition, copper oxhide ingots have been enumerated. There is no agreement about the provenance of the Sardinian ingots (Knapp 2000; Gale 2001) and no analyses have been carried out for other ingots found in the West Mediterranean. They seem connected with interregional exchanges as their shape appears standardised across the whole Mediterranean Sea and they are not limited to Sardinia in the West Mediterranean. The ingots are one of the most compelling bodies of evidence of metalworking among the Italics, because ingots of different shape are extremely rare. Thus, their inclusion in the gazetteer is at the very least useful to test the aforementioned Aegean-centric hypothesis. However, copper oxhide ingots will not be considered in detail in this work because no safe connection can be made between the ingots and Aegean-type pottery, including their geographical distribution (see maps, figures p. 237 ff.).

Lengthy macroscopic analyses have been carried out for most finds in eastern Sicily (including those unearthed at Thapsos, some of which have been briefly referred to in print but are still unpublished) and the Aeolian Islands, on the Ionian coast and Apulia, including Taranto, and the Po Valley. About 75% of the Aegean-type pots reported have been seen and about 50% have been examined in detail and handled. These figures exclude the indeterminate potsherds (which have been only sampled or briefly mentioned in the excavators’ reports). Vivara is a notable absentee from the list of sites and museums visited, although some material has been seen. However, the high quality publication of data has provided much information. Good publications were also available for Cannatello and Monte Grande. These three sites are still being actively excavated and this made it impossible to visit them, though material from each site has been seen in museums. It should be noted that many finds from these sites, particularly Vivara and Monte Grande, are undecorated and/or poorly preserved.

Visits to sites The visits to museums have been integrated with visits to sites (table 3), among which are five sites in the Aeolian Islands (one each at Filicudi, Lipari and Panarea, two at Salina), Pantalica, Thapsos, Capo Piccolo, Broglio, Taranto (San Domenico), Roca Vecchia, Grotta Manaccora, Frattesina and others.The extent of visits has been more limited because at several sites the excavations are scarcely visible. For instance, the tombs at Thapsos explored by Orsi have been largely destroyed, as well as the entire site of Punta Tonno (Taranto). In other cases, sites have been visited but no intelligible structures remained, particularly when located directly on the sea, especially in Apulia.

The database summarises the information from published sources in a structured way that highlights missing data and allows for further in-depth analyses. The gazetteer provides a schematic view of all the information available in the database. The database is not limited to Aegean-type pottery, though its presence, chronology, quantity and the functional and depositional contexts are detailed, but it also provides further information about indigenous and Aegean-derivative materials. It also includes data about non-ceramic Aegean-type materials, as well as sites with only these materials, in order to allow connections between Aegean-type pottery and luxury items or metal trade to be identified. The Aegean-centric studies have suggested (Vagnetti 1999; Bettelli 2002) that the search for metals and the provision of luxury items were the main reasons for exchanges.

The sites of origin are important particularly for depositional and cultural contexts. The information gathered directly at the location is invaluable, but also insufficient in most cases. Therefore, published sources have been used as well, mirroring the same methodology adopted for Aegeantype pottery.

Site

Source of data

Materials seen

Materials examined

Site visited

Agrigento

Publications.

Avetrana

Publications. Perhaps all material seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

Taranto

Bari

Publications. All material seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

Egnazia

Borg en Nadur

Publications.

Broglio Buscemi

Good quality final publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases. Some material seen in storage, courtesy of museum staff. Difficult to estimate quantities, but perhaps most of the recognised shapes have been seen. Site location visited. Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum.

Cannatello

Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Capo Colonna

Reported but unpublished.

Capo Piccolo

All material seen in museum, inside showcase. Staff (local Superintendence) helpful in

Museum Agrigento

Valletta

21

X (some) X

Sibari X

Syracuse

X

X

Agrigento

X

Crotone

Site

Source of data

Casale Nuovo

providing information. The site visited. Photographs taken at the time of the excavation were available in the museum. Publications.

Castello del Tartaro (Cerea) Coppa Nevigata

Publications. Single potsherd seen in museum, “Centro Ambientale Archeolo gico”, Legnago, inside showcase. Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Coria del Río

Publications.

Cozzo del Pantano Cozzo La Torre

Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum.

Cozzo Marziotta

Publications. Some material may have been seen in deposits of Superintendence at Taranto, but they were unlabelled inside storage boxes. Dr Gorgoglione provided information. A few items seen courtesy of the Superintendence. Site location seen. Excavations were still in progress and information available minimal. The fact that the site lies underneath the modern town is certainly part of the problem. Publications.

Crotone Eboli Egnazia

Filicudi Floridia Fondo Paviani Frattesina

Giovinazzo

Ischia Jesi Lipari

Llanete de los Moros Luni sul Mignone Madonna del Petto Madre Chiesa

Materials seen

Materials examined

Site visited

X

X

Museum

Egnazia

X

Syracuse

Publications.

Publications. Finds are fragmentary, but a few (all?) unrecognisable items seen in the museum. The material was in a poor state of preservation and it cannot be recalled how they were seen (either inside showcase or in storage box). The site visited. Associated material seen (in showcases). High quality publications. All material seen in museum, inside opened showcases. Some items were handled and examined carefully. Prof Cavalier and Dr Martinelli were more than happy to discuss them at length. Site visited. Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum. Publications. Two (all) potsherds seen in museum, “Centro Ambientale Archeolo gico”, Legnago, inside showcase. Publications. All material seen either in museums (museum in Frattesina, plus items originally at the museum of Adria, which was visited, and (perhaps same) material now at Rovigo). Finds seen either in showcases or in photographs, but given the small number it is perhaps safe to declare that most if not all the material has been seen repeatedly. The site (necropolis) visited, but it was largely inaccessible/covered. A few associated items seen in showcases, and photographs were available in the museum. Publications. Single potsherd handled with Dr Gorgoglione in storage of Superintendence, Taranto. The hole made by drilling for archaeometric analyses was lo cated in the middle of the tiny potsherd. It has been noted that the clay or technique used was of superior quality than other usual Aegean-type sherds from Apulia, otherwise the potsherd would have crumbled. The potsherd is now almost unrecognisable. Publications. Some or all the finds seen from photographs of showcases, taken in the museum where they are displayed. Article in newspaper. High quality publications. All material seen in museum, inside opened showcases. Some items handled and examined carefully. Prof Cavalier and Dr Martinelli were more than happy to discuss them at length. Parts of the site visited, namely the settlement, main cemetery and the San Calogero “tholo s”. Publications.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Egnazia

X

Lipari Syracuse

X

Legnago

X

Frattesina, Rovigo

X

X

X

Taranto

Ischia

X

X

X

Lipari

Publications. Publications. All material seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

Egnazia

Milena

Publications. Some (all?) material seen in museum, inside showcases. An extensive set of “hybrid” pottery seen and categorised as Aegean-derivative. Publications. The few items were seen, though very quickly, without the possibility of recording anything in particular. Site visited. Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

Milocca

Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum.

X

X

Syracuse

Molinella

X

X

Taranto

Molinello

Publications. Single potsherd seen at Taranto (museum or storage of Superintendence) and examined. Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum.

X

X

Syracuse

Monopoli

Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

Montagnolo

Publications. All the material has been seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

X

Lipari

Monte Grande

Good quality publications, with colo ur pictures. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases. Publications.

X

X

Agrigento

Manaccora cave

Monte Rovello Motta di Cirò

Material seen at local Civic museum. Staff of Superintendence at Crotone were helpful in discussing them.

22

Agrigento X

X

Agrigento

Egnazia

Motta

Site

Source of data

Nora

Publications.

Oria

Publications.

Orosei

Publications.

Otranto

Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Palmi

Reported only in proceedings of congress, after an unpublished paper had been read.

Panarea

Parabita

High quality publications. All material seen in museum, inside opened showcases. Some items were handled and examined carefully. Prof Cavalier and Dr Martinelli were more than happy to discuss them at length. Site visited. Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum. Many assemblages from tombs seen in their integrity and Aegean-derivative material from the site and nearby sites considered. Visit to the location limited to the North necropolis and anaktoron. Publications.

Parco Tumpagno

Reported only.

Pietraperzia

Publications. Single potsherd may have been seen at Agrigento, but publication suffices for data gathering purposes. Publications. Some material handled and examined carefully inside museum; other material seen inside opened showcases. The superintendence of Syracuse provided useful extra information. Publications.

Pantalica

Plemmyrio n Polla Porto Cesareo

Materials seen

Materials examined

Site visited

X

X

Museum

Taranto

X

(some)

X

Lipari

X

X

X

Syracuse

X

X

Syracuse

X

(some)

Taranto

Praia a Mare

Publications. Dr Gorgoglione at Taranto kindly provided information, some of which may have been published. Publications. Some material seen at Taranto, either in the museum or storage of the Superintendence. Dr Gorgoglione and other Superintendence staff in the regio n provided information. Publications.

Punta Le Terrare

Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

X

Egnazia

Roca Vecchia

Publications.

Salina

High quality publications. All material seen in museum, inside opened showcases. Some items were handled and examined carefully. Prof Cavalier and Dr Martinelli were more than happy to discuss them at length. Only the settlement of Portella has been visited. Publications.

Porto Perone

San Giovenale San Vito di Pisticci Santa Maria di Leuca Santa Maria di Ripalta Sant'Angelo Muxaro Sarroch

X

Publications. Some (all?) material seen in museum, inside showcases. Staff in the museum kindly provided informatio n. More potsherds counted than were reported in the available publications. Publications.

X

X

Lipari

Metaponto

Publications. Publications. Publications.

Scirinda

Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Su Fraigu

Publications.

Syracuse

Tas Silg

Material seen in the museum of Syracuse, after the superintendent Dr Voza granted permission. The finds were reported in Tusa 1999, but are still unpublished and no photographs are available. Dr Storace was most helpful in providing extra informatio n. Publications and an unpublished thesis (Fisher 1988). Many finds seen in storage at the Superintendence at Taranto; Dr Gorgoglione kindly accompanied me, showed many items and discussed them. Unfortunately, a detailed catalogue was not available, and some material could not be found at the time. The material was in storage boxes and could be handled or examined, but no precise study could be carried out. A few finds were in showcases in the museum of Taranto. The site of San Domenico was visited. The possible location of Punta Tonno has been checked on old maps; the sea covers the site today. Publications.

Termitito

Publications. Some (all?) material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Thapsos

Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum. Some unpublished material seen in open showcases and effectively examined. Dr Voza, superintendent at Syracuse, kindly granted permissio n to see unpublished material and organised a tour of the settlement (necropolis and fortifications) with a member of the excavation team, Mr Ventura. Dr Ciurcina and Dr Storace of the museum of Syracuse provided information. Publications.

Tharros

X

Publications.

Sassano

Taranto+Punta Tonno

X

23

X

Syracuse

(some)

X

X

X

X

(some)

X

Syracuse

N/A

Taranto

X

X

Metaponto

X

X

Syracuse

Site

Source of data

Timmari

Publications. Some (all?) material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Timpone Motta (Francavilla Marittima) Toppo Daguzzo

Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases. These may not include the only Aegean-type potsherd, which is however published. Most importantly, associated material seen. Publications. Some material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Torcello

Publications. All material seen in the museum of Torcello , inside showcases.

Torre Castelluccia Torre Guaceto

Publications. Some material seen partly in showcases, inside the museum of Taranto, partly in storage of the Superintendence at Taranto. Dr Gorgoglione discussed some items and provided helpful information. Publications. All material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Torre Mordillo

Publications. Some (all?) material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Torre Santa Sabina Treazzano

Publications. All material seen in museum, inside showcases. Museum staff provided extra information. Publications. All material seen in museum, inside showcases.

Tursi

Reported only.

Ustica

Publications.

Villabartolomea

Publications. All material handled and examined carefully inside museum.

Vivara

Publications.

Zambrone

Reported but unpublished. Superintendence of Syracuse provided information on state of publication: no data available.

Materials seen X

Materials examined

Site visited

Museum Metaponto

X

Sibaritide

X

Sibari

X

Torcello

X

X

X

X

Taranto

X

Brindisi

X

Sibaritide

X

Sibari

X

Ancona

X

X

Legnago Napoli

Table 3: Sources of information for sites with Aegean-type pottery. Handling of materials and visits to museums are specified as well Table 3: Sources of information for sites with Aegean-type pottery. Handling of materials and visits to museu ms are specified as well

The site visits were mainly undertaken to see the areas where Aegean-type pottery had been discovered and understand their relationship with other areas in the sites. At the sites, only architectonic features remain and therefore the settlements offered the best opportunities for study. In the case of tombs, they have been left as empty shells. It is impossible to reconstruct the internal organisation when this was not recorded at the time of the discovery, but every effort has been made to acquire such information whenever possible, by reading publications and enquiring at museums and sites.

ferent they are from the ordinary dwelling. For instance, in the Aeolian Islands all the buildings appear to be huts with only a few differences from one to another, whereas on the Ionian coast larger, highly decorated huts can be recognised in the central area; at Thapsos monumental buildings can be easily distinguished. Next, special areas within the settlement were researched, with particular attention paid to manufacturing areas (e.g. evidence of metalworking or of any other industrial production) and possible public areas (e.g. areas distinguishable in some way). For tombs, position and dimensions, as well as quantity and type of material, are the parameters considered to locate possible wealthy tombs. Frequent items in assemblages have been recognised when practicable, whereas single assemblages from communal tombs have proved difficult to separate. Precise chronological identification has been attempted, but only for Aegeantype (not -derivative) pottery and associated material.

Results have been mixed: no data were available for many early or incomplete excavations in any form, and only limited published sources were available for the earliest excavations. An example is the case of Thapsos, where many tombs in the northern cemetery were poorly recorded and have been destroyed since their discovery, while tombs in the other cemeteries are unpublished. However, the excavators were available for enquiries. The settlement is still unpublished, but a series of preliminary publications, and extra care taken in preserving the structures, facilitated the job of gathering information. In other cases excavations have just begun or are still at an early phase (e.g. Vivara, Monte Grande, Broglio) and some good publications are already available. (Sometimes the excavations have unearthed little and produced no publications – e.g. Termitito, partly Nuraghe Antigori.)

Recognition of patterns of usage Patterns of usage will assist in defining regional areas and therefore provide a reliable Italic perspective. The study of Aegean patterns will provide comparative examples for the West Mediterranean. A panel of Aegean sites has been selected and is used for comparative purposes in chapter 3. The quality of the site’s publication, the spatial distribution across Mycenaean Greece, and the inclusion of various depositional contexts (funerary, palatial/administrative, settlement) were the parameters chosen for site selection.

For settlements, efforts have been made to describe the “typical hut”, which is the commonest type of dwelling, and the commonest materials normally found in these buildings.This permits the safe recognition of special buildings and allows for some degree of judgement on how dif-

As far as Aegean sites are concerned, the quantities of pots have been taken from published reports. Pictorial style pottery has been removed from the figures because it is

24

extremely rare in the West Mediterranean. Only patternpainted pottery has been accounted for, but in the case of palatial sites, additional amounts by shape, regardless of the type of ware, have been provided

it constitutes a specific context and reality which strongly determines the experience and the everyday life of the individual.” (Roth 2001: 568) The description of cultural contexts conceptualised from material evidence effectively describes aspects of the life of an individual.

Evidently, Aegean-type fine ware pottery was in demand over a large area was centred on the Aegean. The cultural importance of the Aegean region might appear overemphasised with such a view of cultural unity and dominance. This study will explore whether different patterns of usage distinguish several regions within the West Mediterranean. Differences with the Aegean will be identified and it will be possible to re-assess the impact of Aegean cultures on Italic ones. The consumption of Aegean-type pottery in the East Mediterranean is clearly different from the consumption in the Aegean (Steel 1998, 2002; van Wijngaarden 2002). Similar general economic and social processes could be easily recognised on both sides of the Mediterranean. The presence of general similarities and particular differences across the Mediterranean explains itself: similarities abound when analysing broad regions from a general point of view, but there are also substantial differences which point to distinctive regional variations. This work seeks to focus on the particular regional perspective of the Italics and therefore it seems inappropriate to adopt Mediterranean-wide generalisations.

theoretical Models A theory has only the alternative of being right or wrong. A model has a third possibility: it may be right, but irrelevant. (Manfred Eigen) Two approaches have been attempted historically to understand Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean: one focusing on trade and exchanges (most recently Smith 1987), the other on consumption, largely employing contextual analyses (most recently van Wijngaarden 2002). These approaches are linked (Miller 1995a: 143) because according to anthropologists (Appadurai 1986; McCracken 1988: 84; Miller 1994) the meaning of objects changes after an exchange and therefore exchanged materials should be analysed also from the point of view of consumption. Thus, we could consider the consumption-based approach an anthropologically aware version of the exchange-based approach.

The analysis of the functional context in each site and region will reveal the different patterns of usage. Only basic shapes (e.g. bowls, jugs, cups, etc.) will be considered, as it is often impossible to distinguish exact forms from potsherds. For example, deep and shallow bowls have been placed in the single category “bowl”. Once raw numbers become available for each category/shape, a statistical analysis will be carried out using the computer statistical package S-Plus 6. This analysis will be twofold: exploratory data analysis will produce a series of graphs that illustrate relationships in the data set and maps that visualise the spatial and chronological distribution of the shapes, while descriptive statistics will numerically examine the characteristics of the data set (SPLUS 6 for Windows Guide to Statistics: 94). The paucity of pots sometimes prevents a significant result in some statistical analyses, but because the data set contains all the data available, and not a sample, the results are always reliable and the indication of trends is valuable.

Van Wijngaarden (2002: 23 ff.) introducing his consumption-based analysis argues (correctly) that the distribution of “Mycenaean” pottery is “the result of various processes”, but he identifies the exchange process as the main one on a Mediterranean-wide scale. This conclusion is doubtful on such a broad scale and it seems particularly inappropriate when focussing on the West Mediterranean. Here, regional mass production, particularly on the Ionian coast, suggests that indigenous social processes have much responsibility for the presence and consumption of Aegean-type pottery. The study of Aegean-type materials in the West Mediterranean requires a flexible and pluralist methodology suitable to describe different regional processes of production and consumption spanning about half a millennium and half the Mediterranean Sea.

Models of production and consumption

The study of functional context in this research is therefore mainly a mathematical calculation of relationships and trends, and a visualisation of geographic and chronological distribution. This is not possible for the depositional and cultural contexts because it has only been possible to sample them as a result of a lack of contextual information. The depositional context of Aegean-type material is often inadequately reported or known, so that, at best, it is only the broad cultural context which can be described. “The material environment is not only produced and shaped by humans but (…) it directly affects their lives. In every culture,

The Italic-centric perspective on Aegean-type pottery is mainly one of consumption. Italic production develops apparently independently from demand, but it evidently boosts consumption. There is no evidence of local production in early periods and it was therefore the early appreciation of the pottery which determined the later production. Several models of consumption have been researched, particularly in the anthropological literature. None of the models applies smoothly to the ancient record and this is no surprise

25

Two researchers of consumption models

because they are all based on modern evidence. However, parts of them help explain the initial choice of a foreign ware and its adoption into the local cultures.

Hodder (1982, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1999, 2000) has had a longstanding interest in the identification of behavioural, social, economic and cultural meanings on material culture. He argues that by identifying these meanings the archaeological interpretation of material culture can reveal the human ideas that led to the deposition of materials as unearthed by excavations. According to Hodder, there is a relationship of cause and effect between human thought and material evidence, with the depositional contexts being the direct product of human minds. The human-related meanings explaining material culture and its deposition are therefore symbols of the original ideas of ancient humans. To seek out these meanings, Hodder looked at the available anthropological literature (1982) and emphasised the importance of contexts (1987). The definition of an interpretive method capable of recognising human meanings in archaeological evidence has been paramount in his work, as successive publications prove (1989, 1991, 1994, 1999). Both recognised ancient meanings and recorded presentday meanings become the object of study in reflexive archaeology (2000). Hodder (1987) considered primarily depositional contexts when elaborating contextual archaeology, because they are a direct product of human actions and therefore the best place to recognise symbols.

The necessity for models of production and consumption has already been recognised by Steel (1998: 285), who was one of the first researchers to recognise the importance of the impact of Aegean-type pottery on the indigenous material culture. Steel has studied Aegean-type pottery in Cyprus (1998) and the Near East (2002), and the adoption of a similar methodological approach would facilitate a comparison between West and East Mediterranean. Her choice was for the cross-cultural consumption model proposed by Howes (1996). Steel argues that Howes can fruitfully extend the contextual approach by Hodder (1987) in the study of Aegean-type pottery. Howes indeed refers to “context” in order to explain his keyword “hybridization”. Howes suggests, “The process of recontextualization, whereby foreign goods are assigned meanings and uses by the culture of reception may be termed ‘hybridization’. (…) Goods always have to be contextualized (given meaning, inserted into particular social relationships) to be utilized, and there is no guarantee that the intention of the producer will be recognized, much less respected, by the consumer from another culture”. More recently, van Wijngaarden (2002) has adopted the contextual approach and attributed considerable importance to issues of consumption throughout his work as well, but he does not feel the need to search for an additional model. This is due to the impossibility of finding in the anthropological literature a single model that can be used in its entirety.

Miller initially researched consumption in archaeological contexts and was particularly interested in issues relating to the connection between ideology as represented on material culture (1984) and problems in categorising archaeological pottery to analyse its consumption (1985). Miller (1985: 141 ff.) has himself been influenced by Hodder when he refers to the necessity for a symbolic framework for the interpretation of variability. However, he also acknowledged, “variability is not only found in form and context, but also in the differential interpretation of the same form by the same persons” (1985: 164). Therefore, he argued for the construction of a model using more factors than symbolism requires and capable of interpreting “the objects as constructions by subjects” (ibid.). He then turned to issues of mass consumption (1987, 1995a) and later globalisation. In 1987 he made an attempt to review the complex relationship between object and subject and acknowledged the necessity for artefacts to be interpreted in their contexts (1987: 109 ff.).

The interpretation of the material evidence adopted here is founded on two general models and two groups of anthropological and archaeological models.The general models are the contextual archaeology proposed by Hodder (1987) and the inductive-analogical model outlined by Wylie (2002). Anthropological and archaeological models of consumption and exchange will provide comparative and explanatory resources for the interpretation of these two specific aspects. A contextual approach has been the preferred choice of previous studies (Steel 1998, 2002; van Wijngaarden 2002) on similar materials, whereas the application of the inductiveanalogical model using the anthropological globalisation model for analogies is new. Both general models emphasise consumption and exchange aspects and are therefore complementary in providing a perspective, largely relying on consumption and exchange issues.To understand the strong relationship between the two general models it is useful to present a brief summary of the works by the principal proponent of contextual archaeology, Ian Hodder, and the leading researcher on consumption models within globalisation, Daniel Miller.

To conclude, there is a strong degree of reciprocal influence in the early works by Miller (1984, 1985) and Hodder (1982, 1987). Hodder understood the relevance of anthropological consumption models for archaeology and used some of them. However, Miller refined his models, and others (e.g. Howes 1996) contributed in ways relevant to archaeology, but all these recent additions are missing in contextual archaeology. The inductive-analogical model simply imports into archaeology more models of consump-

26

tion, in this case Miller and globalisation issues, expanding the work by Hodder, rather than suggesting an alternative and unrelated model.

the depositional context, which is certainly produced in the past, any other context is reconstructed in the present and contextual archaeology contains no method to assess the reality in the past of both the context itself and its interpretation.

Contextual archaeology

Hodder’s contextual archaeology (1987) has become the reference model in studies of “Mycenaean” pottery across the Mediterranean. However, in trying to apply the model to Aegean-type pottery in the Near East, Steel (2002: 29) warns that, “although a full contextual analysis would be much preferred in any attempt to reconstruct the social life of an object, it is rarely possible to go beyond attribution of certain classes of artefact to particular types of context. Indeed, on occasion even that is impossible”. In this research, three main contexts are considered: the functional context of Aegean-type pottery that is based on a modern category, depositional context that is often partially or uncertainly known, and cultural context, which is a summarised as depositional context reconstructed in the present-day to overcome the problems with the depositional context. As we have seen, the depositional context is required in its totality to apply the contextual model because it cannot assess the validity of contexts reconstructed in the present-day. Furthermore, Hodder’s choice of “symbolic” approaches of consumption is problematic as well. Thus, while contextual archaeology contributes positively to this research, suggesting the transformation of categories in contexts and recognising the importance of consumption models, its intrinsic weakness makes it inapplicable in its entirety and therefore a detailed discussion of the model would be irrelevant here.

Contextual archaeology is a theoretical approach that unifies the process of excavation and interpretation. Identifying the contexts of deposition at the time of the excavation is paramount. Artefacts are organised in categories related to the depositional context and therefore each category is a context in itself (e.g. Aegean-type pottery is a category that becomes the functional context of Aegean-type pottery when related to the depositional context). Hodder (1987: 3, 88 ff.) argues that artefacts can have meanings as members of categories, and these meanings might be either unrecognised or unintended by the artisans who made them. Moreover, the association of specific material objects in a context can presuppose an ideological association also of the meaning of these objects. The meanings of artefacts, also called symbols, can often be found researching patterns in the depositional context. Contextual archaeology implies qualitative and quantitative analyses of artefact associations and therefore depositional context and categorical context must be available “in their totality” (Hodder 1987: 89). Hodder introduces to archaeology two main anthropological approaches of consumption. The work by Miller (1984, 1985) is evident in the relevance that categories have in his model, but approaches that treat consumption as a purely symbolic phenomenon (Sahlins 1976; McCracken 1988) are preferred because of Hodder’s interest in symbols. However, the “symbolic” approaches have developed an interpretative dichotomy: symbols might construct an existing world (Mars in Douglas 1987), but also an ideal world (Bott in Douglas 1987).

Inductive-analogical model The inductive-analogical model fundamentally provides a very general theoretical basis that allows the use of anthropological models in archaeology. As we have seen, contextual archaeology rightly suggests the construction and analysis of contexts in relation to each other and emphasises the relevance of anthropological consumption models, but it fails to provide an applicable model. The inductive-analogical model allows the introduction in archaeology of a suitable consumption model directly from the source, anthropology.

The principal weakness of Hodder’s contextual approach is the idea that present interpretation can describe the real past when objectivity is applied. The problematic relationship between present interpretation and archaeological evidence set in the past remains unresolved even though Hodder is aware of Gadamer’s (1975, 1976) contribution to hermeneutics, because he suggests no viable way to reach an effective objectivity. A solution to the problem has been found in proposing pluralism, arguing that “any interpretation of the past is multiple and constantly open to change, to re-evaluation” (Shanks and Tilley 1987: 109), “multiple perspectives” (Binford 1989: 486), and integration of sciences and methods (Wylie 2002: 200 ff.). The idea behind these propositions is that there is more than one correct interpretation for the archaeological record, which is the product of complex social processes and often of several people, and therefore there is no need objectively to single out one “true” interpretation. The result is that apart from

The choice of an inductive approach meets the need of inferring general patterns from particular, detailed evidence. The opposite, a deductive approach, is conceptually acceptable (Salmon 1982) but inapplicable in this study precisely because it is general patterns that are being sought.The core of the approach is the study of analogies between two situations, one known from some archaeological evidence and the other detailed in another, often anthropological, model. Wylie (2002: 162 ff.) adapts Bernstein’s model on incom-

27

The comparative anthropological model: globalisation

mensurable theories, developed after Kuhn’s (1970) stance against objectivism and support for relativism to fit the archaeological practice. The model as modified by Wylie (2002: 165) refers to the ethnographic practice proposed by Geertz (1976) and suggests a “tacking process”, namely the merging of theoretical and cultural ethnographic arguments within the “source contexts”. In our case, the source contexts are the archaeological contexts before interpretation. Wylie (2002: 167) suggests that one or more ethnographic models presenting similarities with the archaeological record should be chosen. To do so, concepts related to the models are selected for their relevance. These concepts do not prefigure the final interpretation because some of the concepts should be able to limit, exclude or interact with others, so that after the testing of the concepts on the archaeological record, which is the “tacking process”, the concepts effectively used will probably be different from those selected.The testing of each concept is a ‘tack’, which poses new conditions for other concepts to be applied. The resulting interpretation should be therefore meaningful and not necessarily identical to any of the starting ethnographic models.

Globalisation is the anthropological model used within the inductive-analogical model for comparisons. The globalisation model outlines the behaviour of several societies at once, precisely networks of societies, and therefore it is not a conventional ethnographic model, which normally describes one society, but a more general anthropological model. The globalisation model is suitable for application with the inductive-analogical model, even if Wylie argued over ethnographic models, because Wylie’s model is founded on a general philosophical basis that does not require any prerequisite in the model to be used. “Globalisation” refers to a broad set of issues and a single definition agreed by a majority of scholars has not yet been found. Globalisation has become a frequent term in social and economic theory and sometimes it is also used as a new name for the world systems theory. In this work, the globalisation model outlines a social arena where the impact of “deterritorialization, social interconnectedness, and acceleration” (Scheuerman 2002) affects several processes, primarily social, political, economic and cultural.

Although the ethnographic model and the ancient reality are chronologically far apart, the problematic relationship between elements in the past (archaeological contexts) and in the present (interpretation), which occur at the time of interpretation when using the contextual approach, is avoided. The interpretation derived from the inductiveanalogical model is in between past and present, and therefore separated enough from the contemporary present to achieve a degree of objectivity. The problems with objectivity in the contextual approach are related to the unconscious interference of the present, personal experience of the archaeologist. As we have seen, Hodder (2000) argues that the present-day experience is as important as the past one in his “reflexive archaeology”, but he still fails to propose an interpretive model for the past independent from the availability of the depositional context.

The social arena of the globalisation model describes correctly the context in which Aegean-type pottery is found in the West Mediterranean. The Aegean-type pottery is initially of foreign origin and is then introduced into the western regional systems of production. Therefore, Aegeantype pottery becomes disconnected from the original society of which it was a cultural expression (deterritorialization). Moreover, the pottery becomes the vehicle of cultural dissemination and is material proof of the social networks in which it was exchanged, physically and culturally (social interconnectedness). Finally, between the earlier period (to LH III A 1) and the later (from LH III A 2), there is a significant increase in the quantity of Aegean-type pottery (acceleration).

Analogies can be valuable because the base for interpretation is normally broadened “with the aim of identifying clusters of attributes that reliably co-occur” (Wylie 2002: 150). Thus, the inductive-analogical model proves particularly suited to find and analyse patterns, which is an important part of this research. For instance, the analysis of ceramic shapes in chapter 3 is a self-contained example of the inductive-analogical model where raw data from the West Mediterranean are compared with similar data from the Aegean. In that case, the result is not an interpretation but the discovery of patterns and differences. Therefore, the method is flexible enough to be applied in the search for patterns and similarities among regions, which can then be tested with similar analyses encompassing several categories of evidence.

Two examples can clarify when globalisation takes place. The spread of elements of one culture into another is as old as humanity: already in the Early Palaeolithic, Acheulian tools spread out from Africa to China and eventually reached Europe. However, in this case globalisation is not involved because the spread was gradual and allowed the acceptance of the tools through interpersonal contacts. On the other hand, Romanisation, the process that spread Roman culture across the Roman Empire, is closer to the situation described by globalisation. The spread of a standardised set of cultural elements was fast and impersonal at the point that the provinces maintained their own distinctive cultures, which promptly arose again at the fall of the Roman Empire. In the social arena outlined by the globalisation model, the

28

subset of analyses targeting consumption is especially useful in this research. The globalisation model not only describes an environment that suits the archaeological contexts, it also explores various aspects, such as consumption, with the declared goal of understanding any processes involved, particularly social and economic processes. Thus, consumption approaches within the globalisation model seem tailor-made for the contexts of Aegean-type pottery. Furthermore, the economic processes targeted by the globalisation model are especially those of intercultural and inter-society exchange, which again suit the archaeological contexts seamlessly.

the object from an alienable to an inalienable condition; that is, from being a symbol of estrangement and price value to being an artefact invested with particular inseparable connotations” (1987: 190). To sum up, the primary meaning of any object is given in the process of objectification, which occurs twice if consumption is distanced from production, such as in the case of imported Aegean pottery. The meaning of objects in this condition is therefore split and if only the context of consumption is considered, as in our case, then only the meaning for consumption is relevant, which in our case is the meaning for the Italic peoples. The process of localisation (Miller 1995b), also known as “hybridization” (Howes 1996), integrates foreign materials (or habits arrived) into one culture after their diffusion.The localisation process is the objectification process typical of consumption in a context of globalisation. Thus, the analysis of localisation processes includes and enhances what has been said about consumption processes within the consumption context.

Consumption approaches Miller has researched the various issues which are frequent in archaeology, including pottery variability, and has published extensively both general and globalisation-specific models of anthropological consumption. Hodder’s contextual archaeology was influenced by Miller’s writings, though Hodder has preferred and developed other models. Starting from the philosophical work by Hegel, Miller (1994) introduced the term “objectification” in studies of mass consumption, reviewing its potential for studies of material culture. “Objectification” is a term referring directly to the problematic relationship between object and subject, which according to Miller cannot be addressed properly except within a symbolic framework (1985: 164). The process of objectification is one of self-alienation, externalisation and differentiation. The subject is a society as culture, specifically material culture in our case, and objectification is the dynamic process in which the society-culture concretely affirms its being. Objectification is a constitutive process that expresses meanings in producing objects and never attributes meanings to objects already existing.

Friedman (1992) and Wilk (1995) have proposed two important models specifically on the relationship between local and global. Friedman proposes that identity is often constructed within a global arena, where the local reacts to the global. According to Friedman (1992: 854), “the emergence of cultural identity implies the fragmentation of a larger unity and is always experienced as a threat”. The implications for material culture are that material culture is constructed as a reaction to an hegemonic and homogenising culture that “threatens” the local aspects of a culture, using differentiating cultural elements from the global arena in which the local culture is inserted. Wilk (1995: 118) opposes Friedman’s model arguing, “the global cultural system promotes difference instead of suppressing it. (…) The globalising hegemony is to be found in structures of common difference.The global system (…) is the expression of distinctions, boundaries and disjunctures”. The local is therefore an essential constitutive part of global culture. The two models replace the dualism local-global with another one, homogenising-differentiating, but each model describes one process. No choice is necessary, because the reality is formed by some balance between the two processes. The interpretation of material culture through general and globalisationspecific consumption models will provide an understanding of the processes playing a role in the definition of our archaeological contexts.

When products are “completely distanced from the world of production [and] (…) the consumer works upon the object [acquired, the consumer] (…) recontextualizes it” (Miller 1987: 190). In this case, the process of objectification materialises the object in the first place by producing it, but then the meaning is lost in the passage to the consumer, who repeats the process again to associate it with a meaning. If the repetition of the process of objectification is necessary because the meaning associated with the production of an object becomes unknown, the process does not physically materialise a new object. When the process of objectification cannot associate the object with any meaning, even if the object might be understood and have significance, the object itself is rejected by the consumer, who does not consume it. This option is precluded, considering only a symbolic framework, because the human mind can always attribute one meaning to an object, but this symbolic meaning is secondary and not strong enough to result in acceptance and consumption. In Miller’s own words, “consumption as work may be defined as that which translates

MacDougall (2003) analyses the effects of localisation on a single product and evidences how the localisation process may eventually require local production of imported products “to take on characteristics associated with the new atmosphere in which they are situated through processes of consumption” (MacDougall 2003: 273). The process of localisation has generated a “locally meaningful” product and has situated the product inside the local relations of production, transforming the product “from a foreign commod-

29

ity into a local cultural icon” (ibid.). These conclusions may help in understanding the start of the Italic production of Aegean-type and -derivative ceramics in the southern Italian peninsula that predates their widespread consumption.

studies on globalisation can at least provide a comparative basis to analyse whether the ancient exchanges may have been organised within a common “marketing” strategy or not. For example, Classen (1996) analyses the meaning for consumers of several foreign products entering north-western Argentina. She recognises a range of different meanings, such as “exotic, progressive, elitist, alien, wasteful” (…) [depending on] the social and economic environment of the region” (1996: 52). Anthropologists (van Raaij 1997; Watson, Lysonski, Gillan and Raymore 2002) have considered from an economic point of view the effectiveness of both standardised and localised marketing. Their research suggests that foreign products and standardised marketing can be successful until misunderstandings of cultural and symbolic values occur. Thus, it is unlikely that a product/ marketing transposed from one culture to another will be unsuccessful unless differences in the cultural values emerge, in which case rejection of the product is the result.

Last word on the exchange models As we have seen, the inductive-analogical model simply permits us to use within archaeology any appropriate anthropological model. Thus, anthropological models centred on, for example, Melanesia, although unrelated to globalisation, can be used. Irwin (1983), reviewing the results of archaeological excavations in Melanesia, pointed out that trade ‘centres’ specialising in production of items for exchange emerged along the coastline. These centres would have exercised control on technologies and monopolised production. In the case of pottery (Gell 1992: 148), some communities in the hinterland bartered the local clay in exchange for manufactured pots because they were unable to produce pottery themselves. Gell (ibid.) argues that this was not an isolated occurrence. He recalls the case of the highland communities that all had the basic expertise for obtaining salt from natural resources. When some communities were able to produce more salt than necessary, they traded it and became highly specialised in this activity. Conversely, the other communities became increasingly dependant on external salt supply and eventually stopped their own local salt extraction activity. Thus, trade appears to be a powerful force capable of driving specialisation and ultimately to affect any relationship within the community and between other communities. Indeed, Gell (1992) suggests that reproductive gift exchange developed from the practice of commodity exchange in order to escape moral obligations. In this case, a behavioural pattern normally expressed in the economic sphere (commodity exchange, possibly trade) was so powerful that it was involved in marriages, a social exchange.

Recently, Gillis (1995) argued that long distance exchanges towards the West Mediterranean were enacted by “middleman traders”, intermediaries acting on behalf of someone else, probably the palaces, but allowed some freedom given the impossibility of direct control. This model is possible, but speculative, and it leaves open the problem of what the relationship was between traders and the local people, in both the Aegean and West Mediterranean. The possible immobility of Aegean-type materials produced within the region of consumption throws severe doubts on the validity of any model of long distance exchanges. It is essential to know what goods were circulating when and where in order to create or adopt such a model. Therefore, a cautious methodology is necessary, one that departs from the meaning of objects and considers their spread. This cautious approach towards the reconstruction of exchange networks seems preferred in recent works (Steel 1998, 2002; van Wijngaarden, Crielaard and Stissi 1999; van Wijngaarden 2002). Because of the many regional patterns, more than one model could be recognised, suggesting that in the absence of established trading formalities like those in the Near East (as in the Amarna tablets), Aegean ships were free to engage in trade (and even perhaps in piracy) as they chose.

Anthropological studies of globalisation provide useful analogous cases describing the marketing of global products, i.e. products and franchises available worldwide. The similarity between the case of Aegean-type pottery, widespread across the whole Mediterranean, and many popular present-day brand names is evident. Anthropological and economic

30

Chapter 3: LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN POTTERY: ITS FORMS AND FUNCTIONS In The Aegean Introduction

needs and negotiating with these values in mind. In other words, the Aegeans could not obtain whatever they wanted by giving away what they considered valueless items; they had to negotiate with the Italics and others. Since the actual pots remained associated to their basic function in the exchanges and thereafter, presenting the function of each shape before the actual data seems sensible as the reader will be able to read next chapter’s tabular data in functional terms before making any interpretation. For instance, even from a speedy reading it may be noticed that the Italics preferred oils and wines (e.g. the typical contents of stirrup jars) to Mycenaean religion (e.g. single rhyton). Disregarding the simplicity of such a reading, it still correctly shows that the Italics knew what they wanted.

Mycenaean pottery has been the subject of several publications, among which the monographs by Mountjoy (1986, 1993, 1999) have become reference manuals for studies on decoration and spatial distribution. However, only the material from the “Ivory Houses” at Mycenae have yielded sufficient information for a comprehensive study of shapes and their possible function. Since the assemblage found there comes from a destruction event, it seems safe to argue that all the vessels found were in use in the same period, namely LH III B 1, which is close to the acme of the exchanges in the West Mediterranean. The goal of the following overview of forms and functions in the Aegean is to provide comparative material for the interpretation of the functional context in the West Mediterranean. Because of this, the information provided here does not provide a balanced or comprehensive overview of Mycenaean pottery, rather just sufficient and specific data to interpret the western evidence.

In addition to presenting the ceramic shapes found in the West Mediterranean, this chapter will review the usage patterns of these artefacts in a few sites in the Aegean for comparative purposes. Evidence from Linear B tablets will be introduced for the same reason. However, Linear B tablets do not provide valuable information in their texts, rather in their ideograms. Despite the fragmentariness of Linear B evidence, ideograms allow a safe recognition of shapes and include information on their function. This will be the primary reason to consider data from Linear B tablets, although cautious observations will be offered for some recognisable patterns emerging from the tablets.

The reason to introduce comparative and partial data from the Aegean before the analysis of western patterns is simple: the Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean generally does not replace indigenous pottery and therefore it cannot be interpreted from within the indigenous contexts. The specific functions of each shape of Aegean-type pottery vary from place to place, within Aegean regions and even more so outside the original regions. Yet, the Italics and other western populations had to receive Aegean-type pots together with knowledge of their basic function to be employed along with the indigenous vessels, or else Aegeantype pottery would have remained nothing more than an exotic curiosity to the Italics. For this reason, it is important to know what function each shape had in its original Aegean context.The Italics, case by case, accepted or rejected what was being offered to them. We know which shapes were available at each period and region as well as all the shapes that have been exported from the Aegean to the East and the West. By observing the absence or presence of specific shapes at each site, it is possible to reveal the decisions made by the Italics. Such decisions would make no sense if the Italics appreciated Aegean-type pottery only for its external appearance, as the choice would have never been consistent enough to recognise regional patterns, rather it would have been dictated by the more unpredictable personal preference. The knowledge that the Italics made an independent choice about the pottery is important per se as it demonstrates that the exchanges were between equal partners, with each party attributing a certain value to each exchangeable product according to their own culture and

Far from being comprehensive, all the evidence from the Aegean will be limited to shapes found in the West Mediterranean. Since western Aegean-type pottery belongs largely to the Aegean pattern-painted decorated ware, pictorial pottery will often be ignored from the Aegean assemblages. Metal and plain-ware vessels are also excluded from the count in most cases. Only in the case of data from Linear B tablets will the shape be used as a distinctive feature. In West Mediterranean Aegean-type assemblages, plain, coarse and matt-painted pottery is almost absent except in the early Monte Grande and Vivara assemblages. It is unlikely that there is a bias in recognising plain ware because, generally, either at least a sample of all material was reported and preserved or all the material has been lost altogether (e.g. early materials from Cannatello and Coppa Nevigata; material from Capo Colonna, parts of Punta Tonno, some material from Orsi’s excavations). There is no evidence of selectivity in preserving (though not reporting) any material so that if Aegean plain ware had been found by Orsi, it would have probably survived mixed with the Italic plain ware. Quagliati’s excavations are the exception because he deliberately targeted large potsherds of Mycenaean ware and bronzes. Burnished and matt-painted potsherds have also

31

been recorded and recently studied (Re in Pugliese Carratelli et al. 1999; Bettelli 2002). The few vessels of pictorial pottery are concentrated at Termitito, where they were probably produced, and the nearby sites of Punta Tonno, Torre Castelluccia, Avetrana, Broglio and, farther, Eboli.Vagnetti (2001: 107) reports about twenty potsherds in total.

pottery in western sites is normally about 5% or less of the ceramic assemblage (excluding sites with isolated pots), but in a few sites it peaks at 30% or more. The normal average matches that of Mycenaean decorated pottery in sites like Pylos, and the 30% to 40% of some major sites in the West are closer to that found in Mycenaean Greece. These similarities only affect the presence of decorated pottery at sites and ignore any patterns of usage based on functional context. The comparison can be made considering that in the West Mediterranean decorated Aegean-type and -derivative pottery, where present, is normally the only type of decorated pottery.

The conclusion from the preceding remarks is that the Italics deliberately and consistently preferred pattern painted pottery. Undecorated ware is either imported at very early stages and apparently discarded, or produced within the Italian peninsula in a series of Aegean-derivative wares (e.g. grey ware) at the very end of the Late Bronze Age and in the Early Iron Age. To this picture, metal vessels cannot be accounted for in either Aegean or Italic contexts, though Linear B tablets mention some of them and a few specimens have been found in the West Mediterranean (mostly fragments of tripods) and are reported. The few decorated ceramic figurines of Mycenaean appearance found in Italic contexts along with similar figurines made in the Italic incised style suggest that Mycenaean rituals had not been exported and therefore Mycenaean religious contexts have been ignored. Since real patterns of usage can be recognised in the West Mediterranean only for a handful of patternpainted vessels, the use of these has been specifically looked at in the Aegean patterns.The occasional presence of different materials just proves that it was not an Aegean choice to withdraw them from export.

In the East, in terms of style and range of shapes, decorated pottery seems overall to reflect more closely that found in Mainland Greece, though the range is still restricted (Steel 1998: 286). The concentrations are in fact low, about 1-2% in LH III A 2 Cyprus, which according to Steel (ibid.) is “flooded” with Mycenaean imports in this period, and less than 1% at Ugarit. Although Aegean-type pottery in the East Mediterranean appears marginal in statistics, the absolute quantities from most sites in that region dwarf any assemblage of Aegean-type pottery found in the West Mediterranean. The grand total of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean amounts to no more than 1600 pots of fine decorated wares or about 5600 potsherds, considering all periods and wares. Nevertheless, about 1500 pots have been reported from Enkomi alone in Cyprus and over 1000 from Ugarit (catalogues in van Wijngaarden 2002: 346 ff. for Enkomi and 330 ff. for Ugarit).

Only a handful of Cypriot and other eastern ceramics have been found in the West Mediterranean and these do not justify a full comparison with any Eastern site. Yet the shapes, mainly milk bowls, Base Ring II jugs and White Shaved jugs, match those from the Uluburun shipwreck, suggesting a Mediterranean-wide distribution of these forms. In short, the vast majority of Aegean-type pottery found in the West is of a very specific category, pattern-painted, with other types barely represented. Thus, the situation in the West is quite different from that in Mycenaean Greece or the East Mediterranean, where the pattern-painted decorated ware was never popular. In contrast, pictorial pottery is frequent among decorated wares at Mycenae, though it is even more abundant in the Near East than in Mainland Greece.

Form and function in Aegean LBA pottery The apparent role of style, whether inferred by the choice of just one specific style (pattern-painted) or the appreciation of decorated ceramics in general as possible prestige items, limits the possible functions, preventing a division between primary (originally intended) and secondary function such as that suggested by Tournavitou (1992: 205). Tournavitou herself points out that “the quality of the fabric of the different vessel types and also the presence or absence of painted decoration could be also used for the interpretation of the function of the vases” (1995: 96). She then adds that, “fine decorated ware (…) was more or less reserved either for export, or for lighter, more distinguished domestic activities” (1995: 97).

The Aegean contexts and patterns of usage presented here are therefore illustrative of a simple truth: Aegean and West Mediterranean patterns are different.The examples confirm this, regardless of whether pattern-painted pottery only or whole ceramic assemblages (e.g. Pylos) are analysed. Moreover, patterns of usage in the West Mediterranean are highly variable and clearly different from any Aegean patterns from the choices made from the start on shapes and type of decoration. Despite the evident preference of Mycenaean pattern-painted decorated ware in the West, which seems to be a genuine choice of the natives, there are similarities in the consumption of decorated pottery between the West and Mycenaean Greece. The average for Aegean-type

This poses problems in reviewing the categorisations proposed so far. Rice (1987) introduced three generic functional categories (storage, processing and transfer) while Tournavitou (1992, 1995) divides the function of all the LH III B 1 pottery from the “Ivory Houses” at Mycenae into six categories (storage, pouring, drinking, eating, cooking and accessory vessels).Van Wijngaarden (2002) proposes three categories for decorated ware (“storage”,“dinner” and

32

“ritual”) based on the classifications of Tournavitou but tailored to fit “Mycenaean” decorated ware across the Mediterranean.

jar is common in funerary contexts. Large piriform jars are considered in a separate category (“jar”) in this work, along with amphorae and other similar vessels.

Of these categorisations, only that by van Wijngaarden is tailored for possible imports, but it is extremely broad, and “ritual” is a misleading category. All the other categorisations assume that each shape has been created in a location to serve a specific purpose, and then eventually reused for something else. The categories suggested by van Wijngaarden could be used here, but “storage” and “dining” sound like a revised version of “closed” and “open”, which are indeed the only safe categories we would be allowed to employ. Therefore, this work will avoid general categories and rather focus on individual shapes, for both the Aegean and the West Mediterranean. The work by Tournavitou appears a good starting point because now it is widely accepted and she details for each shape its functions, as several shapes fit into more than one category. Her categories are all represented in the West, although cooking and accessory vessels are mostly found among the Aegean-derivative vessels and are consequently not discussed here. In addition, the shapes she reviews are those common during LH III B 1, which are close to the LH III B 2 – C 1 period, the zenith for Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean. Furumark’s forms would be a better choice, but unfortunately the shapes and motifs are rarely mentioned in publications and therefore the use of these shapes became possible only for a few sites and the materials that were handled by the author (see pp. 166-186).Thus, while Furumark’s shapes are preferred and appear several times in the additional material provided (see gazetteer p. 106 ff.), Tournavitou’s categories are adopted.

Jugs are of various shapes, some of which (e.g. the strainer jug) could have been related to specialised functions. Nonetheless, the vessel contained liquids, most probably oil and wine.They were used for short-term storage and consumption. The fact that these vessels were often decorated may demonstrate that the liquid they normally contained was considered valuable; most of the plain ware examples come from contexts of production or storage that excludes an everyday use in domestic activities.The feeding bottle could be similar to the jug, although it is a much more rare and specialised vessel. It was mainly connected with domestic activities, particularly the pouring of liquid substances. The stirrup jar was designed to be “an effective liquid container that could facilitate controlled pouring and would be as safe and airtight as possible; finally, it would have to travel in as secure a manner as possible” (Tournavitou 1995: 79). Its suitability for storage of delicate substances (it was airtight using a clay stopper), transportation (efficient handles and not excessive weight) and control in the exiting flow (narrow and tall spout) make this the ideal vessel for oil, perfumes and wine, which are all perishable and valuable substances. Most stirrup jars are decorated and they are common in palatial contexts of production (Mycenae and Pylos). The connection between stirrup jars and oil in particular is “corroborated by the fact that in Egypt almost all of the stirrup jar finds were recorded in tombs where oil and perfume kinds in particular, were common grave gifts” (Tournavitou 1995: 79). “Residue analysis of the remains of the contents of a stirrup jar from Deir El Medina by Lucas proved that it was an aromatic resin substance” (ibid.). At Pylos the vessel was concentrated in the oil industry area and Linear B tablet K 778 from Knossos names the vessel as “ka-ra-re-we”, a term that appears in tablet Fr 1184 from Pylos, where thirty-eight vessels were associated with a transaction in oil which involved a person named Eumedes. This was probably the same person mentioned in tablets Ea 773, 812 and 820 from the same Pylos, where it appears he was a perfume maker. Tournavitou (1992: 195) points out also that the only vessels with traces of oil at Mycenae were those from the House of the Oil Merchant and this could be due to a different chemical composition of the oil in the jars, suggesting that oil from different production centres was stored at Mycenae.

Tournavitou begins her review of shapes with the pithos (1992: 183, 1995: 69), a very large undecorated jar similar to western dolia, in coarse ware, and in its larger versions not meant to be moved because of its height and weight, as the absence of handles in those cases suggests. Pithoi are normally found in storage rooms, associated with several smaller storage (jars and stirrup jars) and accessory (various shapes of cups and dippers; also rhyta) vessels. They were suitable to store any type of food and were in use since Minoan times. Next is the piriform jar, usually decorated but not very common in palatial contexts. This vessel is a reduced version of the pithos, capable of storing both dry and liquid substances while still being manoeuvrable. According to Tournavitou, the vessel is difficult to handle and cannot be closed airtight efficiently; for this reason it is interpreted as valuable in itself (1995: 72). It could have been used to store oil at Mycenae (1995: 72), but its major attribute was versatility, which probably played a key part in its success as an export item. Larger jars are usually undecorated and probably served as small pithoi, whereas decorated specimens functioned as larger piriform jars. The small piriform

Three sizes of stirrup jar have been found at Mycenae and the largest is scarcely decorated and employing a clay not as fine as in the smaller examples. However, Linear B inscriptions have been found on these vessels at least at Mycenae, Tiryns, Eleusis, Kreusis, Orchomenos and Thebes, which demonstrates once again its connection with palatial activities. The difference between Linear B inscriptions and the presence of marks, common to these vessels as well as to jars

33

and metal ingots, should be stressed; marks do not imply any connection with palaces.The inscriptions appear to be usually on the jars of Cretan origin found throughout mainland Greece except at Mycenae (Tournavitou 1992: 191). This fact suggests that the stirrup jars were inscribed when either re-used in mainland Greece or prepared for long distance trade, which would have identified the Cretan content as of Mycenaean origin, for the benefit of Mycenaean trade. The latter explanation could find some support from the apparently imprecise inscriptions from locally produced jars at Thebes, which would suggest that the inscriptions were not there to be read, but to be seen, as a mark, or a brand name. For instance, at Mycenae, the single inscribed stirrup jar from the House of the Oil Merchant has three signs:“so” (inverse), ideogram *140AES (bronze) and Cretan hieroglyph H 44, whereas the jar from the W room of the House of the Shields has the numeral three scratched on the handle. The presence of a Cretan hieroglyph undermines the possibility that the inscriptions were normally used as brand names for the benefit of Mycenaean trade. Practical experiments in using the large jars resulted in the determination that they could contain about 13.5 litres each.

of the cups. Mugs were much more efficient for drinking, although the handle is suitable only for suspension. However, they are rare. In spite of their evident origin from prestigious, metal prototypes only a few decorated mugs have been found.The origin of the shape can be traced back to the Vapheio cup, which is also a metallic form, and the transition happens during LH III A 1, as with the metamorphosis of the goblet into the kylix. Interestingly, while the Vapheio cup was common, the mug was rare, so that it seems that the transition masks a deeper change in function. It seems that most people were using the plain goblet, while a few were using Vapheio decorated or metallic cups. This probably reflected the Minoan tradition of drinking with conical cups for the many, and mugs for the few. When the Vapheio cups began to disappear, during LH III A 1, a decorated version of the kylix appeared, but it was then replaced by the decorated deep bowl. Goblets and kylikes, genuine Mycenaean shapes, are much larger than conical cups and mugs and suggest that several people drank from the same vessel, probably a family group. In the case of the deep bowl, this is even more evident. Hence, the change from Vapheio cups into deep bowls, via the decorated kylikes, suggests that the supposed elite moved from an individualistic vessel, whose function recalled the Minoan usage, to a vessel typically Mycenaean in shape and function: the decorated kylix. In the next move to the deep bowl, probably motivated by the need to keep a recognisable differentiation between the elite and the masses, only the function remained clearly Mycenaean. The function in question is the possible practice of “drinking together” in order to consolidate and/or renew ties between the members of restricted groups, such as families. The fact that the mug becomes rare, and largely made in plain ware, suggests that it lost its meaning and became a specialised vessel; it was therefore probably used to contain large quantities of liquid for immediate consumption.

Smaller jars were of different shapes (“tall conical piriform” and several variants of “globular”) probably in order to identify the content; they were also usually decorated. Interestingly, the porosity to water observed in the “tall conical piriform” shape is so high that the fabric moistens after three or four minutes, making these jars simply unusable for liquids, unless protected with some resin, and totally unusable for dry substances given the shape. The use of a resin however could only be practical if the content was the resin itself, or if it was a component of the content, because the resin could not have been applied easily to the inside. Unguents based on perfumed oil, as suggested by the Egyptian evidence, or any modified oil (aromatised, perfumed, etc.) would then best suit the characteristics of this vessel. It must be noted however that cups also suffer from the same porosity problem.

The kylix was the commonest vessel in palatial contexts and one very common indeed in almost all the others. The kylix is an everyday drinking vessel with a characteristic, elegant form. Mostly decorated and less popular before LH III B, at the time of the destructions of the palaces the decorated variant had almost disappeared, probably replaced by the deep bowl, which is another common vessel, suitable for drinking, but initially less popular.The kylikes were evidently produced in series, in industrial quantities, with little care for detail. Porosity seems, surprisingly, a problem for kylikes also, although the degree of porosity should be much lower, unless, as Tournavitou (1995: 88) points out, there is a problem with the acids used to clean the vessels before the porosity tests.The goblet, a common vessel since LH I, was very similar in shape and function to the kylix, and like it, largely undecorated.The decorated kylix appears as a luxurious version of the goblet during LH III A 1 and it replaces the goblet swiftly; during LH III A 2 the goblet disappears and the quantity of plain kylikes is already over-

Flasks are another rare and specialised vessel, mainly decorated, which appear to have the same basic function as stirrup jars, but modified for a particular content, in the same way that feeding bottles were considered a specialised form of jug. These specialisations are probably connected with uncommon substances or practices, and connected to the wealthy elite by the decoration and depositional context. Cups are one of the commonest shapes in all contexts and produced in different variants. Cups were probably used for drinking, but they could also have been used for dry food, for example olives. The porosity of most of them is particularly high, comparable to that of some stirrup jars, which could be explained simply by arguing that they held the same substance contained in those stirrup jars, or at least that they were subject to the same treatment. Only a minority of cups is decorated. Dippers are a specialised version

34

whelming. Thus, the plain goblet/kylix is a good indicator of the presence of Mycenaean people given its popularity as a drinking vessel, whereas the decorated version has a very different meaning. This cannot be considered a mere luxury for the wealthy, because of the unusual change in shape: first (LH III A 1), the decorated kylix competes with the basic plain goblet, and then (LH III A 2), the decorated deep bowl competes with the plain kylix. The decorated kylix was probably intended as a “status symbol”, promptly replaced by the deep bowl as soon as the plain goblet mutated into the plain kylix.

sels. For instance, there is no doubt that the interpretation of the kylix mainly as a “status symbol” that later become too popular to fulfil this purpose is unsatisfactorily generic, describing as it does only one very small part of its function. However, this specific interpretation explains why only thirty-five LH III A 2 – C kylikes have been found all over the West Mediterranean (a single exemplar possibly in plain ware from Thapsos has been included because of uncertainty over its original decoration), while in Mycenaean Greece they are plentiful. Three shapes found in the West are missing from Tournavitou’s work: the alabastron, the rhyton and the late askos.The alabastron is one of the most frequent vessels in tombs, along with the piriform jar and the stirrup jar, a fact that explains its absence in the Ivory Houses at Mycenae. Its function as an unguent container is similar to that of the stirrup jar in funerary contexts. It is often decorated, with two variants: rounded (LH I – III C 1) and straight-sided (LH I – III C 3).There is little indication that the alabastron had any use outside the funerary ceremony.

The bowl is another very common shape, produced in different variants such as the deep bowl, the crater, the stemmed bowl, the shallow bowl and others. Many of these are undecorated. Most of the decorated bowls are craters or the similar deep bowl; during LH III A only the crater is used, but then it coexists with the deep bowl up to LH III C 1. The deep bowl is much less frequent than the kylix and is often decorated, so that it has been suggested as an alternative vessel for wealthy people. The shallow bowl, one of the commonest variants, seems suitable for eating from, and since it has not been found in any decorated version, its function appears to be very different to that of the deep bowl. However, the problem does not exist when we consider only decorated vessels.

The rhyton is a very particular vessel, which already existed during Minoan times and survived up to the Roman period. It is normally a conical, decorated shape suitable for pouring or drinking, but rhyta in animal form were possibly used during religious “ceremonies”. It is supposed to have been the preferred shape in rituals involving the pouring of a liquid (wine or scented oil?) from a large vessel (bowl?) via a rhyton into smaller vessels (cups?). Predictably, it gradually disappeared starting from LH III A 2, when it was still popular. In the following period, LH III B 1, the shape decreased sharply in number and apart from Mycenae, it was confined to the Near East and Cyprus. Accepting the proposal that the metamorphoses of Vapheio cups into mugs, decorated kylikes into deep bowls and goblets into kylikes are all related to a change in the practice of communal drinking of the elite, the rhyton would have become redundant as a redistributive vessel because people drank directly from a larger vessel without the need for redistribution.The demise of the rhyton suggests that the elite moved away from practices common in the Near East, where the shape survived, and from earlier Minoan practices. It also suggests that any hierarchy within the membership of the “drinking together” practice was abandoned, because everyone was drinking from the same vessel without the need for anyone to lead the group and redistribute the drink via a rhyton. Alternatively, different arrangements could have been made, such as the use of one kylix for each person, but the small rhyton would have been unusable to fill large kylikes. In any case, any hierarchy based on the use of the rhyton as a redistributive vessel would have been discarded in favour of some more egalitarian approach within the elite.

An in-depth analysis of the function of vessels in Mycenaean Greece would reveal a more complex scenario than the one described in this short review, but here the purpose is to provide comparative information for the Aegean-type pottery found in the West Mediterranean, which is studied in detail. Deep bowls, craters, shallow bowls and any other bowl-like shape are each different in form, not for aesthetic purposes but mainly for their particular function. However, it is often challenging in the West Mediterranean to distinguish shallow and deep bowls, let alone deep bowls and craters. Furthermore, quantities also play a role because the scarce quantities of vessels found in the West Mediterranean would prevent any discussion of their function. Indeed, if we were able to distinguish vessels according to Furumark shapes, and we are not, we would probably have averages of one or zero for most of them. Any conclusion of the function of the shapes presented in this work does not take into account differences such as those between deep bowls and craters, or decorated and plain wares, which are important in Greece but undetected in the West Mediterranean. Rather, similarities in the function of similar vessels are emphasised, particularly of the same type (e.g. decorated) and functional context (e.g. possibly considered exportable/importable valuables) as those found in the West Mediterranean. The interpretation of cups, mugs, kylikes and bowls as valuable commodities that have been replaced one by another, as well as most of the other interpretations of the function of vessels presented here, has been constructed keeping in mind the vessels found in the West Mediterranean, and with the declared purpose of understanding the “western” ves-

The final shape is the askos, which becomes as increasingly rare as the rhyton after LH III A 2. It lasted from LH II A to LH III C 1. The askos, often decorated, was a rare shape in

35

Mycenaean Greece. It is a jug-like shape, but also similar to a rhyton in horizontal position, a resemblance that is even clearer in the case of zoomorphic askoi. It could have functioned alternatively as a rhyton or a sophisticated jug.

Extending the observations to a broader panel of sites for decorated pottery, while comparing the overall pottery corpus from the “Ivory Houses” and Pylos (fugures 12 and 13, p. 231), both probably representing the consumption pattern of the palatial elite, it is possible to notice the lack of alabastra, stirrup jars, flasks, feeding bottles and rhyta in plain ware. Decorated and plain wares seem to be associated with different patterns of consumption in Mycenaean Greece and this justifies the division between decorated and plain ware in the present work. Some shapes are targeted by mass production either in plain or decorated ware, which confirms that the two types were used for different purposes, but the wide range of decorated vessels, their low quantities and their suitability for export, indicate a possible association of decorated ware with wealth. The presence of about a dozen decorated vessels in the Uluburun wreck corroborates this view even more, as does the constant presence of decorated ware in administrative places.

JAR

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

FEEDING BOTTLE

UNKNOWN CLOSED

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

UNKNOWN OPEN

CLOSED

OPEN

ALL

Aegina

7

10

20

28

8

0

1

30

67

10

36

6

0

4

104

123

227

LH I - III A 1 Greece

Nichoria (circle)

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

2

3

LH I - III A 1 Greece

Nichoria

29

6

16

12

1

1

0

80

82

1

10

30

2

6

145

131

276

LH I - III A 1 Greece

Orchomenos

2

7

8

5

0

0

1

0

12

2

6

19

0

0

23

39

62

LH I - III A 1 Greece

Drachmani - Piperi

0

8

5

5

0

0

0

0

8

1

3

6

3

0

18

21

39

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Aegina

1

4

12

18

20

4

2

0

21

5

25

30

1

4

61

86

147

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Nichoria

7

2

4

4

6

0

3

14

16

7

43

35

0

5

40

106

146

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Nichoria (tholo s)

2

0

1

1

6

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

0

12

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Orchomenos

14

3

3

14

12

0

1

0

8

8

82

17

0

0

47

115

162

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Tiryns

4

0

1

10

1

0

0

42

6

3

180

5

0

108

58

302

360

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Zafer Papoura

0

4

2

10

16

1

1

0

3

0

3

6

0

0

34

12

46

LH III A 2 - C Greece

Milatos Mycenae (Ivory Houses) decorated Drachmani - Piperi

2

0

0

2

4

0

0

0

1

0

3

2

0

0

8

6

14

1

16

0

1

110

3

0

0

17

1

31

1

0

0

131

50

181

1

1

0

1

4

0

0

0

1

1

30

12

0

0

7

44

51

Pylos decorated Pylos plain+decorated Mycenae (Ivory Houses) plain+decorated

8

20

2

43

58

0

0

0

8

0

23

0

0

0

131

31

162

103

27

2

81

59

0

0

0

1771

0

1691 3934

0

0

272

7396

7668

45

42

0

2

116

3

1

0

280

4

126

0

0

209

1199

1408

AREA

LH I - III A 1 Greece

TIME

SITE

To sum up, the fine decorated pottery is present in far lower quantities than the fine plain wares in Mainland Greece and the East, but this is not always true in the West (see table 15, p. 213 for plain wares in the West Mediterranean and the exception of Monte Grande). Decorated pottery shares all the shapes of plain ware and has a few additional ones. A simple comparison of the situation between the “Ivory Houses” at Mycenae and the palace of Pylos demonstrates the similarities in the consumption pattern, confirming the importance of the houses at Mycenae. Both the houses at Mycenae and the palace at Pylos yielded evidence for administration in the form of Linear B tablets. In both cases, bowls, cups and kylikes are overall the most frequent shapes, whereas considering just decorated pottery at both places stirrup jars are the main vessel, followed by bowls, piriform jars and cups. This compares to the identification of the piriform jar, the stirrup jar, the kylix and the bowl as the commonest overall vessels by Mountjoy (1986). In more detail, the stirrup and piriform jars are usually decorated, far less the kylikes and bowls.

LH III A 2 - C Greece LH III A 2 - C Greece LH III A 2 - C Greece Greece LH III A 2 - C plain LH III A 2 - C

Greece plain

789

Table 4: Mycenaean pattern-painted pottery in Greece classified by shape, period and site. The last two rows present the sum of decorated and plain wares. Data taken from Hiller 1975 (Aegina), McDonald, and Wilkie 1992 (Nichoria), Mountjoy 1983 (Orchomenos, Drachmani Piperi), Avila 1980 (Tiryns), Evans 1905 (Zafer Papoura, Milatos), Tournavitou 1995 (Mycenae), Blegen 1966 (Pylos)

36

The commonest vessels in the Aegean during the LH III A 2 – C (see table 4) are bowls, followed by stirrup jars. The bowl is present in enormous quantities amongst the plain wares, but this is the result of large numbers of shallow bowls, which are almost absent among the decorated pottery. However, the decorated bowl, largely a few variants of the deep bowl, is undoubtedly a common vessel, which compares for quantity and function with the LH I – III A 1 cup. The kylix, the other drinking vessel, remains stable between the two periods, but the decorated version is produced almost exclusively during LH III A. The result is that in the Aegean there is an evident transition in usage from the cup to the deep bowl via the kylix.

referred to in large quantities and presumably ceramic. Olivier and Vandenabeele (1979) have studied ideograms in Linear B tablets, some of which represent vases. Ideograms provide the only valuable data from Linear B. Table 5 indeed provides more data than the amounts of vases. Whilst the comparison of the patterns of presence, based on raw quantities, does not seem strong enough to prove anything, the extra layer of information provided on function and consumption appears worthwhile irrespective of Whitelaw’s cautionary argument. Most of the ideograms representing vases are on tablets found at Knossos, while at Pylos only the tablets of class Ta, written by a single scribe (hand 2), and those of class Tn deal with vases. Possible stirrup jars (*210VAS; *172VAS) number about two thousand at Knossos. Amphorae *209VAS, possibly jars or stirrup jars, number over one thousand at Knossos, but only two both at Pylos and Mycenae; they frequently contained honey and in that case they were often offered to divinities. Piriform jars are recognisable in four ideograms: *132VAS and *202VAS (three, four or no handles); *203VAS and perhaps *214VAS (two handles) and number less than two hundred at Knossos, a handful at Pylos. Deep bowls are clearly represented by *211VAS (seventy-nine) and *214VAS (just two); the latter ideogram was drawn in the same tablet with *200VAS, which might be deep bowls as well. There are about ten jugs and just three are beaked. Kylikes, chalices, flasks and rhyta are also represented in very small quantities and they do seem special, luxurious vessels.

Linear B ideograms Whitelaw (2001) convincingly demonstrates that Linear B references to pots are extremely selective, falling short of representing the ceramic assemblage, even in a reduced form. His study of both ceramic and textual evidence from Pylos cautions against any result derived from the study of textual evidence. Yet, the selectivity within the textual evidence may imply a preference for some vessel expressed at least by one group of people connected to the palaces. Although any pattern obtained from textual evidence is very weak, some additional information may prove valuable, particularly on the contents and the contexts of use. For instance, the function of some vessels made in precious materials was probably different from that of other vessels

37

38

Horizontal ladle or cup

Tripod

Pithos

Piriform jar (with 3, 4 or no handles)

*228VAS

*201VAS

*222VAS

*202VAS

*214

Deep bowl or large jar

Shallow bowl

*219VAS

VAS

Shallow bowl

Deep bowl or jar

*200VAS

*211

Vapheio cup

*218VAS

VAS

Cylindrical vessel with conical lid

Cup

*123AROM

*208

VAS

Kylix

Chalice

*216

*215VAS

Conical deep bowl

VAS

*183

*212VAS

Conical deep bowl

Cretan style conical deep bowl

*155VAS

VAS

Shallow bowl

*213VAS

*250VAS

Vessel

Cup

Code

Name

di-pa

ti-ri-po

po-ro-e-ke-te-ri-ja

pa-ko-to

pi-a2-ra

pi-je-ra3

po-ka-ta-ma

u-do-ro

i-po-no

Several at Knossos and Pylos

Knossos: K 773

Pylos: Ta 641, 709

Pylos: Ta 709

Pylos: Ta 709

Pylos: Tn 996

Pylos: Ta 709

Knossos: K 873

Knossos: K 872

Several at Knossos, Pylos and Mycenae

Pylos: Tn 996

Pylos: Tn 316

Pylos: Tn 316

Knossos: U 1053

Pylos: Tn 996

Knossos: Uc 160, K 774-775-776-877; Pylos: Tn 996

West House, Mycenae: Ue 661

Knossos: K 7353, Uc 160; Pylos: Tn 316

Tablets

About 200

7

6

1

2

2

3

At least 79

3

4

3 ideograms

2 ideograms

10

3

27 (24 at Knossos and 3 at Pylos)

15

32 (24 at Knossos and 8 at Pylos)

Quantity

One ideogram (30 vessels) preceded by the ideogram of bronze (*140AES) in tablet K 740 (Knossos).

Bronze?

Decorated ceramic?

One made by gold (ku-ru-so)

One preceded by the ideogram of gold (*141AUR) and three by the ideogram of bronze (*140AES).

Preceded by the ideogram of gold (*141AUR) each time.

Gold (*141AUR) at Pylos

Material

Associated to *207VAS (askos) and *203VAS on tablet.

Associated to *202VAS and *203VAS on tablet Ta 641 and *200VAS, *214VAS and *228VAS on tablet Ta 709.

Associated to *214VAS and *200VAS on tablet.

Inside *200VAS and *228VAS vessels.

Similar to *200VAS

Similar to *219VAS. Like FS 240. The vessels are “decorated with spirals” (to-qi-de-ja).

Like FS 59. A variant of the ideogram in tablet FS 8 at Knossos refers to a vessel containing honey.

Ideogram used as unity of measure (about 96 litres?) for spices and dry products.

Similar to *212VAS

Similar to *212VAS

Similar to *250VAS* and *183VAS

West House at Mycenae is one of the Ivory Houses.

Vessels in Knossos were stored inside large vases.

Notes

39

Jug

*205VAS

Rhyton

Small globular stirrup jar

Large stirrup jar

qe-ro2 ?

ka-ra-re-we

a-po-re-we (amphora); a-pipo-re-we (amphoriskos)

a-te-we

qe-ra-na

qe-to

Name

Knossos: K 872

Knossos: U 746, Gg 701

Knossos: 700, 778

Knossos: several; Pylos: Tn 996; Mycenae: Ue 611

Pylos: Tn 996

Knossos: K 93; Pylos: Ta 711

Knossos: K 93

Knossos: K 434

Pylos: Un 2

Pylos: Ta 641

Tablets

2 ideograms

18

1980

Over 1000 at Knossos, 2 each at Pylos and Mycenae

About 10

About 10

3

1

1

3

Quantity Bronze?

Material

Zoomorphic (bull-head) rhyton

Like FS 171; the vessels on tablet U 746 probably contained wax while those mentioned in tablet Gg 701, inside an amphora *209VAS, contained honey (me-ri).

Like FS 164

Like jar FS 69. Variable format, some are larger (me-zo-e). Most amphorae contained honey and often the ideogram of the vessel is joined with the word honey (me-ri).

Inside one *206VAS (hydria) and several *250VAS

Variant of *203VAS and similar to amphora *209VAS; it contained two quantities (about 12 litres) of honey (me[-ri]).

Associated to *201VAS and *202VAS on tablet.

Notes

Table 5: Ideograms found in Linear B tablets depicting possible ceramic vases. The Linear B code, the Linear B name, the tablets in which the ideograms are found, the specified amounts and materials are indicated

*227VAS

*172

VAS

*210VAS

Amphora and amphoriskos (small amphora)

Jug

*204VAS

*209

Beaked jug

VAS

Flask

*303VAS

Three-handled jar, or small piriform jar

*132

*217VAS

Two-handled jar

VAS

*203

Vessel

VAS

Code

LH III A 2 – C

MATERIALS

LH III A 2 – C

MATERIALS

LH III A 2 – C

MATERIALS

LH III B LH III B

ALL

0

OPEN

3

CLOSED

110

RHYTON

FEEDING BOTTLE

1

KYLIX

FLASK

0

BOWL

STIRRUP JAR

16

MUG

JUG

1

CUP

ALABASTRON

SITE

MYCENAE (IVORY HOUSES) DECORATED PYLOS DECORATED

PIRIFORM JAR

TYPE

MATERIALS

JAR

TIME

LH III A 2 – C

17

1

31

1

0

131

50

181

8

20

2

43

58

0

0

8

0

23

0

0

131

31

162

45

42

0

2

116

3

1

280

4

126

789

0

209

1199

1408

103

27

2

81

59

0

0

1771

0

1691

3934

0

272

7396

7668

IDEOGRAMS

MYCENAE (IVORY HOUSES) PLAIN+DECORATED PYLOS PLAIN+DECORATED KNOSSOS

100

1000

0

8

1998

1

0

27

0

113

0

2

3107

142

3249

IDEOGRAMS

PYLOS

103

3

0

15

0

0

0

12

2

18

3

0

121

35

156

LH III B

IDEOGRAMS

MYCENAE

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15

0

0

2

15

17

LH III B

IDEOGRAMS

KNOSSOS PYLOS MYCENAE

203

1005

0

23

1998

1

0

39

2

146

3

2

3230

192

3422

Table 6: Quantities assessed from pottery and ideograms

Three tables have been produced; table 5 details the commonest ideograms and those depicting vessels found in the West Mediterranean, the quantities expressed follow the associated numerals on the tablets counting the vessels referred to on them, not the occurrence of each ideogram on the tablets, unless otherwise specified. Yet amounts are imprecise because of difficulties in reading the ciphers, but the emerging pattern should be correct because one frequent problem is that a second cipher is unreadable, but this has little impact on the total amounts. Table 6 presents the amounts detailed by site and offers a comparison with other Aegean sites, while table 7 translates the amounts in averages expressed as percentages. This makes the numbers directly comparable in order to find patterns of usage, and the grouping applied enhances the readability of the patterns found. The first pattern in table 7 refers to the entire ceramic assemblage from two palatial sites, Pylos and the Ivory Houses at Mycenae. These are two of the three sites included in the count of ideograms, but most of the ideograms representing vases are on tablets found at Knossos. The pattern suggests a minimal presence of jars, some stirrup jars and bowls, cups accounting about one fourth of the assemblage and kylikes representing half the assemblage.

are partial and apply only to a few activities and contexts. They are most useful to compare western patterns, which are very variable and limited in the types and amounts of vessels present, as we shall see in the next chapter. As a result, no western pattern can be convincingly compared to any Aegean patterns on a like for like basis. However, evidence of the simplified Aegean “palatial pattern”, typical of administrative buildings, is very strong and encompass both ceramic and Linear B records. The “palatial pattern” is also the only one that is recognisable in the West Mediterranean, especially in the unique site of Taranto. There, stirrup jars appear in some notable quantity, repeated in the West Mediterranean only at one other site, Cannatello. However, only at Taranto are kylikes and bowls also common, matching substantially the “palatial pattern” and differentiating considerably from any other western patterns. Since the chronological division in the West Mediterranean needs to be broad, the entire LH III A 2 – C period is considered, but it must be noted that in the Aegean the decorated kylix is typical of the LH III A period, whereas the decorated deep bowl is typical of the LH III B period. Palaces however were destroyed during the LH III B and therefore most of the evidence from palatial areas represents the pattern of usage at that time, which was probably similar to any other LH III pattern within palaces.

Possible elements of a “palatial pattern” typical of administrative buildings have been recognised (tables 6 and 7, “administrative buildings”). These include the high presence of stirrup jars in contexts of production as well as the kylix to bowl transition. However, the patterns in table 7 are based exclusively on ceramic vessels present in the West Mediterranean. The Mycenaean palace cannot be explained exclusively in terms of political and economic strategies. The caution that Whitelaw (2001) has invoked in the interpretation of palatial contexts by using Linear B tablets should be extended also to the partial patterns of usage presented here: none of them is sufficient to explain any Aegean contexts.

Considering just pattern-painted ware, the presence of jars appears more significant; jugs represent about one fourth of the assemblage at Mycenae, but are almost absent at Pylos; stirrup jars represent at least one third of the assemblage; there are some bowls, fewer cups while kylikes are almost absent.The difference between Pylos and Mycenae is largely limited to jugs and stirrup jars, though only for the former is the indication contradictory.This can be explained by the context: Pylos is an entire palace whereas the Ivory Houses at Mycenae are mainly a productive area, part of a palatial complex. The commonest shapes in plain ware are kylikes,

These simplified Aegean patterns are not wrong; rather they

40

cups and bowls, while those in pattern-painted ware are stirrup jars and alternatively either jugs or jars. The division between closed and open vessels is pronounced.

Interestingly, the pattern of tombs recalls the palatial pattern with the stirrup jar, the presence of jars and the preference for closed vessels, suggesting that tombs in the Aegean were used for wealth display. Certainly, this was the case in Cyprus (Steel 1998) and at Thapsos. Undoubtedly, flasks, alabastra, small stirrup jars and piriform jars are all suggesting that they were containers of precious substances. In Linear B tablets, small and medium-sized (piriform) jars, those described as “amphorae”, were often filled with honey and offered to the divinities; pure honey, or ambrosia, was the food of divinities in Homer. Jugs are present at both Zafer Papoura and Mycenae in statistically relevant quantities, suggesting that the jug should be considered as a vessel possibly expressing wealth. The scanty presence of the beaked jug in ideograms suggests that at least that version was probably associated to wealth. It is interesting to notice that in LH III B funerary assemblages at Thapsos the beaked jug becomes popular in the wealthiest tombs, especially in its White Shaved and Base Ring Cypriot variants.

The ideograms do not allow an effective site-by-site comparison because of the low quantities at Pylos and Mycenae. However, the commonest vessels are stirrup jars at Knossos, jars at Pylos and bowls at Mycenae, which are the overall commonest vessels.Two shapes, jars and piriform jars, should be analysed together because of the difficulty in distinguishing between the two from ideograms, where the distinction is largely based on size. When data are summarised, the pattern emerging from the archaeological evidence matches that in ideograms. Differences remain, but trends are clear. Stirrup jars account for about half the assemblage in both sources. Their presence at Pylos and reference to at Knossos suggests that each palace was involved in similar activities and probably exchanges among palaces took place. The presence of Cretan stirrup jars across mainland Greece is corroborated by the large quantities of these vessels mentioned in tablets at Knossos.The remarkable absence of stirrup jars in tablets at Pylos and Mycenae, despite their massive presence, suggests that Linear B tablets did not record transactions related to exchanges. Tablets recorded the regional productive activities only and this is confirmed by the total absence of any direct mention of exchanges on the tablets, in sharp contrast with the Near Eastern records.

On the tablets, open vessels such as cups or small bowls are mentioned as bronze and gold vessels, while kylikes and chalices, the latter possibly the metal form of mugs, are extremely rare and always in gold and related to a religious context.This suggests that when Linear B tablets were written, during LH III B (a possible date of LM III B 1 for the Knossos tablets is disputed), the palatial elite adopted these vessels as a remnant of the past, particularly in the case of religious contexts, and had to distinguish its vessels with the material, as shape and decoration were no longer sufficient. Conversely, closed vessels are abundant and were probably less distinguished by material or shape because their relative scarcity in settlements, less in (wealthy) tombs, made the decoration suffice as a distinguishing element.

Tablets often referred to special vases, those decorated or in metal, as sometimes explicitly declared. For instance, one occurrence of a bowl or crater *200VAS is declaredly referred to the decorated version, as the scribe wanted to clarify that the vessels mentioned are not ordinary. The pattern of referencing on tablets matches the pattern of usage of pattern-painted ware, which is roughly the same, even including pictorial style pottery. Ideograms suggest that closed vessels, mainly stirrup jars and jars, were commonest, while bowls, the most frequent open vessel, were present in fewer quantities. The same can be concluded after the analysis of archaeological evidence.

Reviewing Tournavitou’s categorisation, we have already considered that the elite switched its preference from Vapheio cups to kylikes and then bowls.While the move from cups to kylikes might have been dictated by the need to use a shape similar to the popular and traditional goblet, the elite modified the shape, added the decoration for their kylikes, and afterwards adopted the bowl. During LH III B, decorated open vessels became very popular in settlements, and in the undecorated form in palatial structures, so the vessels for the elite were distinguished by making them in metal. In this regard, tablets suggest that the bronze tripod might have replaced ceramic deep bowls and craters. In the West Mediterranean, Cypriot (or Cretan) style tripods are occasionally recognised among the scrap metals in LH III C hoards, in Sardinia and the central Italian peninsula, but not in the hoard found at Lipari (Moscetta 1988). In Sicily, large bronze bowls such as those found at Caldare are of Cypriot style and possibly connected to tripods;Vagnetti (1968a: 131) identifies them as shallow bowls pi-a2-ra (*219VAS).Vagnetti seems correct in the formal identification, but also tripods are bowls, and notably two fragments of one Cypriot style tripod are reported from Pantalica

The pattern of usage differs between plain wares and decorated wares in palatial areas and this is even more evident outside palatial areas. Pattern-painted ware only is analysed because it is the Aegean-type ware present in the West Mediterranean, and its pattern of usage is similar to that of all the decorated vessels together, as the similarity with the pattern of ideograms suggests. To test the possible palatial pattern indicated by archaeological evidence and ideograms, the patterns of usage in Aegean settlements and tombs is briefly reviewed. In settlements bowls, kylikes, cups and jars are in decreasing order the commonest vessels, though regional variability is more evident than in palaces. In tombs, stirrup jars are commonest, followed by jugs, kylikes, bowls and jars in decreasing order. Both patterns of usage differ significantly from the patterns offered by ideograms.

41

(Bergonzi 1985: 361). Orsi (1895: 131) reports a copper cup of possible “Mycenaean” origin from tomb 57, which might be a small bowl or any other open vessel (if a vessel at all). Considering the basins from Caldare, the tripod from Pantalica and the copper sheet from Thapsos as bowls, it is interesting to notice that only open metal vessels appear to have been imported in Sicily. This contrasts with the few ceramic open vessels, particularly bowls, at Thapsos, where large indigenous cauldrons were commonly used. The evidence from Linear B tablets suggests that the Aegean palatial elite ultimately used metals to differentiate the open vessels its members were using, because of the large availability of decorated ceramic vessels.

seems that valuable vessels used for display or possibly exchange were the subject of Linear B tablets. It is important to remember that the information written on Linear B tablets is very selective and incomplete and refers to the usage of a minority, the palatial elite, over a very short space of time, perhaps one season, when the surviving tablets were written. More information is provided by Linear B tablets, although not in form of patterns of usage. Table 5 reports, where known, the materials the vessels were made of and their contents. Such information is particularly valuable in determining the possible value of the vessels with their contents. The determination of the contents alone justifies the use of Linear B tablets, because little is known of the contents from scientific analyses of residuals from vessels found in the Aegean and East, and no data are available for the West Mediterranean.

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

8.24

0.21

0.07

19.89

0.28

8.95

56.04

0.00

1.06

0.77

0.00

0.00

23.10

0.00

22.05

51.30

0.00

FLASK

STIRRUP JAR

0.14

0.03

JUG

0.00

0.35

ALABASTRON

2.98

1.34

PIRIFORM JAR

3.20

MYCENAE

JAR

PYLOS

SITE

FEEDING BOTTLE

In conclusion, ideograms provide useful information about the choice of metal open vessels by the elite in later times to maintain the distinction with the remaining population. Linear B tablets also show the importance of decoration and prove that decorated vessels were considered valuable commodities by the palatial elite, as metal vessels were. It

DECORATED WARE AND PLAIN WARES - ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS

DECORATED - ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS PYLOS

0.55

8.84

0.00

0.55

60.77

1.66

0.00

9.39

0.55

17.13

0.55

0.00

MYCENAE

4.94

12.35

1.23

26.54

35.80

0.00

0.00

4.94

0.00

14.20

0.00

0.00

IDEOGRAMS – ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS KNOSSOS

3.08

30.78

0.00

0.25

61.50

0.03

0.00

0.83

0.00

3.48

0.00

0.06

PYLOS

66.03

1.92

0.00

9.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

7.69

1.28

11.54

1.92

0.00

MYCENAE

0.00

11.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

88.24

0.00

0.00

SUMMARIES OF DECORATED WARE AND IDEOGRAMS - ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS IDEOGRAMS

5.93

29.37

0.00

0.67

58.39

0.03

0.00

1.14

0.06

4.27

0.09

0.06

DECORATED VESSELS

2.62

10.50

0.58

12.83

48.98

0.87

0.00

7.29

0.29

15.74

0.29

0.00

AEGINA

0.68

2.72

8.16

12.24

13.61

2.72

1.36

14.29

3.40

17.01

20.41

0.68

NICHORIA

4.79

1.37

2.74

2.74

4.11

0.00

2.05

10.96

4.79

29.45

23.97

0.00

ORCHOMENOS

8.64

1.85

1.85

8.64

7.41

0.00

0.62

4.94

4.94

50.62

10.49

0.00

TIRYNS

1.11

0.00

0.28

2.78

0.28

0.00

0.00

1.67

0.83

50.00

1.39

0.00

DRACHMANI - PIPERI

1.96

1.96

0.00

1.96

7.84

0.00

0.00

1.96

1.96

58.82

23.53

0.00

NICHORIA (THOLOS)

16.67

0.00

8.33

8.33

50.00

16.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ZAFER PAPOURA

0.00

8.70

4.35

21.74

34.78

2.17

2.17

6.52

0.00

6.52

13.04

0.00

MILATOS

14.29

0.00

0.00

14.29

28.57

0.00

0.00

7.14

0.00

21.43

14.29

0.00

SETTLEMENTS

TOMBS

Table 7: Percentages of each shape by site. Both ceramic vessels and ideograms are indicated for comparison

42

CHAPtER 4: OVERVIEW oF FoRMS AND FUNctIoNS IN tHE WESt MEDItERRANEAN Introduction

interpretation of those sites.The use of two broad periods is the not the happiest of solutions, given that most of the material has been seen, but it is nevertheless a necessity since so much is too fragmentary for a more precise chronological periodisation. The only ceramic style associated to a clear, meaningful change in pottery is LH III A 2, when the goblet becomes the kylix, the crater becomes the deep bowl and the Vapheio cup becomes the mug. On the positive side, the use of just two periods greatly enhances the readability of the data in comparative analyses.They also correspond to the two major phases detectable in the West Mediterranean. In the first phase, imported material constitutes the majority, and the main sites are located in Sicily and the Tyrrhenian coast. In the second phase it is the Italic production that takes off, with the main sites located in the southern Italian peninsula. The interpretations are always based on the most detailed data available, and having a greater degree of detail for the average site would be welcome.The state of preservation of Aegean-type ceramics being as it is, at least the two broad periods used correspond to archaeologically logical main phases and therefore provide some meaningful information.

This chapter begins the detailed analysis of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean. The functional context, based on the patterns of usage for each shape, is presented and discussed here, while the next chapter focuses on depositional and cultural contexts. However, the data presented here are fundamental to any analysis or discussion and summarise the whole effort of collecting data. In brief, a list has been compiled comprising any western site where “Mycenaean” material has been reported. For each site, details of the material found have been collected, and soon it became clear that for the vast majority of sites, the assemblages of Mycenaean products consist of decorated pottery. As a result, it has been decided to dedicate an entire chapter to decorated pottery, on which key conclusions had to be reached thanks to the possibility of comparing the data.The conclusions regard the determination of the main periods and all regions and sub-regions.The rest of the Aegean-type material, along with all supporting evidence, will be analysed in chapter 5, which reviews all the determined regions throughout time using all the evidence available to offer as accurate and informed a picture of each as possible.

The second and third columns, “Type” and “Area,” delimit the recognised regions. The areas have been defined taking into account spatial vicinity, the relative chronology of the ceramics, and the shapes found. The guiding idea was to narrow down the patterns of usage to the safest. All sites have been grouped according to the quantities of ceramic material retrieved. The sites have been divided into three groups: sites with more than sixty pots have been grouped as major sites, those with more than twenty pots have been considered as possible major sites, and those with twenty pots or less have been grouped as minor sites. The patterns of usage of each of the major, and possibly major, sites have been compared with the geographically nearest sites, progressing outwards until any significant difference in the patterns emerged. This methodology has defined the areas without recurring to any pre-existing territorial division, whether based on cultural, political or natural boundaries of the land. Because of the low quantities involved, and the resulting high fragmentation of the territory, it has been decided to unite those neighbouring areas with similar patterns of usage into less homogeneous regions that correspond to the largest territorial division acceptable. The united regions have been labelled “major areas”, whereas all the initial areas have been called “minor areas,” referring only to their geographic extension rather than cultural importance. The attribute “Type” distinguishes between these two types of region. The minor areas cover the entire dataset, whereas the major areas only include some of the minor areas. The strict regional division of the territory according

Although the functional context of pottery is important in itself, especially considering how many of the Aegeantype products are pots, the quantities reported do not allow a meaningful analysis for any site. The data are suitable to present all the evidence for a few sites and summarise the rest, which is van Wijngaarden’s approach, but in this way most of the data contribute to a general summary of a far too vast area, and their potential remains unexploited. The main sites are certainly worthwhile to analyse individually, but the relationships among sites remain unexplained and the quantity and quality of available data do not necessarily reflect the actual importance of the ancient sites. As a result, the first challenge and achievement has been the meaningful organisation of the collected data. From the first table in this chapter (table 4), it is evident that several choices affecting the reading of the data have been made to obtain a clear perspective. It is necessary to devote a few moments to review these choices, as they are not immediately intuitive. First of all, the column “Time” only includes two broad periods. The reason for this choice is that all the material from any site can be safely attributed to one of the two broad periods, while only for a few sites does the available data permit a finer distinction using the full scale of Aegean chronology. For these sites separate tables have been provided in the Appendix and employed for the

43

to patterns of usage has also resulted in the occasionally unusual terminology. For instance, Apulia is split into two coastal areas, one of which, “Ionian Apulia,” joins the rest of the “Ionian coast”, another area, into the major region “Ionian area”. No similar subdivision is recorded in history for the major area, which is from a geographical point of view a continuous strip of land – the Ionian coast of the Italian peninsula.

Mountjoy 1986) have been reported when recognised. Pictorial and undecorated wares are included in the quantities in this chapter’s tables, mainly because they are too rare to be meaningful alone and the overall low quantities leave little scope for arbitrary exclusions of recognised shapes. The vessels have been distinguished on the basis of their function rather than their appearance, so that closed vessels are indeed “storage” vessels in van Wijngaarden’s categorisation because they could retain a substance within, whereas open vessels could only be used for immediate consumption and are “dining” vessels in this sense.The rhyton, which in form is a closed vessel, figures among the open forms because it would not “store” anything as such and was used for immediate redistribution and pouring.The single rhyton found in the West Mediterranean can hardly modify any conclusions, but since all recognised shapes have their own column, the rhyton has one too!

Lastly, the range of shapes chosen is broad enough to summarise similar shapes. Straight-sided and rounded alabastra are both included in the category “alabastron”; small and large stirrup jars and bowls form, respectively, the categories “stirrup jar” and “bowl”. “Mug” does not include early Vapheio cups, but these are generally identified and reported in the Gazetteer, although they count as cups. As with the periods, the tables in this chapter offer information that is as detailed as possible for most sites and present them in a comparable format, but where more information is available this is provided in the Appendix and taken into consideration for the interpretations. Furumark shapes (FS; see

44

TIME

TYPE

AREA

JAR

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

FEEDING BOTTLE

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

CLOSED

OPEN

ALL

LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH I - III A1 LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C LH III A 2-C

Major area Major area Major area Major area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Major area Major area Major area Major area Major area Major area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area Minor area

Adriatic coast

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

3

2

5

Ionian area

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

3

Sicily

5

14

16

13

4

0

0

61

1

3

11

0

120

79

199

Tyrrhenian coast Aeolian Islands Apulia A

0

1

14

6

0

0

0

16

0

0

3

0

112

27

139

3

10

16

7

3

0

0

61

1

3

11

0

81

79

160

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

3

2

5

Eastern Sicily

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

Ionian coast

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

3

Western Sicily Adriatic coast

2

1

0

6

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

37

0

37

17

2

4

6

4

0

1

5

0

29

0

0

48

35

83

Iberia

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

2

3

Ionian area

136

71

6

28

42

6

0

45

17

157

25

0

35

348

383

Sardinia

2

0

1

0

2

0

0

2

0

3

1

1

7

11

18

Sicily

16

36

15

17

13

0

0

21

0

20

9

0

130

50

180

Tyrrhenian coast Aeolian Islands Apulia A

0

2

2

0

2

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

19

8

27

4

8

2

3

1

0

0

13

0

16

4

0

40

33

73

17

2

2

6

3

0

0

5

0

28

0

0

39

34

73

Apulia I

38

70

2

23

34

6

0

34

4

107

20

0

174

166

340

Eastern Sicily

1

26

11

13

4

0

0

3

0

0

3

0

55

6

61

Iberia

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

2

3

Ionian coast

98

1

4

5

8

0

0

11

13

50

5

0

181

182

363

Northern Adriatic coast Sardinia

0

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

9

1

10

2

0

1

0

2

0

0

2

0

3

1

1

7

11

18

Western Sicily

11

2

2

1

8

0

0

5

0

4

2

0

35

11

46

Table 8: Number of Aegean-type pots for each shape divided by period and area. Major areas a re defined by joining a few similar minor areas. Key Table 8: Number of Aegean-type pots for each shape divided by period and area. Major areas are defined by joining a few similar minor areas. Key to abbreviations: Apulia A = Adriatic Apulia; Apulia I = Ionian Apulia to abbreviations: Apulia A = Adriatic Apulia; Apulia I = Ionian Apulia

All the publications from which data on Aegean-type pottery has been collected are given in the Gazetteer for each site However, the following four publications constitute a useful general reference and have been repeatedly used: Taylour 1958; Vagnetti (ed.) 1982; Marazzi, Tusa and Vagnetti (eds.) 1986 and Pugliese Carratelli et al. (eds.) 1999. Of course, the publications are only one source of data: direct visits to museums and sites as outlined in chapter 2 have been another primary source of information. As sometimes there are one or more sources for each pot, and this chapter summarises almost all data, a considerable number of references would be required for most sentences in this chapter. However, this chapter only presents and interprets the type

and number of each shape, constructing and commenting patterns of usage from such data.There is little scope for the reader to know at each point what sources have been used to obtain the amounts, as details of the pots are often irrelevant in this section. All information discussed in this chapter, unless otherwise specified, is based on summary tables included here and detailed Appendix tables where available. The Gazetteer (p. 106 ff.) provides extensive information on both pottery and sources of information, organised by site. It is in fact a chapter describing the evidence, written previously, and should be read in conjunction with it. Its repetitive analytic structure for each site (presented in alphabetic order) discourages a continuative reading but facilitates the

45

finding of information. A further important distinction that sets the Gazetteer apart is that it is a snapshot of what is known so far and can only be enhanced by further discoveries and researches. Conversely, the availability of new data may alter the conclusions presented in the chapters.

by the Ionian coast.The Aeolian Islands follow in this ranking and they are partly mirrored by the eastern coast. The Ionian area and Sicily are therefore the two major areas with most of the evidence and those with more similarities in their pattern of consumption with the Aegean. Interestingly, this situation immediately suggests the existence of separate and well-oriented pathways for Aegean-type ceramics rather than a single route in which the imprint of the Aegean pattern progressively weakens with increasing distance. This picture does not include the other “minor” routes, each with its own distinctive pattern.

General observations The period LH I – III A 1 is quite different from the following one, which is characterised by a wider range of shapes, more regions and higher quantities. In the first period, two restricted and geographically similar areas, namely the Aeolian Islands and Vivara, dominate the scene. Larger quantities and a wider range of shapes in the Aeolian Islands suggest that these islands played a more important role than Vivara. Cups are the commonest vessel, followed by alabastra, kylikes, jugs and piriform jars. Alabastra and jugs are equally represented within the two areas, whereas cups, kylikes and piriform jars are definitely more common in the Aeolian Islands. However two large sites, Lipari and Filicudi, form part of the Aeolian Islands, which means that there should be more pottery in this island group. Thus, making some allowance for the Aeolian Islands, it results that cups are slightly favoured in the Aeolian Islands, alabastra and jugs are preferred at Vivara while kylikes and piriform jars predominate in the Aeolian Islands (see pp. 234-236).

In the West Mediterranean (see the tables in this chapter) the kylix seems concentrated in Taranto while in the earlier period it was present in the Aeolian Islands and in lower quantities at Vivara (Tyrrhenian coast); it is split between LH III A 1 – 2, confirming a minimal time-lag between the Aegean and West Mediterranean. Unsurprisingly, the bowl is present in significant quantities only in Taranto and at nearby Porto Perone, confirming the link between the two shapes and proving that in the West the transition from one to the other only occurred in a very small area. Broglio is another site where the bowl appears to be frequent, although in smaller quantities, and it is not far from Taranto. On the other hand, cups do start to become less frequent, but their presence (see pp. 234-236) remains stronger than in the Aegean. However, they do appear in the same sites with bowls: Taranto, Porto Perone and Broglio in the Ionian area, and Lipari in the Aeolian Islands. The latter could reveal a pattern similar to that of the Ionian area but with less Aegean-type bowls as a result of the local production of Aegean-derivative/native bowls. Mugs, too, are present in the West in very low quantities, and again in Taranto and Torre Mordillo, a site close to Broglio. The overall situation is that a close link between the Aegean and West Mediterranean emerges again in the consumption patterns of the Ionian area and Sicily, with Taranto and Lipari being the leading centres. The two areas have differences, but they differ more from the rest of the West, and the Near East. Regarding closed storage vessels, the stirrup jar seems very common in Mycenaean Greece, but only in palatial contexts (Mycenae and Pylos in the panel of sites chosen). The difference can be seen statistically (see table 7): stirrup jars have a maximum of 110 (Mycenae), yet the average (median) among all the Aegean sites considered amounts to just nine. The average fits the pattern in the West Mediterranean, but at Taranto stirrup jars register a peak, although still far from the levels of the palatial contexts. Large (“jar”) and small (“piriform jar”) jars are more frequent in the West than in the Aegean, with a concentration in the Ionian area and Sicily. This suggests that at least in the West the polyvalent jar was preferred to the handy stirrup jar. Jugs and alabastra are instead distributed across the whole West Mediterranean in small quantities.

In the Aegean (table 4), the commonest shapes are cups, bowls, kylikes, jugs, alabastra and piriform jars. The absence of bowls (largely craters at this time) in the West is the main difference between the Aegean and the West Mediterranean, and this can be explained because of the strong presence, among the Aegean-derivative and indigenous wares, of traditional bowls and basins since the Sicilian Castelluccian (Aegean equivalent: MH) period. For the rest, the Aeolian Islands appear close to mainland Greece, whereas Vivara seems to depend on the Aeolian Islands, which are a necessary en-route stop for the imports.This would explain the differences between the two areas in a more satisfactory way than would a supposed native preference for some shapes, because the deriving assemblages (cups, kylikes and piriform jars in the Aeolian Islands; cups, alabastra and jugs at Vivara) make little sense individually, whereas the two sets combined match the situation in the Aegean. Sustaining the case for a single route to Vivara via the Aeolian Islands, is the appearance of the same imported bowls, which are present in very small numbers in the Aeolian Islands and totally absent at Vivara. During the second period, LH III A 2 – C, the situation changes but the consumption patterns in the West Mediterranean remain unequivocally similar to those in the Aegean, with some variability among the western regions. The Ionian Apulia (“Apulia I”) seems the area with the closest consumption pattern to that of the Aegean, mirrored in part

The choice of comparable sites tries to represent as many cases as possible: different depositional contexts (e.g. funer-

46

ary, administrative, households), geographical areas, degrees of preservation of the assemblages (e.g. Milatos is a single tomb apparently found sealed while Drachmani – Piperi, as well as Tiryns, are areas where data are partial) and periods of excavation have been selected. No similarity between Aegean and West Mediterranean has been recognised, suggesting that the expansion of the dataset would provide no benefit to any comparison. Only a complete dataset about the Aegean would provide a definitive answer on whether or not there are similarities in patterns. A complete dataset of Mycenaean pottery found in the Aegean would dwarf both the dataset constructed for this research and the work required for it. Since no substantial similarity between any western and Aegean site has ever been reported, and given the difficulties in producing comparable datasets, the use of more or different comparable sites is welcome in further research but appears uncalled for here.

Before beginning the analysis of regional patterns, it is important to stress how any recognised pattern in the West Mediterranean is based on small amounts of pottery. Various tables and illustrative graphics have been produced in the attempt to demonstrate patterns, but results can vary significantly when statistics are made from small numbers. As a general rule, raw quantities, sometimes percentages by site and related tables (e.g. column and pie charts representing raw quantities), are accepted. Results from statistical tables (e.g. Pearson’s correlation tables) and graphics (e.g. boxplots) are accepted only when do not alter any conclusions derived from raw quantities, and statistical trends can be confirmed using archaeological evidence. In many cases trends are nothing more than one possible hypothesis among others, but the methodology of cross-checking patterns using both statistics and archaeological evidence is correct and results only depend on the state of excavations. These hypotheses should therefore be considered as most likely cases, disprovable only by further evidence. The trust placed in tables with raw quantities depends on the care taken in censing all the reported vessels, but such trust should not be extended to statistics, given the small amounts involved and the troublesome state of nearly all excavations.

To sum up, the Ionian area, with Taranto and later also Broglio, and Sicily, with the Aeolian Islands in particular, became the focal area of the exchanges and maintained a close similarity in pottery usage to the Aegean, unmatched elsewhere in the West or the East. However, the consumption pattern detected in the Ionian and Sicilian areas does not match exactly anything in the Aegean, but the difference can be explained by looking at the situation in Mycenaean Greece. Evidently, the imports in the West Mediterranean show local autonomy of choice. The remaining web of exchanges was certainly “minor” in terms of quantity but it cannot be ignored, if only because it reveals a degree of independence from the two (Sicily and Ionian area) focal points. The evident variability shows the innovatory and dynamic approach of the people involved in the exchanges, who probably did not all belong to a single social group – whether Mycenaean palatial elite or any another. In the next sections, a detailed analysis of the functional context in the main regions will provide a sharper view of the complexity of the exchanges. The smaller areas to be considered are eastern Sicily with the Aeolian Islands and western Sicily, both parts of the major area “Sicily” (p. 52 ff.); Ionian Apulia and the Ionian coast, both representing the major area known as the “Ionian”, and two possible minor “routes”, the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic.

Since much of the material has been seen in museums some arbitrary decision on which region the sites belong to has been done, taking into account the type of material seen. When it is not obvious (e.g. chronological difference), some information in this regard is provided in the following discussions of regional patterns (i.e. size divides eastern Sicily from the Aeolian Islands; decoration and size distinguish the material in Ionia from those in Sicily; etc.).The only way to assess the validity of these suggestions is to see the material in museums, although checking some fundamental publications of the major assemblages may suffice. For “minor” western areas and Aegean sites with more than 10 potsherds whose shape has been recognised, tables 5 and 7 provide some basic calculations of the percentages of each shape within any assemblage. Undetermined vessels are accounted for in order to provide an exact amount but not displayed. Undetermined vessels would ideally fall into one of the categories presented, altering the results.

47

Western Sicily

Aeolian Islands

Aegina

Nichoria

Orchomenos

Drachmani - Piperi

jars

5

2

3

11

3

0

p. jars

3

6

4

2

11

21

alabastra

0

10

9

6

13

13

jugs

16

4

12

4

8

13

s. ja rs

3

2

4

0

0

0

flasks

0

0

0

0

0

0

f. bottles

0

0

0

0

2

0

cups

0

38

30

30

19

21

mugs

0

1

4

0

3

3

bowls

0

2

16

4

10

8

kylik es

0

7

3

11

31

15

rhyta

0

0

0

1

0

8

Drachmani - Piperi

Orchomenos

Nichoria

Aegina

Western Sicily

Aeolian Islands

Table 9: Percentages of minor areas and sites with at least 10 vessels recognised, period LH I – III A 1. Values are rounded to the closest integer and Table 9: Percentages of minor areas and sites with at least 10 vessels recognised, period LH I – III A 1. Values are rounded to the closest integer undetermined vessels are accounted for butfornot (i.e. if sum rowofvalues gives 100 then no are undetermined vessels,vessels, if less then missand undetermined vessels are accounted butdisplayed not displayed (i.e. ifofsum row values gives 100there thenare there no undetermined if less ing percentages are undetermined vessels). Western and Drachmani – Piperi have yieldedhave lessyielded than 50less vessels then missing percentages are undetermined vessels).Sicily Western Sicily and Drachmani – Piperi than 50 vessels

Western Sicily

1

Aeolian Isla nds

-0.11842

1

Aegina

0.088596

0.847927

1

Nichoria

-0.06851

0.919542

0.783245

1

Orchomenos

-0.10221

0.54804

0.434939

0.608928

1

Drachmani - Piperi

0.100549

0.66007

0.578322

0.549756

0.730882

1

Table 10: Pearson’s correlations ranging from 1 (equal) to -1 (opposite). Mathematical similarities between assemblages can be recognised with values Table 10: Pearson’s correlations ranging from 1 (equal) to -1 (opposite). Mathematical similarities between assemblages can be recognised with above Data0.5 from table 4-4, LH I4-4, – IIILH A 1I – III A 1 values0.5 above Data from table

48

49

43

18

21

7

0

0

5

0

0

5

0

p. jars

alabastra

jugs

s. jars

flasks

f. bottles

cups

mugs

bowls

kylikes

rhyta

Western Sicily

0

4

9

0

11

0

0

17

2

4

4

24

Sardinia 6

6

17

0

11

0

0

11

0

6

0

11

Aeolian Islands 0

5

22

0

18

0

0

1

4

3

11

5

Apulia A 0

0

38

0

7

0

0

4

8

3

3

23

Apulia I 0

6

31

1

10

0

2

10

7

1

21

11

Ionian coast 0

1

14

4

3

0

0

2

1

1

0

27

Aegina 1

20

17

3

14

1

3

14

12

8

3

1

Nichoria 0

24

29

5

11

2

0

4

3

3

1

5

Nichoria (tholos) 0

0

0

0

0

0

17

50

8

8

0

17

Orchomenos 0

10

51

5

5

1

0

7

9

2

2

9

Tiryns 0

1

50

1

2

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

Zafer Papoura 0

13

7

0

7

2

2

35

22

4

9

0

Milatos 0

14

21

0

7

0

0

29

14

0

0

14

Mycenae decorated 0

1

17

1

9

0

2

61

1

0

9

1

0

24

59

2

2

0

0

8

2

0

2

2

Drachmani - Piperi

0

0

14

0

5

0

0

36

27

1

12

5

Table 11: Percentages of minor areas and sites with at least 10 vessels recognised, period LH III A 2 – III C. Values are rounded to the closest integer and undetermined vessels are accounted for but not displayed (i.e. if sum of row values gives 100 then there are no undetermined vessels, if less then missing percentages are undetermined vessels). Western Sicily, Sardinia, Nichoria (tholos), Zafer Papoura and Milatos have yielded less than 50 vessels

2

Eastern Sicily

jars

Pylos decorated

50

Eastern Sicily

0.295357

0.405737

0.758072

0.179222

0.548263

0.152258

-0.15747

0.29439

-0.27466

-0.02143

-0.26342

-0.06921

Apulia A

Apulia I Ionian Coast

Aegina

Nichoria Nichoria (tholos)

0.488845

0.146119

0.388384

0.01146

-0.21466

0.317834

Sardinia

0.238081

0.636405

0.446988

0.669123

0.16296

0.612238

0.670463

0.231568

0.625254

0.518974

0.579643

0.566412

0.733653

0.617957

1

Aeolian Islands 0.12944

0.651145

0.086999

0.297689

-0.00202

0.707043

0.701927

-0.31965

0.663828

0.512354

0.311035

0.833843

0.690647

1

Apulia A 0.236172

0.73372

0.12545

0.534019

-0.03957

0.842836

0.878122

-0.01994

0.590307

0.286373

0.779937

0.779305

1

Apulia I 0.407496

0.729951

0.3301

0.502076

0.204183

0.760231

0.783762

-0.03169

0.579709

0.405463

0.424393

1

Ionian coast 0.004051

0.317629

-0.01971

0.382846

-0.23119

0.381369

0.469146

0.101807

0.291934

-0.0666

1

Aegina 0.409373

0.636562

0.385733

0.680786

0.593491

0.429023

0.538507

0.106221

0.773622

1

Nichoria 0.000796

0.90394

0.078437

0.507915

0.08195

0.733378

0.80954

-0.25497

1

Nichoria (tholos) 0.6583

-0.14017

0.805726

0.602901

0.673118

-0.19206

-0.11174

1

Orchomenos 0.252893

0.951926

0.200508

0.567535

0.088452

0.974879

1

Tiryns 0.16622

0.921614

0.139994

0.41757

-0.02723

1

Zafer Papoura 0.900827

0.114731

0.781663

0.744973

1

Milatos 0.754092

0.548022

0.727123

1

0.772543

0.211542

1

Mycenae decorated

Drachmani - Piperi 0.162271

1

Table 12: Pearson’s correlations ranging from 1 (equal) to -1 (opposite). Mathematical similarities between assemblages can be recognised with values above 0.5 Data from table 4-4, LH III A 2 – III C

0.661762

0.274366

-0.14169

0.281394

-0.19979

Tiryns Zafer Papoura

Milatos Mycenae Decorated Drachmani - Piperi Pylos Decorated

0.119017

-0.19955

Orchomenos

0.248433

0.187785

0.547624

0.705045

1

-0.33519

-0.09371

1

Western Sicily

Sardinia Aeolian Islands

Eastern Sicily Western Sicily

1

Pylos decorated

Regional studies

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

FEEDING BOTTLE

UNKNOWN CLOSED

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

UNKNOWN OPEN

CLOSED

OPEN

0

5

5

2

3

0

0

18

6

0

0

2

0

2

33

10

43

Lipari

3

4

11

5

0

0

0

21

54

1

3

9

0

0

44

67

111

LH I - III A 1 Aeolian Islands

Salina

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

1

4

2

6

LH III A 2 - C Aeolian Islands

Lipari

3

2

0

2

1

0

0

15

12

0

13

1

0

0

23

26

49

LH III A 2 - C Aeolian Islands

Panarea

1

6

2

1

0

0

0

7

1

0

3

3

0

0

17

7

24

LH I - III A 1 Eastern Sicily

Milocca

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

ALL

JAR

Filicudi

LH I - III A 1 Aeolian Islands

AREA

LH I - III A 1 Aeolian Islands

TIME

SITE

Eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands

LH I - III A 1 Eastern Sicily

Molinello

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Borg en Nadur

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Buscemi

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily Cozzo del Pantano

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Floridia

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Pantalica

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Syracuse

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Thapsos

1

26

9

11

2

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

0

0

49

4

53

LH III A 2 - C Eastern Sicily

Ustica

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Table 11: Aegean-type pottery in Eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands Table 11: Aegean-type pottery in Eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands

The Aeolian Islands were possibly both the earliest and latest destinations for Aegean sailors; the Aegean-type pottery found there dates from the late MH to the LH III C. The only alternative earliest destination is to the western side of Sicily: Monte Grande, although the earliest Aegean-derivative materials and possibly imports, two violin-type figurines, were unearthed in Camaro, eastern Sicily. Moreover, this region accounts for two sound sets of data, one from the Aeolian Islands (Bernabò Brea 1991; Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968, 1979; Bernabò Brea et al. 1980), largely recovered from settlements and with good stratigraphy, and one from eastern Sicily (Orsi 1895, 1897, 1899, 1902, 1903; Voza 1973a, 1973b, 1999), largely recovered from tombs and therefore mostly complete vessels. It is also worth mentioning that the exchanges in this region reached their peak during LH III A – B (as in the East Mediterranean), but unlike the rest of the West.

that fine pottery, particularly cups and jars containing staple foods, were the earliest commodities imported, with the former being the first choice, any surplus of which was then allowed to continue on to Vivara, and the latter probably supplying the needs of the islanders. Supporting this hypothesis are the patterns, which are similar in the choice of shapes (e.g. jars, alabastra, jugs, cups and goblets/kylikes) and quantities, but jars, cups and goblets/kylikes are much fewer in Vivara, where the more abundant plain wares (and only scarce preliminary information is available on their shapes; Re 1991; Cazzella et al. 1991; Re in Pugliese Carratelli et al. 1999; Marazzi and Tusa 2001) seem to compensate the unbalance. The reliable data on decorated wares suggest a similarity in the patterns; the type and quality of material appears similar; geographically the islands are located on the same Tyrrhenian route and preliminary (uncertain) data about Aegean-type plain wares (as well as any Aegeanderivative wares) suggest that they were, in part, covering for a scarcity of certain desired vessels (particularly cups). If future research at Vivara on ceramic categories, other than decorated Aegean-type) proves that Aegeanised cups are frequent, it seems possible that the islands were visited by the same ships and the islanders appreciated the same vessels.

The earliest finds in the Aeolian Islands are jars, particularly if we take into consideration the “undetermined” as well as the “Cycladic” and “Minoan” potsherds, which appear to be from two early jars. Remarkably, there is very little Aegeanderivative or Aegean-type plain pottery here compared to Monte Grande and Vivara. This suggests that selection here played a particular role from the beginning, with a clear preference for pattern-decorated ware that was to become the standard choice in the West Mediterranean. It seems

During LH III A 1 period, medium-sized piriform jars and alabastra are also common in domestic contexts. In addition to these shapes, notwithstanding the supremacy of cups, ky-

51

likes are also frequent here as well as at Vivara. The kylikes in the Aeolian Islands never reached the same quantities as in Apulia, but they appear as early as in the Aegean, whereas in the Ionian area there is evidence of some time-lag. This is the result of both the absence of kylikes and the late persistence of cups, including the finding of an exceptional Vapheio cup from Torre Santa Sabina, dating possibly to the LH III B 1.

coast; it was a previously unused harbour, so the activities of the Aegean sailors met with no opposition or competition. The development of Thapsos was a reaction to the loss of both Vivara and Monte Grande from the exchange network. Thapsos is unique because it is not a simple example of a harbour being revamped to host new traffic, the material culture blossoming there is more Aegean in its inspiration than any other in the West Mediterranean. In addition, Vivara was probably dependant in part on the choice of the Aegean traders and the imposed filter effect of the Aeolian Islands, where the finest wares seem to have stopped: this casts doubt on the degree of independent choice the people there could have exercised. On the contrary, the analysis of the shapes present at Thapsos proves a cultural connection with the Aeolian Islands. However, because of the different depositional contexts, the medium-sized jars of the Aeolian Islands are replaced by small piriform jars in Thapsos, the open vessels are affected by the Aegean-derivative wares, and overall the pots are different in spite of the similarities of shape. Thapsos and the Aeolian Islands shared the same basic material culture and this is the reason for the similarities in the functional context. But differences among the Aegean-type pots reflect also the difference between the two cultures, which developed separately and are similar, largely due to their ties with the Aegean culture, in the size and type (“style”) of vessels. This proves that Thapsos maintained its cultural originality when the exchanges in the Near East reached their zenith. Whilst there is no evidence suggesting particular strength in the Aegean connection in the West Mediterranean at this time, Cypriot materials and true imitations of these are found in Thapsos tombs.

Eastern Sicily during the LH I – III A 1 is probably excluded from the exchanges, except for three piriform jars dating to the very end of the period and which are perhaps evidence of a new enterprise by the Aegean people in the area of modern Syracuse. Thapsos, a peninsula located halfway along the coast, could offer shelter to ships, and from the beginning it was certainly a safe port of call en route to the Aeolian Islands, but it really developed in conjunction with the exchanges of Aegean-type material during LH III A 2, when Vivara was abandoned by the Aegean people. Similar peninsulas can be found to the south, such as Ognina, the main harbour on the way to Malta, or Syracuse, but these were in use for local traffic and there was apparently a preference, on the Aegean side, for a site located halfway along the eastern coast of Sicily. This site probably developed because it is the first strip of land encountered by ships coming from the Ionian coast of Calabria. Malta was probably only included in regional traffic, so that the few Aegeantype vessels found there probably came from Sicily. Thapsos is a good reflection of all the characteristics of the area, thanks to its reference assemblage coming exclusively from tombs. The material from the other sites in the area also derived from tombs, but these are scattered over several cemeteries. The assemblages from the tombs with Aegeantype material are therefore exceptional within each cemetery and do not represent any coherent group. Although the depositional context will be analysed in detail in the next chapter, it should be noticed that in the settlement of Thapsos (almost entirely excavated), just a few potsherds were unearthed within a small sector. This compares to the Aeolian Islands, where Aegean-type pottery never appears in the rare tombs, but it is present, in unusually high percentages, throughout the entire ceramic assemblage: it accounts for up to one third.

To sum up, when the exchange network is curtailed, the people exchanging Aegean-type pottery in Sicily and Vivara reveal great knowledge of the territory, the capacity to mediate with the natives, the commercial skill of meeting the potential demand of people, rather than proposing a fixed Aegean choice, and an impressive unity and organisation. LH III B Thapsos seems a strategic port of call and an important “market”, intended as a place of exchange, and it had literally been created to maintain an exchange network. Normally, centres that acquire regional importance begin to be linked in longer distance exchanges, so that the network is the product of the “market” not the opposite as here. The introduction of imitations, which has been recognised for some Cypriot pots, and the adaptability of the exchanges suggest that some production centres were actively involved in the exchanges, but also that these centres could have been located in the West Mediterranean itself. In this case, the people involved in the exchange network would have been able to set up production centres as well as “markets”, modifying the demand to suit their mobility and interests.

Returning to the functional context, it seems that the shapes found in Thapsos, dating from LH III A 2 to LH III B 2, are very similar to those in use in the Aeolian Islands, both contemporarily and earlier. Differences exist regarding the open vessels, but the rooted traditions of the area play a significant role in this, so that the degree of homogeneity may really be considered as very high. Thapsos appears to have been deliberately developed by the Aegean people, something that could be inferred also for Taranto, but not proved. The site had been chosen for its strategic position, close to the regional southern routes but conveniently located at the arrival point of ships coming from the Ionian

The LH III A 2 – C Aeolian Islands saw a strong reduction of the exchanges, and already during LH III B very few pots found their way to the islands. Interestingly, the islands were

52

abandoned after Thapsos, in spite of the latter being much more important during LH III B. However, the two areas are complementary, at least as regards the different depositional context, and this is expressed in a preference for open vessels in the islands and for closed ones on the coast.

are known to have been grown only in the distant isle of Ternate, in the Moluccan Islands, over 9,000 Km away. It is therefore possible that Cypriot pottery may have evoked, in Bronze Age Sicily, the exotic and undefined places of provenance of the preserving spices contained in the same vessels. The same vessels may have been appreciated as rare and valuable items in part also because of their association with spices, and it is no impediment to this hypothesis that the Cypriot pottery found in Sicily was probably not produced in Cyprus (Karageorghis 1995), but it may have been manufactured in the Aegean. Preliminary chemical analyses (Jones, Levi and Vagnetti 2002) suggest this to be the case for most LH I – LH III A Aegean-type pottery found in the West Mediterranean.

The majority of closed vessels on the eastern coast of Sicily, and their consistent funerary context, appear to represent a significant connection. As we shall see in the next chapter, most tombs are narrow with small niches and suit small vessels. However, large decorated basins were constantly part of funerary assemblages and these were so large that in some cases it is probable they could pass through the narrow entrance only when broken. Therefore why have no larger Aegean-type vessels, such as those found in the Aeolian Islands, been recovered from tombs? It seems plausible that the contents may provide an answer.Whilst no residuals have been found in Aegean-type vessels, their shape and context limits the possible functions they may have had. Perfumed oils and spices may be the most likely contents (Harding 2000: 299) because they were sometimes produced in the Aegean (Dickinson 1994: 238) as well as exchanged across the Mediterranean (e.g. spices and resins in the Uluburun shipwreck; Pulak 1998) and could survive long enough to be transported across considerable distances. Whilst spices such as salt and oils may have been employed as condiments and preservatives for foods in the vessels reaching the Aeolian Islands, spices as aromatics and preservatives for decomposing flesh may have formed the contents of the Aegean-type vessels reaching the eastern coast of Sicily. In antiquity, the term “spices” was an umbrella for an extraordinary variety of products and uses, having in common two main qualities: high value and portability. The possibility that spices were indeed contained in the Aegean-type vessels fits the evidence well, partly because of the vagueness of the term. The evidence, which we shall review in more detail in the next chapter, supports the view that foods preserved in lower value spices were probably used in the Aeolian Islands as an additional source of food. Aromatic spices would fit the evidence more appropriately on the eastern coast. There, long lasting spices would be ideal in a context where the vessels were reused. Their high value would also be consistent with a strategy of wealth display, where long lasting valuable items would form part of the assets of a family and would be stored in tombs as much as metal objects were. Furthermore, spices with these properties could also cover the odours of decomposition and preserve human flesh. The practice of using preserving and aromatic spices in burials is well documented, from Egyptian mummies to Medieval Christian saints, and is not exclusive to the Mediterranean region (Turner 2005: 168). Finally, these kinds of spices may have been connected to distant places in the East, one of the earliest and most enduring commercial interactions ever in human history. For example, a few traces of cloves (Caryophyllus aromaticus) have been found as early as 1721 B.C. in a safely dated destruction context in the Mesopotamian settlement of Terqa. Cloves

Lewartowski (2000) has studied Aegean LH simple graves, which were used only once and therefore useful to determine the typical burial. He evidenced the absence of any recurrent set of vases in the Aegean graves (2000: 30 ff.), the preference for pattern-painted vessels comprising around half the total, and cups (drinking vessels). Furthermore, Mountjoy (1993: 114) noticed the frequency of small vessels during the Sub-Mycenaean and related this to the restricted dimensions of the graves. Lewartowski (2000: 1 ff.) argues that the pattern “small vessels in small tombs” is frequent in any period. Conversely, at Thapsos, there is clear evidence of ceramic sets, although these do not use Aegean-type wares and there are only pattern-painted vessels and a few Aegean-type cups. The small size of the vessels may well be explained by the small dimensions of the graves, but at Thapsos, Aegean-type pots are deposited in the wealthiest and largest tombs. Although Lewartowski (2000: 28) admits that “it is difficult to deduce for what reason vases were placed in tombs and graves” (2000: 28), he concludes, “drinking vessels and animal bones are evidence of libations and funeral feasts taking place while the grave was still opened” (2000: 59). The categorisation used by Lewartowski reflects the supposed ceremonial function of the vessels: he divides them into “containers or storage, pouring, drinking, eating, feeding, mixing, cultic, accessories” (2000: 28). At Thapsos libations and funeral feasts seem possible because there are both drinking vessels and animal bones, but the vessels that may have been used for these purposes were Aegean-derivative, not Aegean-type. Thus, it can be concluded that the function of Aegean-type vessels in graves differs between the West Mediterranean (especially at Thapsos) and the Aegean.

53

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

FEEDING BOTTLE

UNKNOWN CLOSED

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

UNKNOWN OPEN

CLOSED

OPEN

Madre Chiesa

2

1

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

6

LH I - III A 1

Monte Grande

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

0

31

ALL

JAR

LH I - III A 1

TIME

SITE

Western Sicily

LH III A 2 - C

Agrigento

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C

Cannatello

10

1

2

1

8

0

0

10

4

0

3

2

0

0

32

9

41

LH III A 2 - C

Milena

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

2

LH III A 2 - C

Sant'Angelo Muxaro

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

LH III A 2 - C

Scirinda

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Table 12: Aegean-type pottery in Western Sicily Table 12: Aegean-type pottery in Western Sicily

Western Sicily is a region centred on the Platani valley in southern central Sicily. In the early period, LH I – III A 1, only the coastal site of Monte Grande is active, which is a group of sites surrounding a cave of sulphur. There, most of the pottery is not pattern-painted decorated, but there is a potsherd of possible eastern origin and some types of uncommon pottery that make this site unique in the Mediterranean. Interestingly, the Aegina gold mica ware is represented.The few recognised and decorated vessels belong either to jars, which are the commonest shape overall among plain and coarse Aegean-type pottery, or to jugs, with the stirrup jar being barely represented. The function of this pottery is clear: transport of goods for exchange, a fact emphasised by the large-scale use of undecorated pottery.

absent in the local tradition. The finding of few possible hybrid pots mixing indigenous Castelluccian and Aegean traits (Castellana 1998, 2000) suggests that some interaction between people occurred, but this appears to have been on a limited scale involving technological skills rather than cultural and behavioural expressions. In the following period, LH III A 2 – C, the Aegean-related activities in the region are contemporary to those at Thapsos and therefore limited to the LH III A 2 – B. Hybrid pots open the way to the possibility of contacts continuing through the two periods, although the last actual imports to Monte Grande seem to end during LH II B, or at the latest in early LH III A 1, whereas renewed contacts do not seem to begin before the late LH III A 2. This would leave a hiatus the length of the LH III A, which can only be confirmed by further research in the region.

The extraction of sulphur on the site did not support a sustainable settlement in the area, so that social interaction on the site had to be limited and largely motivated by the sulphur.This gives a hint of the importance of volcanic materials as exotic and precious materials: the three early sites, namely Monte Grande, the Aeolian Islands and Vivara are all volcanic places. Aegean-type cups are absent in spite of their massive presence elsewhere, both in the Aegean and West Mediterranean. However, indigenous open vessels possibly used for “drinking together” practices were found in the enclosures at Baffo Superiore (Monte Grande), supporting the hypothesis that this practice took place also at the time of the exchanges. It seems unlikely that the practice was imported to the West Mediterranean by the Aegean people, and it became typical of the exchanges between eastern and western populations. In the Castelluccian culture, enclosures like those at Monte Grande are common, and in spite of differences in the evidence found inside between ordinary Castelluccian and Monte Grande enclosures (reviewed in the next chapter), open vessels suitable for drinking together are present in both contexts. It appears that the Italic people acquired Aegean-type cups as part of a “ceramic” set, which was then used independently by the indigenous people and not firmly linked to one practice, evidently not

The functional context suggests a link with the past, as jars are the most common vessel, with undecorated but marked transport jars being present at Cannatello. The stronger presence of stirrup jars probably reflects the later date of this assemblage, but they do not supplant the jars in their supremacy as transport and storage vessels. This fact contrasts with the apparent situation in Aegean palatial contexts, where stirrup jars are the dominant decorated vessel at this time. In the Near East during the same period stirrup jars seem at least as popular as jars, although less so in Cyprus. The open vessels account for about a quarter of the total and are mainly cups, bowls and kylikes. Two bronze deep bowls from a tomb in Caldare (Orsi 1897; Vagnetti 1968a) are of possible Cypriot manufacture. Cypriot influence can be recognised also in some Aegean-type pots and at least in the transport jar from Cannatello with Cypriot marks. This trend of progressive influence from Cyprus can be detected also on the eastern coast, but less in the Aeolian Islands, and it seems to be connected with the opening of a new route to Sardinia via the Aeolian Islands and probably Ustica.

54

The assemblages in western Sicily are close to those in Sardinia (table 4), especially the homogenous assemblage from Nuraghe Antigori, which strengthens the possibility of the Platani valley and Ustica being developed as an alternative internal route to Sardinia. This would have happened when the Aeolian Islands began to be under threat from people of Apennine culture, who had earlier destroyed Vivara. The Aeolian Islands were soon conquered by incoming people of Apennine culture (the Ausonians), who forced the abandonment of all the islands but Lipari and brought about a mixture of the Apennine and pre-existing Aeolian Ausonian cultures. During this period, the exchanges fade out rapidly and Lipari itself is abandoned. Thus, the reintroduction of exchanges after a hiatus or diminution of overseas relationships would have had a dual purpose: partly a manoeuvre to regain an area of interest for the exchanges, as detectable in the prominence of jars as in the previous period, and partly a fresh attempt to expand the exchange network.This process was similar to that during LH III A 2 Thapsos, which we have seen above was developed in order to replace Vivara and strengthen the Aegean presence in the area. The similarity between the newly introduced open vessels, the presence of jars and stirrup jars, and the Cypriot influence, all point to a connection between western Sicily and Sardinia.

tomb 57 seems to be the remains of a cup and was probably not an isolated case (tomb 38). In western Sicily, the preponderance of plain jars (the thousands of undecorated potsherds) suggests a “materialistic” interest in the contents rather than the containers, an impression perhaps supported by the scarcity of open vessels. The latter can be considered either precious in themselves or too few to sustain their importance in any social activity. In addition, the simultaneous employment of cups, kylikes and bowls suggests that their associated meaning (in what could be a “drinking together” practice) was not relevant, or we would recognise a preference for one as noted in the other regions. The possible irrelevance of the “drinking together” practice for the exchanges can be recognised also in Sardinia, where precious materials of possible Aegean origin, such as the oxhide ingots, raw metal ingots, or ivory objects, are not associated with any open vessel. Hence, while in the Aeolian Islands,Vivara and the Ionian area the open vessels suggest some ceremonial use, as in the Aegean, westwards into western Sicily and Sardinia, this does not seem to be the case. However, the rhyton found at Nuraghe Antigori in Sardinia and the enclosures in western Sicily suggest that alternative practices took place at the time of the encounters, still possibly involving the sharing of food or drinks, but excluding Aegean-type cups. This could be explained with similar practices being in use in western Sicily (enclosures), such as at Thapsos (deep bowls) or in Sardinia, with the necessity to vary the practice because probably the Nuragic society required only few representatives to participate (one rhyton and a restricted number of vessels).

The Cypriot influence, as well as the presence of bronze bowls, suggests a possible function for the Aegean-type vessels as prestige items.This role can also be recognised on the eastern coast, but it is not associated with the high value attributed to particularly exotic imports, rather it is simply a display of wealth through the acquisition of precious metals or very rare vessels. At Thapsos, a piece of copper sheet from

TIME

SITE

JAR

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

FEEDING BOTTLE

UNKNOWN CLOSED

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

UNKNOWN OPEN

CLOSED

OPEN

ALL

Ionian Apulia

LH III A 2 - C

Avetrana

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

3

4

LH III A 2 - C

Parabita

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

LH III A 2 - C

Porto Cesareo

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

3

3

6

LH III A 2 - C

Porto Perone

9

5

0

3

1

0

0

1

20

0

47

1

0

0

19

68

87

LH III A 2 - C

Taranto+Punta Tonno all reported vessels

19

65

2

15

30

6

0

0

14

3

48

19

0

0

137

84

221

LH III A 2 - C

Torre Castelluccia

9

0

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

14

7

21

Table 13: Aegean-type pottery on the Ionian coast of Apulia Table 13: Aegean-type pottery on the Ionian coast of Apulia

Apulia is a long peninsula and a natural door to the West for Aegean people even today, given its proximity to mainland Greece. Most of its land is coastline, and all of its territory is scattered with discoveries of Aegean-type pottery. When sites were not directly on the sea, they still were close to the sea. Because it is a peninsula, it has two sides that are not divided by any mountain, as in Calabria; there is a largely

flat landscape between the two coasts. The cultural context is largely homogenous throughout the territory, yet the two sides are clearly different when we consider Aegean-type pottery. On the Adriatic coast, materials dating to early contacts (LH I – II) have been found in small numbers and this low level of contacts continues unbroken up to the local early Iron Age. In contrast, on the Ionian coast, materials are

55

later, concentrated in the LH III B – C period, but in Ionian Apulia huge quantities of pots have been found and one site, Taranto, evidently played a major role in the exchanges. Ionian Apulia is similar to the Ionian coast of Basilicata and Calabria and the whole coastline up to modern Crotone is a homogenous region for both indigenous culture and the presence (for a pattern of consumption and distribution; see table 21, p. 217-218) of Aegean-type pottery. From Crotone to Reggio Calabria, strong contacts with the cultures of eastern Sicily and a few sites with early Aegean-type pottery (LH I) connect this area with Sicily on one side and possibly Adriatic Apulia on the other.

region differs particularly in the preference for jars rather than stirrup jars. The apparent connection with Aegina must not be overexploited, although the percentages for stirrup jars and bowls are also very similar. However, while an identity of consumption pattern with an Aegean site should not be expected, the overall similarities are strong and sufficient enough to distinguish Taranto from its region and enable it to be considered closer to the Aegean patterns. Aegina, however, remains a very interesting site in this study because one of its early (LH I) wares, the Aegina gold mica ware, has been found in Monte Grande, western Sicily, and LH III A – B pottery from Thapsos is stylistically very close to the Aeginetan examples. Now, the analogous LH III B – C consumption pattern detected at Taranto points again to Aegina, suggesting some long-term involvement of Aegina in the exchanges with the West Mediterranean.

It is in this context of an homogenous but distinct cultural context that Ionian Apulia and the functional context of Aegean-type pottery found there needs to be discussed. Interestingly, Aegean-type pottery is here a distinctive variable with an unequalled significance in the West Mediterranean; it helps to distinguish what is probably a different cultural identity, where both geography and other material culture fail to identify differences. All sites found in the Ionian area (“Apulia I” and “Ionian coast”) date to the LH III A 2 – C, but for Capo Piccolo, which is on the Ionian coast but culturally different.

Open vessels show differences across the Ionian area and the difference between Taranto and Ionian Apulia remains. Its geographic position, squeezed between two minor areas, the Ionian coast and Ionian Apulia, and at the heart of the major region “Ionia” (Ionian area), causes doubts over which area Taranto belongs to. The only site in the Ionian area with a similar pattern is Torre Castelluccia, in Ionian Apulia, which has a troubled depositional context and a limited amount of pottery, both of which suggest caution should be taken in any analysis. However, none of the patterns detected in any nearby region matches that recognisable at Taranto, therefore the attribution of this site to Ionian Apulia is acceptable.

Closed and open vessels are equally balanced in this region (table 21, p. 217-218) as on the Ionian coast, but at Taranto there are slightly more closed vessels. Beginning our review with the closed vessels, jars (large) and piriform jars (largely medium-sized) seem to be directly related to stirrup jars; both shapes were reserved for storage and a preference for one affects the other. This situation is particularly evident when considering the Ionian coast: while in Ionian Apulia jars and stirrup jars are equally balanced, on the Ionian coast the preference for the jar clearly depresses the presence of stirrup jars. Taranto, the most important site in Ionian Apulia, and in the West Mediterranean as well, is the site that maintains the balance between the two shapes otherwise Ionian Apulia and the Ionian coast would show a preference for jars, more pronounced on the Ionian coast, which can be noticed throughout the West Mediterranean. Thus,Taranto, a site outstanding for the quantity of Aegeantype pottery it returned, seems also different considering the functional context.

In Ionian Apulia bowls are by far the commonest vessel, followed by cups, kylikes and mugs. However, at Taranto, there are more kylikes than in the rest of the region, including both Ionian minor areas. Hence, piriform jars, jugs, stirrup jars, flasks and even kylikes can almost exclusively be found at Taranto. For the rest, the differences in quantities between Taranto and Ionian Apulia seem more balanced. The presence of more kylikes at Taranto suggests a closer similarity of this site with the Aegean, although the overall distribution of the other open vessels in this region is also similar to the Aegean pattern. In Ionian Apulia, there is an overall balance between closed and open vessels, although when Taranto is excluded there is a clear imbalance. Slicing the Ionian area in three, the eastern side (Ionian Apulia) shows a preference for open vessels, the centre (Taranto) for closed vessels, and on the western side (Ionian coast), there is a good balance between the two. The general pattern is consistent among the sites within each area. Thus Taranto does not fit any pattern in the Ionian area or even further afield (Adriatic Apulia). The result is that each of the three regions is different, and the overall balance in Ionian Apulia, which appears when we include Taranto, is misleading and not comparable to an apparently similar but internally homogenous situation on the Ionian coast.

Alabastra are very restricted and present only at Taranto, and there are few jugs, although at Taranto there are more jugs than in the rest of the Ionian area (Ionian Apulia and Ionian coast). It seems that these two shapes were rare all along the coast, except in Taranto. Similarly,Taranto returned the only flasks that have been found in the West Mediterranean. In Greece these vessels are generally rare and on Aegina, a site included in the panel of Aegean sites used for comparisons with the West Mediterranean, the absolute quantity is lower but, more importantly, in both cases they constitute 2.7% of the assemblage. To sum up, the consumption pattern at Taranto is close to that of the Aegean, while the rest of the

56

TIME

SITE

JAR

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

FEEDING BOTTLE

UNKNOWN CLOSED

CUP

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

UNKNOWN OPEN

CLOSED

OPEN

ALL

Ionian coast

LH I - III A 1

Capo Piccolo

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

3

LH III A 2 – C

Broglio

81

0

3

1

3

0

0

62

9

9

35

3

0

100

150

156

306

LH III A 2 – C

Motta di Cirò

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 – C

San Vito

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

6

3

9

LH III A 2 - C

Termitito Timpone Motta (Francavilla Marittima)

6

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

1

0

10

2

0

0

10

13

23

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C

Toppo Daguzzo

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

1

4

LH III A 2 - C

Torre Mordillo

6

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

1

4

4

0

0

0

10

9

19

LH III A 2 - C

Table 14: Aegean-type pottery on the Ionian coast Table 14: Aegean-type pottery on the Ionian coast

The Ionian coast is the geographical continuation of Ionian Apulia, but the consumption pattern differs from any other in nearby areas. The area stretches from about modern Taranto, which is included in the Ionian Apulia area, to modern Crotone, which is included with Capo Piccolo in this area. This site, the only one in the area that dates to LH I or II, is in a cultural context close to that of eastern Sicily. Only one jar, one jug and one cup could be identified, and these are all common shapes.The cup and jug could be part of a set for drinking, and the jar a container for some commodity, possibly wine. Two points are of interest: the shapes do not seem to indicate transport and storage of goods as the main reason for their acquisition, but rather a new fashion in consumption, probably connected with the arrival of new products such as wine. The other interesting point is that the different cultural context persists throughout times, even during the Iron Age; this means that the Ionian area is culturally not homogenous.

of Broglio, and most of these are open vessels (28%). Nevertheless, cups, mugs, bowls and kylikes are all represented. Cups and kylikes are few, and since kylikes at least are generally easier to recognise, their presence in low numbers should be certain. The surprising quantity of mugs, outnumbering cups, would suggest that many undetermined open vessels are probably cups, although even taking only identified cups into consideration, they are as numerous as at Taranto or in the rest of Ionian Apulia. Bowls are the commonest open vessel, and their quantities are similar to those at Taranto, but even here, more bowls could be hidden among the indeterminate vessels. To conclude, on the Ionian coast there is a strong polarisation of Aegean-type vessels towards two shapes: jars (large jars and possibly medium-sized jars among the unrecognised vessels) for storage, and bowls (with possibly many cups and other bowls among the undetermined vessels) for consumption. The two are somewhat balanced. The consumption pattern that can be recognised is very peculiar and simple, distinct from any other in Mycenaean Greece or the West Mediterranean. Most of the Aegean-type pottery appears to be of Italic manufacture, like the LH III C pottery in Adriatic Apulia, but probably unlike the pottery in Ionian Apulia, and especially Taranto. Unfortunately any assertion based on petrography is highly uncertain, as no comprehensive sampling has been carried out.Yet, apart from scientific analyses, stylistic analyses (by Vagnetti in Peroni et al. 1998 and the present author) suggest that only a handful of pots in Broglio are imported, and these vessels are among the earliest.Their shapes – transport jars, jugs and alabastra – are almost as distinctive as their style. These vessels do not differ from those found in Ionian Apulia. What makes the area different is the massive production, or at least use, of jars to store goods and bowls and possibly cups to be used in the consumption of these same goods. Evidently, the employment of Aegean-type pottery for these uses suggests that the goods originally arrived from the Aegean (wine?

In the later period, LH III A 2 – C, large jars outnumber both smaller piriform jars and stirrup jars. Jugs and alabastra are also few, leading to the conclusion that jars are the only successful closed shape in the region. Dolia, native pithoilike vessels that were produced in the same area and storage buildings suggest that one of the main activities connected to the exchanges with the Aegean was the storage of goods and to a lesser extent transport, redistribution or consumption.Transport (undecorated) jars seem almost absent (there are only three), and other shapes indicating possible movement of goods, like smaller piriform and stirrup jars are very few, as are jugs, usually associated with immediate consumption. The implication of this is that goods were stored locally using Aegean-type pots, but the goods were neither imported, nor redistributed, nor exported. They simply did not move. Open and closed shapes are fairly balanced, but there are too many unidentified vessels (46%), particularly at the site

57

oil?) and the Italic people associated them with certain pots and certain ways of consuming them.

AREA

SITE

JAR

PIRIFORM JAR

ALABASTRON

JUG

STIRRUP JAR

FLASK

MUG

BOWL

KYLIX

RHYTON

UNKNOWN OPEN

CLOSED

OPEN

ALL

LH I - III A 1

Apulia A

Bari

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH I - III A 1

Apulia A

Giovinazzo

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

LH I - III A 1

Apulia A

Molinella

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH I - III A 1

Apulia A

Roca Vecchia

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

2

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Coppa Nevigata

10

0

1

2

0

0

0

5

0

0

3

0

0

0 18

3

21

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Cozzo Marziotta

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Leuca

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 13

0

0

0

2

13

15

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Madonna del Petto

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Monopoli

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Oria

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Otranto

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Punta Le Terrare

1

2

0

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

6

2

8

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Roca Vecchia

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0 10

0

0

0

2

10

12

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Torre Guaceto

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

FEEDING BOTTLE UNKNOWN CLOSED CUP

TIME

Two “minor” routes: the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic coast

LH III A 2 - C

Apulia A

Torre Santa Sabina

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

2

3

5

LH III A 2 – C

Iberia

Coria del Río

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 – C

Iberia

Llanete de los Moros (Montoro)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

LH III A 2 – C

Northern Adriatic coast

Castello del Tartaro

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 – C

Northern Adriatic coast

Fondo Paviani

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

LH III A 2 – C

Northern Adriatic coast

Torcello

0

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

4

1

5

LH III A 2 – C

Northern Adriatic coast

Villa Bartolomea (Fabbrica dei Soci)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

LH III A 2 – C

Sardinia

Nuraghe Antigori

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

1

0

2

1

1

1

6

6

12

LH III A 2 – C

Sardinia

Orosei

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

4

4

LH III A 2 – C

Sardinia

Orroli

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 – C

Sardinia

Su Fraigu

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

LH I - III A 1

Tyrrhenian coast

Vivara

0

1 14

6

0

0

0 91 16

0

0

3

0

8 112 27 139

LH III A 2 – C

Tyrrhenian coast

Casale Nuovo

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

LH III A 2 – C

Tyrrhenian coast

Eboli

0

0

1

0

0

0

0 11

4

0

0

0

0

0 12

4

16

LH III A 2 – C

Tyrrhenian coast

Ischia

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

3

LH III A 2 – C

Tyrrhenian coast

Luni sul Mignone

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

1

5

LH III A 2 – C

Tyrrhenian coast

Polla

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

Table 15: Aegean-type pottery on the Adriatic coast of Apulia and the northern Adriatic coast (Adriatic); the Tyrrhenian coast, Sardinia and Iberia Table 15: Aegean-type pottery on the Adriatic coast of Apulia and the northern Adriatic coast (Adriatic); the Tyrrhenian coast, Sardinia and Iberia (Tyrrhenian) (Tyrrhenian)

Eastern and western Sicily can be combined into a larger geographically delimited region – Sicily – and the same can be achieved combining Ionian Apulia and the Ionian coast. The complexity of the functional contexts might suggest that both “routes” are the product of related areas. On the contrary, however, Sicily and the Ionian area cannot be easily compared. On this mosaic of cultural expressions, only a small area of the West Mediterranean has been included,

which contrasts with the scale of diffusion of Aegean-type pottery in the Aegean or in the Near East. However, in this region less material is scattered across an enormous space that may be divided into two large areas, one roughly centred on the Tyrrhenian Sea and the other on the Adriatic coast of the Italian peninsula. In both areas, the quantity of materials never allows for an interpretation with the same degree of confidence, or detail, maintained in the previous

58

regions, yet the few main sites provide some interesting indications, as well as links with Sicily in the case of the Tyrrhenian area, or the Ionian area, particularly Taranto, in the case of the Adriatic coast.

noticeably missing, but the ninety-one undesignated potsherds of closed vessels mostly look suspiciously like parts of jars, although the excavators are correctly cautious. The same can also be said for the Aeolian Islands, where fortytwo undesignated potsherds could increase the number of the thirteen jars recognised. Jars were probably far commoner than alabastra or jugs, but their presence separates the two archipelagos from Monte Grande. The case was different for open vessels, which do not reach 20% of the overall total, far from the almost 50% in the Aeolian Islands (see tables 7 and 9). Cups are the preferred choice, but there are also kylikes, which are probably simply decorated goblets in this case. A few undesignated vessels would not change the situation.The similarity with the Aeolian Islands is confirmed; jars do not seem to be the problem. The lack of open vessels seems due to retention of these vessels in the Aeolian Islands, where cups are the commonest shape, even if all the undesignated potsherds are taken as jars. Cups were certainly also appreciated at Vivara, so that a lower quantity there does not indicate a different pattern of consumption.

Briefly, the area centred on the Tyrrhenian Sea had its first port of call at Vivara, one of the three major sites in early times and after Vivara’s demise the focus shifted to Sardinia. Although only one site on that island deserves some attention, Sarroch with its two nuraghi, some other material is scattered all over the island and there is a discrete presence of oxhide ingots as well. In addition, the very few pots found in Iberia, and probably having arrived there through Sardinia, witness the importance of Sardinia for the exchanges as much as the oxhide ingots and Aegean-type pottery do. Sardinia then would have become a terminus for the exchanges, as Vivara was earlier, suggesting some connection between the two in terms of why they were important to the Aegean people. The other area discussed here, the Adriatic coast, is all but homogenous, yet it received the first Aegean-type imports well before the Ionian area, proving that Aegean people targeted the Adriatic coast and Sicily, passing but not stopping through the Ionian area (except for Capo Piccolo). Because early pots are few and scattered across vast areas, and without any apparent continuity with the later pots, it is supposed here that early pots found on the Adriatic coast are imports whereas later pots are partly locally produced after the spread of the technique from Ionia. However, selective consumption remains a possibility, especially considering that geographical vicinity with the Aegean probably meant that contacts between the two sides of the Adriatic never ceased. In the later period the influence from the Ionian area becomes apparent in a series of complicated but never broken connections that suddenly shifted from an early preference for the Adriatic coast of Apulia to the Ionian area, from which a minor exchange route leading to the north developed. This route ended at Veneto, if we consider only the Aegean-type pottery, but went further if we include other material (see figure 19, p. 237 for an overview of the spatial distribution of the sites). Evidently, these minor routes are important in the understanding of the other, better-known regions, and also necessary in any consideration of the major areas, as they were integrated with them. All the minor regions can be divided into two broad regions (see figure 28 p. 246): one insular, covering from Sicily to Sardinia and over to the Balearics and Iberia, the other peninsular, or perhaps we should term it mainland, and formed by the southern and eastern Italian peninsula, and continuing into continental Europe.

Moving to a later period, LH III A 2 – C, Sardinia (see tables 17, 18, p. 215 and figures pp. 234-236), and specifically Nuraghe Antigori at Sarroch offers the only decipherable assemblage (although unreliable because it is small). A few jars and stirrup jars, with a selection of open shapes including cup, bowl and kylix seem very much a generic, neutral set offering a strangely balanced selection of the main vessels. It seems very artificial, like a trial of various products rather than a normal set with its imbalances. It recalls Capo Piccolo, with its jar, jug and cup forming a “perfect set” for storing, pouring and consuming products. The chance of finding the three shapes in balance is nil in sites with higher quantities, where jars and jugs were usually used with several cups at a time. At Sarroch the problem is the same: the different vessels are in an unrealistic ratio that cannot be sustained if the vessels are to be used. In Nuraghe Antigori however, also found among the twelve vessels there was a rhyton, which in such a small assemblage accounts for an extraordinary 8% of the whole and yet it is the only one found in the West Mediterranean. Evidently the purpose was to display the shapes rather than using them. Interestingly, the vessels appear to come from a variety of places, such as the Aegean, Cyprus, Crete and some western area of production, not necessarily Sardinia. This connects Sarroch with western Sicily, Thapsos and Taranto, rather than the Aeolian Islands. The depositional context proves that all the vessels were used at once, over a short period, and then buried or stored together. The rough imitations of shape and decoration of some of these vessels found in the nearby Nuraghe Sa Domu s’Orku at Sarroch are material proof that someone saw these vessels and tried to reproduce them, but evidently the skills to produce good copies were lacking and the vessels themselves were probably out of reach. Whoever produced these Aegean-derivative vessels saw the

Beginning with the Tyrrhenian coast, analysing the Sicilian consumption patterns Vivara seemed connected with the Aeolian Islands. Indeed, the closed vessels seem very similar, with alabastra and fewer jugs easily recognisable and present in the same proportions as in the Aeolian Islands. Jars are

59

vessels at Nuraghe Antigori the once and never again, or the imitation would have been more accurate: eventually more attempts by local potters could have generated a new category of pottery, rather than a few localised attempts. In addition, it is difficult to imagine a balanced number of storage and consumption vessels together because, to judge from the evidence of Mycenae and other Aegean sites, the two are normally spatially separated. A rhyton mixed with cups, bowls and kylikes is completely out of context. Even accepting that storage, pouring (in this case the rhyton) and consumption vessels might be found together, how do we interpret one rhyton pouring from two different types of jar into three contrasting open shapes? Apparently, the Sardinian rhyton functioned within the assemblage as did the jug at Capo Piccolo. Noting that other Sardinian sites received very few pots and that these are stratigraphically close to the Phoenician material, Iberia can offer, perhaps, the concluding word. Because it was so far away, the vessels that arrived there could not be the result of any direct initiative by Aegean traders, rather it is probable that people from Sardinia exported them, or at least people from the West Mediterranean passing through Sardinia. The three vessels found there, one each of jar, cup and bowl (krater), are true imports according to petrographic analyses, so that they should offer a hint on the preferred shapes actually imported into the West. In contrast to the peculiarity of Antigori, which is based on its even distribution pattern, the three Iberian shapes represent very well the overall preferences in the West Mediterranean.

mugs and kylikes missing altogether. The result is a sharp preference for jars and bowls, which agrees with the patterns of both Ionian Apulia and the Ionian coast. However, the preferences for large jars and the few stirrup jars and kylikes create a pattern closer to the Ionian coast This stresses once again the difference between the Apulian coasts and the role of Taranto as a gateway that developed an unparalleled pattern of consumption there. It is probable that at Taranto the exchanges to some extent mask the real pattern of consumption of the indigenous community, which is unlikely to have been markedly different from those of the nearby centres. In conclusion, there are analogies between Sardinia and the Adriatic coast. In both, the apparent consumption pattern is both distinguished and obscured by a lack of evidence, which reflects the genuinely low quantities of material involved. On the Adriatic coast, the clear preference for two shapes is marginally compromised only by the assemblage at Torcello. Early Vivara is connected with the Aeolian Islands, whereas Sardinia and Iberia are connected with western Sicily for the mix of provenance and style. Western Sicily had always been connected with the Near East or Cyprus (one Canaanite jar comes from Monte Grande, but one has also been found at Vivara), while the Aeolian Islands maintained a different culture and consumption pattern. Thapsos appeared in the late period to join the two Sicilian areas, but then Thapsos exited the exchange network, and the Aeolian Islands reduced their involvement. Sardinia and western Sicily were then eventually connected to Taranto, where imitations circulated from the eastern Ionian coast, and Aegean, Cypriot and Cretan wares came from an eastern route. Taranto, however, was also the connection point of a route towards the North and Central Europe via the Adriatic coast, revealed only in part by Aegean-type pottery. The functional context on the Adriatic coast suggests a link with the Ionian coast, which can be traced back to the introduction, at a late stage (LH III C), of the production of Aegean-type pottery, a production already in place since LH III B on the Ionian coast. Protogeometric wares (protogeometric Iapygian) appear shortly afterwards mixed with the latest LH III C Aegean-type pottery, and they probably also originated on the Ionian coast. Indeed, in the area of Termitito and San Vito di Pisticci, protogeometric wares appear associated with LH III C 2 pottery and continue up to the fifth century BC, still maintaining traits of Mycenaean style in their decoration. As a result, the production of LH III C and protogeometric wares on the Adriatic coast of Apulia can be interpreted as a late (LH III C 3?), but long term (Final Bronze Age and Iron Age), process of cultural amalgamation with the centres on the Ionian coast.

On the Adriatic coast (see graphics pp. 234-236 and table 19, p. 216); Apulia in LH I – III A 1 is barely influenced, except on its Ionian coast. The mixture of vessels suggests that only a few vessels (whatever their origin) found their way to this region, and they were used in funerary contexts as exotic items. More interesting is the later period, LH III A 2 – C, when a few shapes were used. The jars and bowls appear to be the preferred shapes, but alabastra and jugs are present too, leaving open the possibility of continued funerary use, which is highly suspected at Torcello because of the complete condition, small dimensions and shape of the vessels. From there an unusual feeding bottle, the only one found in the West Mediterranean, and a mixture of Cypriot and Mycenaean styles connects the place partly with Taranto (for the Cypriot style and chronology) but especially with Thapsos (for depositional context and style). Frattesina (see Gazetteer, p. 106 ff.), not far from Torcello, was a main production centre of ivory and glass items that found their way to both Taranto and (very late) Thapsos. Some Central European metal items also passed from the northern areas to arrive at Taranto. Hence, the Adriatic coast resembles a thin thread, connecting Taranto to a distant North, where the Aegeantype pottery is unfortunately too scarce for any useful comparison. Absences in the region probably count more than presences: stirrup jars and cups are very few in number, and

Discussion Imported Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean

60

mainly served two purposes: it contained goods transported from overseas and / or it was used as a luxury item to display wealth. Undecorated pottery and transport jars, present at only a few sites, such as Monte Grande and Vivara in early times and Cannatello and Lipari later, were evidently of little interest to the Italic people.Therefore, the significance of these vessels remains in their contents. In the Aeolian Islands, however, the distribution pattern of decorated Aegean-type vessels suggests that they, too, were simply used as containers and that their contents were more important than the vessels. Nevertheless in most cases, particularly in Sicily, on the Ionian coast and Apulia, there is evidence that the vessels were concentrated in a limited number of tombs or houses and displayed as fine wares or as containers of some special product to exhibit wealth.

changes area by area, period by period. The control of this Aegean-type pottery might have been exercised by a few, potentially the indigenous elite.The significance of Aegeantype pottery in the Italian peninsula was the same as that of the thousands of undecorated kylikes in the Mycenaean palaces. These were probably used for communal feasting, to maintain social relationships within the community, and evidently by any leading group to preserve its power by demonstrating publicly the care and effort it had in managing the resources of the community itself. In Sicily it seems likely that a percentage of the pottery had always been associated with wealth, and probably for this reason it had been adopted for some public ceremonies or occasions. In this way, those in charge of the management of the community, presumably the indigenous elite, demonstrated care for the community and obtained consensus and were empowered to act on behalf of the community. It is probable that if an elite existed, its members were those using fine wares for everyday activities, but the BA Italic societies did not allow them to display their special status in public, nor to become a political elite such as occurred in Mycenaean Greece.

Generally, and, as might be expected, when the most important feature of the pottery is the contents, there is a clear preference for storage vessels such as jars. The patterns of usage are more sophisticated in the other cases where vessels suitable for storage (most of the closed vessels) and consumption (most of the open vessels) are mixed. In no case does the preference for specific vessel types match Aegean patterns closely enough to merit discussion. The expectation of similarities with Aegean usage patterns falls short even when we take into account vessels interpreted as primarily dedicated to the export of goods that might be relatively scarce in Mycenaean Greece but should be more common overseas. For example, the Mycenaean stirrup jar is interpreted as a container reserved for export because of its combination of practicality (facilitating transport) and elegance. Large numbers of this shape have been found in mainland Greece, but it is rarely found in the western Mediterranean in any concentration (except at Taranto). The alabastron is another uncommon vessel in the West Mediterranean that seems to be appreciated in the Near East and particularly Egypt as a luxury. Both vessels are uncommon in the West Mediterranean and often present in lower relative quantities than in Mycenaean Greece. In addition, typical vessels like the kylix, particularly common in mainland Greece in undecorated forms, are also rare.

The regional production of Aegean-type pottery in the southern Italian peninsula, as well as the control of the range of shapes introduced, would have made it possible to present Aegean-type pottery as Italic.The emerging elite was therefore unable to distinguish itself even as mediator between the Aegean groups and the local community and simply appeared as wealthier, and for this reason was able to organise some common activities, but not yet powerful enough to organise separate, “palatial” activities. Aegean-type pottery, as we shall see in more detail in the next chapter, was neither exclusively associated with the main “public” buildings of the Ionian coast nor was it the only fine ware present. It was probably part of the attempt of the wealthy, probably in contact with Aegean people, to recreate in their region elites such as those in Mycenaean Greece. The attempts were ultimately successful, but after the emergence of wealthy people connected with exchanges of Aegean materials in the late MBA or early Recent Bronze Age (LH III A), the organisation of common social activities appears only during the Final Bronze Age (LH III B – C), and clear sociopolitical Italic elites emerge only during the Iron Age.

Hence, Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean seems often to have been a luxury because it is both rare and elegant. The same significance can be recognised in Mycenaean Greece, where the decorated ware was used by the wealthy elite, or exported as luxury products. For instance Rutter (in Pulak 1998: 218) argued for the presence of members of the Mycenaean elite in the Uluburun shipwreck on the basis that a few ceramic sets of decorated ware were found onboard. The use of Aegean-type pottery as a distinguishing item for the socio-political elite, or more probably for the wealthy, can be recognised at Thapsos. Unlike in Mycenaean Greece, most of the time in the southern Italian peninsula Aegean-type pottery seems to have been used by the community as a whole and stored in possible “public” buildings, and for this reasons its pattern of usage

The patterns may be summarised by region (with at least four main regions), and time (with two main periods: LH I – III A 1 and LH III A 2 – C). The use of Aegean-type pottery in Eastern Sicily in the early period is limited to the Aeolian Islands, where the people select the finest wares and only a few shapes. The consumption pattern suggests that most of the population had access to the vessels and used them for everyday activities; probably the contents were staple foods needed by the population, as Aegean-type vessels amount to one third of the total assemblage.The same range of shapes continues and is homogenous throughout the region in the following period. In the Aeolian Islands there is the possibility that all the imports were chosen primarily to

61

support the need for staples, because large closed vessels (the size of a large jar, about 1 metre in height) were preferred. Alternatively at Thapsos and along the eastern coast there is evidence that Aegean-type pottery was considered a luxury (small closed vessels) when filled. When subsequently emptied of its original content it was used (and re-used several times) in tombs symbolically to display wealth and, in time, special social status. In spite of the eastern coast employing Aegean-type pottery later and in higher quantities, the Aeolian Islands continued to use Aegean-type pottery afterwards, and it was the only area with Aegean-type pots throughout the entire LH period.

where in the West Mediterranean, and particularly similar to Mycenaean palatial sites. Taranto is also the site with the most Aegean-type pottery of all in the West Mediterranean; there is more Aegean-type pottery there than at some sites in the Peloponnese! The Ionian coast, the coastline from Taranto to Crotone, is the third region. Here there is a balance between closed and open vessels, although high quantities of fragmentary undetermined vessels that seem to belong to open vessels should be regarded cautiously as they suggest a pattern similar to that on the Ionian coast of Apulia. It is in this region that evidence of mass production of Aegean-type and -derivative wares seems earlier and most active. Probably it is for this reason that transport jars and other vessels suitable for transport appear to be missing, with a concentration of large jars and vessels for immediate consumption, such as bowls and cups. The consumption pattern is one of the simplest, with few shapes and many vessels for two main purposes: storage and immediate consumption (dining vessels).

Western Sicily was a major terminus of the exchanges at Monte Grande, which received large quantities of decorated and undecorated pottery from as far away as the Near East. Only Vivara, on the Tyrrhenian coast, matches this site. However the overall pattern of consumption at Monte Grande is closer to that in the Aeolian Islands. The preference for jars, both undecorated transport jars (particularly at Monte Grande; fewer in the Aeolian Islands) and decorated large jars, suggests that staple raw materials, and not luxuries, were exchanged, even though fine decorated pottery is present in both contexts. Supporting this hypothesis is the local environment of Monte Grande, which is an extraction centre for sulphur, a raw material, and the multicultural material evidence on the Aeolian Islands, hinting that the islands were also an obligatory en route stop for many products. At Vivara instead there is evidence of a sophistication that could be to some extent compared with that at Thapsos, whereas the satisfaction of basic needs is a common characteristic of the Aeolian Islands and Monte Grande.

The high variability and complexity in patterns of usage (functional context) inevitably fragments our perception of the significance of Aegean-type pottery in the west Mediterranean. However, the same complexity suggests that the indigenous populations chose by themselves the items and shapes to be imported, and in some cases they became largely independent from Aegean sources by producing their own Aegean-type pots. Each region was different, but equally successful, in “controlling” which Aegean products were being introduced. This seems to be a genuine overall pattern, because the Aegean traders appear to have operated with a consciousness of the whole exchange network. For instance, the regional patterns of usage of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean are always different from anywhere in the Aegean, or elsewhere in the West Mediterranean: if the choices were determined by the Aegean mariners then we should recognise similarities, at least within the West Mediterranean. The western populations chose imports to suit their own purposes and eventually incorporated the Aegean vessels into their own tradition, as in the case of the Ionian coast. In a few cases the need for raw materials is evidently the reason for the exchanges, mainly in the early period. Aegean-type pottery used to display wealth can be recognised on the Sicilian eastern coast, but this probably happened on the Ionian coast also, although in a different context.

In the later period, perhaps after a short break, new sites are founded by people of the Thapsos culture, possibly to open a new route to Sardinia, after the collapse of Vivara (natural catastrophe) and the arrival of Ausonian (Apennine) people in the Aeolian Islands. Cannatello becomes the main site in western Sicily and it could be compared with both Thapsos, because of cultural similarities, and Monte Grande, because of the exchange of raw materials (undecorated transport jars). There is also a similarity with Sardinia, although it is still indecisive. Ionia is largely involved in the exchanges only in the second period, and in spite of having a continuous coastline, it has to be split into three parts (four if we include the region without Aegean-type pottery). In the first part, the Ionian coast of Apulia, there are relatively few sites and the preference is for bowls and other open vessels. In the second or middle section, lies Taranto, which is an exceptional site with the largest range of Aegean-type shapes, a very large range of Aegean-derivative types, which is less well documented than at Broglio but probably comparable with it. Today the site is totally destroyed and much material lost. Taranto, where closed vessels are preponderant, shows a consumption pattern that is the closest to the Aegean any-

62

chapter 5: contexts of usage and deposition Introduction

been dug and in the latter, successive campaigns of excavations have been separated by long breaks and the dispersion of material. Both sites might have been, and probably were, important points in the exchange networks involving Aegean-type material, but the relatively little material known and the poor information available on the depositional context make any reading of the sites challenging. The depositional context at Broglio is rather better known, although the materials were found largely in an unstable stratigraphic sequence, which mixed the materials. The case of Punta Tonno, the most important site of all, is emblematic: it is reduced now to piles of stored boxes awaiting proper publication after more than a century, with some data and material lost forever. Thapsos has a huge necropolis with large quantities of Aegean-type material, but it is neither fully explored nor published and most of the publications do not meet the standards required by modern archaeology. Moreover, the necropolis is degrading rapidly and many tombs from which we have material have been destroyed. The settlement, however, has been properly investigated and returned just a handful of Aegean-type potsherds, but it is still unpublished; instead, Cannatello, another Sicilian settlement, yielded many more pots and is better known. The Aeolian Islands and the island of Vivara stand apart, but these two locations are each a case per se, apparently different from mainland sites, given their insular nature.

The discussion on functional context in the previous chapter cued the importance of depositional context in the interpretation of evidence. The functional context of pottery is a fundamental element in reading consumption patterns, but it can also offer insights into state formation processes and exchange networks. The depositional and cultural contexts provide further information and the possibility to test the hypotheses put forward in the previous chapter. This chapter will try to mirror the previous one in terms of the structure used to present the arguments, as it provides another facet of the same evidence we reviewed there. A brief account of the problems affecting the depositional context will be followed by a discussion of the main types of contexts: settlements and funerary. We shall then move to a closer view of the depositional context, and, as in the previous chapter, present four detailed regional studies. The functional context will sometimes be recalled so as to integrate the two analyses as much as possible and produce a coherent explanation for each region. Because of limits in the knowledge of the precise depositional context of many Aegean-type pots and the need to analyse the situation on a regional basis, the broad cultural context will provide much of the information (see in particular the Gazetteer p. 106 ff.). Finally, a brief discussion will conclude reviewing the main arguments. The next chapter will provide extra evidence about the cultural context. Therefore, an extended discussion at the end will include some evidence presented in this chapter.

There is no solution to the inadequacy of proper excavations or publication of the major sites. When data are not available and no further excavation can be carried out, the loss is irreparable. Apart from the cases where there are ongoing excavations, Punta Tonno is the most serious gap in our knowledge. This site returned more Aegean-type pottery than any other site, but its depositional context is largely unknown. For the rest, analogies among the contexts of nearby sites can prove very useful. In many cases, a main building associated with Aegean-type pottery has been recognised, even at Punta Tonno, but the spatial distribution of pottery cannot be determined. This has an impact on the recognition of possible ceramic sets as well as similarities in the wider cultural context of the sites (architecture of buildings, plan of settlement, etc.). Throughout the chapter, two types of depositional context will be presented: site-specific and general cultural/chronological. This distinction would preferably be avoided, but it is the only way to overcome at least some of the losses in the archaeological record and is therefore necessary. In every regional study the site-specific evidence will be separated as much as possible from the general cultural context, although this will not be always possible. For example, in the case of eastern Sicily, additional sections dedicated to particular buildings have been added. These buildings are partly associated with Aegean-type pottery, but not all of them. The decision to analyse the build-

The principal problem with the depositional context is linked to how much information it was possible to collect at the time of the excavation. The possibility of erroneous data is low because much of the data reported in this work has been checked by the author and/or scholars other than the excavator, yet the lack of data is sometimes worrying. There are extremes, ranging from Punta Tonno (Taranto), a fundamental site inadequately investigated and now repeatedly destroyed, to Monte Rovello, an entire site thoroughly excavated and published. (But where, however, just one tiny fragment of an Aegean-type vessel was found!) While the paucity of data from some minor sites, and finds out of context, can be superseded by data from other similar sites, in the case of major sites things become more difficult. Indeed, a list of the “major sites” cannot be safely proposed because of many incomplete or emergency excavations that have affected the number of Aegean-type pots effectively found. Termitito and Coppa Nevigata are good examples of this situation: in the former, only a few trenches have

63

ings together is therefore dictated by their similarities, and the two types of depositional context appear mixed.

buildings or production areas in the Aegean (as in the Ivory Houses at Mycenae, where large quantities of this ware are concentrated). The evidence in the West Mediterranean suggests a broad distribution of the Aegean-type pottery within the settlements, usually with concentrations in a central building, always architecturally different from the nearby structures; at least this is the case in the LH III A 2 – C settlements. However Thapsos is atypical because the settlement yielded only a handful of fragments, while over sixty pots have been reported from its partially excavated cemeteries. In general, the distribution pattern of Aegeantype pottery matches the Aegean one, where fine pottery is largely concentrated in a few monumental buildings.

The contexts of usage and deposition, any supplementary information regarding non-ceramic materials, and the broad cultural context are all additional interpretive layers of the core constituted by Aegean-type pottery as outlined in chapter 3. Undeniably, the depositional context considered here, limited to the sites with Aegean-type or Aegeanderivative pottery, is insufficient both for the analysis of the structures of Italic settlements and for pinpointing the precise spatial distribution of the ceramic assemblages. Nonetheless, it is of paramount importance to produce a correct interpretation of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean, and for an understanding of its significance to the ancient societies involved in its usage.

One example of this pattern is Punta Tonno, which is known only through partial excavation reports. There, the possible topographic plan reveals several aspects that are present in the other settlements. The division of the settlement into an “upper” citadel and a “lower” settlement is not new for major settlements, both in the East (notably Troy) and in the West Mediterranean (Porto Perone – Satyrion and Otranto).The upper citadel normally contains the main buildings, those which are communal (perhaps public) or serving administrative purposes to an elite. Punta Tonno is somewhat extraordinary because the “upper” citadel would have been located directly on the edge of the sea, on a low hill, and the division would not be as sharp as in Porto Perone – Satyrion, which is a single site clearly split into two distinct parts. Another important feature is the apsidal building, dubiously called a “megaron” by the excavator. Apsidal buildings are present also in other centres with Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean, and they appear in mainland Greece as early as the late Neolithic (e.g. building 0133 at Kouphovouno, Laconia; Cavanagh, Mee and Renard 2002).

Settlements The large majority of sites where Aegean-type pottery has been found are settlements. This is perhaps the first hint that Aegean-type vessels, as well as other Aegean-type and derivative material, were valuable, but not necessarily “prestige” or symbolic items. Generally, the material that is spread across settlement areas is made up of everyday items. This is explicable when we remember that many of these products were produced within the West Mediterranean and therefore their exoticism or rarity, which could attribute prestige or symbolic values to them, should not be overstated. However, they do not seem to have been low-value everyday items because sometimes they have been found concentrated in specific areas and are always present in small quantities. Exceptions to this pattern exist, and eastern Sicily comes immediately to mind – Thapsos with its tombs and the Aeolian Islands with their fairly homogenous and abundant distribution of vessels.

More important is the apparent spread across the settlement of “Mycenaean” pottery, which, according to Quagliati’s report (1900), does not seem localised to any precise area. Unfortunately, detailed information is not available, although the two clay figurines from the site were not found in the apsidal building. In the case of Punta Tonno, the apsidal building seems to have been monumental, and the same is true at all the other sites in the West Mediterranean that have apsidal buildings and Aegean-type pottery. At Punta Tonno it is probable that other major buildings existed, but no single architecturally significant building contained all or most of the Aegean-type pottery on that site; at best, one can argue a significant concentration of Aegean-type pottery in one main building. However, the concentration would average 50% or less of the total of Aegean-type pottery at any one site. Yet, as in the Aegean, the pottery is found within major, central, monumental buildings and not in most of the ordinary huts, as is the case with the Aeolian Islands.

For instance, Capo Milazzese in the Aeolian Islands is an important settlement with a clean stratigraphy (Bernabò Brea 1968); it was in use for just one period and therefore the structures there were clearly readable. About thirty-five fragmentary vessels were recovered in several of the thirty or so huts found. All the huts are oval except one, hut 16, which is rectangular, encircled by other huts in a possible attempt to control access to the hut, and containing the wealthiest assemblage over all. In spite of this, the distribution of Aegean-type pottery within the settlement focuses neither on this hut, nor on any one particular area of the settlement. The homogenous distribution of the pottery across the huts on every site in the Aeolian Islands is characteristic of these few sites, although the presence of different types of structures is common to many settlements in the West Mediterranean. Fine decorated pottery is often present within storage

Significantly, the central buildings are normally larger than

64

Funerary contexts

the others nearby, do not always contain recognisable storage rooms, and are rectangular. Rectangular buildings were common in the Apennine culture, particularly in the central Italian peninsula (Vivara for example), and the apses are not always present or necessarily of Aegean origin. Megara and palaces have not been recognised anywhere in the West Mediterranean and it is evident that rectangular huts developed from circular huts, especially at Panarea (Bernabò Brea 1968), where rectangular annexes eventually evolve into complex rectangular buildings. It is also evident, on the Aeolian Islands, that materials, and possibly people of Apennine culture, were circulating there and thus the appearance of rectangular buildings is at least in part an outcome of these contacts. It has been suggested that the monumental, multi-chambered buildings at Thapsos and Pantalica are proof of an Aegean presence (Orsi was the first proponent of this, referring to Pantalica only; see Orsi 1897), but both cases are unconvincing; a discussion of these buildings can be found at the end of the regional study of eastern Sicily. The large huts on the Aeolian Islands, in several centres of Sicily, and along the Ionian and Adriatic coasts may all be considered of indigenous tradition, either circular or rectangular, and in the latter case, a connection with the Apennine culture is always possible.The apse of some buildings is the only element that might suggest an Aegean connection, but, as we have noticed, apsidal buildings appear very early in the Aegean (as early as the later Neolithic) and by the Late Bronze Age the technique could be more widespread in the Mediterranean than contemporary research would suggest.

Aegean-type pottery is sometimes found in tombs, however there is evidence of a choice, probably connected with its function, whether the pottery is found in tombs or huts. At Thapsos, it is clear that people chose a funerary function for the Aegean-type pottery, and this might reflect a limited and personal use of it during the life of the users, and the consequent wish to keep those items even after death. In the Aeolian Islands there is evidence that tombs were simple and unpretentious; the few found are small and close to the settlement and they seem to have been determined by factors of space and practicability. The inhabitants adopted cinerary urns in cist tombs; cremation being a practice used also by people of Apennine culture. During Ausonian II, two types of tombs coexist at Lipari: cinerary urns and burial jars. In the latter type, only a few possible imported ornaments were deposited, but the funerary assemblages are overwhelmingly simple. In western Sicily, in the Platani Valley, there is evidence of a dual use: Aegean-type pottery is found in tombs (Caldare, Milena, and Sant’Angelo Muxaro) and settlements (Cannatello). The single settlement whose cemetery has been excavated is Sant’Angelo Muxaro, where Aegean-type material was only found in tombs. On Sardinia, the site of Su Fraigu appears to be similar to Lipari, with pottery in the settlement and necklaces (ornaments) in the tombs. In the southern Italian peninsula, the depositional context is uncertain at Toppo Daguzzo (Ionian coast) – all the Aegeantype vessels come from the funerary area and only a few were found inside tombs. The vessels found outside the tombs could have slipped from the settlement, located on the top of the hill, and fallen into the funerary area just below.

There is no particular spatial association between any type of main, central buildings and Aegean-type pottery, although the function of each of these buildings appears to have been communal (or public). The Aegean-type vessels found in these buildings can be interpreted as the fine ware used for special communal occasions. Thus, while Aegeantype pottery in early periods does not follow any pattern of distribution, in the late period, LH III A 2 – C, it was rare, accounting for about 5% of the whole assemblage (Vagnetti 1999). Aegean-derivative wares, often very similar to Aegean-type pottery (like the decorated grey ware), account for 10% or more on average (my estimate). Averages depend on which wares are included and vary site by site, but the general pattern is that fine wares average around 1520% of the whole of the pottery, and most are Aegean-type or -derivative. Aegean-type pots can therefore be defined as luxury items and are associated with wealthy areas of the settlement, normally the centre or the “upper citadel”, where monumental buildings and rare and exotic materials are concentrated. It is impossible at this stage of the excavations to decide whether they were prestige items used to distinguish the elite, or fine wares used by the community as a whole on special occasions and stored in some of the communal (public?) buildings.

On the Adriatic coast the only Aegean-type vessel found at Giovinazzo was deposited inside a dolmen tomb, whereas Aegean-type pottery is notably absent from the nearby settlement, although many other settlements in the area did yield Aegean-type pottery and eventually manufactured it as well. Torre Santa Sabina is a site on the same Adriatic coast as Giovinazzo, but it shares the presence of ipogei with Toppo Daguzzo, a site on the Ionian coast. Nonetheless at Torre Santa Sabina, Aegean-type potsherds are found in both contexts, in safe depositional levels, while at Toppo Daguzzo, the only other site with Aegean-type pottery possibly found in both contexts (except Thapsos, but there a preference for the funerary context is evident), the funerary context is uncertain. The ipogei seem therefore linked with this behaviour, but anywhere else, as we have seen, Aegeantype materials are restricted to one context. This does not mean that these vessels had never been used specifically in funerary rituals; they do not seem to have carried any special role in the ceremony. Instead, as the case of Thapsos suggests, it is probable that they were deposited as personal

65

items in the tombs, implying that the circulation of the vessels was limited and the owners were anxious to keep them. Aegean-type pottery is more common in settlements rather than necropoleis, and when it is in any one of these depositional contexts it is unlikely also to be found in the other, at least in significant quantities. The only case where both settlements and cemeteries contain comparable, small quantities of Aegean-type pottery is when tombs are ipogei.

work and planning, unlike the simple rock-cut tombs, and externally the difference between it and an Aegean tumulus could not be noticed. Inside the tumulus at Torre Santa Sabina, the central chamber contains an assemblage that is evidently of Mycenaean character. The ipogei are yet another type of burial, characteristic of the internal area of Apulia and the Ionian coast (Basilicata). These are purpose-built large rock-cut underground chambers – communal tombs like the Minoan tholoi but different in the architecture; Minoan tholoi are also much earlier. Trinitapoli is best known for these, but it is at Toppo Daguzzo that the depositional context permits some inferences as to their meaning. All ipogei are architecturally different and this could be due to the long process required to excavate them. For example, the ipogeo of Madonna di Loreto at Trinitapoli (Tunzi Sisto in Cinquepalmi and Radina 1998: 45) was built during the EBA as a sacred cave, and at least from the LBA was expanded and transformed into a communal tomb.

None of the monumental, multi-chambered buildings is to be found among tombs, but one building at Lipari is very similar to a tholos, although there is no evidence that it had ever been used as a tomb. However, several claims (since the nineteenth century) about the presence of tholoi in Italy have resulted in labelling the Italic chamber tombs as “tholoi” in the Italian archaeological literature. In order to avoid any confusion, it is safer to state at once that Mycenaean tholoi are tall constructions, built in stone, and none of the Italic chamber tombs, the most common type of tomb with Aegean-type pottery, can be described in this way. Except for the tholos at Lipari, which does not seem to be a tomb, there are simply no tombs in the Italian region comparable to Aegean tholoi. Thapsos and Pantalica offer a broad range of tombs with Aegean-type and -derivative material, representative of all the types of tombs in Sicily, including those at Milena and Caldare. They are rock-cut tombs, normally small or very small, which can be compared only in a very general way to Aegean chamber tombs. However some of these tombs are circular internally and could resemble an imitation, or a scale model, of the inside of an Aegean tholos. In spite of this, the rock-cut tombs could also resemble quadrangular and circular huts – the ordinary buildings of the time. At Thapsos, the material evidence suggests that the mourning procedure was a repetition of the same ceremonies celebrated in the settlement, which required the use of large basins and bowls, probably for the activity of eating and drinking together. The farewell seems to have been a ceremony in which the dead person was celebrated as if a virtual participant; the basins and other tools were then left in the tomb. The situation in which the mourning resembles ceremonies in the living community supports the hypothesis that the tombs could be imitations of houses; indeed the deposited goods were those used during life.

However, an important point is that while the ipogei were in use at Toppo Daguzzo (MBA and LBA), in the settlement there was a partly subterranean and circular building as well as a long rectangular hut, the latter possibly used for storage. The subterranean room of the large circular hut seems to have been used for communal meetings (it has a central hearth). The burials in the ipogei are communal, but DNA tests suggested that each group represented a family (Maffei 1994); the material left suggests a mourning process that involved communal eating and drinking. Shortly after their construction, things change: new ipogei began to be built and they were ritual areas, where sacrifices were carried out, as in some nearby caves. In these new ipogei, no sepulture has been made, while in the earlier ipogei, which disappear after a few centuries, there are tombs but no evidence of any ritual except for the mourning. At the same time as the appearance of the new ipogei, the central round hut with the underground room is modified just before its destruction: it begins to host storage jars and rituals involving sacrifices, similar to those practised in the new ipogei. Interestingly, the ipogeo of Madonna di Loreto found at Trinitapoli was transformed in the opposite way, from sacred cave to communal tomb, about the same time, although in the area the caves and ipogei were traditionally tombs.

In the West Mediterranean there is a late and rare type of burial often associated with Aegean-type pottery. This is the tumulus, existing in mainland Greece both as a burial mound and as a hill “hiding” the tholos. In the West Mediterranean it is restricted to Apulia and only two examples are definitely known – Oria and Torre Santa Sabina. Giovinazzo could well be a third case and others in the area possibly existed but are now destroyed. The tumuli, none of which has been properly studied, were a series of rock-cut tombs connected by a tunnel or passage; there is no attempt to build a tholos, yet they required a significant amount of

The key to unravelling some meaning from this complex scenario is provided by Aegean-type pottery: it is present in the early ipogei, those with tombs, yet it is absent in the new ones dedicated to rituals. As we have seen, at Toppo Daguzzo a circular hut, partly subterranean, coexisted with a rectangular building dedicated to the storage of goods; in both buildings Aegean-type pottery is rare or absent. Then, new ipogei appear, this time without either tombs or Aegeantype pottery, and the circular hut becomes increasingly similar to the main buildings at Broglio or Termitito: there are no ritual sacrifices there but instead it is a new location

66

for the storage of goods (primarily food). Aegean-type pottery seems to reappear, although it is unclear if directly in that building at Toppo Daguzzo. Comparing the new main building with that at Termitito, both very similar in being partly subterranean, it is evident that at Toppo Daguzzo the central hut was originally associated with communal ceremonies and consumption, where groups (possibly the families in the tombs), and not individuals, formed the basis of the society. On the other hand, at Termitito some weights and other evidence suggest that the food was kept in the central hut, and possibly redistributed to individuals. The people at Termitito and Toppo Daguzzo were influenced by the Aegean culture because they used, and eventually produced, Aegean-type pottery. However, it is evident that there was a clash of cultural identities in the two subsequent periods at Toppo Daguzzo, evident in the use of ipogei and main buildings, and Aegean-type pottery was present in both periods, although used differently and always independently from any Aegean cultural characterisation.

wealthy people and possibly an elite, is founded on differences within the ipogeo of Madonna di Loreto and on the changes in both settlement and ipogeo at Toppo Daguzzo. Tumuli are rare and probably also reserved for the wealthy because of the amount of work required to build them and the division of space, with each chamber probably reserved for only one burial and the assemblages being separated. Ipogei and tumuli in the south-eastern Italian peninsula, and the tombs in eastern Sicily, are the funerary contexts where Aegean-type pottery can be usually found and these appear to have another connecting element: their association to wealth and the emergence of social ranking (elite). Aegeantype pottery is therefore found in funerary contexts, distinguishing luxury status, with the appearance of social ranking and state formation processes.

Regional studies

The case of the ipogei fits once again the depicted broad picture, where a choice was made by indigenous populations as to the use of Aegean-type pottery, either in funerary contexts or in settlements, with a general preference for the latter. The choice of funerary contexts (e.g. rock-cut tombs, ipogei and tumuli) seems limited to a unique period, roughly LH III A 1 – B 2 or C 1, with its zenith during LH III B, which might be labelled “the age of Thapsos”. There is no particular association between ipogei and Aegean-type material, yet only when the ipogei are used as communal tombs there is a chance of finding a few of them inside, as well as in the nearby settlement. The ipogei at Trinitapoli, when used as tombs, seem to have been reserved for wealthy people when we consider the assemblages found. In the small ipogeo of Madonna di Loreto the number of ceramic vessels, the high quality of the items, and the many materials made of bronze, amber, and glass (Tunzi Sisto in Cinquepalmi and Radina 1998: 46) suggest that social ranking was emerging. In corridor C (ambiente C) the sewers, the differences in the disposition of the burials (more space, separated personal assemblages), the ritual (individuals deposed in seated positions in corridor C but contracted elsewhere), and the presence of weapons characterise the space as belonging to a warrior elite, different from the wealthy individuals buried in the other corridors. In one of the other ipogei two ivory figurines, interpreted as “Mycenaean” by Tunzi Sisto, add more evidence that the ipogei were associated with wealthy burials. The fact that the ipogei were alternatively used as sacred or funerary spaces also suggests that they were not a typical funerary context.

Eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands This area was identified in the previous chapter as the most intriguing for the study of Aegean-type pottery, both for the lengthy duration of the exchanges and the unique peak in the pottery’s presence during LH III A 1 – B 2, and therefore it was chosen as the starting point for the regional analysis. This is also the principal area where Aegean-type pottery was deposited in funerary contexts. These buildings can be distinguished because of their similarity to, but never identity with, Aegean counterparts, both in some of the techniques employed in their construction and their settings. In addition, a spring chamber resembling the structure of a Mycenaean tholos has also been discovered. Since both types of buildings largely provide data on the broad cultural context, they will be analysed in more detail in the following sections.The basis for a sound analysis of the depositional context is also available in this area because of the many lengthy and careful excavations carried out. Montagnola di Capo Graziano, on the island of Filicudi, is one of the earliest sites in the West Mediterranean with Aegean-type pottery dated MH or LH I (matt-painted polychrome). Only at Lipari was there another contemporary settlement of the same Capo Graziano culture with Aegean-type pottery. Montagnola is a small settlement where only a few vessels have been found.There were about thirty close-set huts, covering less than half a hectare, which is about the area occupied by a large building at contemporary Vivara or Monte Grande. Yet, it seems the first site within the Aeolian Islands to be in continued contact with Aegean visitors, and it might well be the first in the West Mediterranean. For a short period, the settlement was more important than the main centre at Lipari, something that no other site in the Aeolian Islands could ever claim afterwards. The main settlement of the island of Filicudi seems to have

At Madonna del Petto, near Trinitapoli, there is a settlement with at least some LH III C Aegean-type potsherds and a cemetery, but no ipogei, although the cultural and geographical vicinity, as well as the geology of the area, did not prevent them being built. The interpretation of the ipogei as a wealthy funerary option, connected to the emergence of

67

migrated during the EBA from a location next to the sea to one inland and finally to the top of a hill (Montagnola) looking towards Sicily. This trend of the main settlement being relocated to the top of a hill is matched also at Lipari and at other settlements on the Aeolian Islands.

At Capo Graziano the huts were all oval or circular, built with unshaped stones and all with storage vessels inside, but some huts had stone benches and were also reused for communal activities at certain times (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1991: 179-180), such as huts 6 (several grindstones) and 12 (many bowls and storage jars). The use of huts for storage purposes is also visible from the fact that the floor of the huts always lies below the ground, in a few cases (7, 10 and 25) as much as 1.5 to 2 m; these three huts were accessed through a corridor. A few wells might also have served for storage purposes. Probably only a handful of extended families lived there: the community was largely isolated and its survival depended to some extent on its physical and social cohesion.

Capo Graziano material has been found in various parts of the southern Italian peninsula, proving that the small hamlet was indeed at the head of a regional network of exchanges. However, as soon as Aegean-type pottery reaches the Aeolian Islands, the settlement appears to lose importance, and various activities appear to be relocated to Lipari, the “strategic” harbour. This is the case of the shipwreck near Pignataro di Fuori (Bernabò Brea 1985), just off the coast of Lipari, where Capo Graziano pottery has been found associated with Aegean-type pottery on the route towards Vivara (Luni sul Mignone), and at Vivara itself, proving that the establishment of Aegean contacts broadened the existing exchange network. Petrological analyses (Williams in Bernabò Brea 1991) suggest that at this time the people of Montagnola and Lipari were producing their own Capo Graziano-style pottery, with Lipari increasingly emerging as the new main centre of the Capo Graziano culture.

At Capo Milazzese the huts are all oval, except rectangular hut 16 (figure 36, p. 250), with a few having extra rooms (annexes) added. Hut 2 is circular but with two additional rectangular rooms, A and B, making it appear rectangular in plan. Interestingly, hut 16 is on the Cape, the best protected area of the settlement, two of its sides being steep cliffs above the sea and the other protected by what could well be defined as a “wall of huts”. The need for defence is evident from the locations and spatial organisation in both settlements as well as at Lipari. However, at Capo Milazzese one hut (hut 16) is especially protected and it is the wealthiest (although not on the basis of Aegean-type pottery, which is homogenously distributed across the settlement.) It would be unwise to speak of social differentiation given the small size of the community and the evident dependence of its members on each other. Hut 16 could simply be a public hut or the house of the eldest, or of any other special member of the community.The interest resides in its architecture: it is the only rectangular building in the settlement. Aegeantype pottery has been mostly found within the rectangular annexes that are often attached to huts.

Inside the settlement at Montagnola, the pattern of distribution of Aegean-type pottery is simply a chaotic spread of vessels across the site. Despite the care taken during the excavations, there is no contextual evidence whatsoever that the pottery had any special use or that it was associated with any particular building. The same pattern is constant throughout the period in all the main centres of the Aeolian Islands. The move from plain to hill does not seem directly related to the arrival of Aegean mariners, rather it is a consequence of multiple contacts as evidenced by the construction of a regional network which was a forerunner of the wider network that was set in place after the arrival of Aegean-type materials. The removal of exchanges from Montagnola to Lipari was a probable consequence of the arrival of Aegean people; the exchange network had to be redesigned.

The plan of the settlement suggests that the huts were built from the first in locations where they could protect the rectangular building. All the huts appear to have been built at the same time, and at least most of the annexes were built with the huts; they were required to fill gaps or spaces to create a “wall of huts”. The function of the annexes was for storage; fine wares were stored there probably with other goods and food supplies. Such a complementary function favours the contemporaneity of huts and annexes. If this is accepted, then we have circular and rectangular structures used at the same time. The design used would have been related to the function, circular for living and production areas, rectangular for storage and, perhaps, “private” or “personal” activities. The rectangular areas, because they extended further into the houses and were reserved for the storage of belongings and supplies for a particular family, could have had restricted access. Although it is speculation, a possible interpretation of the rectangular building suggests that it was a common deposit and restricted area for the whole community, and therefore protected by the entire

The village at Capo Milazzese, on the island of Panarea, is the ideal location to investigate the situation during LH III A 2 because the village was used only for a short period; there are very few potsherds that might be of later date (LH III B 1). As a general indication, both Montagnola di Capo Graziano and Capo Milazzese are sites with about thirty huts, but the former was used during both Capo Graziano (LH I - II) and Milazzese (LH III A 1) periods, the latter only during the Milazzese (LH III A 2) period. About eighty-five Aegean-type vessels have been found at Capo Graziano, about thirty-five at Capo Milazzese. Overall there is a close similarity between the two sites considering their size and imports of Aegean-type pottery. The two sites are comparable because culturally and chronologically Capo Milazzese is subsequent to Montagnola.

68

population. Real walls for protection could have existed. There are traces of them but these could equally well be stones removed later from the huts.

lier) and kylikes (later), which are a very basic set for the transport/storage of edibles and their consumption. One observation was made, however, when it was said that apparently the people there selected fine wares only from the start of contacts, unlike at Vivara and Monte Grande. The broader evidence suggests that, particularly in the early period, the islands were not dependent on Aegean traders, and their survival strategy hinged on acting as intermediaries in the exchanges between two cultural regions, Apennine and Aegean. The fact that they took the most generic shapes among the finest wares, which, apart from the decoration, could belong to any culture, suggests that rather than being heavily influenced by one culture and eventually becoming dependent on that people, they survived on their own. The indigenous people seem to have had little interest in ceramic sophistication and a much more “materialistic” interest in the contents of the vessels, although they appreciated the Aegean style when they could choose. However, exactly because they chose only a few things suggests that they were a focal rather than terminal point of the exchanges, like at Vivara or Monte Grande, where all sorts of wares arrived. In support of the idea of the independence of the islanders from any overseas people stands the clay anthropomorphic figurine found at Lipari, along with an indigenous one inside hut “gamma 3”, of Milazzese period, which was probably employed “in local cultural practices” (Van Wijngaarden 2002: 221).

At Lipari, the settlement of the Capo Graziano phase comprises ten oval huts plus a larger hut (d4) that is singularly enclosed by an almost rectangular wall. It is unclear what it was used for, but the discovery of a possible votive pit along its western side does suggest a use within the community, perhaps a common, sacred storage area. This early plan of the settlement at Lipari suggests that the settlement at Panarea was organised in harmony with the pre-existing culture; it seems that the Aegean visitors once again had no role in its development. It remains to be explained if the use of rectangular structures, which was new on the islands, was imported from the north (the region of Apennine culture), or from the south (Sicily and Aegean influence). A definitive conclusion cannot be reached because both hypotheses are valid and cannot be adequately tested. However, the (large, central) rectangular building in the Aegean is generally complex and associated with production.This is the case with the monumental, multi-chambered buildings at Thapsos and Pantalica, which yielded evidence of metalworking. However, at Capo Milazzese the rectangular structures are very simple in conception (even the example of the hut with two annexes) and associated with storage. Rectangular buildings used for storage can be found in the Apennine area: Vivara (Tyrrhenian coast) and Toppo Daguzzo (Ionian coast) offer good examples, among sites with Aegean-type pottery, of these Apennine buildings. Hence rectangular buildings on the Aeolian Islands might be modelled on Apennine prototypes.

A clear destruction marks the passage to the next phase, the Ausonian I, from which four (almost oval) huts and one hoard with 75 kg of bronze items are preserved. The hoard comprised mostly weapons, from all over the Italian peninsula, and also probably a copper oxhide ingot. During the Ausonian I most Aegean-type pottery was found associated with newly imported Sicilian and Sardinian pottery in building “beta 4”, which is a large, oval hut of outstanding quality.

Toppo Daguzzo, as we have seen when discussing funerary contexts, and the ipogei in particular, was the site with a rectangular building dedicated to storage, as at any other Apennine centre, and a circular hut, partly subterranean, like some of the huts at Montagnola di Capo Graziano. At Toppo Daguzzo there was scarce evidence of Aegean-type pottery in the rectangular building, or the partly subterranean large circular hut, and the latter seems to have been used for communal ceremonies. The deposition of some Aegean material was sharply localised in the ipogei. The similarity of the situation with Toppo Daguzzo and other Apennine centres leads to the conclusion that the Aeolian Islands were influenced mainly by Apennine culture and therefore the origin of the rectangular structures on the islands should preferably be traced back to contacts with that culture rather than any Aegean influence.

A less clear destruction marks the passage to the Ausonian II, which ends in the early Iron Age. This culture was significantly different from the previous phase, and its development required a sub-Apennine influence. The Ausonian II is a mix of sub-Apennine, proto-Villanovan and Pantalica North cultures. The known site, which can be closely related to Lipari, is Ausonian II Meta Piccola of Lentini, in Sicily, but there are even affinities between hut a2 in Lipari and the Palatine huts at Rome. Perhaps four huts are known from this period in Lipari, with the long oval hut a2 being the best preserved. The hut is almost rectangular, although the corners are still rounded, and partly subterranean. In spite of the similarities recognised between the Aeolian Islands and eastern Sicily, recalling the functional context of Aegean-type pottery as discussed in the previous chapter, the two areas are different. Thapsos is the main centre. The settlement had a first phase with circular huts (5 m diameter) and a second with rectangular huts (5 by 9 m on

This fits the evidence provided by the non-Aegean pottery and offers an explanation for the Aegean-type pottery found there. As we saw in chapter 4, no pattern could be found in the Aeolian Islands for the function of Aegeantype vessels, because common vessels were jars, cups (ear-

69

average); in both cases a hearth was placed in the centre. Among the rectangular huts, a megaron-like building of 60 sq. metres has been interpreted as a possible anaktoron. The second phase has no analogies in Sicily and the finds from this area are both local and Aegean-type examples. Nonetheless, it seems that the circular huts continued to be used through the second phase. A third phase is recognisable with irregular rectangular huts and thinner walls. The absence of rectangular structures associated with the simple circular dwellings suggests that during the first phase there was no influence from either the Apennine or Aegean cultures. Unlike the Aeolian Islands, where some connection could be recognised in early architectural techniques (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier argue for some connection with EH III Mainland Greece), at Thapsos the rectangular buildings seem to appear from nowhere in a context typically Sicilian. As we shall see when discussing the monumental, multi-chambered buildings, in this area some influence on the architecture might have come from the Aegean rather than the Apennine Italian peninsula. In short, the situation at Thapsos is the opposite of that on the Aeolian Islands.

intended as the final communal house for the dead. In addition, the disposition of skeletons, sometimes in a circle with the children at the centre, as well as their number, suggests that the buried were intended as members of the community of ancestors rather than individuals. Therefore, most of the wealthiest tombs containing Aegean-type pottery are different from the other tombs. Externally they differ in their monumentality and larger size, and internally they contain a micro-cosmos where social harmony prevails: all the buried appear as members of the same community (extended family?). Since tombs with Aegean-type pottery are very few outside Thapsos, any interpretation based on evidence from Thapsos could be misleading. However, most of the tombs are circular with niches or additional rooms, and they are normally very small because of the hard rock. One possibility, based on information provided by the excavation team (Ventura, personal communication), is that after carving a main chamber as large as possible, which is often circular and possibly imitating the circular huts, the need for more space after several burials could have necessitated the carving of smaller rooms as and when they were required. The Sicilian chamber tombs are repeatedly connected to Aegean tombs in the excavation reports, and in the region there are monumental, multi-chambered buildings. Could chamber tombs be better explained by reference to the Aegean? The re-use of offerings and maintenance of skeletal integrity, which are repeatedly relocated before further burials are made, is the main reason for the close proximity of some offerings and depositions within some Sicilian tombs. In the tholoi of Early Minoan Crete the same problem soon appeared, but there the bones were piled up and old offerings removed. Mycenaean tholoi are very different in character because they cannot be regarded as tombs for ordinary people. Yet, it seems that individual burials were preserved, with little skeletal mixing, as in the shaft graves of the middle and southern necropoleis at Thapsos.

The presence of Aegean-type pottery in funerary contexts is common to many sites on the eastern Sicilian coast and it should be considered in detail. The incomplete record available for settlements and associated necropoleis requires caution in any interpretation. It is probable that pottery circulated in both contexts. However, while most of the pottery can end up in tombs as offerings, its absence there excludes that any pottery found in the settlements had previously been used in funerary contexts. Many pots found in tombs are likely to have been personal belongings, particularly because there is some evidence, as we shall see, that the continuous re-openings of the tombs for new burials was occasion to display wealth, and eventually social status, during the mourning process. In particular, it seems that while personal offerings were normal, some of the more exotic or wealthy items were re-used in the display, accumulating and presenting these as the valuable belongings of ancestors.The accounts of the discoveries of several intact tombs by Orsi (1895) show that while some offerings were clearly isolated and close to specific skeletons, many others were simply put in niches or grouped around the last skeletons. The plans of nearly all of the tombs show complex, multi-chambered structures that allow the burials to be separate, but the grave goods were concentrated in the main chamber. In some cases corpses were “composed” to form a circle, heads to the chamber walls; where children were present, they were found placed inside the circle.Thus the tombs were “houses of the ancestors” rather than family graves.Two observations need to be made: tombs are much more complex structures than ordinary huts and the final assemblages are incoherent because they often include re-used products.

The second observation relating to the incoherence of funerary assemblages because of re-use, suggests that the assemblages refer to traditional families rather than individuals, and the offerings are belongings representing the lives of the people buried.Were these goods really used during life? Were they symbolic? There is no reason to doubt that at least some of the goods circulated in the living community. Symbolism is not prominent in the burials; not even the idea of the tombs being the eternal house of the dead was fully exploited. This was an idea fully conceptualized later in Etruscan tombs, which were the product of a long development started in the proto-Villanovan period, when an extreme simplicity of funerary urns preceded the anthropomorphic stylisation of the urns themselves, and then, later, the development of a symbolism, taking the urn to represent the deceased and the tomb to represent his or her house. Proto-Villanovan people, those called Ausonian II, arrived in Sicily and their presence can be detected from phase 3 at Thapsos; chamber tombs at Thapsos were being built at least until phase 2. The strong difference between the two

The diversity of tombs is difficult to explain, particularly because the presence of the same ceramic set for communal ceremonies as found in the huts suggests that the tomb was

70

excludes an Apennine influence and leaves two possibilities open: Aegean influence, or indigenous development. In the case of the chamber tombs, there is no reason to exclude an indigenous origin, the tomb being simply an imitation of the traditional circular hut, which is the only type present in phase 1 Thapsos. However, the Apennine tendency to simplicity and minimalism, leading to complex symbolism, is absent, as is any clue that these chamber tombs had any functional similarity to Aegean tholoi.

the eastern coast of Sicily during LH III A – B enjoyed a particularly wealthy position. The northern necropolis at Thapsos spreads across a vast area, with about 50 tombs visible out of about 300. Many have been destroyed, as a few close to the sea and with water inside prove, yet the plan is still recognisable. Many more have now collapsed, while some are almost certainly hidden by the vegetation. All the tombs near the sea (from the coastline up to 50 m inside the rocky coast) have a corridor, which sometimes suggests a dromos like in Aegean tholoi, while those in a more internal area (from 50 m inside the low tide limit to 150/200 m further inland) are shaft graves. There are chamber tombs, with the simplest examples consisting of just a vaulted chamber. Some have a variety of additional elements. These include niches, an internal step, benches, an antechamber, additional chambers, and detached pilasters before the antechambers themselves Not all of these elements are present in any single tomb surveyed or published; the pilasters appear in just one tomb and the additional chambers in a few.The sizes of the tombs also vary; the tombs with more elements are generally larger, while the simpler ones are often very small. The tombs were mixed, like the elements they featured, but if we accept that a tomb with many elements is a wealthy one, then we may say that these were concentrated in a small area (the coastline, where the corridor tombs are). This fits also with the description given by Orsi in 1895, with the Aegeantype vessels, especially, being found in these. However not all “wealthy” tombs yielded Aegean-type pottery. The shaft tombs in the northern necropolis are badly preserved and apparently smaller or less elaborate than the others. Shaft tombs are common in earlier periods, for example at Castelluccio, but those at Thapsos are very different (although those in the northern necropolis might be the oldest Thapsos tombs – and for this reason less monumental).

The only evidence that would support a symbolic role for Aegean-type pottery is the size of the piriform jars, which seemed specifically selected to fit in small tombs. If the primary function of Aegean-type vessels were their deposition in tombs, then they would be symbolic. While in the Aeolian Islands piriform jars are medium sized or large, at Thapsos only small examples are found and clearly they had been specifically produced. Again, in the Aeolian Islands, as well as in western Sicily (Cannatello, Monte Grande) and at Vivara, there is a clear preference in the sites for staple goods, which is indicated by the transport jars and other large coarse or undecorated wares. At Thapsos there is evidence of sophistication observable in the presence of alabastra and jugs which, taken together, are almost as numerous as the commonest shape, the piriform jar. Open vessels, most suitable for consumption, are nearly absent. In this scenario, the goods contained were probably precious, obtained in small quantities, in small containers. Thus, Aegean-type piriform jars were not necessarily small simply because they were intended for small tombs. Interestingly, while nearly everywhere else the first preference was for the actual “substance” (large containers with presumably high volumes of contents) contained rather than the vessel’s style, suggesting a real demand for some products, the inhabitants of Thapsos seem to have preferred sophistication and style. The analysis of functional context concluded that there was a cultural similarity between eastern Sicily and the Aeolian Islands in the preferences for Aegean-type vessels. The different choices between substance (large vessels for high quantity and vessels for consumption) and style (the finest decorated wares) seem to contradict that conclusion, but in reality the two areas are culturally similar. In the previous chapter it was proposed that the small Aegean- and Cypriot-type vessels in the eastern coast tombs contained spices, and specifically preserving spices similar to those employed in Egyptian mummification. If this were the case, then there would be no argument for a substance versus style dichotomy. The only difference would be in terms of context: food for the living in the larger vessels reaching the Aeolian Islands, “food” and offerings for the dead in Thapsos. If this hypothesis is taken into consideration, then Aegean-type vessels in Eastern Sicily were functional to strategies of social power. The key to understanding the similarities of the different contexts is the typical ceramic set that can be recognised as linked to acts of communal libation (or eating). The societies living along

The middle and southern necropoleis consist of a small number of corridor tombs near the sea, but the whole area is largely unexcavated. A few burial jars were recovered near the middle necropolis. Shaft tombs are much larger and more numerous here than in the northern necropolis. They start a few metres from the fortification and continue up to the sea. The tombs are all similar and a few share a common entrance. The dimensions of the tombs in the middle necropolis are comparable only with the largest examples in the northern necropolis.The assemblages support the monumentality of the tombs. All those in the middle necropolis have one descending step on the side in front of the chamber; normally the step is created by leaving an extra space while carving the entrance, but in one case it is concave and lateral. In several instances the door slabs were preserved, and still lie nearby. The closure system required two slabs: one for the door and one for the external entrance, leaving nothing visible. Aegean-type vessels are frequent and numerous in the largest tombs.

71

Ventura, a member of the excavation team, reported that the assemblages of the middle and southern tombs, pottery and bronzes, appeared to be grouped and were located near each skeleton, with each skeleton in a different stratum, which would mean a difference in time between each burial. There was no apparent order in the location of the deceased. This contrasts with some descriptions given by Orsi for tombs in the northern necropolis and other necropoleis in the region. Ventura also added that amber and bronze fibulae were found in several tombs.

be the poorest, with no assemblage. The assemblages fully support this categorisation; it should also be added that the tombs in the middle necropolis are close to the fortifications (protected?) and seem standardised (specialised artisans employed?), whereas the tombs in the northern necropolis are highly variable. An alternative view is the presence of different cultural identities at Thapsos. Burial jars and chamber tombs are commonly spread across the region, although they are never mixed in the same area. It seems that the presence of two separate (but close) necropoleis for one settlement was not unique (Tusa 1999), although Thapsos is the best known case, and this would lead to the entire region having a split identity. It seems more probable that social rank was emerging, particularly because wealth, luxury and exotic items could now be found in the region. An example is provided by the tombs with Aegean-type pottery, as presented individually in tables 5 and 6 (p. 203-205).

The elements that distinguish the various tombs, apart from size, are again niches, antechambers, and secondary chambers. However, here almost all the tombs have niches and an antechamber.The secondary chambers were, in the twentyfive tombs surveyed, generally found in the smaller graves, apparently built to enlarge them. The final impression was a certain sense of equality, with the variations being adaptations to the initial project made as and when they were needed. In the northern necropolis, however, the variability was much greater with little suggestion of equality.

A typical ceramic set can be found in almost every BA funerary assemblage, regardless of the presence or not of Aegean material, and the same pots are present inside the huts and in the monumental, multi-chambered buildings. The group is composed of an open bowl on a high pedestal and a basin on a high pedestal with a deep bowl with an inverted rim (probably to reduce the spillage of liquids). The basin has a large, bifurcate handle that is often decorated with incisions, sometimes similar to those found in Aegeanderivative forms.These vessels are then associated with other vases – with dippers and pithoi being the most common in the huts and with higher variability in the tombs. The deep bowl on pedestal can reach monumental dimensions, as with the examples from the rectangular buildings, but some inside the chamber tombs are also huge, occupying much of the limited space. The ceremony was probably a libation; the cauldron (very large deep bowl) of the larger examples has sometimes an anthropomorphic handle that could represent a deity. It is unlikely that solid food was served in the largest vessels, but it could have been present in other vessels. However, while the rite was apparently communal, the dimensions of the bowl might be proportional to the participants. If this were true, then the smallest examples in the huts are possibly family-sized; some medium or large examples in the tombs seem suitable for an extended family, and in the monumental, multi-chambered buildings large examples are suitable for everyone inside (and possibly even the whole of the community). This is not an exact distinction and while the site remains unpublished caution is required, although the general trend seems proved from the available evidence. Libation, or “eating and drinking together” practices are, however, signs of widespread wealth. The nature of the set is probably responsible for the lack of Aegean-type bowls at Thapsos.

The rock in Thapsos is particularly hard to work and required bronze and flint tools (Ventura, personal communication). Of course bronze was a valuable resource, and if the creation of large tombs required bronze tools this means that access to these implements determined the possibility of having a large tomb. A serial production of tombs by specialised artisans, as in classical times, could be the case in the middle necropolis, but is not likely in the northern necropolis: all the tombs differ there. Therefore, at least in the northern necropolis, each family built its own tomb using the tools and expertise they had access to. The hypothesis of “large tombs” equating to “wealthy people”, if accepted, could be sustained by assemblages and technical considerations. Finally, the use of bronze tools, assuming it was connected with wealth, was normal for shaft graves. Thus three types of tombs existed at Thapsos: corridor chamber tombs (northern necropolis), shaft chamber tombs (small in the northern necropolis and large in the middle and southern necropoleis), and burial jars (middle necropolis). Aegean-type pottery has been found in corridor chamber tombs (particularly the largest in the northern necropolis) and shaft chamber tombs (particularly in the large tombs of the middle necropolis but possibly also elsewhere). A society with differences in status may be envisaged, although a role in the variability is also played by the chronology of the site. Particularly intriguing is the possibility that social status could be recognised in the availability or not of bronze tools to help carve the hard rock. In this case, the wealthiest tombs would be larger (with the availability of several metal and flint tools). The larger tombs are the shaft graves in the middle necropolis; the tombs with a corridor in the northern necropolis, followed by the small shaft graves in the same area show the use of fewer metal tools, but the shaft graves seem more archaic. Last, the jar burials would

The ceramic set is also absent from the Aeolian Islands, where the procurement of staple foodstuffs might have been challenging at times: feasting does not seem to have been an option for Bronze Age Aeolian islanders. Merely

72

subsisting was probably hard enough, and most probably any product reaching the islands from overseas would have helped those on the receiving side. Having enough food to survive was perhaps the variable that distinguished a wealthy person, and given the fundamental importance of food, anybody capable of sharing food would, in fact, be offering the means of survival and may have created a sense of dependence on those receiving help that was hardly attainable otherwise.Whilst, in the warmer months, food may have been readily available, the colder months perhaps required preserved comestibles, and any food contained inside the Aegean-type vessels would fit this description (as it had already endured a long journey). At Thapsos, surrounded by fertile land and with rooted traditions of feasting within that culture, preserved food may not have enticed the locals. Nor would possession of enough food to survive have permitted the exercise of any control on the population. Instead, the tombs and the ancestors in them were part of a strategy to affirm an historical presence in the community and, through wealth display, social importance. What Aegean products would have best served a function within such a context? Aromatic and preserving spices are obvious suggestions. They would have served several practical functions, such as covering the stench of decomposing bodies at funerary rituals, preserving them for longer, and being in themselves luxury items to display personal wealth. Although the preservation of bodies did not reach the extent of proper mummification, the burial sites were reused for further depositions, and we have seen that in some tombs at Thapsos each body had its own space and offerings and therefore was seen at each new burial. In this hypothesis, both the Aeolian Islands and the eastern coast of Sicily would have received similar products, highly valuable Aegean-type vessels containing spices or spiced foods, and served similar functions (increasing social status), regardless of the specific contexts of deposition. One last thought about this hypothesis introduces Aegean-derivative vessels. These may have contained Mediterranean spices more easily available to the Sicilian populations, and therefore competed with the Aegean-type vessels as much for their stylish ceramic styles and designs as for their contents.

mentality, precision of the cuts in the rock, and number of pots found) are in the “North-West” group of tombs (Iron Age) and the western part of the “North” group (Final Bronze Age).Tomb 133, where the only Aegean-type vessel at Pantalica was found, is within this “wealthy” area, where, in the nearby tombs 37 and 62, gold and silver ornaments were also found. From the same area Orsi reports the abundance of lithic tools, proving, according to him, the antiquity of the group of tombs. In Pantalica North-West, tombs 37 and 62 are particularly large and monumental. Interestingly, these are the only two “wealthy” areas in Pantalica, according to Bernabò Brea (1985), and these are the areas from where the Aegean-type jug and the Aegean-derivative vessels also come. However it should be mentioned that, in the similar necropolis of Cassibile, dated to the Iron Age, Turco (2000) noticed that there was little evidence of any social hierarchy. In the Plemmyrion peninsula, however, non ceramic items (metals, bone combs) are suggestive of the emergence of wealthier people. The data indicate that the central part of the eastern Sicilian coast, roughly from Thapsos and Pantalica in the north to Syracuse in the south, was wealthy (core?), whereas “marginal” areas such as the Aeolian Islands and Cassibile were not (periphery?). Eastern Sicily appears to be the most complex region among those identified. The extreme care applied to the excavations in the Aeolian Islands allows the recognition of subtle cultural changes resulting from external influences. These changes outline the approach of people exchanging Aegean goods by introducing their products into a pre-existing exchange network (of Capo Graziano culture), and re-orientating that network of the Apennine culture from Sardinia deep into the Tyrrhenian coast. The two links were previously broadly in equilibrium, although the Sardinian link was perhaps the stronger. A subsequent reaction on the Apennine side provoked the closure of the terminus at Vivara and started the renewed exploitation of the Sardinian route, where Aegean-type products arrived for the first time. However, a further push from the Apennine culture eventually secures the Aeolian Islands and cuts off the exchange network. The Aegean products at this time seem to have found their way to Sardinia via western Sicily.

Aegean-derivative vessels account for a large quota of ceramics, but they rarely try to imitate precisely Aegean shapes; the clay is always coarse and D’Agata (2000) could recognise only two shapes, jug FS 159-161 and the uncommon bowls FS 279, 283 and 284. More details are provided in the Gazetteer. Some of the non-ceramic items that support the view of a wealthy Thapsos, possibly with a social hierarchy, will be reviewed in the next chapter.

The preference in the Aeolian Islands for consumable goods, and the apparently “unranked” society, reveal a people living in a harsh environment, constantly in need, and open to the Aegean culture. However successful the Aeolian gateway was, the islanders seem to have been equally fearful of, and grateful to, the people from overseas; they retreated into the high hills but also integrated Aegean religious elements into their culture, the latest and strongest sign of cultural integration and identification, as the clay figurine and spring chamber “sanctuary of the underworld” would prove. The spring chamber has been dated to the late Capo Graziano period (material associated at Capo Graziano with LH II

Pantalica (see table 6, p. 205) is another necropolis where wealthy tombs can be recognised. The chamber tombs have various shapes, but roundish and irregular chambers are widespread, while rectangular chambers are more frequent among the wealthiest tombs. Orsi reports that the wealthiest tombs (as suggested by the number of chambers, monu-

73

material), when the links between the Capo Graziano culture and Sardinia had already been severed, to be replaced by the new exchange network carrying Aegean material and oriented towards the Tyrrhenian coast of the Italian peninsula and Sicily. Had the spring chamber been built in an earlier period, then it could have been influenced by Sardinian architecture instead, but this cannot be argued after the thorough excavation by Bernabò Brea (Bernabò Brea et al. 1990), which could not find any earlier material. The destructions of the Ausonian period proved them correct in maintaining an ambiguous attitude towards overseas people throughout their long story.

of valuables”, of any type, and suitable for displaying of personal wealth.

Monumental multi-chambered buildings The subjects of this section are a few complex buildings on two sites, Thapsos and Pantalica. Only one of the buildings at Thapsos contained a few Aegean-type potsherds, representing all those found in the settlement. There are two reasons for considering them in detail: their importance in term of understanding the general cultural context of Thapsos and more generally of eastern Sicily, and the necessity to address the issue of Aegean influence. Thapsos has yielded great amounts of Aegean-type pottery from its necropoleis, and more pottery comes from nearby cemeteries, but only a few non-funerary structures are known in the region and these are concentrated at Thapsos. Therefore, a broader study of the settlement of Thapsos overcomes the limits imposed by archaeological exploration. In addition, an Aegean derivation has been proposed for all the multichambered buildings since their discovery, linking them to the presence of Aegean-type pottery.

The discovered settlements show complexity, rapid change and cultural unity across a vast area. The many tombs found revealed most of the Aegean-type pottery as well as other exotic products. However, the tombs are different and the distribution is anything but homogenous. This contrasts very much with the huts in the Aeolian Islands. Evidence for social divisions and the establishment of a hierarchy may be seen in the different type of tombs, in the attribution of different values to some products and verifying their uneven distribution across the population, in assuming that large tombs are wealthier, or, at Thapsos, assuming that the use of metal tools and the employment of specialised artisans is proof of wealth. Thinking of the Milazzese-style bowls in the Aeolian Islands, where small- and mediumsized containers were preferred, the Thapsos cauldrons are outrageously opulent. There is no evidence of libation in the Aeolian Islands, although the “drinking together” custom had to be known and practised occasionally.

There are at least three rectangular buildings at Thapsos and one at Pantalica (the anaktoron, or “palace of the prince”). The buildings at Thapsos and Pantalica are unique in Sicily and different from the Apennine rectangular buildings of the Italian peninsula, such as those at Vivara. Thus, they seem the expression of a localised need which required such particular structures at that time (roughly LH III A 2 – C). The monumental, multi-chambered building in the settlement of Thapsos, with Aegean-type pottery inside, is composed of four (or more) rectangular rooms joining on their shorter side and forming a very long structure.The building is inserted into a complex plan, where several other rectangular structures lie nearby, and among these there is at least one smaller example (with two rooms), vaguely recalling a Mycenaean megaron because of its projecting lateral walls. There is also a further structure made of rectangular rooms that seem to encircle a small area. Around these structures were found some round huts, built in an earlier phase but still in use when the rectangular structures appeared. Huts built during the second phase are rectangular. The settlement itself is located on the northwest side of a peninsula, where two series of fortifications are located on the southwest side, and three cemeteries occupy most of the eastern peninsula covering an area much larger than that used by the settlement. The extension of the cemeteries is disproportionate to the settlement and the habitable buildings are few compared to the massive rectangular buildings that were mainly storage and production areas. In addition, the presence of several very large cauldrons suggests that some communal activity took place. The rooms of the building with Aegean-type pottery were evidently divided into zones, each dedicated to different activities; metalworking

Wealth was one of the reasons for placing many exotic artefacts in tombs: the frequent display of these in the tombs was probably a key element in the definition and maintenance of social power. The tombs in eastern Sicily were communal and repeatedly opened to add new burials; exotic goods were possibly re-used. Wealth was also a good reason for the Aegean people to stay there. At Thapsos there are some of the earliest Cypriot pots, although they seem imitations rather than proof of any direct link. Cypriot pots appear to have been considered a particularly suitable identifier of wealth during LH III B. The only speculation that can be made, preserving some consistency with the data, would envisage them as symbols of Near Eastern sophistication and luxury. It is probable that the people there did not know this directly, but the Mycenaeans did. Be that as it may, the wider and richer in goods and exotic items a tomb was during LH III B, the more probable it is that one or more Cypriot pots appeared in the assemblage. An oxhide ingot from Thapsos, the oldest in the West Mediterranean, hints that some goods were beginning to be brought in from Cyprus itself, as they will be later in Sardinia, if one accepts the results from lead isotope analyses. Interestingly, iron rods (of unknown origin) were placed in tomb 48 of the northern necropolis; iron was rare and valuable at that time, suggesting once again that tombs were a “collection

74

was possibly represented as well.The fortifications appear to have been located on deserted land, far from the settlement and protecting a small area that was probably the ancient harbour. However, the dimensions of the peninsula are so small that anyone arriving from the sea would approach the land from the naturally protected western side, avoiding the rocky eastern coast and the fortifications. The fortune of Thapsos was indeed founded on its natural harbour, which was known and actively used.

phase, when Pantalica becomes a main centre and begins the production of its own pottery. In room A there was clear evidence of metalworking. The buildings at Thapsos were not yet “palatial”; instead, they are like the Minoan pre-palatial (EM II) complex formed by the “Red House” and the “West House” at Vasiliki. The building at Pantalica is particularly similar to “corridor houses”, such as the EH II “House of Tiles” at Lerna, or the contemporary “Weisses Haus” (White House) at Kolonna on Aegina, because of the long rectangular rooms added to room A.Tiles were found in the same building but they dated to Greek times, although this does not preclude the possibility that tiles were also present earlier.The chronological and spatial gap between the Sicilian and Aegean EBA buildings is too wide for a direct comparison, but the possible use of the Sicilian buildings in some sort of public role may be envisaged, such as in the case of the immediate predecessors of the Aegean palaces. However, the similarity between the Sicilian and Aegean structures remains limited to a similar pattern of emerging social complexity, because the architectonic solutions adopted in Sicily were not common in the contemporary Aegean, as there, at least, the institution of palaces had been established long before.

Pantalica might be described as a “natural fortress”; it is not a settlement but a valley, located in the hinterland of Thapsos. The river Anapo forms a deep, green valley in a stunning scenario of gorges and caves. Thanks to the river Calcinara and other minor streams, a large area becomes almost an island except for a tiny passage. Surrounding all of this area are thousands (5000 at least) of rock-cut tombs in the cliffs of the encircling hills, built throughout several centuries; they were still in use during the Greek period but impermeable to Greek culture for a long time. Thucydides, reporting the war between Syracuse and Athens in the years 415-413 BC, refers several times to the area of Pantalica and its relationship with the Greeks. In the “History of the Peloponnesian War” he says that the Athenians hoped to conquer not just Syracuse but the whole of Sicily, but he then stressed that Sicily was also inhabited by independent indigenous people (VI, 1-2). The indigenous people on the eastern coast of Sicily were largely independent (VI, 88) and ties between the indigenous people and Syracuse (VI, 34) or Athens (VI, 48) had to be checked repeatedly.

Although the monumental, multi-chambered buildings at Thapsos and Pantalica cannot be regarded as following Aegean prototypes, they are contemporary to the arrival of Aegean-type pottery in the same area – eastern Sicily. Since settlements in this area are scarcely known and the only non-funerary buildings with Aegean-type pottery are the multi-chambered ones at Thapsos, some of the Aegean-type pottery found in the tombs across the region might have been stored in this type of building.

No settlement has ever been discovered, but it is probable that there was a series of settlements on the top of the hills surrounding the valley. In a spectacular and unique setting, the so-called anaktoron is located roughly in the middle of the area that is nearly surrounded by water, without any other structure close by except for three walls, possibly of later date. Even tombs are not located there, and while the place is in open view of the surrounding hills (and possibly settlements) it is not easily reachable. The monumental, multi-chambered building itself has been modified several times during antiquity, but it is clear that the earliest version was contemporary to the building at Thapsos, because pottery of the second phase of the Thapsos culture was recovered by Bernabò Brea (1990). The structure was at least partially built using the megalithic technique and appears long and narrow, made of six square rooms, which, two by two, define the external rectangular shape.There is evidence of metalworking and grain grinding inside. A later addition, room A, is a larger square room, whose construction required the destruction of one of the pre-existing square rooms and the creation of two long and narrow rectangular rooms. Room A was certainly built using the megalithic technique and the earliest pottery there dates to the Pantalica North phase, which is contemporary to the third phase at Thapsos. Thus, the building was built during the second phase at Thapsos and expanded during the third

The monumental, multi-chambered buildings have little in common with the Apennine large rectangular buildings, which were architecturally simpler and conceptually often used for one purpose: communal storage. Alternatively, the buildings at Thapsos and Pantalica concentrate several productive activities, which were previously carried out within the individual huts; this situation continued elsewhere, for example on the Aeolian Islands. The buildings were also used to store goods for the community, and the broad ceramic assemblages prove that communal activities, probably communal eating and drinking, took place there. Specialisation could have been a result of this concentration, which might be apparent in evidence of metalworking activities. The presence of Aegean-type pottery in such a context demonstrates that it was a valuable commodity, although its relative scarcity and concentration in a few tombs would suggest that not all the items in the buildings were supposed to be redistributed in an egalitarian way. This specific aspect could indicate the presence of an elite controlling the traffic of Aegean-type products, but the rest of the evidence suggests that this was not the case.The pottery in the tombs has been accumulated over time and the final assemblages

75

The spring chamber in Lipari

unearthed usually have a range of pottery spanning from LH III A 2 to B 2. Therefore, it is probable that the pottery had only been deposited in the tombs in the final composition of the assemblage, at the end of the Thapsos II period, when the flow of Aegean-type pottery and the use of the multi-chambered buildings terminated.

Bernabò Brea (1990) rediscovered an old “thermal” building on the island of Lipari at San Calogero, next to Greek and Roman spa structures. A campaign to study the building unearthed a few Capo Graziano potsherds at the lowest internal level, in a pure stratum, dating the building to LH II. The thick stone walls have suffered prolonged static problems, partly caused by ancient earthquakes, and there was no evidence of any rebuilding except for the restored vault that uses Roman bricks and is evidently different.This proves that the last restoration of wall structures dates to the Roman period, when the building was already ancient.The building is small (about 4.10 m in diameter, the earthquakes made it ovoid; 2.80 m being the actual height) and without interments A spring gushes out from the rock at a temperature between 40˚ to 60˚ C, from a purpose built channel ending in a “white tongue” concretion caused by the high content in carbon dioxide, magnesium and sodium chloride of the water. The water is not drinkable because of its high mineral content, but it could have been used as therapeutic spring (it is effective in skin-related problems) or thermal bath. It is possible that the source of the spring is the same as that of the later spa buildings, but the canalisation has not been adequately explored. Interestingly, the nearest LBA water canalisation (drainage) can be found in the settlement of Thapsos, contemporary to the multi-chambered buildings area (LH III A). In the absence of comparable canalisations in the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily, the best parallels for the spring chamber canalisation are with the water supply at Athens (LH III B), which canalised a spring within the fortification walls; the drainage system at Thapsos recalls that of the West Gate area at Midea. There are plenty of examples in Mycenaean Greece from LH III B, and in one case, at Ayia Irini on Keos, possible LH II structures allowed access to an underground water source, proving an early Mycenaean expertise in hydraulics and water-related engineering. Considering that most of the Aegean influences recognised in Italic buildings date to very early times, as early as late Neolithic for multi-chambered and apsidal buildings, or Early Minoan for the ipogei, this might be the most precise similarity with Mycenaean architecture.

The location of the multi-chambered buildings suggests that they were not physically at the centre of the community (as is the case with the apsidal buildings in the Ionian area). The buildings at Thapsos are located in a small village with huge cemeteries and poor defences; on the side of the Sicilian coast there are numerous hills, some of which are known for their tombs and suspected settlements. Floridia and Cozzo del Pantano are both sites of tombs, with Aegean-type pottery, on hills not far from Thapsos. However the building at Pantalica is located in the heart of the valley, almost entirely encircled by rivers, far from the hills and possible settlements, in an area free of tombs. There are only three defensive walls, possibly added after the first phase (Pantalica North). The locations of the buildings at both Thapsos and Pantalica suggest that they were the focal point of the settlements on the hills, pointing to the possibility of a league among the communities. Following this hypothesis, Thapsos would have been a shared, “federal” harbour, largely commercial in its nature and linking overseas exchange networks to the possible exchange network in eastern Sicily, among the sites of Thapsos culture. The lack of defences might be explained by the fact that most of the goods would have travelled to the hinterland. Thapsos itself, scarcely defendable given its natural setting, would have been protected by the larger community. In fact, Aegean-type pottery itself is almost absent in the settlement, although better represented in the tombs and scattered in many cemeteries across the region. The need for apparently oversized cemeteries and complex, multi-chambered buildings would be explained by the fact that the site was the focus of several communities around Thapsos, and therefore not used only by people living there. The later building at Pantalica appears instead as being at the centre of the “closed” community that lived in the surrounding hills, which evidently shared a common space for the tombs. This society might have been the remnant of the earlier internal exchange network of Thapsos. The contacts with overseas people probably did not stop abruptly (Aegean-derivative ceramics like the askoi), but they appear much reduced. Such communities would have been fertile ground for the emergence of elites and the process of state formation. Alternatively elite formation at this stage, in spite of some peculiarities, would have been similar to the social processes recognisable in the southern Italian peninsula from LH III B. Remarkably, Aegean-type pottery was present in both cases, suggesting that the exchanges with overseas people were at least one of the reasons for the changes in the societies.

Belli (In Bernabò Brea et al. 1990) has compared in detail the architecture of the spring chamber at San Calogero with Aegean tholoi, but only a vague architectonical resemblance could be detected. However, the Mycenaean tholos could be interpreted as a “door” to the underworld, because, unlike the Minoan tholos, it is hidden inside a hill, or tumulus, which becomes a landmark and is preceded by a corridor (dromos). The action of hiding the Mycenaean tholos from view suggests that the tholos itself did not belong to the ordinary world. Homer (Odyssey XI, 1-50) confirms that at least in later times there was a belief in an underworld, which could be accessed by the living community, although he did not mention any particular structure necessary to access it. Accepting that the Mycenaean tholos was linked to

76

the underworld, we can recognise the same link in a clearer way at San Calogero.

was found.The area is apparently fortified and located at the end of the road from the lower furnaces. It has been defined as an “emporium” by Castellana (1998, 2000) because of the presence of so much Aegean-type pottery. The latter area, Baffo Superiore, is where many fine wares have been found, along with fewer coarse vessels. In this area there are some furnaces but also six megalithic enclosures, five of which were circular, where large quantities of Castelluccian ceramic horns have been found. These items are common among Castelluccian sites and they have always been associated with rites linked to fertility.

The only contemporary and similar buildings, the Mycenaean tholoi, were always tombs, but the chamber at San Calogero, which was converted by the Romans into a sauna within the Roman baths, is unlikely ever to have been a tomb. It is also unlikely that any Aegean architect, arriving at the same time as the Aegean-type pottery, would have proposed to employ an element of funerary architecture as a thermal bath. However there are hints that the place was sacred: some pots found inside (like the Capo Graziano potsherds dating it) might be interpreted as offerings and, more importantly, it is unclear why neither the Greeks nor the Romans modified the building when they built the spa. In particular the Romans restored the building, after an earthquake, largely as it was before. They preserved as much as possible of the building, which had twisted, and evidently made a feature of it by contrasting Greek and Roman high-status buildings. Did the Romans respect the Greek architecture, or just like it?

Inside the enclosures, large platforms made of terracotta were uncovered not far from small deposits of animal bones, suggesting to the excavator that communal feasting took place there. In addition, broken murex shells, as well as loom weights, lithic tools and clay (female) figurines and models, and open vessels suitable for drinking were all found. It seems that the ritual character of these circles cannot be doubted, but the absence of a settlement and the combination of fine wares, indigenous drinking vessels and the evidence for the production of sulphur and textiles, suggest that the site was a combination of a workshop and “market”. Probably the terracotta platforms were not only used for ceremonies but also for the communal meals that the people working there shared, since no real huts were located nearby. Accordingly, Pizzo Italiano, instead of being interpreted as an isolated emporium, or acropolis, could be interpreted as the site where food was stored for redistribution at Baffo Superiore. Evidently, Baffo Superiore was at the heart of the system, well connected to all the other production sites and the only site where social activities are detectable (communal meals and drinking, offerings, display of manufactured items, etc.). For this reason, the use of the area as a ritual site may be accepted, although the main function of the location was different: it was primarily a working space.

Western Sicily Western Sicily is largely formed by the Platani valley, which is near modern Agrigento. Here Aegean-type pottery first appears at Monte Grande during LH I, and then, perhaps after a short break, Cannatello becomes the main centre from LH III. A direct comparison between the two sites is prevented by the chronological gap. However Monte Grande was one of the early destinations of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean, matched only by Vivara on the Tyrrhenian coast. Cannatello is possibly a port of call on the route to Sardinia, or an independent terminus. The functional context suggested that both Monte Grande and Cannatello were interested in obtaining staple goods (such as food supplies), apparently also sharing the same interest in exchanging finer goods, as detected on the Aeolian Islands. Monte Grande is clearly a terminus, similar to the late Aeolian Islands, whereas Cannatello was a stop on the way, as was the case with the early Aeolian Islands. Evidently, if a comparison can be proposed, this should be with the Aeolian Islands although the excavator, Castellana (1998, 2000), prefers Vivara.

Monte Grande was a place of production, consumption, exchange and cult. Ritual activity was certainly present, because sulphur was probably connected with religious or magical practices, but the site cannot be considered predominantly a sanctuary, as proposed by the excavator (Castellana 1998, 2000). The two areas yielding most Aegeantype pottery seem connected. One is dedicated to storage (Pizzo Italiano), particularly of imported goods, and is defended; the other is a production centre (Baffo Superiore), where sulphur and textiles, at least, were being produced. Evidently, it was also a place for exchanges of Aegean-type pottery and it is probable that the array of products present at Baffo Superiore included most of the regional production of these ceramics. In this regard, evidence of wider, and probably mediated contacts consists of a LH I Aegean-type potsherd from Pietraperzia, as well as late Aegean-type pottery present at Madre Chiesa, where there is also evidence of a style of hybrid Castelluccian – Thapsos pottery. Sulphur alone could have been the main reason for Aegean

Monte Grande appears to be unique, being a sulphurous cave where there were no houses or tombs. Indeed, the extraction of sulphur excluded ordinary life; the cave was used until modern times and the written accounts from Roman times onwards describe a living hell rather than simply harsh conditions. A detailed description of the site, divided into six main excavation areas, can be found in the Gazetteer. Excluding the various furnaces, two areas deserve special attention: Pizzo Italiano and Baffo Superiore. The former is the highest point, where most of the Aegean-type pottery

77

mariners sailing to Monte Grande, but they probably would have found much more there. We do not know what they may have asked for; it can only be argued that, because the contacts continued after the decline of Monte Grande, the exchanges that the Aegean traders (or whoever was carrying their goods) desired could be acquired elsewhere in the region. In other words, the sulphur of Monte Grande was probably not the main exchange commodity. The indigenous people, as on the Aeolian Islands, were exploiting the opportunity in order to obtain much-needed staples. However, unlike the Aeolian Islands, but similar to what happened at Vivara, the people at Monte Grande were able to offer goods as well as services, and probably from a wide region. Monte Grande seems to have been abandoned when rectangular buildings were being built at Thapsos, and this could have been why the Aegean people left. There was a general reorganisation of the exchanges between LH III A 1 and 2, because Vivara was also abandoned at this time. Thapsos, and shortly afterwards new enterprises in western Sicily, were probably able to offer sulphur and other products to the visiting traders in an environment less harsh than at Monte Grande.

similar arrangement was in place even during phase I, using a wooden structure. The phase II settlement appears like a small fortress, well defended and with each area sharply divided according to use. The internal wall encloses eight out of ten huts and has a single entrance, so that the wall was not only intended to demarcate a special space, but effectively to restrict and protect access to this area inside the settlement. Moreover, a further division of the space inside the walled area can be recognised, with round huts 2, 7 and 9 opposite the entrance and rectangular buildings 3, 4, 6 and 10 near the entrance. Hut 7 replaced the smaller hut 8 on the same site. Huts 7 and 9 have a pit (diameter of 1.30 m and depth of 2 m) underneath the hearth filled with animal bones and a few potsherds (especially from cups). The pit might be interpreted as the product of a ritual, possibly at the time of foundation. In this case, the circular huts would carry a special meaning for that community, because the remains of the earliest hut (hut 8 underneath hut 7) are preserved; the huts are protected by three layers of defences and would have been used for (communal) sacred rites. These huts (7 and 9) do not seem to have hosted a household, while the phase I hut 8 probably did.

Shortly after the demise of Monte Grande, Aegean-type products reached the settlement of Cannatello, which had three main phases, at least two of which associated with Aegean products. The excavations have revealed a wall surrounding some circular (huts) and rectangular buildings. No building has been found outside the wall, giving the impression of a fortified citadel.

At phase I Cannatello there are rectangular and circular buildings (huts). In particular, the excavated circular ones had Aegean-type pots (the large majority of closed shapes), much of Thapsos-style, and local pottery. In phase II fewer Aegean-type pots have been found, but all the inhabited buildings are rectangular, with the circular ones being evidently distinguished and used for special purposes. In the following phase III, circular huts reappear as the standard building form.

In the settlement of phase I, most of the Aegean-type pottery found comes from the grey stratum, while at the bottom of the grey stratum Thapsos-style pots were deposited on the bedrock, suggesting that the foundation of the settlement was due to the action of people from the eastern coast, rather than by indigenes. The Thapsos-style pots are almost exclusively cups (among the recognisable shapes).The nearby settlement of Milena (Serra del Palco) has a similar situation; the Cannatello phase I stratum is almost identical in composition to Milena’s stratum IX, where Thapsos and LH III A Aegean-type materials were also present. It seems that the foundation of Cannatello as a settlement, open to Thapsos and its Aegean culture and material, was not an isolated case in the Platani Valley, but probably part of a programme of expanding exchanges in this area.

It is remarkable that only in this settlement, and not in other similar sites discovered in the Platani Valley, do circular huts and rectangular buildings coexist, as at Thapsos in eastern Sicily. There, the circular huts correspond to the phase I huts in Cannatello, but it is unclear if they date exactly to the same time. Instead the appearance of rectangular buildings in Thapsos seems contemporary with a similar pottery assemblage found at Cannatello phase II, and the technique of building is also very similar. However, only in Cannatello is it evident that the difference in the shape of the buildings (circular or rectangular) could have emphasized some differences at a social level (communal versus private space) and was not just intended as a mere improvement in building technique or product of some Aegean influence. For instance, at Thapsos, complex rectangular buildings appear along with modest rectangular huts. If a building is important in Cannatello, then it is circular; on the contrary, in eastern Sicily it would very probably be rectangular, such as the anaktoron at Pantalica.

Phase II began after the fire that terminated phase I, although it is unclear how long the gap was between the two phases. The stratum of phase II has fewer Aegean-type pots, which are dated to the LH III B. The pottery from this phase is, again, almost identical to that found at the settlement of Milena, Serra del Palco, this time from stratum VIII to the surface. Certainly the new phase saw a considerable effort in restructuring the site rather than simply restoring it. At this time a stone wall was built inside the settlement, dividing two groups of huts; it is possible that a

Cannatello is the only settlement in the Platani Valley with more than a handful of Aegean-type potsherds. Undecorat-

78

ed transport jars have been found here as well as at Monte Grande. At Cannatello one stirrup jar comes from central Crete, according to petrographic analyses by Day (Dr Peter Day, personal communication), while at Monte Grande one potsherd is of possible Near Eastern origin (Canaanite jar). Moreover Madre Chiesa seems to be a direct cultural link between the old Castelluccian culture, present in the area from Monte Grande up to Syracuse, and the Thapsos culture. This evidence apparently suggests that there had been continuity between early Monte Grande and late Cannatello. Instead, Cannatello produced a foundation layer clearly filled with Thapsos-style pottery, as do other sites in the vicinity as (for example Milena), proving that people from the area of Syracuse moved into the region of Cannatello.Thus, the hybrid pottery at Madre Chiesa could be the product of the meeting of two cultures, as is Aegean-derivative pottery, rather than evidence of an indigenous cultural change (Castelluccian to Thapsos style). The scenario developing is one of continuous contacts, in the area of Monte Grande first, then Thapsos and its surroundings, and finally back to western Sicily (Cannatello and other sites). Evidently Sicily remained an important region for the exchange of Aegeantype material throughout LH, but the centres within the exchange network changed, showing the flexibility of the network and the relative unimportance of the inclusion of specific areas for the exchanges to take place. At Cannatello the contacts with the Aegean visitors ranks high among the possible reasons for the foundation of the new site; Aegeantype pottery is found next to the earliest pottery in the strata.

key to understanding the building programme at phase II Cannatello. At Baffo Superiore, Monte Grande, the megalithic circular enclosures were spaces dedicated to religious ceremonies (as proved by clay horns and figurines) as well as areas for exchange. The two activities are compatible. It is probable that a space for visitors wishing to exchange products was also a sacred space, in order to ensure security and implement any special requirements necessary. Such enclosures are also present at Madre Chiesa and elsewhere in the area, but there is no clear evidence of exchanges there as all the material culture is indigenous. At Monte Grande, however, the presence of Aegean-type pottery within the site and inside the enclosures suggests that the structures were not used for religious purposes alone. Therefore, the enlarged circular huts at Cannatello could be analogous to the enclosures: areas dedicated to both exchanges and ceremonies. The absence of production activities in both the huts at Cannatello and the enclosures in all centres except Monte Grande, might be explained by the differences of context: Monte Grande is an industrial area whereas Cannatello and the other centres are settlements with separate production facilities. In conclusion, there is a possible similarity in the depositional context of Aegean-type pottery at Monte Grande and Cannatello in spite of the chronological gap and possible interruption of the exchanges for a short period. Aegeantype pottery seems concentrated in sacred areas and its presence suggests an increase in the wealth of the site, which is indirectly detectable in the abandonment of Monte Grande and destruction of Cannatello, timed exactly at the zenith of the exchanges.The Aegean-type pottery also seems proof of culturally broader contacts that affect the indigenous culture, recognisable in the reversion to the circular huts starting phase III; the change in architectonical solutions at Cannatello happens as soon as Aegean-type pottery stops circulating. Incidentally, the link between rectangular buildings and the Aegean influence in Sicily becomes more probable. Remarkably, the circular huts in phase II Cannatello might have had the same communal or public function as that of the main rectangular huts in the southern Italian peninsula, in spite of the different cultural context.

The apparent similarity between the settlements of Thapsos and Cannatello can be recognised primarily in the presence at both sites of circular and rectangular buildings. Thapsos phase 2 pottery and circular and rectangular buildings at phase I Cannatello are a clear link with phase 2 Thapsos. Phase II Cannatello and phase 3 Thapsos are also similar, while phase III Cannatello, without Aegean-type pottery, is synchronous with the use of circular huts, perhaps confirming that rectangular buildings in the region should be linked to the circulation of Aegean products. The different function of the circular huts is paramount in revealing how unsustainable the similarity is. During phase I the structures are simple huts, similar to phase 2 Thapsos, but during phase II, at Cannatello, they were rebuilt and enhanced; it is also possible that foundation deposits were placed within. The radical changes between phase I and II at Cannatello suggest that widespread destructions (stratum with evidence of fire) occurred there, but not at Thapsos. The subsequent construction of fortifications isolates some of the circular huts, which are no longer dwellings but, perhaps, public (sacred?) areas used for communal ceremonies. Remarkably, Aegean-type pottery has been found mostly, if not exclusively, in circular huts.

Western Sicily can also be interpreted according to the hypothesis that Aegean traders exchanged “spices.” Monte Grande was obviously a repository for sulphur, which might have attracted Aegean traders first as much as obsidian, pumice and other volcanic materials might have attracted traders to the Aeolian Islands. Of course, there are products that were probably imported to these areas as a result of the exchanges. These may have been metal objects such as the Cypriot-style bowls found at Caldare, Milena and Sant’Angelo Muxaro, and a few other possible Cypriotstyle objects from the areas of Agrigento and Cannatello (see Gazetteer, p. 106). Alternatively, the exchanges were organic materials available to Aegean traders that left no trace in the archaeological record, such as purple-dyed fabrics.

Monte Grande, although not a settlement, could offer the

79

However, in the case of Cannatello, the presence of stirrup jars points to the possibility that grapevines and olive trees were introduced. These plants were certainly introduced into Sicily by the Greeks after this time, but it is possible that at least a few plants had already reached some areas. As oils and wine were usually aromatised, perfumed or spiced in antiquity, if there was a real possibility that wine and oils were introduced, then there is every likelihood that the associated aromatic spices were also in circulation. As a result, the whole evidence of Aegean-type pottery in LH I – III A Sicily may also be explained, and certainly not exclusively, in the light of the introduction of spices there. The three different recognised regions, the Aeolian Islands, Eastern and Western Sicily are very similar, both culturally and taking into account the Aegean-type wares. They appear to have been targeted by a single “marketing” campaign undertaken by eastern traders, who may have imported spiced (preserved) foods, preserving spices and aromatising spices. Notably, spices may have different uses but they are fundamentally the same product. If Sicily indeed entered the spice-trade market (Turner 2004) via Mycenaean traders, then Aegean-type pottery vessels were the most probable receptacles. This can be argued on the basis that residues of spices have been found along with Aegean-type pottery and many other materials in the Uluburun shipwreck (Pulak 1998). In the absence of organic residues, it seems appropriate to try matching the clues offered by the archaeological record with known traded products, in the same way that stylistic analyses provide fundamental clues about the possible movements of the products themselves. Chemical and petrological analyses may well give the exact provenance of single objects, but stylistic analysis still provides information relating to the agencies that originated the production and consumption of the new wares, and are never entirely superfluous.

did not contain the majority of Aegean-type pottery (just the highest concentration), nor exceptional items like clay figurines. Depositional contexts of sites in the Ionian area are poorly preserved or only partially known, as excavations are still ongoing. However, reports of Aegean-type pottery in several test pits, and particularly at Taranto, over the whole site of Punta Tonno and beyond and across the canal at San Domenico, prove that Aegean-type pottery was widespread and the concentrations found in the apsidal buildings cannot stand comparison with the possible amounts if just one or two pots were in each building. It seems that the apsidal building is a communal (public?) structure and for this reason fine wares and other possible valuables were concentrated there. In addition, neither the rectangular apsidal building nor the division of the settlements into upper and lower citadels can be deemed a direct consequence of Aegean influence.

Ionian Apulia

The connection between Apennine buildings and Aegeantype material is further complicated at Punta Tonno by the presence of northern metal items (i.e. from the northern Italian peninsula and Central Europe).This suggests that the settlements were involved in several exchange networks and were relatively less dependant on one culture than, for example, Thapsos or other centres where there is evidence of just one network. Sites such as Punta Tonno, or to a lesser degree the Aeolian Islands, were gateways for new cultures and influences, among which Aegean materials, and ultimately people, were one of the components.

Interestingly, apsidal buildings and the division of the settlement appear to be associated, and rectangular huts are built instead of ovoid ones.This happened at Thapsos when it was in its maturity and on the Ionian coast there is evidence of the same transition. However, while some degree of influence generated by contacts with the Aegean people should be accepted, the Ionian coast of Apulia lacks the complexity of the structures at Thapsos; there is no evidence of significant imports, rather of regional production of Aegean-type products. Clear proto-Villanovan strata have been recognised at some sites, as well as in the nearby regions (Adriatic Apulia and Ionian coast), but already earlier Apennine people began to settle in the region. In the Aeolian Islands this is the time of the arrival of Ausonian settlers at Lipari, and the construction of buildings that recall apsidal examples on the Ionian coast. Thus the same Apennine origin for the rectangular buildings inferred on the Aeolian Islands should also apply to the Ionian area.

On the coastline, approximately between Taranto and Leuca, there are relatively few sites and none has been thoroughly or adequately investigated. At Avetrana there are caves (such as on the Adriatic coast of Apulia), whilst Parabita and Porto Cesareo have ovoid huts of the canonical type. Torre Castelluccia, Porto Perone Satyrion and Taranto were divided into upper and lower sites (acropolis and citadel), but the distance between the two varies from site to site. At Porto Perone the acropolis (Satyrion) is distant, at Torre Castelluccia it is very close, which is also the norm on the Ionian coast. At Taranto the division is suggested only by assuming that a hill within the settlement was the acropolis, but no evident distinction could be recognised.

Taranto (Punta Tonno and San Domenico) is the major site for the presence of Aegean-type pottery, but it is also one of the most complex and interconnected sites in the West Mediterranean; it can be regarded as a major emporium. Goods arrived there from Germany (amber and metals), Hungary (metals), the northern Italian peninsula (metals, bone items and, perhaps, at least some of the other items manufactured at Frattesina), the central Italian peninsula

Apsidal, rectangular buildings are reported at the three sites with upper and lower areas. It is there that Aegean-type pottery was more abundant, although the apsidal buildings

80

(Apennine materials), and the southern Italian peninsula (among the many items, Aegean-type pottery), Mycenaean Greece/Crete (ceramics), Cyprus (a few pots), and possibly Sardinia and Sicily as well.The presence of Aegean-type material is hardly surprising in this context; on the contrary, it makes sense in such a multicultural milieu.

ral design on one Aegean-type potsherd recalls motifs previously present in the indigenous Middle Neolithic ware. There is, however, some indigenous Neolithic material recalling that typical of the Sicilian cultures of Stentinello and the Aeolian Islands. At the site of Corazzo (EBA), near Capo Piccolo, there are finds decorated with triangles or impressed dots which reveal contacts with the Aeolian Islands and Tuscany up to the Po Valley. In MBA Capo Piccolo, Apennine pottery has been unearthed, as is the case in Calabria, the Aeolian Islands and Campania. Capo Piccolo is close to the copper ores of the Sila Mountains. There is evidence of smelting and a mould for a dagger has been found. During the MBA – LBA period Capo Piccolo is the only site with Aegean-type imports; elsewhere during the LBA period Apennine and sub-Apennine pottery is found. During the eighth century, Kroton, the Greek colony, was founded. Corinthian ware appears, and notably Sicilian pottery of the Thapsos group is present too. Kroton was probably at the heart of a wide exchange network, as the Nuragic boat from the Hera Lacinia sanctuary (Capo Colonna) suggests.

The two clay figurines from Punta Tonno, which have been interpreted by Quagliati (1900) as a sign of the presence of Aegean people in the settlement, were not found in the apsidal building. These buildings only prove that Taranto was influenced to some degree by Aegean culture. Nonetheless, the presence of Aegean people at Taranto must be considered, if only for its geographical position, close to mainland Greece and on the way to the Ionian coast, Sicily, the Tyrrhenian coast and Sardinia. The figurines found at Taranto, like the exemplar at Lipari, were deposited with other figurines of indigenous manufacture. The interpretation is therefore the same: they prove broad cultural influence from an Aegean culture. Although, for modern archaeologists, a painted Mycenaean clay figurine is different from an incised Italic clay figurine, the ancient people could simply have attributed similar meanings to the different representations. The Pyrgi tablets found in Etruria prove that the pantheon of one culture was usually matched to that of another, Etruscan and Phoenician in this case (IA), probably Italic and Aegean earlier (BA) and certainly Greek and Roman later. Bettelli (2002: 147-148) remains sceptical about the religious value of the figurines.

The large and rocky peninsula where modern Crotone is located was inserted in a wide exchange network that lasted from indigenous Neolithic to Greek times.When LH I pottery arrived, the centre was an important source of copper and it was connected particularly with Sicily, but also with the northern Po Valley. Later, during the LBA, the strong link with Sicilian material culture continues, creating a division between the western tip of the Ionian coast, which is culturally influenced by the Sicilian and Apennine cultures, and the rest of the Ionian coast, which is solely of Apennine or indigenous tradition. As we have seen, indigenous ovoid huts on the Ionian coast of Apulia share the space with rectangular Apennine buildings. The cultural division is reflected also by the spatial distribution of sites with LH III Aegean-type pottery: many are present on the Ionian coast from Apulia to Crotone, but none from Crotone to Reggio, which is a short sea crossing from Thapsos.

On the Ionian coast of Apulia the architectural evidence suggests a degree of centralisation, particularly considering the apsidal buildings, and participation in a wide network of exchanges; this suggests the emergence of a complex, stratified society. Unfortunately, the paucity of data from the sites in this area, particularly from Punta Tonno, does not allow any further comment. In the next section, dedicated to the Ionian coast, more evidence similar to that provided by this region will be added. The two sections describe a broad region that is culturally similar, although the Ionian coast of Apulia appears as an exchange hub reflecting cultural choices made elsewhere. The spread of the production of Aegean-type pottery comes from the western Ionian coast. Much of the cultural influence from the Aegean is due to the exchanges at Taranto.The region appears to cushion the culture of the Ionian coast from that of the Adriatic.

When we consider that no Aegean-type pottery earlier than LH III has been found in the Ionian area, except at Capo Piccolo, then it becomes evident that the availability of metals and a strategic position within a wide exchange network were important factors in the possible choice of ports of call for Aegean sailors However, the limited amounts could also be interpreted as evidence of indirect contacts via another place in touch with both Mycenaean Greece and Capo Piccolo. Punta Tonno might have been part of the same exchange network. The site had strata from Neolithic to proto-Villanovan, but it is now destroyed and no information has been collected on the period before LH III. However, the connection between the northern Italian peninsula and Sicily via the Ionian coast can be recognised at a very early stage – as soon as Aegean-type pottery appears in the West Mediterranean. The absence of Aegean-type pottery (but for the odd potsherd) would suggest competition between

Ionian coast The early contacts with people carrying Aegean-type pottery to the Ionian coast can be summarised by the few potsherds dated to LH I from Capo Piccolo. Their context is uncertain, although dated to the indigenous EBA. The spi-

81

north-south and east-west exchange networks.

with a mixture of buildings similar to that on the Ionian coast when LH III A 2 – B 1 vessels are present. Sites where a circular hut seems to have been the most important, the “house of the chief ”, are Termitito and Toppo Daguzzo, where the huts were built during the Recent BA; nearby one or more rectangular huts were used as main storage buildings. At Broglio, Torre Mordillo and on the Ionian coast of Apulia at Punta Tonno, Porto Perone – Satyrion and Torre Castelluccia apsidal rectangular buildings were found, all of Final BA date. Earlier ovoid huts were present at Punta Tonno and Torre Castelluccia at least, but the plan of the settlements is unclear at that time, and therefore no prominent early ovoid hut can be recognised. Weights suggesting redistribution appear in the ovoid huts at Toppo Daguzzo and Termitito.

The available evidence proves that, from the end of LH III, massive quantities of Aegean-type pottery appear in several sites on the Ionian coast. There is, however, a new element: Aegean-type pottery was produced in the region, certainly on the Sybaris plain but also at Leuca, where the two coasts of Apulia meet, and on the Adriatic coast as well. At Thapsos there was evidence that some pots could have been produced locally and the jug from Pantalica, tomb 133, suggests a very late (LH III C) attempt at imitation. At Broglio, as elsewhere in the region, there is a range of fine wares inspired and to various degrees imitating Aegean vessels: they are Aegean-derivative wares. These are the matt-painted (MBA), burnished (MBA), grey (MBA and LBA), pseudoMinyan (LBA) and protogeometric (Final BA) wares; another category of Aegean-derivative pottery that is not fine is formed by dolia (LBA). All these Aegean-derivative wares are closer in shape or manufacture to Aegean pots than any Aegean-derivative ware found on Sicily and there is no evidence of local mass production on that island. Hence, the degree of Aegean influence on the indigenous material culture is much higher on the LH III B Ionian coast than contemporary Sicily.

On the Ionian coast there is no evidence for the production of any fine ware that is not either Aegean-type (imitation) or clearly Aegean-derivative. This can only mean that the indigenous people were able to reproduce the Aegean techniques and styles and had no separate tradition. Indeed, all the earlier and contemporary indigenous wares are either coarse (impasto) or smooth but undecorated (figulina), but they are never fine. The decorated grey ware, which is a common type of fine ware, is made of the same impasto ware. It is as smooth as the figulina ware and decorated according to the Mycenaean style (Kalogeropoulos 1998). The undecorated grey ware is often considered of Aegean origin, but it could well be an indigenous ware.

In addition, foundation deposits underneath the main buildings with most of the Aegean-type pottery have been reported (Bettelli 2002: 149). It is hazardous to link Aegean and Italic foundation deposits because the similarity is based only on the practice itself. The best-known foundation deposit from Broglio (ibid.) has been correctly interpreted by Peroni as culturally sub-Apennine or proto-Villanovan. However, other possible foundation deposits with animal bones and cups have been recognised at Broglio and Toppo Daguzzo (Bettelli 2002: 149). They are in the rectangular storage buildings and are possibly the product of libation and sacrifice. It is unclear how many would have participated in the rite, but if the interpretation of the buildings as communal storage facilities were correct, the whole population might have participated, as building and food supplies were shared by the whole community. As the Grandstand fresco at Knossos shows, a wide inactive audience could have been present while a few members enacted the rite. The social status of these few members remains unclear on the Ionian coast.

The study of ceramic sets from the “central house” at Broglio by Castagna provides a more compelling argument, sustaining the presence of a social hierarchy and elite (Bettelli 2002: 150). Impasto, pseudo-Minyan and Aegean-type ceramic sets including cups, jars and jugs of various shapes and dimensions, would have served several people at feasts and libations. The difference in the quality of the pottery could hint at a wealth or social difference among the members of the society. The excavation team of Broglio has interpreted the house as the residence of members of the elite, possibly the chief ’s, and the ceramic sets as evidence of the Aegean habit of “drinking and eating together” that was spreading across the region. In that case, however, differences among the sets would presuppose the presence of a stratified elite, which is not proved at this point of the research. Instead, assuming the central buildings were “public”, or communal, the elite could still have emerged to meet the need for performing certain ceremonies or dealing with common duties on behalf of the community, or representing the community at visits from “foreigners”. Moreover, the safeguarding of food supplies, fine wares and other valuables on behalf of the community, would have allowed a few individuals to control the movement of these products within the community, and they could have been empowered as leaders, receiving the consensus for the special social status needed for the emergence of an elite.

The huts found in the settlements are of mixed ovoid and rectangular type but all Final BA huts are rectangular. Large structures are located at the centre of the settlements, and these might include both ovoid and rectangular huts. The main rectangular huts have an apse, where fine wares were stored, including Aegean-type pottery. All the ovoid huts have a partly subterranean area dedicated to the storage of goods, as at Capo Graziano, Vivara and many other centres of Apennine culture. The rectangular structures first appeared in the central Italian region and slowly spread across the Italian peninsula; therefore LH I pottery is associated

82

The ceramic sets, if used with the same community, or parts of it over time, would have been appropriate even if differing in quality, because the items themselves belonged to the community that used them. The partition of the society into smaller units could have been easily achieved, for example, inviting each time different groups from within the society, such as soldiers, farmers, shepherds, youths, fathers, mothers, smiths, potters, etc. This does not require each group to have a different social status, but simply to be involved in different activities. The hypothesis that the central huts housed an elite in contact with overseas elites feasting and showing opulence, while the surrounding community was living ordinary lives, would require a rare degree of consensus from the community and control from the elite. Last, the presence of Aegean-type and -derivative pottery would be surprising if one of the major activities in the main houses with Aegean-type pottery was banqueting with Mycenaean people and other foreigners. In that case, more imports should have been present and the differences in social status should have been reflected in the material culture: for example, Aegean-type pottery should have been less concentrated in the settlements than it is.

in the timing: in Vagnetti’s view, LH III B is the turning point, with new settlers suddenly arriving and producing their pots in bulk, sharing their expertise. In the alternative view, a gradual process of integration (see Appendix, pp. 102-103 for a possible geological confirmation) leads to some elements of the Aegean material culture becoming peculiar to the indigenous culture. The spread of the production of Aegean-type pottery on the Ionian coast and over into Adriatic Apulia, as well as the spread of late Italic Protogeometric wares, such as the Iapygian ware, suggest that a new identity was being formed, and indeed during the Iron Age the Apennine influence, transformed into proto-Villanovan at the end of the Bronze Age, is dissolved. In conclusion, the analysis of the functional context of Aegean-type pottery on the Ionian coast, as seen in the previous chapter, showed a unique pattern of local storage and consumption of items, proposing that Aegean settlers might have introduced into the region the use of olive trees and grapevines.These plants had already been introduced at Vivara. All these arguments support the alternative model based on the depositional context. Because of the progressive cultural distinction of the region, a local identity might have emerged and with it the need for a new organisation capable of exploiting the regional resources, such as the exchange network or the possible new products imported. The main buildings with their content of Aegean-type and -derivative pottery should be seen therefore in this perspective, as the indigenous product of a new identity, leading to the emergence of an elite and possibly a state, at least from the Iron Age onwards.

On the Adriatic coast of Apulia, Roca Vecchia (see Gazetteer) is a site with an exceptionally well-preserved context, where a dagger and an ivory duck have been found. These items have been interpreted as the belongings of a “Mycenaean warrior” (a nearby skeleton), who died amongst the debris of the fortifications (Cosimo in Gorgoglione 2002); in the following period, Aegean-type pottery appears. There, the “arrival” of people carrying Aegean-type pottery is preceded by a destruction stratum, although the dynamic of the destruction, particularly regarding the skeleton of the “warrior” is a matter of speculation. Conversely, on the Ionian coast there is Termitito, a site where Aegean ceramics were produced in a wide range of styles including pictorial pottery and some of the earliest Protogeometric pottery reported so far. At Termitito, the main hut, packed with Aegean-type pottery as it seems from preliminary reports, was ovoid in shape and probably built at the end of MBA, or at the latest during the Recent BA, and it continued largely unchanged until the end of the BA. Similar situations can be seen in the sites with rectangular buildings as well, because no clear destruction layer has been found.The same situation is true also at Toppo Daguzzo, where there is evidence of destruction but only after a change occurred in the use of central buildings and ipogei. Hence, how can we explain the violence on the Adriatic coast and the peace and continuity on the Ionian coast as suggested by Vagnetti (1999, 2001; see chapter 2)?

Vivara Vivara is a peculiar island, once an active volcano and now a tiny island partially sunken with its harbour under water. Although the caldera collapsed, there is no evidence of anything as catastrophic as at Thera, the population moved to nearby Ischia as early as LH III A 1, when the last Aegeantype pottery reaches Vivara. There is evidence that life continued at Ischia, where the first Greek colony in the West Mediterranean, Pithekoussai, was founded. The exchanges at Vivara began during the LH I and came to a halt during the LH III A 1, when they terminated also at Ischia. Three sites have been found but it is probable that they are different parts of the same large settlement. At Punta Mezzogiorno there are the oldest huts, which are semicircular. The presence of pottery of Capo Graziano style proves that an exchange network preceded the arrival of Aegean material and probably favoured their arrival. In the later phase, visible at Punta d’Alaca, there were rectangular huts with one circular structure each next to them. These are sometimes partly subterranean (Apennine tradition) and, when connected to a rectangular hut, were used as storage build-

An alternative hypothesis needs to have the same basis: the possible gradual arrival of Aegean people bringing their culture and expertise as potters, smiths and eventually as mercenaries as well. For instance, if any Mycenaean warriors ever reached Roca Vecchia, they were probably mercenaries.The difference between the two hypotheses resides

83

ings. Hut 2 is a particularly well-known hut, large, rectangular and with a partly subterranean and circular annexe; the roof of the hut was covered with tiles. In the circular structure (“pit beta”) there was a Canaanite jar. At least fifty vessels were found inside the hut, the majority (some of Aegean type) open and undecorated, while large jars, also of Aegean type, accounted for less than 10% of the assemblage. Several tokens, lithic tools and a mould for a possible Aegean-derivative sword were all part of the findings. In a nearby pit, named alpha, bronze items, glass beads, possibly a metallic vessel and a gold pendant were found together, in a possible religious or funerary context. Human bones were mixed in the stratum with glass beads, but in other strata large amounts of animal bones were recovered.

competing Apennine emporium. Poggiomarino (Guzzo, Albore Livadie and Cicirelli 2003) is an Apennine emporium founded on the Tyrrhenian coast, near Vivara, but after its collapse (Middle or Recent Bronze Age). It replaced the function of Vivara in being part of an exchange network, but it was also impermeable to Aegean influences, although amber and possibly other items from the north were found there. Noticeably, Lipari is abandoned after the second Ausonian phase, suggesting that here, too, the new settlers did not want to exchange Aegean-type materials. Apennine culture evolved into proto-Villanovan and groups of people with this culture can be found in northern Sicily, particularly at Milazzo, the Sicilian harbour nearest to the Aeolian Islands.

Tokens, interpreted as a basic form of counting, typical in pre-literate societies, have been found in several huts. In one case these small ceramic discs were evidently bound together in a group of six and were probably used to keep track of commercial transactions. A tablet with possible ticks might be a more sophisticated system for recording numbers. The tokens indicate that at Vivara there was a particularly advanced society, needing a numerical written system. At no other site in the West Mediterranean can a comparable system be detected. It suggests that there were wide-ranging exchanges, particularly because the island itself is very small and unlikely to need such a system for purely internal use.

Discussion The analysis of rectangular structures has revealed two main sources of influence in the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily: these are the Apennine and Aegean cultures. The Aeolian Islands and Taranto could be defined as “gateways” because there the two influences are mixed, indicating that these were points of broad cultural contact. Located between different and contrasting cultures, these sites faced difficulties: the Aeolian Islands were conquered at the end of the Bronze Age by Apennine people (the Ausonians) and then abandoned, whereas Apulia fragmented enormously in the Iron Age, originating several independent cultures from the cultural blend, such as the Messapi, Peuceti and Dauni. The Aegean influence is perhaps less significant than expected considering the widespread use of Aegean-type pottery, but it might have provided an impulse that triggered social processes leading to the emergence of elites (in the Iron Age) and possibly complex identities. These could be recognised in Sicily, such as at Thapsos, but also at Broglio or Taranto in Ionia (the “Ionian area”).

Vivara can be interpreted as a genuine emporium, possibly important also for the communities on the central Tyrrhenian coast, where, however, exchanges were limited to those between people of the same culture. The hostility of the regional population to exchanges with southern and Aegean people can be detected in the lack of any other similar centre on the coastline of the central Italian peninsula, especially after the natural catastrophe that terminated the exchanges in the region. Although some people from Vivara moved to nearby Ischia after natural catastrophes, contacts with the Aegean culture ceased during the LH III A and only the Greeks re-established them.

The Aeolian Islands provide an excellent case study for recognising the complexity generated by overlapping cultural influences, and the definition of “gateway”. Early (Capo Graziano) huts at Montagnola are partly subterranean, similar to the Apennine examples, and the subsequent huts at Milazzese introduce the rectangular shape in the annexes, which also modify the overall shape of the hut into a rectangular plan, an effect obtained by adding at least two larger annexes. Later, in the Ausonian period, Apennine pottery and proper rectangular huts become commonplace. In parallel, the indigenous pottery is increasingly being influenced by Aegean styles leading to the Milazzese style, a hybrid between the “Aegean” Thapsos-style pottery and meso-Apennine pottery. The Aegean influence on Milazzese-style pottery is less evident than with pottery of Thapsos style. In architecture, the spring chamber on the island of Lipari seems, however, genuinely inspired by Aegean

It is impossible to say if the natural catastrophes and the movement of Apennine people southwards are linked, although they seem contemporary. A possibility is that the Apennine people wished to continue the exchanges and decided to do so from the strategically positioned Aeolian Islands, but it is also possible that only the islanders of Vivara valued the exchanges with the people carrying Aegeantype pottery, and, after the destruction of Vivara, Apennine people moved to prevent the creation of another emporium. The Ausonian people at Lipari were people of Apennine culture, but in the first phase they coexisted with the indigenous population, in the next phase the new settlers replaced the remaining indigenous population and began to expand into Sicily.Thus, it might be possible that the first settlers came from Vivara wishing to continue the exchanges, but a second wave of immigrants reacted and created a

84

models (tholoi). For the rest, the indigenous material culture appears largely unaltered, although the “Mycenaean” figurine and the widespread Aegean-type pottery might suggest that Aegean influence had some further effect. In the Aeolian Islands there is a balance between two main sources of influence, the Apennine and Aegean culture, but there are also other cultures involved, such as the Sardinian Nuragic culture, notwithstanding the indigenous culture. This melting pot of cultures is present at several sites with Aegean-type pottery, but its balance is often far from being properly recognised.

part of a rite), while in Crete they were first imported and then manufactured in a new shape (the Koumasa variety), but on mainland Greece they were only imported or closely imitated. Interestingly, Marathon in Attica was probably a Cycladic settlement. Koumasa, located at the margins of the Mesara plain in southern Crete, was far from the original centres in the Cyclades, and the material culture was Minoan. In Minoan Crete the figurines were appreciated probably as exotic luxuries and possibly for their artistic value. In the Mesara of the early tholoi, social ranking was increasing and there the figurines became sufficiently integrated into the local culture to be modified to suit local taste and need.

The earliest Aegean-type pottery has been found on the island of Filicudi, which is conveniently located at the centre of sea routes connecting Sardinia and the Ionian coast (and mainland Greece) on the east-west axis, and Sicily and the Tyrrhenian coast on the north-south axis. Tusa (1999: 433-434) reports that some possible Capo Graziano pottery has been found in the Oristano province, in central Sardinia, while some pots of Capo Graziano style seems to be influenced by Sardinian pottery. Capo Graziano pottery is also present at Vivara (Tyrrhenian coast), Capo Piccolo (Ionian coast), and possibly Sicily (Thapsos-style pottery is very similar). Any links between Sardinia and the Aeolian Islands seem interrupted during the next phase (Milazzese), and ties are re-established only later (Ausonian period).The settlement of Montagnola, on the island of Filicudi, declines after the arrival of Aegean-type pottery, while Lipari acquires increasing importance. Lipari becomes a main hub, or gateway for exchanges of Aegean-type pottery, oxhide ingots and probably other Aegean-related items as early as LH II, as the spring chamber would suggest. Lipari is therefore a gateway for those routes heading on for distant places, as well as a terminus for routes in the opposite direction. On the Aeolian Islands people came to find many exotic or rare items, but also to find directions and forge links with people offering certain materials.

In the southern Italian peninsula, Termitito is a settlement far from the sea where Aegean-type pottery was manufactured and adapted to suit the regional taste. The local manufacture of this pottery seems due to its appreciation as luxury items (and possibly for its exotic or artistic value as “fine ware”) by a few members of the community, supposedly the emerging elite. The purpose of this analogy is twofold: showing how the “Aegean connection” is often a generic model of society and suggesting how the use of analogy might contribute to the interpretation.

Conclusions The analysis of functional context in chapter 4 concluded that Aegean-type pottery was mainly used as a luxury. This can be confirmed by the contexts of usage and deposition (with the exception of the Aeolian Islands, where pottery was a widespread staple commodity). The contemporary settlements of Vivara and Monte Grande are in part similar but, unlike on the Aeolian Islands, the staple Aegean-type pottery found there is largely undecorated. In the later period, LH III A 2 – C, Aegean-type pottery is abundant in the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily and is often associated with the emergence of social stratification. These social processes lead to the formation of elites, and eventually states, in the southern Italian peninsula. On Sicily the most that can be envisaged is the rise of an elite. However, even this happens progressively and no elites can be firmly recognised on the island before the Iron Age.

The progressive emergence of elites from the LBA in the Italian peninsula can explain the many vague similarities with the Aegean area recognised by the excavators. Often the Italic material evidence, in its simplicity, could recall the early Aegean culture. The traits erroneously labelled as “Aegean” are features of a development model not exclusive to the Aegean region, but spread across BA Europe. The closest situation culturally and chronologically to the LBA southern Italian peninsula and Sicily is perhaps the emergence of complex societies within the broad Apennine culture in the central Italian peninsula.

The suggestion that Aegean-type pottery was a luxury should be interpreted in the light of the products and materials that were usually traded across long distances in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. These were often highly valuable, at the very least because they were universally appreciated, but very rare in some places and their value justified their transportation over long distances. Metal trade has already been suggested as the reason for the exchanges (Vagnetti 1999a), although only for a period, and it is not proposed here to consider a different type of trade, namely spice trade, as a substitute. Rather, it should be noted that

The Aegean offers a case study for the understanding of imitations of foreign products that might share the same basic motivation of the Italic production of Aegean-type pottery: the Cycladic marble figurines manufactured in Crete (Koumasa) and Attica (e.g. Marathon, Ayios Kosmas) and Euboea (e.g. Manika).The figurines in the Cyclades are interpreted mainly as religious symbols (but not necessarily

85

ships carried many products along several routes. As for ships, the onboard traders were probably “last-leg” traders and probably did not specialise in one product. They traded any product that had made its way through product-specific areas, traders and routes. As a result of these considerations, Aegean-type pottery was not a typical prestige item that, because of rarity, value, conventions or a combination of the three, immediately identified wealth or any appurtenance to an upper social status. Instead, as we shall see in the concluding remarks in the next chapter, it was inserted into the dynamics of social power because of its recognised rarity, attributed value, and perceived universal appreciation.

enous Neolithic, much earlier than the earliest Aegean-type pots discovered in the West Mediterranean.The earliest pots have been found in indigenous EBA strata and date to the late MH or early LH I at Montagnola on the Aeolian Islands, and to the LH I at Capo Piccolo on the Ionian coast. There was a knowledgeable use of the exchange networks by the people carrying Aegean-type pottery, but the presence of Aegean-type pottery alone never determined the existence of an exchange network. The Tyrrhenian route connecting the Aeolian Islands to Vivara is not an exception because it survives along most of its length as an Apennine internal route after the arrival of the Ausonian people on the Aeolian Islands and the abandonment of Vivara. Sites with LH I – II pottery probably received mostly original Aegean imports for some specific reason, but the main sites are very few: Monte Grande, Vivara and a handful of sites on the Aeolian Islands.

The regions identified in chapter 4 appear to represent homogenous regions each with a slightly different culture.The independent choice of wares and shapes by the indigenes, the only general pattern recognised, is therefore determined by the regional cultures. However, the emergence of social stratification is another unifying element common to nearly all the regions during LH III. Hierarchical communities can be found within the broad diffusion area of Apennine culture (central and southern Italian peninsula) and therefore a link between the presence of Aegean-type materials and the social processes appears weak. Despite this, on the coastline of the southern Italian peninsula, where Aegean-type pottery is largely found, social stratification appears more developed than in the hinterland, but this seems connected with specific issues of self-determination in the area rather than a particular impact of the Aegean culture. More convincing is the case of Sicily, where there is a leap in relative social cohesion and stratification detected in LH III A eastern Sicily, which then remains circumscribed and unaltered for several centuries. The evidence at Iron Age Pantalica suggests that the trend might have been reversed because the culture shrinks to a single valley and the tombs become more standardised than in earlier Thapsos. Anywhere on Sicily, at Cannatello in the west or at Thapsos in the east, it is evident that the exchanges are associated with social processes that stop, if not revert, with the end of the exchanges themselves. Emblematic is the case of the rectangular buildings at Cannatello, which appear with the Aegean-type pottery and disappear immediately afterwards. The link with their appearance is evident also at Thapsos, but there, after the exchanges came to an end, rectangular buildings became simpler and fewer. The monumental, multi-chambered rectangular buildings at Thapsos should be interpreted as administrative buildings for their complexity and multiple use, and are remarkably associated with Aegean-type pottery at Thapsos, while some Aegean connection can still be postulated for the origin of the anaktoron at Pantalica.

The main LH III hubs or “gateways” (the Aeolian Islands, possibly Thapsos for a short period and Taranto) were instead conveniently based at the heart of pre-existing, long distance exchange networks. Most of the genuine Aegean imports might well have circulated at these sites. Preliminary results of petrological and chemical analyses of Aegeantype pots found at Punta Tonno (Taranto) suggest that up to 50% do not match the imprint of either the clays typically used in and around the Sybaris plain (the only Italic area where specific geological data have been gathered), or those known to have been used in the Aegean. However, the study of the clays suggests that no particular provenance accounted for at least half of the assemblage, which comes from several different sources. No analyses are available from the Aeolian Islands, but there the absence of clay sources leaves no doubt that either manufactured pots or clay would have been in circulation. At Thapsos, again where no analyses have been carried out, the imitations of Cypriot pots leave some doubt about their provenance, although a Sicilian production appears unlikely. A macroscopic stylistic analysis suggests that “Mycenaean” pots really should be Mycenaean. For the rest, there is evidence of local production, except at the many sites with only a few pots that were probably dispersed through Italic routes from one of the main centres where Aegean-type pottery was present. The local production and apparently limited mobility, mainly within a region (short distance), or within two bordering regions (medium distance), appear to detach the manufacturing centres from the exchange networks. Because of this, Aegean-type pottery generally needs to be analysed from the local perspective, i.e. from within the indigenous context, rather than from a broad, general perspective of long distance exchanges. Yet Aegean-type pottery, as the name suggests, is the product of a global, Mediterranean-wide phenomenon of acculturation, which seems to have taken the form of a great movement of ideas accompanied by a small movement of pots.

The exchange networks that moved Aegean-type and other materials across the West Mediterranean appear to predate Aegean contexts and to have been largely unmodified by the arrival of Aegean-type products. Long-distance routes were established among the Aeolian Islands, Capo Piccolo and along the rest of the Ionian coast as early as the indig-

86

Chapter 6: aegean-type pottery in the west mediterranean: a new perspective A Past hypothesis in new light

as the ninth century BC, the Phoenicians colonise parts of the West Mediterranean, followed shortly afterwards by the Greeks in the eighth century BC. On the possibility that the Mycenaeans needed raw materials, it seems relevant to point out that the artisans working in Mycenaean palaces appear flexible in their activities according to Linear B texts (especially Killen and Voutsaki 2001; also Parker 1999 and Rougemont 2001). The availability of raw goods to the palaces varied and therefore it seems that the palatial administration, whilst capable of industrial production, had control of several activities and could temporarily suspend or reduce one activity to favour another. Most of the workers evidently had multiple experiences and skills, which is normal in pre-urban societies. Many activities depended on seasons, as certain natural products were only available at certain times of the year. Many outdoor activities may have depended on the weather, and among these is sailing. As a result, the irregular provision of certain products may not have been a problem, as long as it was possible to do something else. For the few that specialised to a high degree, mobility was the solution (for the Aegean: Sjöberg, Risberg and Gillis 1995, 1997, 2000; for the Near East: Zaccagnini 1983; Liverani 1990).The few specialised professionals would not have provoked upheaval in the society if a reduction in their activity were necessary: they probably travelled often because there was shortage of their skills. Thus, they probably were really few and in addition capable of migrating. All these considerations suggest that a temporary paucity of any material would have had little impact on Mycenaean polities. In the specific case of metals, they were essential, but could be recycled. Furthermore, any metal object probably had a long lifespan and it is unlikely that the entire Greek mainland could have been cut off from all metal supplies for long.

One of the principal reasons for carrying out further research on Aegean-type pottery has been the critique of the methodology of past hypotheses, none of which was founded on evidence from the Bronze Age West Mediterranean. Here the hypothesis is considered that the reason for the initial exchanges between Aegean traders and the Italics is to be found in the Mycenaean search for metals. It cannot be denied that the Aegean mariners appear to have been the first to seek contact by sailing westwards. This claim can be made because of their extensive involvement in maritime trade before the Italics. In support of this statement are the finds of Bronze Age shipwrecks, such as the Uluburun (Pulak 1998) and Cape Gelidonya (Bass 1967) vessels that were involved in long-distance trade, and the example of Point Iria (Phelps, Lólos and Vichos 1999), probably voyaging on a Mycenaean domestic route. Not one shipwreck has been found to suggest a significant and independent involvement of Italic people in maritime trade, although Italic artefacts have been found in the Uluburun shipwreck (Pulak 1998). Thus, it seems plausible that the Mycenaeans sailed to the West because they needed new sources of raw materials, wished to expand the market for their own products, or possibly both. No scholar really believes that the few pots today constituting the primary evidence for the exchanges have ever been at the heart of the contacts. So attention turns to the remaining evidence, largely composed by some metal objects (mostly oxhide ingots) and a few amber and glass beads. A short chronology of Mycenaean trade may be helpful at this point. The Minoans were active in exchanging goods with people in the Near East, at least since the late Middle Minoan I A period (Watrous 1994: 735; Dickinson 1994: 241 ff.), but no Minoan presence can be detected in the West Mediterranean. The Minoans still had control over the exchanges during the Late Minoan III A 1 period, but Aegean-type pottery in Amarna, capital of Egypt for a short period, is predominantly Mycenaean and dates to the LH III A 2 (Rehak and Younger 1998: 163-164). By then, Mycenaean objects had been exchanged in all areas previously in contact with the Minoans since LH I, and the exchanges reached their climax during LH III A. The West Mediterranean also receives LH I and later pottery, but most LH III B pottery appears to be of Italic origin, signalling an early decline in the exchanges, which never compare to those in the East for both quantity of pots and shapes. As early

The cargoes of the shipwrecks prove that raw materials circulated, and were lost, in very large quantities. The supply system for raw materials in the Bronze Age Mediterranean worked by employing substantial but irregular shipments, followed by storage and fair use until the next shipment (Bass 1991). As a result, the arrival or not of a single ship may have determined the availability or not of important products throughout a whole year. Since these ships were so important, they were probably escorted, as the flotilla fresco from the Xeste house at Akrotiri (Santorini, Cyclades; Doumas 1999) and the Mycenaean ceramic sets pointing to a few Mycenaeans onboard the Uluburun ship (Pulak 1998) suggest. This may have facilitated obtaining a second shipment in case of loss, but also implies that this was an inter-societal redistributive system, operating across the East Mediterranean and Aegean. All parts must have agreed be-

87

forehand on what and how much could have reached each harbour. In larger kingdoms, such as those of Egypt and the Near East, rigid controls may have been imposed on the exchanges.The correspondence among kingdoms (Zaccagnini 1973) suggests that this was indeed the case: exchanges depended on agreement among kings and elite members.Yet, for smaller polities such as the Mycenaean centres, and later the Phoenicians, independent entrepreneurs may have been involved, as no Mycenaean palace could have competed alone with the larger overseas kingdoms in the bargaining, and an intra-Mycenaean union may have been only partial, or worse, divided in factions.

fluctuations, particularly on currencies, and improve access to regional markets; but all these reasons are meaningless in terms of Bronze Age trades. Despite the different economic reasons, GPN resemble the Bronze Age trade networks connected to the trade of metals and other commodities in the way they work. Moreover, from a social point of view, both network models require starting capital (or a workforce, facilities, etc), and require a significant organisational effort at each location in which they operate. This means that only wealthy people, and possibly political rulers or socially influential people of high status can start them, then or now. The contemporary model suggests that while people of higher status acquire more wealth and social power at their location as a result of their participation in the GPN, they also form a global community of social equals. For instance, in present day multinationals the administrative organisation is mirrored at each location, so that people with the same function and job title are replicated in each region, while in antiquity the BA kings named in the Amarna letters addressed each other as brothers.

The evidence for high status commodities suggests that a system of cooperative production, consumption and redistribution was in place. The organisational model adopted for these commodities in the Bronze Age Mediterranean appears similar to those employed in Bronze Age palaces and courts. Conceptually, the system at work mirrored the farming system, where each farmer specialised in one crop (or a few), and then part of the crop would be exchanged for other needed goods The organisation needed for husbanding crops would have allowed intensive production at times and could have produced surpluses. These could be stored for emergencies or exchanged for non-essential commodities (for examples see Halstead and O’Shea 1989). Whilst it would have been very difficult for a single household to be self-sufficient, this was an easier undertaking for an entire village. The necessity to organise the assignment of crops and other activities to maintain self-sufficiency, and the availability of exchangeable surpluses may have been key elements in the formation of palaces and similar entities. In our case, metals and the other tradable commodities were possibly both produced and consumed by a small group of people, after all these commodities were often employed to distinguish this group. As a result, each commodity was produced by a collective which cannot be identified on the basis of its geographical location or ethnic origin. Rather, this group can be recognised on the basis of its social status. The single household of the farming model would equate to one of the production workshops belonging to a court or palace.The village would instead be modelled on a highstatus community across the Mediterranean, identifiable on a social rather than geographical basis.

The case study of the LBA glass industry in Egypt is most useful in understanding the similarity between BA trade and the contemporary GPN. The Egyptian glass industry needed three main stages: the procurement of plant ash and crushed quartz, the production of semi-finished glass and the colouring, and shaping of the finished glass in specialised workshops (Rehren and Pusch 2005: 1758). Each stage of manufacture happened at a different location, and several locations were used for secondary glass workshops, each specialising in certain colours. Hence, the glass industry involved several production centres within Egypt. Moreover, clay tablets at Amarna prove that Egypt imported some type of glass, but archaeological evidence also proves that Egypt exported blue glass ingots, probably produced at Amarna, towards Anatolia (e.g. Uluburun shipwreck) and the Aegean region (Jackson 2005). Both the production and consumption of glass required resources that could be found only across a large region, and this makes sense for an industry of high-status commodities. Highly specialised workers were needed to obtain the various colours and these were very few given the particularity of the industry. Different ingredients and recipes were necessary to produce the various colours. In addition, a satisfactory number of high-status consumers could be reached only within a region large enough to encompass several royal courts and social elites.

In contemporary times, “global production networks” (GPN) provide a working model for shared production (Henderson et al. 2002; Shamsavari 2005). Since the 1970s, multinational firms have increasingly sourced labour and components for their products in locations where these are available at the best price or higher quality.Worldwide sourcing is one of the main features of GPN. Held and McGrew (2001) note in particular that GPN unify elites at a global level, but divides communities at all levels between those benefiting from being part of GPN and those excluded. GPN have an economic reason to exist because they try to minimise production costs, reduce the effects of economic

As for contemporary multinationals, Bronze Age trade may have been motivated by economic reasons and could have enrolled people outside the courts and palaces (e.g. traders in the Near East; Archi 1984) for their entrepreneurship and independence. The first sailings by Aegean traders to the West Mediterranean may have been part of a plan to expand the booming Mycenaean trading market. Aegean ceramic imports to the West Mediterranean seem to peak at about the same time as in the Near East, during LH III A. However, Aegean-type pottery in the Italian peninsula

88

Evidence other than pottery

reaches its zenith later (LH III B - C) with Italic productions. Increased competition from Italic potters, full access to the Cretan markets, economic crises, changing political and social conditions anywhere in the Mediterranean may all have had an impact on the reduction in exchanges of pottery (and other products) with West Mediterranean communities.What motivated the Mycenaeans to sail westwards in the first place remains unclear, but fact is that the Mycenaeans do not appear to have developed at any time strong trade links with western counterparts, as the pots found are few and far between. Furthermore, the exchanges become almost undetectable from LH III B, when nearly all that is Aegean in style in the Italian peninsula was not imported from the Aegean. From an economic point of view, the Aegean enterprise in the West Mediterranean seems unsuccessful and appears to have been abandoned quickly. This reduces the importance of the western sites for the Mycenaeans and suggests that there was no specific reason to begin the exchanges, except the addition of new markets. However, the impact that the Aegean traders had on the societies and cultures they came into contact with in the West Mediterranean was significant, and in proportion much greater than in the East Mediterranean.

After so much talk of pottery, it is challenging to introduce other evidence, and even more so considering that the main motivation for the exchanges may have been provided by non-ceramic products. There is very little evidence of exchanges of items between Aegean and other eastern people with western people apart from pottery. A short overview of evidence from the Gazetteer (p. 106 ff.) follows.

Figurines The earliest examples of figurines recall Anatolian and Cycladic types and have been found at Camaro, on the eastern coast of Sicily; they date to the Early Cycladic I period. Similar shapes have been depicted in the “Grotta dei Genovesi”, a cave on the small island of Levanzo off the western coast of Sicily. This is the only evidence supporting the possibility that Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery in the Aeolian Islands may have been inspired by Aegean prototypes. Although the evidence is insufficient to prove any significant contact, it is significant that such early evidence is found only at coastal sites.

The past hypothesis that Aegean mariners were searching for metals and this in turn originated their exploration of, and subsequent exchanges with, the West Mediterranean cannot be endorsed as it stands. It is very unlikely that the Mycenaeans could not have obtained metals via any of the established trade routes, which in their case were towards North and Central Europe, Anatolia, the Near East, Egypt, and Minoan Crete. Whilst the Minoans, living on an island, could not have accessed overseas resources had the surrounding sea been controlled by a hostile power, the Mycenaeans could have travelled by sea and land, in any direction, and did so. Sailing westwards was an option that they did not miss, but it does not seem to have been ever the only option left to them, or part of a coherent economic or political strategy. Nonetheless, this hypothesis retains some validity by suggesting an economic reason for the exchanges. As we have seen, trade in the East Mediterranean and Aegean regions was centred on high-status items produced and consumed by the same group of people recognisable by its social status. There were opportunities for independent entrepreneurs, but they were controlled in the Near East by the palatial elites; we know of their existence because they appear in palatial records. This may not have been the case in mainland Greece, were there is no evidence of any united or federative political entity. Even less evidence of political unity appears in the West Mediterranean, and therefore in these circumstances there may have been in place a situation with less political constraints, which may have favoured some trade based on largely economic reasons.

Seven clay figurines have been reported. One possible base has been found at Broglio (Bettelli 2002: 174, n. 66), two each were found at Lipari and Punta Tonno (Gazetteer, p. 150-153) and two have been recognised in the collections of the museum of Palermo by Taylour (1958: 69). At Punta Tonno, Broglio and Lipari the figurines were found together with similar Italic figurines, which are incised rather than painted. The two types, Italic and Mycenaean, were found in similar, or the same, depositional contexts. Of course, the employment of Mycenaean decorated figurines, which are possibly sacred representations, along with the traditional incised Italic examples strengthens the argument that the Italics in the “Ionia” region adopted Mycenaean style objects as their own. Three ivory figurines have been found, one at Decimoputzu on southern Sardinia (Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1987), representing a warrior head with a boartusk helmet, and two from Trinitapoli (Tunzi Sisto 1999), representing a bull-headed man and a wild boar. All the subjects are typically Aegean.

Amber Two sources of amber beads have been suggested for finds on the Italian peninsula and mainland Sicily. Amber from the Po Valley, and perhaps some of the amber found else-

89

where within the Italian peninsula, appears to come from the Baltic region (Negroni Catacchio 1973). However, already in 1874, some Sicilian beads were suggested to be of a provenance (unknown) other than the Baltic.This suggestion was made during the Congress of Anthropology and Prehistory and the view was supported at about the same time by analyses of a few beads carried out by two German laboratories (Cultraro 1996). It has been suggested that amber was imported, at least to Sicily, by the Mycenaeans (Harding and Hughes Brock 1974: 158). However, it should be noted that there are many sites where amber has been found in the Italian peninsula and Sicily, but only a few also yielded Aegean-type pottery (Harding and Hughes Brock 1974: 168-169). Moreover, only a few sites with Aegeantype pottery also yielded amber beads.

Glass

The clearest connections between amber and Aegean-type pottery come from tombs, especially those at Thapsos Toppo Daguzzo and Plemmyrion. Broglio, Coppa Nevigata and Salina confirm the association in settlements. Cava Canabarbara Lake Ledro, Manaccora and Valsavoia are other sites that have yielded a few items of possible Aegean origin or derivation dated to a time earlier than LH III. Bernstorf, Fondo Paviani, Frattesina, Santa Domenica di Ricadi and Francavilla Marittima are instead EIA sites that have yielded various items pointing to the Aegean, pottery in the case of Fondo Paviani and Frattesina. Amber is also present on Sardinia at Oliena, Sarroch, and in the territory of Sassari.

Glass working was carried out at Frattesina (Bellintani, Gambacurta, Henderson, and Towle 2001), in the Venetic region. In that area there is evidence of continuous manufacture of glass objects from the Final Bronze Age to the Roman period (Altinum) and contemporary times (Murano). Glass beads are also found across Europe and vary by type. There are no published analyses of glass beads that can help in tracking their movements across the territory, but as with the amber, it seems that their association with Aegean-type products is irregular and probably coincidental, as both necklaces made of amber or glass beads, and Aegean-type or -derivative decorated pottery, were often considered luxury items. The glass bead found at Vigo near Pontevedra (González-Ruibal 2004: 289), in northern Iberia has been labelled as “Mycenaean,” but it could be of Italic or European origin. The distribution of amber and glass beads can help in revealing the Late Bronze Age routes. There are clearly two north-south routes evidenced by their distribution: one connects the Baltic region within modern Germany to the Italian peninsula, the other appears to cross Iberia, or even circumnavigate it, with some products reaching inland via the rivers.

As with amber beads, glass beads are distributed across the territory in such a way that it is impossible to verify their associations with exchanges involving Aegean trade. Glass beads are often found with amber beads and in almost all cases were part of necklaces. They are found at Castelluccian sites on Sicily, such as Cava Canabarbara and Valsavoia, together with amber beads. They are also found at some sites with Aegean-type pottery, namely Broglio, Filicudi, Frattesina, Lipari, Monte Grande, Salina, Thapsos, Toppo Daguzzo, Ustica and Vivara. Glass beads have also been reported from Bernstorf, Santa Domenica di Ricadi, Sardinia (e.g. Gonnosfanandiga and Villa San Pietro) and Iberia (e.g. Fuente Alamo and Pontevedra).

Amber was spread across a vast territory for a long period. It was certainly a luxury item, which could be deposed alongside other luxury items, including Aegean-type pottery.The connection between amber and Aegean exchanges remains insecure and may have been sporadic: amber may have been traded with many other items, but it does not seem a primary product in the exchanges. In the Po Valley, amber was probably worked at Frattesina and then spread throughout the territory.This amber is of Baltic provenance and may have travelled to Greece, especially considering that the beads from Fondo Paviani and Frattesina are of the Tiryns type. The amber at Francavilla Marittima comes from the tombs with Egyptian scarabs and not from the site of Timpone Motta, where one potsherd of Aegean-type pottery has been found. It remains unclear in which direction amber travelled during the EIA. It is possible instead that the amber travelling to Sicily, Sardinia, and perhaps the southern Italian peninsula, on or before LH III was of Mycenaean origin, but if this is hypothesis is accepted for the Castelluccian sites of Sicily, Aegean traders would have had to have been in Sicilian waters before LH I, but after the earliest contacts suggested for Camaro and the Aeolian Islands (figurines above). Uninterrupted exchanges with Sicily from the MH period appear unlikely on the present evidence, but infrequent exchanges remain a possibility.

Ivory Three figurines made of ivory have been already mentioned (figurines above). Since elephant ivory is present, the raw material must have been imported from either Asia or Africa and therefore it may have arrived on Aegean ships. There is no evidence of elephant ivory in the Italian peninsula before the exchanges began. At Frattesina (Bietti Sestieri, and De Grossi Mazzorin 2001) there is evidence of workshops manufacturing products made of bone, antler and elephant ivory Thus, raw ivory was imported into the Italian peninsula, worked there and then redistributed. Bone combs are the most frequent ivory objects. They have been found among the sites with Aegean-type pottery at Lipari, Punta Tonno, Timmari, Torre Mordillo, Pianello di Genga, Frattesina and perhaps the Plemmyrion. It appears

90

that at least the combs from Timmari, Pianello di Genga, Torre Mordillo and Frattesina were manufactured at Frattesina. Small ivory discs decorated with dots and circles have been found at Timmari, Torre Mordillo. Knife handles have been found at Termitito and Frattesina. Both ivory discs and knife handles may have been produced at Frattesina. A burnt ivory duck from Roca Vecchia, which could be a Mycenaean pyxis, is unique.

Eastern Sicily (Thapsos) and Ionia (Crotone) are the regions where Aegean-type metal objects were produced. These are also the regions where indigenous Aegean-type pottery and Aegean-derivative wares were manufactured. Significantly, the only Italic bronze item found in the Aegean, in the Uluburun shipwreck, was a Thapsos-Pertosa sword, which may have been produced anywhere on Sicily or the southern Italian peninsula (Pulak 1998; Vagnetti 1999a). As a result, it seems that the area was more influenced by Aegean culture than pottery alone may suggest.The presence of the Thapsos-Pertosa sword on the Uluburun shipwreck means that the Italic productions were not mere indigenous copies of Aegean-style products made to stop a flood of imports; rather, they were part of the exchanges. Evidently, Aegean traders appreciated some of this production and accepted it as exchangeable items. It should be noted that metals as raw material circulated in the Aegean as ingots, and there is no doubt that if that sword was appreciated just for its metal content it would have been recycled well before ending up on the Uluburun ship. In that ship, all products and raw materials were prepared to high standards, there were no scrap metals onboard. Furthermore, the route of the ship, which was sailing from Egypt or the Levant to Anatolia, excludes that the sword joined the cargo at some port of call on, or near, the West Mediterranean, and implies that the sword had travelled for a long time. As we shall see later, the cultural impact of the Aegean influences on Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula were such that both social and cultural identity must have been affected.

Metalwork Evidence of on-site metalworking at locations with Aegean-type pottery is uncommon. Early exceptions are Capo Piccolo (LH I - II) and Vivara (LH I – III). Metalworking took place also at Frattesina, Pantalica, Ustica, and probably at Thapsos as well as Punta Tonno. Significant hoards have been unearthed at Frattesina (bronze brooches, ivory combs and necklaces in amber and glass; Bietti Sestieri 1996; Bellintani, Gambacurta, Henderson, and Towle 2001) and Lipari (Moscetta 1988; Giardino 1995, 1997). There is plenty of evidence on Sardinia of both metalworking and hoards (e.g. Pattada, Sàrdara and Villanovaforru), but most of the evidence is not linked to Aegean products other than copper oxhide ingots. Large LBA hoards containing possibly Aegean items are those at Piediluco-Contigliano and Surbo. A few Aegean-type metal vessels, mainly Cypriot in style, have been found across modern Italy. In the area surrounding Crotone, which includes Capo Piccolo, several metal objects of possible Cypriot inspiration or manufacture have been reported (see Gazetteer), but their date is unclear. Possible Cypriot bowls have been found at Caldare, Milena, Sant’Angelo Muxaro and at Agrigento: all these sites are close to Cannatello. Cypriot tripods have been found at Pantalica, Piediluco-Contigliano, Santa Domenica di Ricadi and Santadi on Sardinia. Other items, mainly swords and daggers, have been found at Surbo, Thapsos and Ottana, Sarroch and Siniscola on Sardinia. The problem with swords and daggers is that many of these objects have been labelled as “Mycenaean” on the basis of similarities alone. The metalworking in the area of Thapsos and Pantalica, on the eastern coats of Sicily, is heavily influenced by Aegean metalworking and one model of sword, the Thapsos-Pertosa type, is particularly common on Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula (Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1989; Giardino 1995, 1997). However, these swords represent the indigenous culture and were produced by the Italics, as with most late Aegean-type pottery, after being inspired by Aegean styles, and having copied some Aegean techniques.Whilst it is possible that some bronze items labelled as “Mycenaean” are indeed of Aegean origin, only those of Cypriot style are likely to be.The Thapsos-Pertosa-style swords should be considered an Aegean-derivative product.

Another important aspect is that Cypriot style bronze objects were probably imported into the West Mediterranean. Bowls and tripods, as we have seen in chapter 3, were considered luxury items in Linear B tablets and were normally associated with high-status people, especially those in metal. It is noteworthy that these specific vessels were imported, as they agree with the rest of the evidence in suggesting that some western regions were involved in high-status exchanges, which were typically carried out among equals in the Near East. No evidence suggests that the Italics were in any disadvantageous position or that there was some hostile reaction to the Aegean imports on Sicily or Ionia. Interestingly, Cypriot, and perhaps Aegean metal objects, were imported to the West Mediterranean. Other objects, clearly inspired by Aegean and particularly Cypriot models, were produced and, at least occasionally, exchanged with Aegean people. All these facts undermine the hypothesis that the Aegean traders first began the exchanges with West Mediterranean societies to procure metals. Rather, it seems that the West Mediterranean entered a possible Bronze Age “global production network” (GPN; Henderson et al. 2002; Shamsavari 2005) existing across the Mediterranean. This perspective may help when considering the copper oxhide ingots found in the West Mediterranean, and especially Sardinia, which are at the centre of an ongoing discussion, as it makes little sense for a region rich in metals to import more

91

from far away.

largely impermeable to the Aegean culture and exchanges, but Sardinia could have exported metals to the Aegean rather than imported them from Cyprus. This is the main reason that has led some scholars (e.g. Knapp 2000) to reject the conclusions of the lead isotope analyses.The debate has caused confusion, with Gale (2001: 119) stating that a Cypriot origin for post-1250 BC copper oxhide ingots from Sardinia and elsewhere in the Mediterranean has been “abundantly demonstrated.” However, in the same issue of the European Journal of Archaeology, independent scholars are more cautions, stating that “presumably they are imports from Cyprus” (Begemann, Schmitt-Strecker, Pernicka and Lo Schiavo 2001: 73). In spite of this debate, Sardinian oxhide ingots probably had an Aegean or eastern origin because their shape was standard in the East Mediterranean but previously unknown in Sardinia.

Copper oxhide ingots There are two types of copper ingots that were exchanged in the West Mediterranean: the oxhide and the plano-convex. Copper oxhide ingots are more easily distinguishable, especially in a fragmentary state. Fragments of copper oxhide ingots have been reported from Sicily, at Thapsos, Cannatello and Lipari (Giardino 1995, 1997). None have been found on the Italian peninsula. At two northern sites, Barche di Solferino (Barfield 1966) and Wilflingen (Primas 1997), ingots of Aegean shape have been reported. Barche di Solferino was an important lake dwelling site since the third millennium BC and was probably part of the Polada culture which had established an exchange network based on inland waterways. Possible Aegean-derivative ceramics connect this site with Lake Ledro, where amber beads had been found. Wilflingen is a site beyond the Alps, on the route to the Baltic and its amber. From there, pillow shaped ingots (Buchholz’s type Ib) have been reported.The general conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is that no ingots were being exchanged on the Italian peninsula, with the exception of a possible occasional shipment to the north, possibly Frattesina, where ingots may have been used as a form of payment for amber, or at least were routed to the Baltic. The occasional ingots on Sicily instead suggest that ingots transited but did not stop there.

Gale (2001: 125) suggests on the basis of the lead isotope analyses carried out at the Oxford laboratory that “all post1250 BC ingots, all over the Mediterranean, were made from copper from the Cypriot Apliki ore deposit or its environs.” Gale explicitly mentions that the copper oxhide ingots from Sardinia and the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck conform to these conclusions. Instead, the ingots from the Uluburun shipwreck, produced pre-1250 BC, do not match any known isotopic signature (Gale 2001:119). On Sardinia, metalworkers never used pure copper as found in the ingots, proving that they had mastered metallurgical techniques such as melting, casting and alloy production (Begemann, Schmitt-Strecker, Pernicka and Lo Schiavo 2001). Because of this, it has been suggested by Lo Schiavo (1993, 1999) that this situation would have facilitated a partnership between Aegean people and Sardinians. The present data suggest that in Nuragic Sardinia lead was added to the copper from ingots to produce bronze artefacts; there is scarce evidence that intermediate bronze ingots were produced (Begemann, Schmitt-Strecker, Pernicka and Lo Schiavo 2001).

About thirty oxhide ingots have been found on Sardinia; the precise count is difficult because most of them are fragmentary. The Sardinian copper oxhide ingots have been found at Alghero, Arzachena, Assemini, Belvì, Cagliari, Dorgali, Fonni, Ittireddu, Lanusei, Nuoro, Nuragus, Olbia, Ortueri, Oschiri, Ossi, Ozieri, Pattada, Seùlo, Siniscola, Soleminis, Tertenia, Teti, Triei, Villagrande Strisàili and Villanovaforru. Parker (1992: 181) reports a sighting of some oxhide ingots in a shipwreck near the Balearics, but none of them have been brought to the surface or confirmed.The around thirty oxhide ingots found over the whole of Sardinia are a tiny fraction compared to the 354 from the single shipwreck of Uluburun. The same ship also contained five pillow shaped ingots and seven plano-convex examples. As a result, the relatively large quantity of oxhide ingots from Sardinia should not be overemphasised. Vagnetti (1999b) reports that three ingots “from Serra Ilixi and one from S. Antioco di Bisarcio are complete and also carry incised marks similar to Aegean and Cypriot scripts.”

Since all post-1250 BC copper oxhide ingots in the Mediterranean share a similar isotopic signature, it is impossible to identify a specific group of people that may have had access to the Cypriot ores from the oxhide ingots and their contextual associations. Recently, petrographic analyses on Egyptian and Ugaritic clay tablets addressed from the king of Alashiya have located the geographical origin of these in Cyprus, possibly at the ancient site of Alassa or near “the mountainous zone of the Troodos piedmont,” which is where copper mining was carried out (Goren, Bunimovitz, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2003: 250). In particular, four letters recently discovered at Ugarit and sent from Alashiya to Niqmaddu III of Ugarit (ca. 1225/20-1215 B.C.) prove that the Cypriot polity still existed and was active in the copper trade. Architectural evidence of “urban flourishing during the Late Cypriot II C reflects the expansion of the commercial system in the eastern Mediterranean region”

Lead isotope analyses of Sardinian copper oxhide ingots (Gale 2001) have consistently pointed to a Cypriot provenance. This is a major problem because the western metal ores closest to the Aegean are located on the Tyrrhenian side of the central Italian peninsula and on Sardinia. The former region of Apennine and subsequent cultures appears

92

(Goren, Bunimovitz, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2003: 252).

Aeolian Islands about the same time as LH III B pottery (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968; Bernabò Brea 1991), and may have been a response to increased piracy or threats from overseas polities. Eventually the Ausonians, a people of Apennine origin, moved into Lipari but almost ceased the exchanges of Aegean-type artefacts in the area. Thus, it is possible that increased wealth attracted the attention of exploitative pirates, but it is also unlikely that the indigenous people were unaware of the Ausonian threat in the period leading to the invasion. The reasons for the building of fortifications in Apulia are less clear, but it does not seem specifically connected to an Aegean threat, or work by Aegean architects (Cazzella 1991; Cazzella and Moscoloni 1996).

To conclude, Nuragic Sardinians probably developed skills in metalworking thanks to the availability of metal ores on Sardinia. It seems that when Sardinia entered the Mediterranean exchange networks, the Sardinians acquired copper to produce their own bronze artefacts. As a result, Sardinia is unlikely to have been an alternative source of copper for the Mediterranean. It is also unclear what the Sardinians may have given in return. Nevertheless, the Nuragic artisans had all the skills and technological knowledge required to produce many artefacts, and skilled labour may provide a clue to what returned to the Aegean. It is hypothetically possible that raw materials arriving to the island were transformed into artefacts and then redistributed.This is the production model in use at Frattesina for elephant ivory, which was sourced from Africa or Asia, worked on location and then redistributed across the Italian peninsula and perhaps beyond. Skilled labour was also present on Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula, where, however, the indigenous style was clearly affected by the cultural contacts with Aegean people. It may even be possible that some metal artefacts of Aegean or Cypriot style were produced, entirely or in part, in the West Mediterranean. The glass industry of Egypt, as we have seen, used several production locations to ensure the high quality of the final products. If this were the case, there would only be few Aegean-type metal objects in the West Mediterranean: there would be no market or appreciation for them at the production location. Although such a production network may appear overstretched on a map, it is exceedingly likely that Cypriot products did reach Sardinia, and other products may have followed the inverse route.

Sicilian monumental buildings such as the anaktoron at Pantalica and the rectangular multi-chambered buildings at Thapsos used for production purposes, may have been built under influences from the peninsular Apennine culture. Both rectangular buildings and the practice of employing a central building as a focal point in the settlements were known within the Apennine culture. The Sicilian buildings are unique and therefore the product of indigenous cultures, who were in contact at the time with both Apennine and Aegean peoples. The spring chamber at Lipari demonstrates that there was an Aegean influence in the local architecture, but this does not exclude that there was also an Apennine influence. However, the production activities within the monumental buildings seem to have originated from the introduction of new productive techniques, and production was fuelled by the exchanges. In Apulia and along the Ionian coast there is evidence that some settlements were divided between a higher (acropolis) and lower citadel (such as at Torre Castelluccia and perhaps Punta Tonno; Gorgoglione 2002), but most sites in the regions were located on top of hills and simple demographic expansion would have forced the expansion of the settlements lower down the slopes. Such supposed expansion would also agree with a context of increased production, consumption, exchanges and migratory movements.

Cyprus apparently monopolised the production of copper while maintaining good supplies from (and probably peaceful relations with) their other partners in the exchanges. Regularity of supply, and possibly low production costs, may have been the decisive components in its success. The ores used before 1250 BC remain unidentified and may have been located far from the main sea routes, or were not directly controlled by any of the trade partners, as they originated outside their territory.

Changes in architecture are also evident in funerary contexts, which are normally more conservative. In Apulia there are tombs under tumuli that were possibly introduced from overseas. However, there are also changes in the ipogei of Toppo Daguzzo that are probably best explained by local movements of people and changes within the societies. It should be noted that most of the Italic settlements presented here were relatively small and therefore relatively small changes in the population may have had dramatic effects. At Thapsos there is a clear development of both the necropolis and tombs during the Late Bronze Age, which can be detected in the location of the tombs, their architecture and contents. However, it is not possible to recognise significant Aegean influences in the structure of tombs because the interiors of the rock-cut tombs resemble Mycenaean tholoi, as well as other similar Mediterranean architectural struc-

Architecture The Mediterranean Late Bronze Age is a transitional period that sometimes anticipates the cultural, political and economic organisation of Iron Age societies. People moved within the frameworks of long-distance exchanges and the mobility of artisans, as well as in proper migrations (such as the Ausonian migration at Lipari). The indigenous architecture changed as well, but it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether any changes were specifically prompted by Aegean influences. Fortifications appear in the

93

tures such as the nuraghi of Sardinia, the castella of Corse, the shepherds’ huts of the Majella, and the predecessors of the trulli of Apulia. Moreover, the circular dwellings of Late Bronze Age Sicily may also have been a source of inspiration for rock-cut tombs. In the latter case, the tombs resembling ordinary houses could have carried the symbolic meaning of ‘houses of the dead’.

it is especially important because it demonstrates that raw materials could be transported for very long distances to a workshop, only to be transformed into artefacts and continue their journey to a final place of deposition. At Broglio, or nearby on the Sybaris plain (Ionia), various types of Aegean-type and -derived pottery were produced in industrial quantities and with great skill. Not far from there, at Termitito, pictorial pottery was produced. Thapsos, Pantalica, and perhaps other centres on the eastern coast of Sicily, were demonstrating expertise in metalworking with the Thapsos-Pertosa type of swords and very likely other metal products. On Sardinia, metalworking was highly developed but the evidence only points to production for internal use. Cannatello and Punta Tonno were probably workshops, but the evidence is less clear. At Cannatello there is some evidence of metalworking, and at both sites the amounts of large stirrup jars, which were probably used to store oil or wine in Aegean production contexts, peak. It is therefore possible that some wine or oil making activities had been initiated in those regions by introducing the grape and the olive tree.

The architectural evidence demonstrates that the Late Bronze Age was a dynamic period in the West Mediterranean, and the contacts with Aegean people were part of this scenario. It is difficult to assess the real degree of influence that the Aegean culture had on the Late Bronze Age Italic architecture. The introduction of the dry-stone circular hut in Apulia on the Adriatic coast and the Majella region inland may be connected to long distance exchanges, or rather some technique employed in their construction may have spread from overseas (as the simple model of the circular hut was already known). It is impossible to recognise any direct imitation of an overseas structure, whether Sardinian nuraghe or Aegean tholos. An exception is the spring chamber in Lipari, which seems closer to a tholos than to a nuraghe. Interestingly, the dry-stone circular hut is never used in funerary contexts within the Italian peninsula.

Aegean-type products were probably high status or luxury items and these were what the exchange networks targeted. Some main centres, identifiable by larger quantities of pottery and other products, were probably workshops inserted in the Bronze Age production network. “Global production networks” is the contemporary term simply meaning an exchange network that connects the sources of raw materials to all the workshops involved in the various stages of production of artefacts. Although, of course, no multinationals existed at the time, royal courts and palatial elites probably found this the most efficient way to procure the items they needed by connecting sparse workforces and natural resources. It is entirely possible that payments made for foreign work and resources among the most powerful partners were made, at least in part, by exchanging some of the regional production. However, the need for foreign products, the different demographic and economic sizes of the partners and the involvement of entrepreneurs external to the elite (after all somebody had to take the share of risk in the exchanges), probably created the conditions for imbalanced or open exchanges, which are other words for trade.

Long AND not so long distance trade routes The Aegean-type products in the West Mediterranean are clearly evidence of long distance exchanges and possibly trade. However, there is no general model that could explain all the evidence throughout the vast regions during the LBA. One fact becomes clear from the analysis of Aegeantype pottery: there is no single general pattern, and this from just considering one type of product in one sector of the Mediterranean. The other evidence generally confirms the conclusions drawn from the study of pottery. Particularly important is the analysis of other possible luxury and high-status products found in the same contexts of Aegeantype pottery. Amber, glass and ivory suggest that Aegeantype pottery was just one high-status commodity among many others traded, and several sea and inland trade routes can be proposed by investigating the distribution patterns of such commodities. Metalwork confirms that Aegean-derived items are localised on eastern Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula, but it also adds importance to the case of Sardinia. Copper oxhide ingots there demonstrate that one reason for the exchanges was the supply of products to skilled artisans and workshop centres.

These exchange networks may be considered the primary exchange networks, those where the elites were directly involved. These are the routes served by ships such as those resting at Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya. However, since not all goods ended up in the house of the pharaoh, other networks were in place to satisfy the demands of regional or local elites, or perhaps just to please the wealthy. These were the minor routes served by ships such as the wreck at Point Iria. On the Italian peninsula, Sicily, Sardinia and Iberia, these routes often operated inland, especially through internal waterways (e.g. the Polada culture in the northern Italian peninsula) or regional coastal routes. This is not a

A few workshop centres have been recognised; these are Monte Grande, in southern Sicily, where sulphur was worked, and Vivara, on the Tyrrhenian coast, where metalworking and probably other activities took place. Frattesina, on the Po valley, was a hub for many high-status objects, and

94

characteristic of the West Mediterranean, as, for example, the Nile offered a trafficked waterway across Egypt. The difference is that Egypt, as well as many other eastern kingdoms, was a single polity, with its own capital, king and internal organisation, while the western polities were small, different and packed in a relatively small territory. Thus, it would be abnormal for a single, highly hierarchical polity, such as Egypt, to have had high ranking officers scattered all over the territory, each capable of acquiring high-status and distinguishing products that may have connected each of them to the chieftain. However, in a region where many settlements were in fact independent polities, such as the Italian peninsula, each of these settlements could have had its own elite, and each of these elites would have had the need to acquire high-status items. Indeed, this is the best explanation for the myriad of sites with a single, or very few Aegean-type products. It is true that most excavations of sites with Aegean-type products are either unfinished or were swiftly carried out, but where they have been duly completed, the single pot (e.g. Monte Rovello; Biancofiore and Toti 1973) or handful of vessels (e.g. the Thapsos settlement; see Gazetteer) have failed to lead to multiple examples. Conversely, relatively small trenches at Broglio and Termitito had revealed from the beginning the importance of these sites.

However, one particular set of products, spices, should be singled out because it can address the cases where no production was involved, such as in funerary contexts. The hypothesis that some major sites were sources of raw materials or workshops and integral parts of some Mediterranean GPN can be convincing for certain areas, but as has been already stated several times, no single pattern or model can explain all the evidence. Spices are defined here as all those products of plant derivation or other natural origin that have aromatic and preservative properties, and also products that contain them as an essential and characterising component. In this view, both spiced wine and perfumed oil are spices, and so is honey, which has been mentioned in relation to Linear B tablets, in chapter 3, and the sulphur worked a Monte Grande (see Gazetteer, pp. 136-139). Although there is no organic residues of spices, or any other direct evidence, at West Mediterranean sites with Aegean-type products, they were available and employed by the Aegean population (see Shelmerdine 1985 for the perfume industry and Tournavitou 1992 for the pottery used in connection with perfumes). In the previous chapters we have already seen that spices might have been imported, particularly Sicily, where contexts of wealth display on the eastern coast and possible issues with food provisioning in the Aeolian Islands would have most benefited from the properties of spices. Another possible destination was the Po Valley and Frattesina, as spices would have been complemented the many luxury items circulating there. The few Aegean-type vessels reported from the lagoon of Venice (the area between Torcello and Mazzorbo), notably recall the Sicilian specimens more than anything else on the Italian peninsula, not least because of the two Cypriot vessels out of the six. The spice trade had existed long before Aegean-type products reached the West Mediterranean, as the Egyptian expedition to the “Land of Punt” proves (15th century BC; Smith 1962; Bryan 2000), and it had been the reason for great undertakings, as the arrival in Mesopotamia of a product exclusive to the Moluccas demonstrates (see Buccellati and Buccellati 1983 on the discovery of a single clove on the floor of a burned pantry room at Terqa, dated 17th century BC).The desire for spices resulted in very long journeys, exceptional challenges, and the dissipation of many fortunes throughout their history (Turner 2004), and therefore may have been, more than metals, both the reason behind some of the first exchanges (sulphur at Monte Grande) and the cultural catalyst that linked the Italic traditions of feasting and wealth display with Aegean, and especially the more oriental Cypriot culture.

Therefore, each recognised pattern of usage for Aegeantype pottery may refer to one or two workshops or other production centres within a region, while the minor sites scattered across those regions may have been minor polities that acquired some of the products produced, or exchanged in the main centres. This hypothesis would agree with the observation that generally the sum pattern of usage of the minor sites recalls the pattern of the main centre(s) in the area. There is not, as we have seen, a general pattern of usage, not even a common pattern of usage for minor sites. The only general pattern emerging from the analysis of Aegean-type pottery is that the West Mediterranean may be divided into regions, each with one or a few main centres and several minor sites. The long-distance exchanges with the Aegean depended probably on what could be sourced at each location around the network. It was essential that in the end finished products could be produced and exchanged, but there was no need for a location to have a range of products ready to exchange, as may have been the case at some palaces and capitals of the largest polities that were, in fact, collecting and storing high-status products. The rational expansion of the exchange network by sourcing supplies of highest quality, regardless of their geographical location, was perhaps one of the greatest achievements of the Bronze Age palatial elites and kingdoms as they launched commercial trade across the Mediterranean.

During the Late Bronze Age, the Italian peninsula hosted two large exchange networks: a “marine” network that used routes following the southern coastlines and connecting the islands, and a “riverine” one that exchanged mostly Apennine and Central European products. The former has been the subject of this book, but it is useful to briefly present the latter network. The origins of the river network

All the products that could have been produced and transported in the exchange route have already been mentioned.

95

are probably to be found in the fluvial links that connect many settlements in the Po valley and the Alpine region. This is the region of the Polada culture, the Emilian terramare and Frattesina. Characteristically, many settlements of these cultures were lake-dwellings. It seems that these settlements secured the rivers, which were probably also used to communicate and exchange with other centres within a controlled environment. Access to the sea was provided by main centres such as Frattesina, which probably served as entrance gateways to the regional exchange network. The few Aegean-type and -derived products that are scattered across the region suggest that they radiated from a main settlement, possibly Frattesina, as it is improbable that overseas traders reached disparate points in the network with very few products and no intermediate evidence of their passage.Two centres in the southern Italian peninsula also used lake-dwellings and stand apart for their size, length of occupation, architecture and productive activities. One of these is Poggiomarino (Guzzo, Albore Livadie and Cicirelli 2003), near Pompeii, which was at least seven hectares in size, and built on islands. It seems to have been founded about the time Vivara was abandoned and lasted until the period in which Pompeii was founded. At the time of the foundation of Poggiomarino the presence of Aegean-type pottery in the area ends, but many products, such as amber and glass seem, to connect this settlement with Frattesina. The other settlement is Paludi di Celano (soprintendenza archeologica d’Abruzzo 1988; D’Ercole and Cairoli 1998), a settlement of dwellings on a dried lake that extends for 5 hectares. A few Iron Age tumuli tombs have been unearthed: these are delimited by arrangements of stones, inside which the corpses were laid down in a simple dry-stone chamber; a log served as a coffin. Nearby, at Madonna degli Angeli, a partly subterranean building includes both rectangular and circular rooms. In both Poggiomarino and Paludi di Celano there is evidence of bronze working.

started earlier (MBA) and continued until the Etruscan period. Noticeably, the Apennine exchange network seems to have used internal waterways as main routes and purposely built lake-dwelling sites in strategic places as possible intermediate centres. The internal waterways were safer because they could be patrolled, reducing the risks of piracy. Furthermore, navigation is easier with the shoreline in constant sight and there is less chance of shipwreck in a well-known river than on the open sea. These reasons may explain why the Apennine exchange network lasted for longer than any coastal exchange network and why coastal navigation around the northern Italian peninsula appears limited: it faced competition from a safer, internal network.

Pottery and social identity The many regional differences in the consumption of Aegean-type materials can seldom be entirely explained by the items being exotic or prestige products. The hypothesis that spices were contained in some imported vessels overcomes this problem by considering the ceramic vessels primarily as cultural vehicles for the meanings associated with spices, rather than material products of exotic provenance. In eastern Sicily and Ionia in particular, Aegean-type products were integrated within the local Italic cultures and consumed along with indigenous materials. This implies that the materials had their meaning consciously manipulated in their insertion into the regional cultures. Aegean-type materials, particularly pottery, seem to have been a formidable instrument to detach this group of cultures from the other Italic cultures, particularly the massive and uniform Apennine culture. The recognition of social identities is not based exclusively on Aegean-type materials, but it includes also Aegean-derived materials. The Italic cultures always integrated any imported Aegean cultural element into their own material culture. Hence, the Italic cultures consuming Aegean-type materials had an identity strong enough to resist other larger cultures, both inland (Apennine) and overseas (Aegean). The explanation for this can only be the existence of social and territorial self-consciousness among indigenous cultures, which used in part Aegean-type materials to distinguish themselves further from the other Italic cultures, but in such a measure as to prevent an excessive influence from the Aegean culture. A study on the concept of ‘foreignness’ in antiquity concentrating on Mesopotamia, Egypt and China has concluded that the appurtenance to a large society depended on cultural issues such as location, language and religion. As a result, the hypothesis that the Italics created new identities using cultural traits and differences seems in agreement with that study.

There are other Bronze and Iron Ages lake-dwellings of Apennine and sub-Apennine culture in the central and southern Italian peninsula, including in the lakes (Dolfi 1998) of Bolsena, Bracciano, Martignano, Mezzano (Baffetti 1993), Albano (Chiarucci 1985), and one at Castelvenere (De Blasio 1898; Scetta 1971). These sites are poorly excavated and recorded, but in the settlement of Albano archaeologists have found amber and glass beads. As a result, it appears that the Polada and terramare cultures of the northern Italian peninsula were part of the larger Apennine culture, in spite of some differences in the style of the pottery. Sites with lake-dwellings or on small islands are rare on the central and southern peninsula, but noticeably they all seem part of a wider exchange network spreading out from the area of Frattesina – as the amber and glass finds at Poggiomarino and Albano suggest. This same network occasionally entered into contact with southern settlements as the tumuli and partly subterranean buildings suggest.The Apennine exchange network seems to have been active at least from the Recent Bronze Age (LBA), but may have

96

There were probably only a few contacts between Aegean traders and Italic people in the course of a year, probably during spring and summer when seafaring is less challenging. However, as the changes in the indigenous material cultures and the evidence from shipwrecks suggest, the significance of ships arriving in ancient communities was comparable to harvest time. The term “harvest” denotes the action of gathering of crops, but also, by extension, the time when gathering generally takes place, Summer. The seasonality of the event might have ritualised the social behaviour associated with it. The importance of seasonality in the life of agro-pastoral communities throughout antiquity is visible in Middle Age artistic works such as the “Months” by Antelami in the baptistery of Parma (13th century AD), or the frescoes representing the “Twelve Months” in Buonconsiglio Castle at Trento (15th century AD; Castelnuovo 1986). In both representations, which are only the finest examples from a long series, time is so deeply interwoven with repetitive natural occurrences and human activities that the representations of these marked the passage of time.

a definite territory was occupied by a group of communities who spoke the same language”, Etruscan in Etruria and Latin in Latium. Etruria and Latium have benefited from many excavations and lengthy studies in the attempt to clarify the emergence there of the two great civilisations of classical times. No such detail is available for any other Italic region and therefore one last analogy is necessary, this time between Latium and the BA sites with Aegean-type pottery. As a result, it becomes evident that interregional exchanges usually detected at BA sites with Aegean-type pottery are very similar to the second phase in Latium, but the communities were yet to be clustered around major centres, which existed, and the patterns of usage of material culture were sharply different, as in the first phase in Latium. The relationship between interregional exchanges and formation of social power is a complex one.The foundation of new larger centres in Latium and the subsequent emergence of social and political power provoke the reorganisation and relocation of interregional exchanges. Conversely, the organisation of interregional exchanges in BA Ionia, where social cohesion has not yet emerged, transforms some centres into major centres and inhibits the emergence of social power because the new pattern of settlement allows the formation of limited political power, perhaps as complex as chiefdoms, delaying the need for more complex forms of social structure. In addition, the exchanges redistribute materials, techniques and ideas across the regions, preventing isolation and the emergence of a local social identity different from any other and strong enough to become an ethnic, and eventually “national”, identity.The “Aegean” wares may have been used to distinguish the Aegeanised coastal zones from the Apennine inland, but, at the same time, these wares connected one Aegeanised region to the others, preventing the emergence of a unique, ethnic identity. This may be the reason why Etruria and Latium became “nations”, in the sense of homogenous civilisations, shortly after forming their ethnic identity, whereas the regions identified in this research still struggled to differentiate themselves from the Greek colonisers as late as the 6th century BC, as we shall see in the next section.

Radical changes in ceramic style or the introduction of exotic wares are often effects of the emergence of social hierarchy and identity. A study (Schortman, Urban and Ausec 2001) of the Naco Valley (AD 600-950), in north-western Honduras, has suggested that control over exotic items, particularly if introduced in public social contexts like ceremonies, would award social power to those introducing the new pottery. The model proposed requires that the rulers-to-be would form a new social identity based on the manipulation of material symbols, as exotic pottery might be considered. No ruling elite can be identified in the West Mediterranean, but the mechanisms of social power are the same. The model seems valid elsewhere in Mesoamerica (Schortman, Urban and Ausec 2001) and might possibly contribute to the explanation of the introduction of Aegean-type pottery in the Ionian area and its hypothesised link with the emergence of social identities. Focussing on Iron Age Latium, Bietti Sestieri (1992: 30) associates a process of demographic growth, inferred from observing the progressive increase in the number of archaeological sites with the emergence of “archaeologically identified regional aspects.” Bietti Sestieri (1992: 234 ff) observes that in a first phase (I – IIA; 1000-830 BC), interregional trade was limited to a few goods (including amber and glass paste) dispersed among communities clustered in areas separated “by sharp differences in the local use of material culture.” In the following period (IIB – III; 830-730 BC), the foci of interregional contacts are the coastal settlements. Major centres are founded in this period and the settlement pattern becomes highly clustered. Internal divisions among communities, based on wealth and social status recognisable in the archaeological record from the different types of burials, lead to the formation of political power. Bietti Sestieri (1992: 244) argues “the process of ethnic formation in Etruria ends between the ninth and eighth century, when

The inheritance of Aegean-type contacts into the Iron Age The regional production of Aegean-type pottery in Ionia continued well into the Iron Age. The Messapi can be distinguished in the Iron Age as a separate culture and identity in the region, and their material culture was much influenced by the Aegean people. Aegean-derivative pottery continues as well, although it remains unclear if late influences depend on the Italicised Aegean-type pottery or on

97

contacts with overseas people and materials. The Messapi eventually occupied much of Ionia, but the fragmentation recognised in the patterns of usage of Aegean-type pottery also continued: Peuceti and Dauni are other social identities in northern Apulia. In Sicily little changes before the Greeks arrived.

is important to notice that along the same river are located all the Iberian Bronze Age sites with Aegean-type and derived products. At Huelva, a sample of 8,009 potsherds among the ca. 100,000 unearthed has yielded the following results: 3,233 fragments belong to Phoenician vessels, 4,703 are indigenous (but some Phoenician vessels may also have been produced locally!), 33 Greek, 30 Sardinian, 8 Cypriot and 2 Villanovan. Of the Greek vessels, 9 vessels are dated to the Geometric II of Attica (ca 800-770 BC) and 22 are Protogeometric (ca 900-850 BC) vessels in Eubean and Cycladic style. In addition, wood, bone, agate, amber, glass, ostrich remains, an elephant tusk weighing 3.265 kg and 2.230 kg of worked ivory artefacts were found.The site also yielded several crucibles, furnaces, moulds and finished silver and iron artefacts, which prove that metalworking activities took place onsite (Gonzalez de Canales Cerisola, Serrano Pichardo, and Llompart Gomez 2005).This Iberian site, dated to the early ninth century, shows that before the Greek and Phoenician colonisation took place Greek and Phoenician products were already travelling, and probably along the same routes and in the same ships. A clear parallel can be drawn between the site of Huelva and Italic BA sites such as Frattesina for the workshops of amber, glass and especially ivory; Frattesina was also at the beginning of a network of inland waterways. Frattesina was an active workshop between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC (Bietti Sestieri and De Grossi Mazzorin 2001: 735).

The Protogeometric Iapygian ware appears along with LH III C wares in Ionia and Apulia and seems contemporary with the earliest Protogeometric Greek pottery, although the chronology is not yet refined enough to be compared with the Aegean one. This and the matt-painted ware are produced from the Final BA into the IA on the southern Italian peninsula. There, the style of decoration continues to develop towards extreme stylisation, eventually producing geometric patterns that have lost any naturalistic trait. In particular, in the necropoleis of San Vito di Pisticci (see Appendix 2), near the settlement of Termitito, where the only Italic pictorial pottery was found, Iron Age Italic vessels as late as the 7th or 6th century BC are still using the Mycenaean pattern-painted style. At several sites in Sicily (see Appendix 1) there is clear evidence of a development of Aegean-derivative wares from “Mycenaean” into Protogeometric and then Geometric. Remarkably, new Aegean shapes appear and become popular, like the askos, often found in tombs of Pantalica III phase (e.g. Mount Finocchito, Realmese). Askoi appear also on the southern Italian peninsula, but are more rare. Aegean-derivative wares continue in sites of Pantalica culture throughout all its phases, from the BA to the mature IA, without any sign of interruption. A Minoan style kernos has been found at the settlement of Meta Piccola, the only Ausonian settlement on mainland Sicily.

It is also evident that the route that departed from the Near East (Phoenicia) crossed Cyprus and then continued to the Aegean, possibly avoiding as much as possible the Aegean polities.The Cyclades were therefore probably at the centre of both north-south (e.g. mainland Greece to Crete) and east-west routes, and because of this the Phoenicians may have procured Attic pottery there, as it seems unlikely that much Cycladic pottery would have been available in Attica. The route then continued towards Sardinia, perhaps passing through the Aeolian Islands. Sicilian centres along the eastern coast continued to be influenced by Aegean products (e.g. introduction of the askos, see notes on Pantalica and surrounding sites, p. 145 and 179-180), but most sites are located inland and older centres, such as Thapsos, appear temporarily abandoned during the Iron Age. The final leg of the journey may have included a stopover at Ustica, then the Balearics (LBA oxhide ingots are reported from Formentera), and finally reached their destination at the mouth of the Guadalquivir river. Remarkably, this long journey would not have connected the main harbours of the time, nor would it have been the shortest route. Rather, it would have avoided many obvious inhabited lands, such as Crete or mainland Greece and the Italian peninsula, probably preferring “minor islands” such as the Cyclades, the Aeolian Islands and the Balearics, via medium-sized islands such as Cyprus and Sardinia.

At Tharros (Ugas 1995), Sardinia and in the Guadalquivir valley, Iberia, strata with Phoenician materials are sometimes subsequent to those with possible Aegean-type pottery. Generally, one stratum divides the two but the indigenous material found in each stratum suggests that only a short period divides Aegean material from the Phoenician ones. On the Ionian coast, in necropoleis such as Francavilla Marittima, askoi continue the tradition of Aegean-derived wares, as they do on Sicily, and amber suggests continued contacts with the northern Italian peninsula. However, Near Eastern (Syrian?) scarabs appear in tombs (e.g. n. 8 and 69), often associated with amber, and they date to the second half of the 8th century BC (Iron Age). They were prestige items, and probably imported by the Phoenicians. Hence, the early Phoenicians used the same BA exchange network that carried Cretan, Cypriot and Near Eastern pottery, perhaps after a short break. The Iberian emporium of Huelva, located close to the mouth of the river Gaudalquivir, has been interpreted as a pre-colonial Phoenician emporium (Gonzalez de Canales Cerisola, Serrano Pichardo, and Llompart Gomez 2005). It

Both the preference for remoter islands and the end of the routes at termini characterised by the presence of large ac-

98

Conclusions

tive workshops are two recurring features of BA exchanges in the West Mediterranean. Vivara, the Aeolian Islands, the sites of Thapsos and Syracuse located on peninsulas, and probably some harbours in Sardinia were all located in secluded locations at the margins of populated areas. Most emblematic is perhaps Monte Grande, where only workshops and not a single dwelling could be found. All this contrasts with the journeys of classical times, where ships connected populated places. Already Homer, in his Odyssey, gives the impression that a ship would have ended up in remote locations, outside the civilised world, only by mistake. Homer portrays the Aeolian Islands as a place of incestuous, though divine and friendly people, who were “enjoying every conceivable kind of luxury” (Odyssey 10.1-15). The mention of luxuries well suits the evidence from the eastern coast of Sicily, and so does the idea of the Aeolian Islands being a friendly place, where help might be sought.Yet, by Homer’s time, the Aeolian Islands no longer appear to have been the preferred destinations for Aegean ships. It seems that BA trades were highly organised and possibly subject to controls (e.g. ships may have been escorted, or representatives of the main polities were onboard). Thus, it may have been wise to avoid as many settlements as possible, because unseen ships would have been safer from pirates and liberal taxation from any intermediary chieftain.

The identification of chronological and regional patterns of Aegean-type pottery usage has been perhaps the most crucial achievement of this study. Only two periods could be clearly distinguished in all the cases; these are LH I – III A 1 and LH III A 2 – C. Most if not all Aegean-type pottery in the former period seems to be genuinely imported from the Aegean. Conversely, most of the pottery in the latter period is certainly of Italic production. The dichotomy between these two periods is also represented in the geographical distribution, with a major change in both the main sites and the regions alike, where Aegean-type pottery was consumed. This chronological division is also evident in the change of style and shapes of Mycenaean pottery between LH I – II and LH III and therefore it was relatively easy to attribute every identifiable potsherd to one of the two periods. However, the changes in both the production of pottery and the distribution of sites in the West Mediterranean happen during LH III A, when several main sites are either abandoned early, in the LH III A 1 period (e.g. Monte Grande, Vivara), or introduce Aegean-type pots in LH III A 2 (e.g. Panarea, Broglio, probably Taranto).Thapsos and the eastern Sicilian coast introduce Aegean-type pottery only slightly earlier (LH III A 1) and significantly here the earliest “imitations” appear from LH III A 2, with Cypriot-style pots of unknown provenance.

As we have seen, the Greek and Phoenician routes were originally not as separated as in classical times and this makes if difficult to trace any BA Aegean element that survived throughout the BA / IA transition.The appearance of indigenous wheel-made pottery in Iberia (Almagro-Gorbea and Fontes 1997) might suggest that the introduction of new techniques in indigenous pottery was associated with traders connected with the exchange of Aegean-type materials. In the southern Italian peninsula this is particularly evident because of the mass production of Aegean-type and -derived pots, but the same pattern can be recognised in Iberia. While it is possible that the pattern began on the Italian peninsula after the arrival of Aegean people, it seems that trade in the Late Bronze Age implied a degree of social interaction that is recognisable in the transfer of techniques, and this might have been paramount for pioneering traders to establish new routes.

The analysis of regional patterns considers any area where Aegean-type pottery has been found. The complexity of the archaeological record emerges immediately, with the two main regions, Sicily and Ionia, subdivided respectively into Eastern Sicily, the Aeolian Islands, Western Sicily and the Ionian coast, Ionian Apulia. Early (MH – LH II) Aegean pottery has been found mainly in the Aeolian Islands, at Vivara and at Monte Grande. The Aeolian Islands have yielded the greatest amounts of decorated pottery while Monte Grande has returned the largest quantities of undecorated pottery. The pattern of usage of decorated pottery in the Aeolian Islands is partially similar to the pattern recognised at Vivara, suggesting that the ships with Aegean-type materials reaching Vivara were probably routed via the Aeolian Islands.

Exchanges of Aegean materials do not stop with the advent of the Iron Age and the production of Aegean-derived wares is never interrupted, in most cases until Roman times. Aegean-derived wares develop on both Sicily and the southern Italian peninsula into the Italic Protogeometric and then Geometric wares. Protogeometric Greek wares are absent in the West Mediterranean, the earliest Greek pots found are in Geometric style. Although further research is needed on this intriguing topic, it seems that the legacy of Aegean-type pottery in the West Mediterranean survived the end of the Mycenaean civilisation and developed further for several centuries.

Depositional contexts are different in each of the three centres. On the Aeolian Islands, small huts are very similar in structure and clustered in small villages. Each hut has a similar quantity of Aegean-type pottery, suggesting a frequent, practical use. At Vivara, Aegean-type pottery is often found broken and discarded, suggesting to the excavators (Cazzella et al. 1991) that the contents were highly valued. At Monte Grande, decorated pottery is found within enclosures, perhaps sacred areas, as the many ceramic horns found inside suggest. Undecorated pottery was instead concentrated in

99

one location, its contents redistributed and then discarded.

On LH III Western Sicily, Cannatello is the main site. Jars and transport jars are particularly abundant, but there are also many stirrup jars, which are common only in one other site: Taranto. Only a quarter of the Aegean-type vessels are open, and these are in order of frequency: cups, bowls and kylikes. Cannatello has also similarities with the pattern recognisable in the few pots found in Sardinia, suggesting it was part of an inland route to Sardinia and Iberia.

LH III A 1 products are the most recent Aegean-type vessels found at Vivara and Monte Grande. The area of Vivara is thereafter excluded from the exchanges. Cannatello replaces Monte Grande as a major centre on Western Sicily, perhaps after a short break. The earliest materials found on eastern Sicily are of this period, namely two piriform jars from Milocca. There is continuity in the exchanges in the Aeolian Islands, where cups and medium-sized jars remain the commonest vessels, but there is an increased presence of alabastra and kylikes.

On the Ionian coast, several Aegean-derived wares were produced with Aegean-type pottery, at least from LH III B 1, without evidence of trials in the introduction or changes in the production techniques (Garrigós, Jones, Kilikoglou, Levi et al. 2003). There is a sharp change from the previous period, because the Ionian coast was almost excluded from the exchanges, and the Adriatic coast of Apulia was preferred. During LH III, the Adriatic coast is marginalized and significant quantities of pottery appear only after the introduction of the Aegean-type production techniques in LH III C from the Ionian coast.

Thapsos, on east Sicily, is the site that yielded most Aegeantype pottery during LH III A 2. Jars and other small-sized closed vessels are preferred at Thapsos and in the region. Cypriot-style pottery appears from LH III B, when the commonest shape is the jug, including the characteristic white shaved jug. Since stylistic analyses suggest these vessels were not produced in Cyprus and there is no evidence of local production, Cypriot-style pottery may be an import from the Aegean (Crete?).

West of Taranto, jars and bowls comprise almost the entirety of shapes. However, east of Taranto, on the Ionian coast of Apulia, stirrup jars, cups and kylikes are also present.Taranto is closer to the eastern side, although the unusual peak in stirrup jars, the wider range of vessels, and the large quantities distinguish this site from any other.

The depositional context at Thapsos is most valuable in explaining the function of Aegean-type pottery. The vessels are found almost exclusively in tombs, where they mark the wealthiest tombs (most monumental and with the highest quantities of materials). A strategy of wealth display may be recognised in the use of Aegean-type vessels. Cypriot-style pots had the highest value, an observation confirmed by the presence of Cypriot-style metal objects in some of the most monumental Sicilian tombs (e.g. Caldare).

The depositional context on the southern Italian peninsula is very simple, with several buildings storing Aegean-type pottery, some new buildings (storage buildings) with concentrations of specialised Aegean-derived wares (e.g. dolia) and the central buildings, perhaps public, with higher amounts of Aegean-type pottery, sometimes along with religious furnishings such as figurines, probably for use during communal or public ceremonies. This arrangement is typical of centres of Apennine culture, where Apennine decorated pottery normally replaces Aegean-type pottery.

The cultural context shows a particularity in the pattern of distribution of Aegean-type pottery on east Sicily. Three peninsulas used as harbours are located a short distance from one another, yet each site seems to have belonged to a different exchange route. Ognina, the southernmost peninsula, yielded large amounts of Maltese material and no Aegeantype pottery. Thapsos, the northernmost peninsula, yielded significant amounts of Aegean-type pottery and no Maltese pottery. Syracuse, in between Thapsos and Ognina, yielded only a few Maltese and Aegean-type pots. At the beginning of the Iron Age, each area had also one large cemetery: Cassibile, near Ognina; Plemmyrion, near Syracuse, and Pantalica, near Thapsos. As Aegean-derived material continued into the Iron Age, it can be appreciated that the presence of Aegean-derived material in the cemeteries matches the presence of Aegean-type pottery in the BA peninsulas: none at Cassibile, a few at Plemmyrion and many at Pantalica. A “federative” organisation, where first the peninsulas, harbours and later the cemeteries were shared by several communities, may be proposed. Remarkably, Thapsos has a large cemetery disproportionate to the small settlement superseded by Pantalica, which may prove a link between harbours and cemeteries.

There is no single interpretation of the many patterns that can be applied to all the evidence, nor can one reason alone justify the exchange of Aegean-type products in the West Mediterranean.The western evidence provides a fascinating insight into the Mediterranean exchange networks, which appear highly organised. A key problem in looking at the evidence is that everything can appear concentrated into a series of isolated passages or journeys; the temptation to unite site after site and label them ports-of-call on a longdistance route is great. Instead, it should be appreciated that there were various stages in the movement of products. Some of these involved the sourcing of raw materials and the processing of these into artefacts, a stage which may have required more than one passage. Then, there was the distribution of these artefacts, sometimes via main regional hubs, to the final locations of consumption and deposition. The major sites each probably played more than one role in the long journey of artefacts. And this could have been

100

a temporal journey, where the artefacts came into being from raw materials, as much as a spatial one, where artefacts travelled from hand to hand, coast to coast. The legacy of these exchanges continued well into the Iron Age, and there are echoes of these journeys in classical times, not least in

the lines of Homer. However, the legacy of the economy of trade, which opened a constant dialogue among polities and created the conditions for entrepreneurship and private profit, extensively exploited later by Phoenicians and Greeks, remains with us.

101

Appendix geological contribution to the understanding of Ionia

nine pattern of a communal central hut with its separate storage building is replaced by the use of two storage buildings: one for raw materials and one for luxury materials. The particular geographic location of the sites, which are located inland up to about 20 km, instead of being close to the ancient coastline, adds to the problem. The earliest sites stretch from about modern Crotone to Taranto and none of them, except for two small capes (Capo Piccolo at Crotone and Punta Tonno at Taranto), was actively inhabited before LH III A. Earlier evidence of inhabitation does exist, but it is either much earlier or very close to LH III A. This is surprising, because the entire coastline of the Italian peninsula, from the Adriatic Sea to the Tyrrhenian Sea, has evidence of human settlers from at least EBA, except in this particular region. Furthermore, the geographical location of the sites is very peculiar: all the settlements are far from the shoreline, on the top of hills, and most of them out of sight of the sea. Notably, the two sites closer to the sea, Punta Tonno and Broglio, are not directly on the sea. Punta Tonno was protected by a natural harbour and located on a low hill, whereas Broglio is located a few kilometres inland on the top of a high hill. Except for the sites with Aegean-type pottery, only a few others with Aegean-derivative pottery have been found, proving a cultural homogeneity. Considering that we are talking about sites often in contact with overseas people and “near” the coastline in the region with the strongest Aegean cultural influence, why could not a single site have been a harbour? On any other coast, sites were directly on the sea, in both Adriatic and Ionian Apulia, in Calabria (LH I Capo Piccolo), on the Tyrrhenian coast, on Sicily and Sardinia. On the stretch of coast from Taranto to Crotone no site lies on or near the vicinity of the sea.

Although Sicily received Aegean-type pottery and maintained to a certain degree a pattern of usage closer than any other region to the palatial usage, Ionia undoubtedly appears closer to the Aegean as regards embracing Aegean fine wares as its own in all aspects. Moreover, vines and olives were cultivated there after the first contacts and even though Vivara might have been the first place to adopt the plants, they did not last there for long. Ionia was certainly a region receptive to the Aegeans, and the adoption of Aegean productive techniques quite likely means that some Aegean people moved there.Vagnetti (1999a) has proposed that a few Mycenaeans, amongst whom were potters, fled from the destructions of LH III B palaces in the Aegean and settled on the Ionian coast. At Broglio there are a few possible LH III A 2 imports and the earliest local production of Aegean-type pottery dates, indeed, to the LH III B. This view reconsiders old ideas of Mycenaean colonisation, particularly at LH III B Punta Tonno (Quagliati 1900) in Ionia and EBA (MH) Filicudi (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1991) in the Aeolian Islands. The periodic arrival of new people to the Aeolian Islands is not extraordinary, and the possibility that a few Aegeans reached there cannot be ruled out. The situation in Ionia, particularly on the Ionian coast during LH III A 2 – B 1, is different. No Mycenaean colonies seem to have been founded there – the archaeological record of Aegean materials is limited to a tiny percentage of the pottery used. On the other hand, the possible arrival of a few potters during LH III B cannot explain the evidence convincingly. The indigenous pottery is heavily influenced by Aegean-type products, and the production techniques of Italic Aegeantype pottery spread swiftly and coherently (with no changes) along the coastline.

A natural catastrophe in the area that destroyed most of the pre-existing sites, reducing significantly the number of inhabitants can be envisaged. This would solve all the problems at once: the few inhabitants would have had to rebuild their settlements or move inland, and possible newcomers from overseas would have found an ideal situation to leave the imprint of their culture on the indigenous culture: settlements and cultures would have needed a reshuffle. Furthermore, the number of newcomers could have been small and still have been significant in a small community. A natural catastrophe is not exceptional: the same Vivara was destroyed by a volcanic eruption during LH III A and it triggered the opportunity for an Apennine “rebellion” against Aegean-type products. Because the problematic area is a straight coastline and no volcanoes are present, the most probable cause would be a tsunami. Since the Aegean-type evidence in Ionia arrives up to LH I (Capo Piccolo), there is a break in LH II, and finally a new start in early LH III A (Broglio), the tsunami had to happen during LH II.

The evidence at Toppo Daguzzo (chapter 5) has demonstrated that there was a clash between traditions involving Aegean-type pottery before the massive LH III B production started. Particularly, the ancient Italic tradition of burials inside caves (e.g. Manaccora cave, Sassano) is replaced by an exclusive ritual use of caves in the local ipogei, which are artificial caves. This did not happen however in other ipogei in the region. In the settlement, two Apennine central buildings were unearthed, a hut dedicated to rituals and a separate storage building. The storage building remained unchanged in appearance and function, but the other hut concentrated together fine wares and other luxury products while the rituals stopped. In practice, the traditional Apen-

102

The geological study of Pleistocene megaturbidites deep in the Mediterranean Sea has shown that exactly about that period there was evidence of a perturbation compatible with a tsunami wave on the seafloor that formed megaturbidites very quicky (Cita and Aloisi 2000). Megaturbidites are giant strata of featureless mud, which are formed either very slowly through centuries of sediment depositions or possibly suddenly when a tsunami wave is powerful enough to rip a few metres of sediments off the seafloor and put them in suspension in the water long enough to mix them. The immediate fallback would produce a stratum of homogenous consistency, the megaturbidite. Studies cannot yet prove that a tsunami was the cause, but this is the prevailing interpretation among geologists (Hieke and Werner 2000; Rothwell et al. 2000). Cita and Aloisi (2000) argue that the cause of the tsunami was the collapse of the caldera at Thera, which would have produced a wave radiating from the island with maximum strength towards the west. This depends on the morphology of the seafloor near Thera, which would have channelled the wave, concentrating energy. However, earthquakes interfered as well, because the route of the wave then changed towards the north.The pos-

sibility of earthquakes associated with the Thera eruption is highly likely. Even without the knowledge of the precise origin and dynamic of such a catastrophic wave, many deposits of megaturbidite associated to this event were found in front of the stretch of coast that throughout this research has been called “Ionian coast”, exactly in the Ionian and Sirte Abyssal Plains. In conclusion, the geological evidence supports the hypothesis of a tsunami wave hitting the Ionian coast probably in LH II, and the geological origin should be researched in the eruption of Thera, which probably triggered a series of earthquakes and minor eruptions, including Vivara. Although it is unclear if the tsunami wave was the product of the collapsed caldera or of some associated minor event, which might have been chronologically distanced from the eruption itself, notably the geological and archaeological evidence agree. More research is needed on this topic, particularly in determining the exact period of the tsunami. Yet, the possibility of a geological explanation to the archaeological anomalies on the Ionian coast deserves, at least, to be hypothesised.

103

104

Century

BC

21002000 21st

EH II B

MH I

Neolithic – Chalcolithic

Neolithic – Chalcolithic

EH III

20001900 20th

Early BA

Neolithic / Early BA

22002100 22nd

Neolithic / Early BA

23002200 23 rd

Early BA 2300-1700

MH II

17001600 17th

Early BA 1800-1600

LH I

LH III A 2

Ausonian I

Ausonian I

L H II I B 1

Final BA 1150900

Final BA 12001000

S U B M Y C

900800 9th

Early IA 1050-525

800700 8 th

FBA / EIA 1050-900

Early IA 1050-525

Iron Age

Geometric

(Proto) Geometric Early IA

Ausonian II

Ausonian II

FBA/ EIA 1050975 110010001000 900 11th 10th

LH III C 2-3 Italic protogeometric Final BA

12001100 12th

Final BA 1200-975

LH III C

Recent BA 1300-1150

Recent BA 13001200

L H II I B 2

LH III B2 – C1 Recent BA

Milazzese

Milazzese

13001200 13th

Recent BA 1350-1200

14001300 14th

Middle BA 1500-1300

L H I I B

Middle BA 1600-1300

L H I I A

(MH) LH I – III B 1 Middle BA

L H I I I A 1

15001400 15th Capo Graziano II

Capo Graziano II

16001500 16th

Early BA 1700-1500

MH III

Capo Graziano I

18001700 18th

Capo Graziano I

19001800 19th

Middle BA 1700-1350

The dendrochronology of the northern Italian peninsula can be assumed to be valid for the whole peninsula. Absolute dates are missing in the area. “BA” means Bronze Age, “IA” Iron Age and “SUBMYC” sub-Mycenaean. The relative chronology of the Aeolian Islands is presented in its traditional version and in a revised (“corrected”) version that agrees better with the other chronologies, particularly considering the presence of Aegean-type pottery in the West. This has been possible due to the good level of information available on the islands. However, similar changes could be possible for other, less known Italic sites. The “Aegean-type in the West Mediterranean” chronology has been built observing the depositional context (association of Aegean-type materials and Italic ones). It refers to the whole area and it could have varied, about one decade, from area to area. There is an almost total absence of MH pottery, suggesting the beginning of frequent contacts during the 16th century. LH III B 1 pottery seem associated to Middle BA strata only in few sites of the Adriatic coast of Apulia, geographically and chronologically on the limit of the introduction of LH III B 1 pottery in the Aegean. Italic protogeometric pottery appears already during the Final BA, along with LH III C 2 pottery, perhaps earlier than in mainland Greece. The “Helladic” chronology likely varied across mainland Greece and is a work in progress. All dates given are approximate. The Cretan chronology is partially different, at least the LM I A period dates to the 1675 – 1600. An important link with absolute dates is provided by the Thera eruption dated lately to the 1644 BC according to GISP2 ice cores, though it may be 60 to 80 years later. The settlement of Akrotiri, Thera, was abandoned when LH I pottery was in use. For instance, the Ulu Burun shipwreck dates to the 1327 +4/-7 BC. Thus, the date of the eruption coincides with the earliest materials in the West and the raise of the Mycenaeans (and fall of the Minoans),

Table 16: Chronology

Traditional 2 (Northern Italian peninsula)

Traditional 1 (Southern Italian peninsula)

Helladic

Aegean-type in the West Mediterranean

Aeolian Islands (traditional)

Aeolian Islands (corrected)

Absolute

Dendro (Northern Italian peninsula)

105

whereas the Ulu Burun shipwreck would date to the Recent BA. The chronology presented here would agree with the dendrochronological results from the northern Italian peninsula, a late Thera eruption and the general situation in the West Mediterranean. Since the absolute chronology available for the Aegean has not been tested yet in the West Mediterranean, any absolute date has been accepted as approximate. Minor adjustments (of a few decades) have been made occasionally on absolute dates from the Aegean to link correctly the relative chronologies of Aegean Sea and West Mediterranean. Any adjustment made accepts some hypothesis to keep an acceptable chronology, but it is stressed that the intended target was to fit several relative chronologies rather than produce the “ultimate” Aegean chronology choosing among various hypotheses. A correct methodology would require the modification of Italic relative chronologies to fit the better known Aegean chronology, but this was possible only for the Aeolian Islands. The traditional chronologies of the Italian peninsula are two out of several presented throughout the years. They were never correlated to any absolute chronology (the few available cannot be accepted) and were based largely on Aegean-type materials found in the West Mediterranean.

Gazetteer of sites * Site name: Agrigento (Marina

di

Agrigento)

Aegean-type pottery One small three-handled piriform jar FS 45 or 47, FM 64 dated by De Miro (1996: 996) to the LH III A 2. The motif is more frequent in the Eastern Mediterranean rather than in mainland Greece. Metalwork Few Cypriot-type metal items from the district. Depositional context One vase acquired by Orsi and said to have been found in the coast, near the modern town. The Cypriot-type metalwork comes from the surrounding area. The site of the finding is probably Cannatello. Essential bibliography: Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Site name: Alghero (Porticciolo) Metalwork Fragment of copper oxhide ingot plus another fragment of copper ingot. Depositional context Surface finding. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Arzachena (Nuraghe Albucciu) Metalwork Some fragments of one or more copper oxhide ingots and bronze fragments including part of a votive sword. Depositional context From Nuraghe Albucciu.The fragments of copper oxhide ingots were contained in two Nuragic bowls dated to the LBA (Recent and Final). One is similar to a Nuragic bowl found at Kommos, Crete, the other is similar to the bowl that contained the fragments at Olbia, but in smaller scale. Essential bibliography: Antona Ruju, Angela, and Maria Luisa Ferrarese Ceruti. 1992. Il nuraghe Albucciu e i monumenti di Arzachena. Vol. 19. Sassari: C. Delfino editore. * Site name: Assemini Metalwork Some bronze fragments probably of copper oxhide ingots were reported in 1863. Now they are lost. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Aunjetitz Aegean-derivative pottery Copy of Vapheio cup.

106

Depositional context Settlement in Nienhagen, Saxony. The Vapheio cup is similar to those found in northern Italy. Essential bibliography: Ebert, Max. 1924. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte: unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgelehrter. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. * Site name: Avetrana Aegean-type pottery Seven potsherds examined by Biancofiore. The three potsherds from St Martino cave are similar, two probably belonging to a LH III jar (closed vessel) and one perhaps earlier (LH III B 2) accepting the observations by Biancofiore (1967: 55). Two potsherds of which one part of a stirrup jar come from Erba cave, associated to two potsherds of decorated grey ware. Aegean-derivative pottery The two potsherds of decorated grey ware could be classified as Aegean-derivative. Depositional context Two caves used as settlement, or for non-funerary purposes: Erba cave (four potsherds, two of which of decorated grey ware) and St Martino cave (three potsherds). Essential bibliography: Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. * Site name: Barche

di

Solferino

Aegean-derivative pottery Cup with similar handle to that of Lake Ledro cup (Vapheio type). Sherds decorated with embossed double-axe. Metalwork Fragments of possible copper oxhide ingot. Essential bibliography: Barfield, L. 1966. A Bronze Age Cup from Lake Ledro (Trento). Antiquity 40:48-49. * Site name: Bari Aegean-type pottery One minuscule potsherd, probably an alabastron, dated to the LH II or III A. The decoration is almost unreadable. It is very thick. Two potsherds of later period (LH III C) come from a different excavation (at the “Ospizio di Santa Scolastica”). Depositional context The potsherd comes from an ovoidal proto-Apennine B hut, but the wider context is hidden by the modern town. The hut has been only partially excavated, about 20%, and it is considered similar to Aeolian models for the care in its foundation, particularly the stone walls. However, apart from a similarity in the techniques, which is of higher quality than the usual standard of Apulian proto-Apennine huts, interesting is the sort of potsherd pavement located in the centre, which is made of different isolating layers including a base of huge pot.This made possible to have a fire in relative safety inside the hut. There are several other similar pavements in proto-Apennine huts of the region and they are not always, nor particularly, associated with Aegean-type pottery. The findings come from different trial pits, but they seem concentrated near the harbour. Essential bibliography: Cinquepalmi, Angela, and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena. * Site name: Belvì (Ocile) Metalwork Fragment of copper oxhide ingot. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei,

107

dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Bernstorf Other objects Two inscribed pieces of amber, named A and B. Object B has the Linear B signs PA NWA TI, or, if read from the right: TI NWA PA. The possible translation is unknown, given the absence of such a word in Aegean texts. A glass bead of Aegean type has been found.The excavators believe that a tomb tried to reproduce a Mycenaean Shaft grave, with the presence of gold objects. However, a direct parallel is not possible. Only the Linear B signs are unequivocally Mycenaean, but not necessarily produced in the Aegean. Some influence, if the authenticity will be confirmed, is undeniable, but not necessarily a direct contact. Depositional context From a fortified Bronze Age site, in disturbed layers. Essential bibliography: Moosauer, M. 2003. Die befestigte Siedlung der Bronzezeit 1999 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.kranznet.indi.de/brzeit/ index.htm. Gebhard, R., and K. H. Rieder. 2003. Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, 12. April 2001 2000 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.blfd.bayern.de/Aktuelles/Pressemitteilung/pr29.htm. * Site name: Borg

en

Nadur

Aegean-type pottery One fragment of Mycenaean pottery. It has interpreted as a LH III B kylix. It is possibly decorated with a octopus, but this is very uncertain. In that case a parallel could be made with a stirrup jar from Cannatello, decorated with octopi. Depositional context Borg en Nadur is the site of a Bronze Age temple, today not completely decipherable. The Mycenaean potsherd comes from the southeastern area, precisely south of Room 17. Interpretative remarks Evans (1971: 226) states that “the Borg en Nadur people, like the earlier Tarxien Cemetery people, were immigrants. (...) It seems likely that their previous home was in Sicily”. Without commenting on this specific affirmation, a link between Sicily and Malta is obvious for geographical reasons and the close parallels with pottery. Since in Sicily there is much more Aegean-type pottery than in Malta, but in Sicily there is also a relevant quantity of Maltese pottery, it seems plausible to me to say that the Aegeant-ype potsherd found in Malta could well be an import from Sicily, if not even produced there. If this does not mean that any Aegean sailor ever arrived in Borg en Nadur or that the people of this site came from Sicily, at least it suggests that the Aegean-type pottery did not arrived in Sicily through the mediation of Maltese people together with their own pots, but the two arrived independently. Malta, being an archipelago, could have been proposed as the southern counterpart of the Aeolian Islands, but instead they were not. In the cemeteries of Thapsos there are tombs with Aegean-type, Maltese and local products (either associated in the same tomb or in the same group of tombs), which all arrive from different sources, proving the cosmopolitan character of that people in having multiple exchanges at the same time, and not at all a unique relationship with the Aegeans, which was assumed by many scholars of any side when debating the possibility or not of Thapsos being a Mycenaean colony. Essential bibliography: Evans, John Davies. 1971. The prehistoric antiquities of the Maltese Islands: a survey. London: Athlone Press. * Site name: Broglio

di Trebisacce

Aegean-type pottery At the end of the 1985 campaign the potsherds recovered amounted to 647 (Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994: 12). Presence of non-decorated Aegean-type pottery (partly unpublished, see Vagnetti 1998: 399) as well as of cooking pots. The most ancient materials are two sherds belonging to small closed vessels in fine clay. Most of the materials date to the LH III B 2 or C. Some of these sherds appear to be of Late Minoan (Cretan) tradition rather than properly Mycenaean, and also the most used decorative motifs are largely of Cretan inspiration, whereas in other sites there is more variety. Because the excavation is still in progress, variations in the numbers are possible. The excavation team suggested the overall presence of about 350 vessels out of the grand total of 647 potsherds. However, stylistic analyses combined with petrological and chemical analyses were able to prove a provenance outside the region (Sybaris plain) for just about ten vessels, i.e. 3% of the vessels recognised. The percentage diminishes when we consider the undecorated potsherds, which are partly included in the 647 potsherds reported and partly unpublished. However, it remains that among decorated vessels, virtually the whole assemblage seems to be of regional origin. As the materials are still being stud-

108

ied and the greatest care has been taken in distinguishing between imports and materials of regional origin, unique in the West Mediterranean, a distinction between Aegean-type and Aegean-derivative is difficult. Here the distinction proposed by the excavators between imports and indigenous production is maintained. Imports: the ten imports range from LH III A 2 to III C 1. Only two vessels belong to open vessels (eight closed), but three of the closed vessels are transport jars not decorated. Apart from these three vessels, the other shapes are all uncertain, though two alabastra and two small jugs are possible. Two potsherds only (both closed vessels) date to the LH III A 2. Local production: 340 possible vessels, similar to shapes ranging from the LH III B 2 to C. It is likely that the LH III C vessels were produced for long given their quantity. Most of the potsherds are to small to detect their shape. Additionally, 179 highly fragmentary vessels are reported from the 1990- 1999 excavations. No shape is recognisable, but jars, alabastra, cups, and bowls seem present. 100 of these belong to closed shapes, 62 to open shapes and 17 are undeterminable. The grand total is of 536 vessels, probably about the same quantity as in Punta Tonno, though there part of the evidence was destroyed and here instead regular excavations save any tiny potsherd. Aegean-derivative pottery Dolia, grey ware (also decorated) and pseudo-Minyan ware. Metalwork Few bronzes, but none of Aegean-type. Other objects Some glass beads and an amber bead have been found. One potsherd (n. 66 in Bettelli 2002: 174) from the 1990-1999 excavations could be the base of a decorated figurine, but it is uncertain as little remains to be seen. There are traces of paint (two tiny lines). An Aegean-type figurine in Broglio would not be unlikely as figurines are common in the region, though only in Punta Tonno there were two examples of “Mycenaean” type. Broglio is as important as Punta Tonno today for quantity of Aegean-type pottery, and it was an important centre during the BA, though probably not as Punta Tonno. Scientific analyses Extended petrological analyses have proved that the bulk of materials was produced within the Sybaris plain. However, two vessels originated elsewhere in southern Italy (similar composition) whereas just eight come from all over the Mycenaean Greece: the mainland, Crete and the Peloponnesus. Depositional context Broglio is a settlement on the top of a hill, just 2 km from the sea. The settlement was in use from the Middle Bronze Age to the time of the foundation of Sybaris, the Greek colony, showing a continuity in that area of the contact with people of Aegean culture. Presence of Apennine (some LH III A Mycenaean materials associated to these materials), sub-Apennine (LH III A, B and C Mycenaean pottery associated to these materials) and proto- Villanovan (dolia) pottery in the site. Azimuth of Aegean-type pottery at the time of sub-Apennine pottery (LH III C, Recent BA). As for Termitito the LH III A pottery proves that the contacts began early. The site is being excavated, at the moment a small area concentrating on the acropolis is being targeted. Additionally, the stratigraphy is often not reliable, as the settlement was in use for long after the BA and it is on a hill which is collapsing. Materials and structures are literally sliding down the hill there. In a building in sector D, near the top of the hill, now partly washed down the hill, several Aegean-type potsherds and some amphorae recalling LM models were discovered. Van Wijngaarden (2002: 248) suggests that because most of the dinner vessels of his categorisation (bowls, cups and jugs) were found there, then there was probably a restricted distribution of this type of vessels, eventually associated to some special function carried out in the building and thus Aegean-type pottery “was a culturally relevant class of material at Broglio and could actively be involved in strategies of consumption”. He then notices that Aegean-type pottery is not spread in all the sites of Sybaris plain, reinforcing his argument of the pottery being a prestige item for its “distinctive technique”. It must be acknowledged however that Aegean-type pottery is found in several sites across the region, sometimes in relevant quantities, and any information from the depositional context of Broglio, including and especially the building in sector D, has been staggering and collapsing as the physical site. A complex fortification has been discovered, but it is unclear when it was built, as it known only that it was used in classical times and perhaps during the IA. Interpretative remarks Several huts existed, partly ovoidal and rectangular during the Recent BA and all rectangular (for what is known so far) during the Final BA. Most of the pottery comes from a hut in “sector D” which is ovoidal with a rectangular apse, as in Porto Perone - Satyrion, Punta Tonno (again the hut with most Aegean-type pottery) and Torre Castelluccia. A derivation from Aegean models has been proposed, but this is unconvincing as Aegean structures with apses are rare, mostly of LH III date, scattered in marginal areas and part of other buildings or not among the major buildings and finally, they appear since the Neolithic (Lerna). However, the Italic buildings resemble ideologically better the megaron as multipartite, rectangular, main building of a settlement. It must be noticed that a proper megaron has not been found. The hut with most Aegean-type pottery in Panarea - Capo Milazzese is one with two rectangular rooms, similar to the apses found

109

in the Ionian coast, which in that case give to the hut the appearance, at least on the plan, of a rectangular hut. In the Aeolian Islands the excellent stratigraphy allows to pinpoint the exact place of the hut in which the pottery was stored and that is one of the rectangular rooms or apses. In Broglio and the other sites such a level of detail is not possible, but it seems that indeed the Aegean-type pottery was associated to huts with apses. Assuming that it was stored in the apses, then we would have an architectural structure ideated and built specifically for Aegean-type pottery, which must have had a particular meaning. Since in the sites along the Ionian coast the pottery was evidently produced locally, and in Broglio deliberately including local features, we should exclude that the pottery contained something precious, the pottery itself was important. It is likely that its association with people of Aegean culture determined its early status as important. However, because most of it was produced locally, accepting that it was important as suggested by the depositional context, it is likely that in later times the importance was given by its use, perhaps to redistribute the rations. While it was to some extent a prestige item, it was neither exotic nor rare, at least in Broglio, Termitito and Punta Tonno. It does not appear frequently in funerary context, which is normally the best indicator of prestige items. Also symbolism, for something relatively widespread, could be present but still not essential, as it had no special use and the exchanges with the Aegeans did not stop nor were ever represented (to our present knowledge) in the pottery.Thus, Aegean-type pottery was probably used as an internal luxury item, certainly it was the finest ware available, and it was recognised as something local, not foreign, which was used on important occasions, by the “chief ” as well by others. Since two of the about ten imported vessels seem to be of Italic origin, i.e. coming from another site not necessarily far from Broglio, the vessels have only some features of the Mycenaean pots of Greece, and stylistic analyses identified only a handful of pots as “Mycenaean”, i.e. less than ten, many pots should be considered essentially as Aegean-derivative. The features of local pots seem to remain too visible to consider them as voluntary attempts to imitate Aegean prototypes, especially after having seen a few of the potsherds. This situation is similar in all the sites in the Ionian coast, but in Broglio the features of local pots are particularly easily recognisable within the Aegeanised pottery. In the other regional main centres, namely Punta Tonno and Termitito, the blend of regional and overseas elements is not as evident as in Broglio.The case of Termitito, where the differences point to a new original repertoire that is, whatever the reason that produced it, a regional style of Mycenaean pottery, remarks the originality of Broglio in blending rather than imitating. And it is this difference in the approach and will that distinguishes Aegean-type and Aegean-derivative pots. It is an important difference, as in the whole region the depositional context suggest that Aegean-type pottery was a prestige item, kept separated from the local tradition, whereas in Broglio the voluntary introduction of local elements is perhaps the opposite reaction of what is seen in Termitito: there the people made the Aegean style their own and innovating it they remarked their own identity and an ideal or perhaps real membership to the Aegean world; in Broglio instead the introduction of local features in the local “Mycenaean” pottery remarks again a local identity, but one contrasting with the Aegean identity. Because the problem of identity has no certain solution, and the materials are published all as “Italo-Mycenaean”, for simplicity here all the vessels are presented as Aegean-type, standing however that all over this region (Ionian coast), the local material culture reached levels of similarity with the Aegean one that force one to question the meaning of the term “Aegean”. The depositional context simply supports that what is “Aegean” for us, was “indigenous” for the inhabitants of Broglio, though they were not Aegeans. The high amount of Aegean-type pottery, which brings this site to the levels of Punta Tonno and Monte Grande, should be seen as the product of local production and importance due to its regional position. However, Punta Tonno for style, variety and overall context (the bronzes of northern origin, its strategic position to number but a few) seems to have been more important in antiquity, yet how much will remain unknown as too much evidence has been destroyed when still unaccounted for. On the other hand, the high level of fragmentariness of the vessels in Broglio does not help increasing our understanding too. Essential bibliography: Bergonzi, Giovanna, Andrea Cardarelli, and Pier Giovanni Guzzo. 1982. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. 1. Naples: Institut français de Naples. Bergonzi, Giovanna, Vittoria Buffa, and Andrea Cardarelli. 1982. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. 2. Naples: Institut français de Naples. Bergonzi, Giovanna,Vittoria Buffa, Beatrice Capoferri, and Renato Peroni. 1984. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. 3. Roma: Paleani. Barbieri, Umberto, and Renato Peroni. 1984. Nuove ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. Roma: Paleani editrice. Levi, Sara Tiziana, and Salvatore Bianco. 1999. Produzione e circolazione della ceramica nella Sibaritide protostorica. Vol. 1. Firenze: All’insegna del giglio. Peroni, Renato, Alessandro Vanzetti, and Stefania Bagella. 1998. Broglio di Trebisacce, 1990-1994: elementi e problemi nuovi dalle recenti campagne di scavo. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro): Rubbettino. Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Buscemi (Contrada Maiorana) Aegean-type pottery One stirrup jar FS 179, Taylour (1958: 64) suggests that it is the Cypriot version of the Mycenaean angular stirrup jar.

110

Depositional context Jar found in a rock-cut tomb during the 1951 excavations. Essential bibliography: Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Site name: Cagliari Metalwork Few copper oxhide ingots. Depositional context Unknown context: the ingots are from the Cagliari area but from an unspecified location. Currently in Cagliari museum. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Caldare (Monte San Vincenzo) Metalwork Two sheet bronze bowls from a tomb, possibly Cypriot according to Vagnetti, contra Taylour. In the same tomb there were also two daggers of Thapsos-Pertosa type. D’Agata (1986) does not consider the bowls directly related to the daggers, with the former probably imports from the Thapsos area, the latter influenced materials produced perhaps always in the Thapsos area. Depositional context Bronze Age necropolis with a lot of Thapsos and Pantalica I pottery, influenced strongly by Mycenaean prototypes according to Taylour. All the relevant materials come from a single rock-cut tomb with Thapsos and Pantalica I style pottery, especially the Thapsos set. Four skeletons (minimum) were recognised. The pottery and the two daggers prove a connection of the site with Thapsos (MBA). Essential bibliography: Orsi, Paolo. 1897. Sepolcro di Caldare. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 23:8-15.15. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1968. I bacili di bronzo di Caldare sono ciprioti? Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 7:129-138. * Site name: Camaro Other objects Two figurines: a “violin” type in dark grey schist is similar to Anatolian (Beycesultan in particular) prototypes, while a second one is more similar to Cycladic examples. The chronology deriving from stylistic parallels is EC 1. According to Leighton (1999: 96), the possibly contemporary (Late Neolithic or Copper Age) decorated figures in the Genovesi cave in Levanzo (western Sicily) outline the same figure, perhaps proving more a common cultural substratum between all the Mediterranean populations during the Copper Age rather than proper contacts with eastern people.Yet, such shape is found only in coastal sites, well apart one from the other, suggesting that the original idea came from overseas rather than being born independently in Sicily itself. Of this opinion is Holloway (2000: 406), who considers the “fiddle shaped” dark grey schist figurine as an import from East. Depositional context Some possible jar burials. Few skeletons were found within potsherds of large containers and Piano Conte pottery (EBA). Since the figurines were found in external deposits, Bacci Spigo (1993-1994) interpreted the depositional context as both funerary and ritual, with rites taking place in the burial area. According to her, the figurines were used in activities carried out after the mourning and not necessarily directly connected with specific burials. This type of use appears to be more similar to the Anatolian one, though probably in the Cyclades the figurines had a special meaning lost anywhere else. Essential bibliography: Bacci Spigo, G. M. 1993-1994. Un idoletto di tipo egeo da Camaro presso Messina. Kokalos 39-40:171-180. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Sebastiano Tusa, eds. 2001. Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree: catalogo della mostra: Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno 2001. Napoli and Palermo: A. Lombardi; Regione siciliana, Assessorato dei beni culturali e ambientali e della pubblica istruzione.

111

* Site name: Cannatello Aegean-type pottery A single Mycenaean potsherd from the 1907 excavations is now lost. Some transport stirrup jars with Cypro-Minoan signs (n. 33, 139 and 235); a Cypriot style pithos with horizontal and curved lines in relief similar to that from Antigori whose Cypriot origin is proved by petrological analyses, an hemispherical mug with inverted rim (n. 141); some potsherds with Late Minoan or Late Cypriot decorated motifs (among which the Cypriot seashells FM 24 in n. 132 and 144) all point towards a Cretan or Cypriot provenance, proved by the scientific analyses at least in part. The open vessels are a minority, with just eight out of nine recognised by the excavator (De Miro 1996), while the most common form is the jar, with 13 examples, three of which are smaller and two possible jugs. Nonetheless, there are a further 8 stirrup jars, three of which are transport jars and 8 unrecognised closed vessels, many suspected as jars. Therefore, the Aegean-type pottery used in Cannatello was essentially designated to transport and store other products. Closed vessels: there are 8 stirrup jars, 13 decorated jars, 1 jug, 2 alabastra, 8 unrecognised vessels for a total of 32 closed vessels. Stirrup jar n.124 (FS 164; FM 21), is dated LH III A and decorated with a stylised octopus, potsherd n. 43 belongs to a similar vase. Two smaller stirrup jars are n. 23 (FS 180; FM 42; LH III B) and n. 73 (FS 180; FM 58 on the shoulder and FM 65 “Wavy Border” on the body; LH III A 2 - B). Then there is stirrup jar n. 76 and the three transport stirrup jars (n. 33, 139 and 235) each with a Cypro-Minoan symbol. Nine jars have decorated lines, these are: n. 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 38, 49 and 68. N. 35 and 61 are jars or jugs with spirals (FM 49). N. 30 is a potsherd belonging to a jug with the neck decorated in black. Smaller jars are n.19 (with curved lines decorated), 26 (amphoriskos FS 59; FM 76) and 144. N. 29 and 123 are straight-sided alabastra (FS 94), dated LH III A - B. Unrecognised closed vessels are: n. 4 (FM 6), 34, 36, 58, 65, 71, 95 and 168. Open vessels: 1 krater, 2 small bowls, 1 recognised and 3 possible cups, 2 kylikes totalling 9 open vessels. N. 24 is a decorated krater (FM 42 plus curved lines and drops) dated LH III B and similar to Cypriot examples (Enkomi II 305/86 and Enkomi III A 70/11 dated LC III A); n. 12 is a small bowl as in Mountjoy 1986: 132, fig. 164; n. 66 (FS 220, properly a small bowl; wavy lines as in Mountjoy 1986: 82, fig. 98: 5 and FM 27 on the rim; FM 75 inside) dated to the LH III B. Then there are the cups, one is recognised by the excavator, n. 44 (FS 284; FM 48) dated to the LH III B. Other possible cups are n. 28, 132 and 141.The two kylikes are: n. 1 and 27 decorated with concentric lines.The grand total is 32 closed vessels and 9 open vessels, though some potsherds could have been not mentioned in the publications as well as some shapes have been recognised only provisionally. In the same way, while 38 very fragmentary vessels have been reported, only 50 potsherds have been counted by the excavator, very likely counting as one all the attached potsherds. Be as it may, saying that in Cannatello 41 fragmentary vessels have been found should not be far from reality and at least this is what is certainly known. The lost potsherd from the 1907 excavations has not been counted, since no reliable description is available. The stirrup jar decorated with an octopus recalls pictorial pottery, which is found in Termitito and scarcely elsewhere. In Sicily, only Thapsos has Aegean-derivative vessels with incised figures. A potsherd from Borg en Nadur could have the same motif. Aegean-derivative pottery Since Thapsos style pottery is partially derived from Aegean-type pots, all the Aegean-derivative shapes in Cannatello are those already identified in Thapsos. No further derivative shapes have been identified in Cannatello, but the quantities of Thapsos style pottery are much bigger than those of Aegean-type pots, resulting in a strong overall presence (more than 50% of the grand total). The typical Thapsos style pots are however open vessels, as cups (like those in the pit underneath the hearth of hut 7) and especially bowls Metalwork One fragment of oxhide ingot reported but now lost (excavations 1897). In a jar four lances, two swords and one axe were found. In addition, from Cannatello come four stone moulds for the production of flat axes, swords and possibly pendants (Orsi and Rizzo 1897: 114; Mosso 1908: 665; Fiorentini 1993-1994: 718). Scientific analyses A transport stirrup jar from central Crete has been identified through petrographical analysis (Day 1999: 66) Depositional context Cannatello is a settlement partially excavated in recent times, though discovered over one century ago. The settlement had three main phases, at least two of which are associated with Aegean products. The excavations have revealed a wall surrounding some circular (huts) and rectangular buildings. No buildings have been found outside the wall, giving the impression of a fortified citadel. During phase I the round wall was made of two concentric adjacent rings, one thick about 3.50 m (internal) and the second (external) 0.70 m. The final result is a big wall thick about 4.20 m, perhaps built in two phases. Doorways wide 0.50 m were opened throughout the wall, with two excavated, one 15 m from the other.The stones used appear to be not squared, and the external side of the second ring is burnt.The wall originally had to delimit a hill, perhaps survived during the whole period of inhabitation, but now at the same level as the ground. Hut 8 and the first phase of hut 2 and the rectangular building 3 (possibly a different type of hut) are the only remains of this phase. The strata are grey and the associated Aegean-type pottery dates to the LH III A. In hut 8 a huge quantity of local pottery alongside with several Aegean-type sherds have been found. Most of the Aegean-type pottery

112

found in this settlement comes from the grey stratum, while at the bottom of the grey stratum Thapsos style pots are deposited on the rock layer, suggesting that the foundation of the settlement was due to the action of people from the eastern coast, rather than to indigenes. The Thapsos style pots are almost exclusively cups, among the recognisable shapes. The nearby settlement of Milena (Serra del Palco) has a similar situation, with the Cannatello’s phase I stratum being almost identical in composition to Milena’s stratum IX, where Thapsos and LH III A Aegean-type materials were present too. It seems that the foundation of Cannatello as settlement open to Thapsos and its Aegean culture and materials was not an isolated case in the Platani Valley, but probably part of a settling program trying to expand the exchanges in this area. Phase II began after the fire that terminated phase I, though it is unclear how long was the gap between the two phases. The stratum of phase II is yellow and the fewer Aegean-type pots are dated to the LH III B. The pottery from this phase is, again, almost identical to that from the settlement of Milena, Serra del Palco, this time from stratum VIII to surface. Certainly the new phase saw a considerable effort in restructuring the site, rather than plainly restoring it.This is evident especially on the defence system, with a new wall apparently joining and reinforcing the old one.The walls are much thinner than the previous wall, yet they are again two walls, one 2.60 to 3 m thick and the most external one 1.30 to 1.50 m thick. The final wall-system was a series of four concentric adjacent walls, two for each phase, from 8.70 m (eastern side) to 7.10 m (northern side) thick, with the original doorways closed. Some circular structures (diam. 1.30 m; five excavated so far) just outside the settlement and surrounding the wall could be interpreted as further reinforcements. At this time a wall was built even inside the settlement, dividing two groups of huts; it could be possible that some similar arrangement was in place even during phase I using a wooden structure, but now the wall is stone-built. It is unclear if the internal wall was dividing the settlement in more than two areas, yet even so, the phase II settlement appears like a small fortress, well defended and with each area sharply divided according to the use, without concessions for any social unity, both within the settlement and with the outside. The internal wall, about 0.60 m thick, encloses eight out of ten huts and has a single entrance, which forces the passage in a small area proving that the wall was not only intended to mark a special space, but to effectively restrict and protect the access to an area inside the settlement. Moreover, a further division of the space inside the walled area can be recognised, with round huts 2, 7 and 9 on the opposite side of the entrance and rectangular buildings 3, 4, 6 and 10 near the entrance. Hut 7 replaces the older hut 8, using the same centre but a bigger diameter. Huts 7 and 9 have a pit underneath the hearth (in the centre), filled with animal bones and few potsherds (especially cups). Hut 7 has a diameter of 7 m, the pit has a diameter of 1.30 m and is 2 m deep. The measures along with the presence of an active hearth on its top exclude that it was either created by a single household in a short period of time or reused several times, progressively accumulating the bones. The only alternative is a ritual, possibly at the time of foundation. In this case, those circular huts would carry a special meaning for that community, being built to incorporate and preserve the remains of the earliest huts (hut 8 inside hut 7), being protected by three layers of defences (external wall, internal wall, rectangular buildings) and used for communal sacred rites, involving a common meal at the beginning and the maintenance of a fire afterwards. These huts do not seem to have hosted a household, while hut 8 probably did. Interestingly, of the two huts outside the internal wall, one is rectangular and contemporary to the internal wall while the other is circular and later, being built partially on the perimeter of the inner wall, which evidently had been demolished at that time. Since the excavations have not yet explored the whole settlement, it is hard to draw any conclusion, but it must be noted that while on phase I there are rectangular and circular buildings (huts); in particular, the circular ones (at least those excavated) had Aegean-type pots (large majority of closed shapes) with loads of Thapsos style and local pottery. In phase II fewer Aegean-type pots have been found, but all the effectively used buildings are rectangular, with those circular being evidently distinguished and used for special purposes. On the following phase III, circular huts reappear as standard building. The fact that most of the Aegean-type pots are closed vessels excludes that hut 8 was used for communal meals at its time, as instead hut 7 could have been used. The particularity of hut 8 is in the presence of Aegean-type pottery: it proves a long distance connection that perhaps meant prestige goods and wealth, certainly later hut 8, whatever its original function, became a reference point for the people in phase II, who re-built the settlement giving to the hut a special place showing care in the planning and used it as a powerful symbol. Interpretative remarks Cannatello is an unusual excavation: first discovered by Orsi and Rizzo in 1897 when eight huts and the jar with seven bronze weapons were found. In 1907, Mosso continued the excavations in the area, though perhaps not exactly in the same site, finding a circular platform of 60 m of diameter, underneath a rectangular building a six circular huts were reported. Two of the circular huts were joined. On the border of this area, many sacred items such as sea-shells, terracotta horns and circular terracotta tablets and river pebbles were reported. In addition, Mosso identified an ancient road few hundred metres from the settlement. From the huts, many Thapsos style pots and a single Mycenaean potsherd were recovered. All of the materials from Mosso excavations are now lost, but similar ones have been now found. The settlement was then forgotten, and rediscovered in 1989, when the circular square mentioned by Mosso had been found again. The conclusion from this overview is that while this area today appears as a proper settlement, at the time of the earliest discovery appeared as a sacred area, a suggestion that should be not discarded given the spatial organisation described above.Yet, the presence of cooking pots and hearths do suggest that the site was inhabited, but perhaps it had a special meaning for some nearby communities, especially those like Milena that had a similar connection with Thapsos culture and its Aegean connections. If the phase II walled area was effectively a sacred area, then it would be enormous for just the settlement delimited by the massive double circular wall.The fact that the actual excavations focus on the area first studied by Mosso, but not necessarily the one discovered by Rizzo, do allow the hypothesis that the real big settlement is to be found nearby, while the excavated area is a small part of it, though it was separated by walls. Preliminary results do suggest that each phase of the settlement lasted about one century. It is remarkable that only in this settlement, and not in other similar connected sites

113

that have been discovered in the Platani Valley, circular huts and rectangular buildings coexist as only in Thapsos.There, the circular huts correspond to the phase I huts in Cannatello, but it is unclear if they date exactly at the same time; instead the appearance of rectangular buildings in Thapsos seems contemporary (same pottery) to that in Cannatello’s phase II, and the technique is very similar too. However, only in Cannatello it is evident that the difference of shape in the buildings (circular or rectangular) could have been used to emphasise some difference at a social level (communal versus private space) and not just intended as a mere improvement in the technique or the product of some wanted or forced Aegean influence. If a building is important in Cannatello, then it is circular; on the contrary, in the Aegean area it would be very likely rectangular, like the anaktoron in Pantalica. Essential bibliography: Mosso, A. 1908.Villaggi preistorici di Caldare e Cannatello presso Girgenti. Monumenti antichi. De Miro, E. 1968. Il miceneo nel territorio di Agrigento. In Atti e Memorie del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by L.Vagnetti and S. Tinè. Roma: Ateneo. De Miro, D. 1991. Recenti ritrovamenti micenei nell’Agrigentino. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. Deorsola, D. 1991. Il villaggio del Medio Bronzo di Cannatello presso Agrigento. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. De Miro, E. 1995. Archai della Sicilia greca. Presenze egeocipriote sulla costa meridionale dell’isola. L’emporio miceneo di Cannatello. Paper read at Rencontre scientifique en hommage a Georges Vallet: La colonisation Grecque en Mediterranee occidentale, at Rome. Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni, Vincenzo La Rosa, Lucia Vagnetti, Dario Palermo, and Luigi Bernabo Brea, eds. 1999. Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabo Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli: Roma, 18-20 febbraio 1998. Roma: Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene. * Site name: Capo Colonna (Trani) Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds of LH III B 2 - C date. Aegean-derivative pottery Dolia. Depositional context The site is located in a promontory with circular and rectangular huts. The pottery was related to Apennine ware, but the site is unpublished and the Aegean-type pots have been lost before publication. Only the excavator has seen them. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Capo Piccolo Aegean-type pottery One sherd of a jug decorated with a spiral and two other sherds, one from a cup and another from a pithos (amphora).The pottery according to Jones comes from Kythera or the Peloponnesus, but it is surely imported from Greece. Metalwork Metal was worked as a mould for a dagger has been found. The copper ore of Sila is close to the site. Depositional context The settlement lies close to an optimal natural harbour, on the coast. It is in vicinity of other BA settlements. An important metalwork industry was present here, specialised in weapons such as the swords. Possible Aegean influences also in the metalwork.The metalwork dates from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age and possibly later. Aegean-type potsherds (three) surely from the “second phase” of the site. One potsherd was found in a precise stratigraphic context: excavations 1986, trial pit 2, upper cut 3, dated to the “advanced phase of the Late Bronze Age” (phase 3), but the others were found in older (phase 2), although not precisely specified, levels. Strong traces of mining are present for both phase 2 and 3, even if there was a reduced activity in the later phase. The phase 2 of Capo Piccolo is considered one of the oldest periods, if not the oldest, with traces of a contact with Mycenaeans in Calabria. The sherds are dated LM I A / LH I - II by Marino. Re (in Carratelli et al. 1999: 412) reports a LH II A date.

114

Interpretative remarks The excavator, Marino, suspects a connection with the Sicilian Rodì - Tindari culture, thus prospecting a sort of alliance between this Sicilian culture, the Aeolian Capo Graziano culture, and the Capo Piccolo culture (plus probably a major culture of Apulia) to manage the trade with the Mycenaeans and maybe acting on their behalf, both from the coasts to the inland and from some Italian regions to others. Marino in particular recognises some cups with strict parallels to those from Vivara (Punta d’Alaca and Punta di Mezzogiorno), Giovinazzo, Coppa Nevigata, and Broglio di Trebisacce, Praia a Mare (Cardini cave),Torre Mordillo, Santa Domenica di Ricadi as well as with other materials from sites where no Mycenaean materials have been found, but also directly to materials from Crete and the Peloponnesus. The excavator in addition stresses the difference between Capo Piccolo and the surrounding sites, where eventual Mycenaean materials would be the product of an exchange with this site and not directly with Mycenaeans. The special cultural contacts between the area of Crotone and Sicily are quite evident in the materials and last the whole BA up to classical times. It seems that here was the border of two main cultural areas: one “Tyrrhenian”, including Sicily and the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria and Campania and one “Ionian”, including the Ionian coast from Calabria to Apulia and part of the Adriatic coast of Apulia. From the area standard pottery is however of Apennine and sub-Apennine type. Already Middle Neolithic pottery presents Aegean similarities. During the EBA Corazzo, a site near Crotone, has materials decorated with triangles or impressed dots that reveal contacts with the Aeolian Islands and Tuscany, and the Po valley.The MBA Apennine pottery of Capo Piccolo has Apennine pottery similar to that of part of Calabria, the Aeolian Islands and Campania. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Marino, D., and S. Festuccia. 1995. Siti costieri dal bronzo medio al bronzo finale nella Calabria centro-orientale. Oxbow Monograph:241-252. * Site name: Carmona (Sevilla) Aegean-derivative pottery A plain wheel-made potsherd of globular stand. Depositional context LBA contexts. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome.

* Site

name:

Casale Nuovo

Aegean-type pottery A fragment of stirrup jar. Archaeometric analysis has proved that it is similar to the Aegean-type pottery produced in southern Italy. Scientific analyses The archaeometric analysis of the stirrup jar has proved that the composition is similar to that of the Aegean-type pottery produced in southern Italy. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. * Site name: Castello

del Tartaro

(Cerea)

Aegean-type pottery Potsherd from a closed vessel, with handle attachment, no decoration preserved. Depositional context From a survey.

115

Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco, and L.Vagnetti. 1997. Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-micenea e l’Italia settentrionale. In Le Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana. Catalogo della Mostra, edited by M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi. Milano. * Site name: Cava Canabarbara Other objects Glass beads were found in tombs 3, 6 and 9. Amber beads were present only in tomb 9, which was used for the entire length of the Bronze Age. Depositional context Thirty rock-cut tombs. The rock is soft like at Valsavoia and this allowed the carving of big tombs. Some pottery coming from the settlement is of the Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga culture and a bossed bone of Castelluccian type has been found nearby, now is in a private collection (Tusa). The material should date to the Castelluccian / Monte Grande time (EBA). Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Site name: Cerro

de la

Encantada (Ciudad Real)

Depositional context Possible Aegean-type structure with two horns, as in Minoan palaces. It is one of two (see El Oficio) and it would suggest an ancient contact with Crete, probably during LH III C. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Cisterna

di Tolentino

Aegean-type pottery Some fragments Aegean-type pottery. Other objects Amber and glass beads. Essential bibliography: Reported during the XXXVIII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (1-5 October 2003). Some ceramics are displayed inside the Rancia di Tolentino Castle. * Site name: Coppa Nevigata Aegean-type pottery About 50 potsherds (Gorgoglione). Aegean-type pottery has been found by Quagliati, Mosso and Puglisi. Open and closed vessels have been found, but the closed shapes (jars) prevail. Most of the open vessels are deep bowls (FS 284 - 285) and cups. There is a small closed vessel decorated with spirals; a fragment of neck, perhaps part of a small jug; a small ovoid pithos (amphora) decorated with concentric arcs; a stirrup jar; a jar; possibly an alabastron; a pithos (amphora), a sherd with red “wavy” motif perhaps part of a jug or amphoriskos; some sherds with traces of handle attachments; a sherd of a closed vessel with a short wide neck decorated with running spirals between two broad bands, plus other sherds and pithoi. Taylour records about forty sherds in the Pigorini museum, four in Taranto and others not specified in Naples. All these materials however are closer to Italic wares found in Broglio di Trebisacce imitating the Aegean ones rather than true imports. Although only few analyses have been carried out, it appears that no imports at all can be recorded in Coppa Nevigata. Aegean-derivative pottery Grey-ware, both in the decorated and undecorated variants, has been unearthed. Among the potsherds, one sherd of grey ware is decorated with spirals. Decorated grey ware and Aegean-type potsherds are considered together in the grand total of “about 50” potsherds.

116

Other objects Amber beads (Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974) Depositional context The site has been excavated in different times, with different techniques and even partially destroyed. Further excavations are still in progress.The lowest levels are Neolithic, then there are proto-Apennine B, Apennine, sub-Apennine, Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age strata. The floors of several huts have been uncovered as well as three subsequent defensive walls. In sub-Apennine levels several murex shells (used for purple dye) have been discovered. It is unknown the depositional context of most pottery, though it could be that the bulk comes from sub-Apennine levels, where the most recent potsherds were found. This dates the pottery to the LH III C, though the shapes and decorations, being of low quality, fragmentary and approximate, could imitate Mycenaean vessels from LH III A 2 onwards. Essential bibliography: Mosso, Angelo. 1909. Stazione preistorica di Copa Nevigata presso Manfredonia. Monumenti antichi. Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Belardelli, C. 1989. Aegean-Type Pottery from Coppa Nevigata, Apulia. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Cassano, S.M., A. Cazzella, A. Manfredini, and M. Moscoloni, eds. 1987. Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio. Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennia a.C. Ministero per i beni culturali ed ambientali, Soprintendenza archeologica della Puglia. Università degli studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Levi, S. T., M. L. Amadori, M. Di Fillo, and F. Fratini. 1994. Archaeometric and archaeologic research on the pottery of Coppa Nevigata (FG - Italy): production and provenance. In The ceramics cultural heritage, edited by P.Vincenzini. Florence; Italy: TECHNA Srl. Cazzella, Alberto, and Maurizio Moscoloni. 1999. The Walled Bronze Age Settlement of Coppa Nevigata, Manfredonia, and the Development of Craft Specialisation in Southeastern Italy. In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, edited by R. H. Tykot, J. Morter and J. E. Robb. London: Accordia Research Institute. * Site name: Coria

del

Río

Aegean-type pottery A decorated wheel-made vessel has been claimed to be of Mycenaean origin. The vessel has a globular body with a wide foot ring and a narrow neck flanked by two handles attached to the high shoulder. It appears more similar to Cypriot types rather than Mycenaean ones. It could be a piriform jar. Depositional context Within Phoenician materials, but distinguishable from them for the type of fabric. Its Cypriot fashion, and possible late date, from LH III C 2 to protogeometric (Mycenaean date is conventionally used for Cypriot materials found in the West Mediterranean), could make it a late Ionian import, given that a Ionian colony lies nearby. However, the presence of Phoenician pots and its similarity to Cypriot models leaves open also the possibility of a Phoenician import. Still open, though unlike, the possibility that the potsherd arrived just before Phoenicians and Greeks. Nonetheless, it is chronologically separated from the two potsherds found at Montoro. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Cozzo

del

Pantano

Aegean-type pottery One complete kylix (FS 256, FM 18) except for one handle, now restored, height 17 cm. Pink-buff clay, red painting of flowers. Taylour suggested a provenance from Rhodes (1958: 62). Metalwork Many bronzes of Thapsos style. Other objects Some vessels of Borg in Nadur style were associated with Thapsos style vases. Tomb 22 had 23 pots of Borg in Nadur style and 12 of Thapsos style.

117

Depositional context This necropolis of about 60 tombs belongs to the Thapsos culture. Most of the evidence then is influenced by Mycenaean materials, but only one pot is considered to be an import by Taylour. The kylix, from tomb 7, is the only Aegean-type drinking vessel found in Sicilian tombs and was found together with an undecorated small closed vessel. Tomb 7 had four sepultures in the first chamber, one in a niche with two undecorated local pots, and further two skeletons in the niche of the second chamber. Many lithic tools in the tomb. The Thapsos ceramic set is widespread in the tombs. Essential bibliography: Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marazzi, Massimiliano, Sebastiano Tusa, and Lucia Vagnetti, eds. 1986. Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica: atti del Convegno di Palermo. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Cozzo

la Torre

(Torano Castello)

Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware. Depositional context The site is unpublished, briefly reported by Bettelli (2002: 32). It seems that the potsherds were found out of context. However, in the area a settlement and a necropolis, in use from the Final BA to the classical times at least, are known. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Cozzo Marziotta (Palagiano) Aegean-type pottery Two sherds belonging to a decorated cup and a pithos (amphora). They were both dated to the LH III B. Depositional context From trial pits dug out in 1974. The site has not been fully explored and now unfortunately is almost completely destroyed. The two Aegean-type potsherds were found one on a lower stratum associated with proto- Apennine B pottery and one from an upper stratum (the surface stratum) associated with globular pithoi, sub-Apennine ware and dated to the Recent BA. The stratigraphy has been rebuilt years later by the same excavator. Interpretative remarks The position of the site is 20 km west of Taranto, which is interesting because in the coastline from Torre Castelluccia to Cozzo Marziotta (about 45 km) there are four sites with Aegean-type pottery, each at walking distance from another of these sites. Such concentration of sites and materials in a small area suggests that the area was quite important and visited during the LBA. Essential bibliography: Gorgoglione, M. 1986. L’insediamento dell’età del Bronzo di Cozza Marziotta, Palagiano,Taranto. Presenza di ceramica micenea. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Crotone Aegean-type pottery Few LH III B - C potsherds. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware. Metalwork Some bronzes from the area of Crotone are similar to Cypriot models.

118

Depositional context The settlement lies under the modern town, which is on a rocky hill on the coast. Because of the presence of the modern town, only trial pits could be carried out (unpublished). In the levels of LBA, probably Recent BA, some LH III C Aegean-type pottery, pseudo-Minyan ware and dolia were found. It seems that the site was culturally similar to all the others in the Ionian coast and that, evidently, in the area LH III C pottery was quite common and widespread. Essential bibliography: Marino, D., and S. Festuccia. 1995. Siti costieri dal bronzo medio al bronzo finale nella Calabria centro-orientale. Oxbow Monograph:241-252. Marino, D., and A. M. Palmieri. 1996. La métallurgie de l’âge du bronze en calabre: premières données analytiques. Paper read at Actes du Colloque International “L’atelier du bronzier: élaboration, transformation et consommation du bronze en Europe du XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère”, at Neuchâtel et Dijon. * Site name: Cuesta

del

Negro (Granada)

Aegean-derivative pottery Some wheel-made plain pottery: one globular stand and three pithoi. Scientific analyses The wheel-made pottery comes from strata dated at the C14 to the 1210 ±35 and 1185 ±35. Depositional context LBA contexts. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Decimoputzu (Mitza Purdia) Other objects A fragment of an ivory head of warrior wearing a boar’s tusk helmet of Mycenaean manufacture. The figurine can be dated for its similarity with Mycenaean examples to the LH III A - B. Depositional context Megalithic building. Essential bibliography: Balmuth, Miriam S., ed. 1987. Studies in Sardinian archaeology. III. Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean world. Vol. 387. Oxford: B.A.R. * Site name: Dorgali (Isalle

valley)

Metalwork Part of the side of a lump of copper possibly from a copper oxhide ingot. Depositional context Unknown provenance. Essential bibliography: Balmuth, Miriam S., and Robert H. Tykot, eds. 1998. Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean: proceedings of the International Colloquium ‘Sardinian Stratigraphy and Mediterranean Chronology’,Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, March 17-19, 1995. Oxford: Oxbow Books. * Site name: Eboli Aegean-type pottery Some thirty sherds of wheel-made decorated pottery belonging to small globular vessels (jugs?), alabastra and other closed vessels as well as cups. Probably only a part of them are imports according to the excavator, as they are all of a particular low quality. FS 266: 1 FS 284: 1 Cup: 2 TOTAL CUPS: 4 Alabastron: 1 Globular closed, one FM 43 and one FM 53: 3 Undetermined vessels,

119

one is FM 49: 8 TOTAL CLOSED VESSELS: 12 Undetermined vessels: 4 GRAND TOTAL: 20 Note: Two vessels among the undetermined ones appear to belong to big sized vessels. Depositional context Settlement dated to the Final BA. The Aegean-type vessels all date to the LH III C 1. Essential bibliography: Schnapp Gourbeillon, A. 1986. Ceramica di tipo miceneo a Montedoro di Eboli. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Egnazia (Fasano) Aegean-type pottery Few decorated potsherds of late LH III C date. Depositional context The settlement is close to the Adriatic Sea, with an upper part (acropolis) and a lower part protected by a defensive wall, perhaps originally built with timbers. The necropolis is located not far from the settlement. Essential bibliography: Cinquepalmi, Angela, and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena. * Site name: El Oficio (Almería) Depositional context Possible Aegean-type structure with two horns, as in Minoan palaces. It is one of two (see Cerro de la Encantada) and it would suggest an ancient contact with Crete, probably during LH III C. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Emilian Terremare Aegean-derivative pottery Säflund calls a class of vessels resembling Vapheio cups as “Mycenaean type”. Depositional context Settlements in Northern Italy not too far from Polada culture. Essential bibliography: Säflund, G. 1939. Le Terremare. Uppsala. * Site name: Erbe Bianche (Campobello

di

Mazara)

Aegean-type pottery At least two fragments of LH III B (?) vessels from a hut in the MBA settlement area. Depositional context Middle Bronze Age huts. Essential bibliography: D’Agata, A. L. 2000. Interactions between Aegean groups and local communities in Sicily in the Bronze Age: the evidence from pottery. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42 (1):19-59.

120

* Site name: Filicudi (Montagnola

di

Capo Graziano)

Aegean-type pottery There are 83 Aegean-type vessels from Montagnola (Vagnetti 1991: 281- 282), all in fragmentary state and badly preserved. They date from LH I to LH III A 2. Considering the typology, there are 5 vessels of matt decorated ware (4 from CG1; 1 from U; one of these potsherds could belong to a MH matt decorated vessel); 7 of matt decorated polychrome ware (3 from CG1; 2 plus 2 possible from CG2); 23 of plain ware (3 from CG1; 6 from CG2; 3 from CG/M; 2 from M and 9 from M/CG); 47 of fine decorated ware (5 from CG1; 12 from CG2; 8 from CG/M; 2 from M; 14 from M/CG and 6 from U) and 1 vessel of possible Aegina ware (CG2). It is possible to notice that the main variation is the disappearance of matt decorated ware in the late levels, but a substantial uniformity in the temporal distribution of coarse/plain and fine decorated wares. The Aegean-type vessels constitute about 27% of all the vessels found in Montagnola (Vagnetti 1991: 289). The totals for period are: 38 vessels of pure Capo Graziano culture (11 of CG1 and 27 of CG2); 11 of the transitional CG/M period; 4 of pure Milazzese period; 23 of Capo Graziano or Milazzese period, though most seems to be of the Milazzese period and finally 7 of uncertain context, which should be equally distributed between the two main phases. The spatial distribution is as follows: 5 vessels were found on the hill of Capo Graziano, outside the settlement, 3 on the top (1 CG2 and 2 M/CG) and 2 on the cliffs (U). Then, from the settlement of Montagnola, but not within the context of any hut, there are 17 vessels, 12 from various areas (3 CG1; 6 CG/M; 1 M/CG and 2 U), plus 5 from the open space (“piazza”; 3 CG1 and 2 U). A potsherd comes also from the sea. Furthermore, 60 vessels were spread in half of the huts (15 out of about 30). A revised table is provided in substitution of that by Vagnetti in the catalogue (1991: 281-282) since the original one needed to be updated. In the same table there are also some suggestions for shapes and decorative motifs, from Vagnetti (1991: 283-284). Given the fragmentary state of the vessels as well as the poor preservation state of many potsherds, only the distinction between closed and open vessels is reliable, with some potsherds not allowing even that. Among the possibly recognised open vessels there are seven cups and two chalices. Among the commoner closed vessels there are five alabastra (but they could be small jars!), five jars, three jugs and three possible stirrup jars. None of these shapes is certain. The decorative motifs are even more uncertain, with only very simple motifs recognisable, which could also belong to more elaborate compositions. In conclusion, the Aegean-type pottery in Montagnola was not very abundant, especially thinking of the contemporary sites of Monte Grande and Vivara. It seems anyway that it was not a rarity and it was spread throughout the whole settlement, where it appears that all the people was involved daily in common activities, such as cooking.The Aegean-type pottery then cannot be connected to any social differentiation that cannot be argued for the people of Montagnola at any time. The majority of shapes are closed, with jars and eventually alabastra the most common, and these shapes were suitable for storage as most of the local pottery: the Aegean-type pottery in Montagnola had no special role, it was used as the local pottery for the same functions (mainly storage). All this suggests that the site was a port of call with the Aegean-type vessels passing through and thus being available along the local pots, but there is no indication that it was a special, valuable or prestige item. Other products of which we do not have trace any more could have had this role, but not pottery. The general impression is that in Filicudi during all the Capo Graziano and Milazzese phases there were so many Aegean-type products that they never gained a special role among the local community, while instead they were used for further exchanges, towards Vivara and the proto-Apennine coastal communities in the central and southern Tyrrhenian and perhaps also towards Sicily. Aegean-derivative pottery Apart the vessels similar to some of the EH III or MH , which were from early layers without Aegean-type pottery, the late Capo Graziano vessels associated with Aegean-type counterparts seems to be free from any fresh or evident Aegean influence. In addition, the pottery from Montagnola also evolves independently from the Capo Graziano pottery of the other Aeolian Islands, like Lipari, proving to be local, both for conception and manufacture, after undergoing accurate stylistic and petrographic analyses. Other objects A blue glass bead, cat. n. 59, comes from hut XIV, from a stratum of Capo Graziano or Milazzese culture, though it must be noticed that hut XIV was covered to enlarge the open space in Milazzese phase. Scientific analyses A radiocarbon date for the Milazzese culture settlement is available: sample R-369 from hut VIII with LH III A 2 pottery resulted in the date 3000±50 BP (1373-1281-1114 BC calibrated).The calibrated date was accepted by the excavators. See Leighton 1999: 90. Depositional context Filicudi was inhabited since the late Neolithic but Aegean-type pottery appear only from the end of the Early Bronze Age (Capo Graziano II) until the beginning of the Milazzese phase. After the Neolithic phase present both in Capo Graziano and the southern area of Piano del Porto, a new phase witnessed initially in Piano del Porto, then by the huts near Casa Lopez and later in the site of Montagnola di Capo Graziano begins with a change in the building technique for huts (walls are built now with the stones placed as fish-bones) and pottery. A shipwreck found off the island of Lipari at Pignataro di Fuori (Bernabò Brea 1985), where there was a harbour at that time gave evidence of a pottery cargo made of mainly undecorated dippers, with just one cup incised on the bottom with a cross. This

121

proves that the culture was very active in exchanges with other people, and it can well be considered one of the major cultures of that time in the Sicilian area, being able to strongly influence even the people of the Tarxien cemetery in Malta, possibly through the “emporium” of Ognina, a small island at swimming distance from the Sicilian coast south of Syracuse, where overwhelming amounts of contemporary Maltese pottery suggested to Bernabò Brea the possibility of a independent colony. Interpretative remarks The complex of sites is the largest of this culture in the Aeolian Islands and elsewhere; as a result the culture is called Capo Graziano culture.The change was certainly accompanied also by a demographic increment, probably due to the arrival of new settlers.These have been proposed to be people of EH III culture by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier (1991) on the basis of many parallels among ceramic shapes and the use of the same building technique. In addition, the incised decoration present in few shapes is compatible as well with this hypothesis, though the decoration is limited to crosses. Following the same approach, tracing parallels of materials between western and eastern sites, another culture, Sant’Ippolito, appears to be of Aegean origin. In the latter case, Sant’Ippolito was the culture that preceded the Castelluccian one in south-eastern Sicily and its materials find some parallels with EH Cypriot products (Cypriot products in the West Mediterranean conventionally dated using Mycenaean chronology). In both Sant’Ippolito and Capo Graziano sites no traces of direct imports have been found, but the similarities between Capo Graziano and Aegean materials appears to be more than a coincidence. Given the nature of small islands largely dependant on the contacts with other people, a small number of sailors remaining in the islands for some reason (marriage, age, opportunities, etc.) would have been able to produce an enormous amount of influence that in continental places would have been impossible. In fact, the Aeolian Islands always produced a blend of culture reflecting a blend of people of different origins. This is true even today. In this view, while few Aegeans would have produced an influence from inside the community, they would have been also an open door to other Aegean people for exchanges. Their impact as colonising or conquering force would have been risible, and perhaps they never wanted to be that. The material culture confirms after all that the Aegean imports, assuming all the Aegeantype products were imported from Aegean areas, are not overwhelming. Why some people should have spent the rest of their life there is not difficult to understand considering the impressive spectacle that nature provides, perhaps even more fascinating in the antiquity when it was less adapted by human hand and less understood. Much of the pottery was locally produced with just the addition of Sicilian clay, perhaps directly imported to Filicudi. According to some petrographic analyses, in Capo Graziano the pots coming from Lipari or other Aeolian Islands are very few, with instead Capo Graziano pottery present in some places in the southern Tyrrhenian, like Lipari, Praia a Mare in Calabria, Noglio cave (Marina di Camerota) and Vivara (Punta Mezzogiorno) in Campania and Sicily. A contact with early Aegean explorers had many occasions to be established, a migration of people from Sicily or Calabria, which could have produced a new culture is almost certain, with the only alternative, a migration of Aegean people, being unlikely, unnecessary and unproven. Nevertheless, the network of exchanges in which the Capo Graziano people was involved since the beginning, and indeed probably originated from the movement of people at its origin, certainly became the cause for the contact with Aegean people at the end of the MH, possibly very beginning of LH I. It is the time of Monte Grande, the Aeolian Islands and Vivara. The pottery of early and middle Capo Graziano phase in Filicudi is different in some details from the contemporary ceramic products found in Lipari (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1991: 189). In addition, while at the beginning of the phase the main settlement of Filicudi changes from Piano del Porto to Montagnola, i.e. from plain to hill, and the same happens then in all the other islands (in Lipari from contrada Diana to the acropolis), at the end of the Capo Graziano phase Filicudi had a demographic decrease and apparent loss of importance, in favour especially of Lipari. This does seem to prove that Montagnola di Capo Graziano was a particular site within the Aeolian Islands, the only ever to appear to be more important of the contemporary biggest site in the island of Lipari. Lipari in fact is the biggest island, and the closest to the Sicilian coast when the active volcano of Vulcano, which has provided so far no evidence of BA sites, is excluded. The fact that most pottery was locally produced coupled with the fact that indeed the settlement was very important possibly made Filicudi the first Aeolian island to enter in contact with people of Aegean culture.Yet, this happened at the end of the phase because Aegean-type pottery has been found only in superficial strata of the Capo Graziano phase. This contradicts the excavators’ hypothesis that it was the Aegean connection to have boosted the success of the culture: instead, soon after the first pottery comes, the settlement of Montagnola shrinks, the culture fades out in the Milazzese one and the more strategically positioned Lipari acquires an overall importance that Filicudi never had, and it will remain definitely the main island till the end of the Bronze Age. Montagnola, given the local production of its pottery, was either the main site or one of the most important sites of the Capo Graziano culture.This fact is of the highest interest especially in the interpretation of the Aegean-type pottery in Capo Graziano sites, beginning from that of Montagnola. Only two other western sites in fact were likely to be in direct contact with people from the Aegean before LH III considering the quantity of pottery, and this are Monte Grande and Vivara. Monte Grande was a large site of Castelluccian culture, yet it was a terminus for the Aegean products because apart a possible MH potsherd from Pietraperzia, no Aegean-type product left the site, though some influence reached the other sites of Castelluccian culture. Vivara is even more surprising: being of proto-Apennine culture, part of the island of Procida at the time, is again a terminus for Aegean-type products, but here both the products and their associated culture did not leave the site. In addition of being a terminus for the exchanges, in both Monte Grande and Vivara there were storage areas and large areas connected with the Aegean-type products (circular enclosures in Monte Grande, which could also have been occasionally used as dormitories and big huts in Vivara). The entire settlement of Montagnola, with about 30 circular huts (27 counted) was instead as big as one hut with

122

external space and storage area in Vivara or an enclosure in Monte Grande. The amount of pottery found here is the lowest of the three sites.Yet, Aegean-type products were associated with Capo Graziano pottery within and outside the Aeolian Islands (Cardini cave, Noglio cave and Vivara), proving that the people of this culture redistributed the pottery and did not create a terminus. In addition to this,Tusa (1999: 433-434) reports that some possible Capo Graziano pottery has been found in the Oristano province, in central Sardinia, while some pots of Capo Graziano style seems to be influenced by Sardinian pottery. Considering the importance of Sardinia later, it is interesting to note that few contacts might have already been in place as soon as LH I. In Lipari there was some Capo Graziano pottery with Aegean-type ceramic, but also an harbour (Pignataro di Fuori) from where the ships sailed and a thermal building too close to Aegean tholoi and too dissimilar to any other building in BA Italy not to compare it with Aegean tholoi. From this brief overview, it is evident that Montagnola di Capo Graziano was a key centre for the Aegean-type products, regardless of the primacy or not of the site among those of Capo Graziano culture and that it was a redistributive centre/port of call for Aegean-type products as all the others belonging to this culture were, but none of the other western sites with pre LH III pottery were. This second point is confirmed not only by the presence of Aegean-type and Capo Graziano products in more than one site, but also by the relatively small amount of products kept and the presence of Aegean-type pottery in almost every hut. Indeed, given the quantities, there was no more than one vessel in each hut, like people was not interested in keeping Aegean-type products, but did not want in such a small and fairly recent community to create any element of possible social differentiation: the huts are all similar, and all contained similar products. This continues even during the later Milazzese phase and in the other islands; it is the contrary of what happened during the LH III in Thapsos. Since the people of Capo Graziano culture had contacts with people using proto-Apennine B pottery (Vivara, Praia a Mare), it seems acceptable to suggest that the Aeolian Islands were a required port of call towards Vivara, which was one of the most important and biggest centres of the proto-Apennine culture and the only one with huge quantities of Aegean-type products. Bernabò Brea and Cavalier (1991: 201) suggested already in the 1980s that the Aegean culture arrived through exchanges involving only in little measure pottery up to the Tyrrhenian coast. In the excavators’ view some Aegean elements transpired from the East for centuries before a material record capable of reaching us, i.e. pottery, had been left. They recognised Aegean elements in proto-Apennine centres of Campania (Palma Campania and Paestum) and Lazio (Lake of Mezzano), and they also suggested that different groups of Aegean people sailed different areas and that the cause of the collapse of the Capo Graziano culture into an even more Aegean-dependant culture, the Milazzese one, was apparently non-violent and to be attributed more to the competition among the Aegean groups than to aggression from nearby cultures. Bernabò Brea and Cavalier backed this last point with archaeological data showing that a substantial continuity among the two phases is evident in all the sites, though the settlement of Milazzese in Panarea was built for the first time and there is some sharp distinction in the Lipari strata, with Montagnola being perhaps the site with the smoothest passage. The excavators referred then to the later Ausonian periods in the Castello of Lipari, where each phase is clearly marked by violent destruction of fire, something not present in any previous stratum there or elsewhere in the Aeolian Islands. They concluded that the transition was the outcome of some problem among Aegean groups, like in the Caribbean Sea of 16th and 17th century, when colonizers and pirates from Europe battled for supremacy. While the Aegean-centric point of view and the idea of colonisation can be debated, the archaeological evidence undeniably seems to point towards the presence of different Aegean groups and a conflict among them, which seems to be of cultural and economic nature without turning to open war, at least involving the local cultures. The “obscure” problem identified by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier could well be connected to Vivara, which probably was the terminus of the sea-routes passing through the Aeolian Islands and that suddenly stops to be a destination during LH III A 1, possibly after an earthquake, since Vivara was on the border of the crater of an active volcano, certainly something happens that interrupts the contacts, which simply cease forever. If that was the reason, and so far it appears the only one plausible, even allowing for more discoveries in the area of Vivara, we can then argue that the Capo Graziano culture developed in function of its geographical position between Sicily and the central Tyrrhenian and that even its end and following cultures (Milazzese and Ausonian) was determined by the fluctuations in the exchanges. As a further indication of the Aeolian Islands and particularly Montagnola and other Capo Graziano sites were port of calls on the route towards Vivara and the metal mining area of Tuscany, there is one potsherd of Capo Graziano ware associated with few of Aegean-type from Luni sul Mignone. Despite the fact that the site has been fully excavated, only five Aegean-type potsherds, most of different phases and found in separate strata, were found. This means that there was no interest in the pottery, but the contacts, probably mediated in this area, first began with the Capo Graziano culture, then continued without involving the Aeolian Islands. From LH III in fact it seems that southern Italy, and perhaps in LH III C the northern Adriatic coast, were the new route to central Italy. The same evidence proves also that before the LH III, the route passed through the Aeolian Islands and furthermore that Capo Graziano and Aegean-type wares were brought to the northern Tyrrhenian together, as objects from one and the same group. Because of the paucity of the evidence, the thorough excavation, and the northern geographical position, it is evident that there was no direct connection between the Aeolian Islands and Luni, instead it had to be mediated by a major site like Vivara. And if Aegean-type products from the mostly unexcavated Vivara were associated with Capo Graziano pottery, as they were in the southern Tyrrhenian, then the Aegean-type pottery reaching Vivara had to pass for the Aeolian Islands and perhaps also for Montagnola. This hypothesis was also presented by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier in 1991, but they were unable to provide any evidence to support it. In Vivara, at Punta Mezzogiorno, several potsherds of Capo Graziano ware have been found associated with one Aegean-type pot in area B, which is the place that provided so far the earliest evidence of settlement in Vivara. The pot could not be dated, but the nearby area A is dated to the LH I - II. Finally, to better support this view, it must be noticed that archaeologists have found many contemporary sites near Vivara, all without Aegean-type products, as well as few sites between Rome and Naples with very few of these Aegean-type products.

123

The stratigraphy in Montagnola is not very clear because of its continued use, but in the Castello of Lipari, where at least some areas were reorganised at the time of the transition, there are some clear strata. In these, no potsherd of LH III period has been found in Capo Graziano strata, about 10 LH II potsherds in a stratum with a overwhelming majority of LH III A potsherds mark the passage to the Milazzese strata that end with few LH III B potsherds. The following Ausonian periods are associated with LH III B and C potsherds. This means that the change of culture in the Aeolian Islands is not connected to the events in the Aegean (presence of LH II before and after the transition) or the emergence of new Sicilian (Thapsos begins the contacts in LH III A 1) or Tyrrhenian (Vivara ceases the existence in LH III A 1; the proto-Apennine culture progressively evolves to the meso-Apennine one) polities. The only connections are again with Monte Grande, which definitely breaks the contacts at the same time, perhaps because both the Aeolian Islands and Vivara were able to provide sulphur (Aeolian Islands, Phlegrean Islands) and other goods (textiles and metals from Vivara), while in Vivara the connections follow the same fate as Monte Grande in few decades. The Milazzese phase, in Montagnola as elsewhere, was a mixture of Sicilian (early Thapsos style) and meso-Apennine culture, though with a preponderance of the former.With the new phase, for what concerns Filicudi, it will become a peripheric area, though still within the small group of sites with Aegean-type products. Filicudi left without doubts the primacy to Lipari and remained a small settlement, which ceased to exist with a clear destruction (huts 5, 8, 21 and 22) after the arrival of the Ausonian people, this time from the Tyrrhenian. Not only the site, but the entire island is abandoned, as happens in Panarea and Salina (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1991: 207).The settlement of Montagnola has evidence of three subsequent phases: middle Capo Graziano without Aegean-type wares, late Capo Graziano and Milazzese, with Aegean-type vessels and in the latter also a few Apennine pots. There is evidence of few rock-cut tombs, which were located not far from the settlement, probably they were common tombs but neither bones nor Aegean-type products have been found, despite the presence of assemblages rich in vessels. The huts were re-used and eventually rebuilt (hut 1 had been rebuilt four times) throughout the period in which the settlement was inhabited without sharp changes (apart huts 2 and 3; huts 5, 8, 22 and 23 were built during Milazzese phase) from one phase to another. The settlement indeed remained almost unaltered throughout its time. The huts, about 30, were one close to another, occupying less than half a hectare in extent. There is no evidence of hearths for cooking inside, while there was in the preceding Piano del Porto huts, so that it can be argued that there was an open space (like the area, called “Piazza”, between huts 10 and 14, enlarged to cover huts 7, 10 and 14 and being delimited by huts XII and XIII during the Milazzese phase) that the whole community used for basic activities, this was a way to maintain a communal identity, though the whole settlement should have been made by a handful of extended families. The huts were all oval or circular, built with unshaped stones, all with storage vessels inside, but some huts had stone benches and were also reused for common activities at certain times (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1991: 179- 180) like hut 6 (several grindstones) and hut 12 (many bowls and storage jars). The use of the huts for storage purposes is also witnessed by the fact that the floor of the huts always lies below the ground, in few cases (7, 10 and 25) between 1.5 to 2 m; these three huts were accessed through a corridor. Considering that Bernabò Brea and Cavalier paid a lot of attention to divide each stratum, it is not a coincidence that four layers with Aegean-type pottery have been identified for two phases: Capo Graziano 1 (or CG1) and 2 (CG2; more recent) for the late Capo Graziano phase, a Capo Graziano/Milazzese transitional period (CG/M) and a pure Milazzese period (M). Additionally, two extra categories are the “uncertain Milazzese or Capo Graziano” (M/CG) and the “uncertain context” (U) for those vessels coming from an undefined context. Essential bibliography: Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1991. Meligunìs-Lipára 6. Filicudi. Insediamenti dell’età del Bronzo. Palermo. * Site name: Floridia Aegean-type pottery Straight-sided alabastron, FS 94, FM 64. Taylour suggests an Eastern provenance, given the more frequent occurrence of the FM 64 decorated motif in alabastra from there. Depositional context From tomb 2 found during the 1908 excavations by Orsi. Tusa (1999: 486) suggest a later date for the tomb, up to LH III B, reviewing the vessel and considering that the niches in the tomb were larger, allowing more spaces for the two corpses one in each niche to be deposed horizontally. Tomb D in Thapsos contained three similar alabastra as well as two very similar niches, each one with a skeleton deposed in the same manner as in Floridia. Essential bibliography: Orsi, P.aolo 1909. Floridia. Sepolcreto siculo con vaso miceneo. Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi 6:374-378. * Site name: Fondo Paviani Aegean-type pottery Two potsherds. Potsherd from closed vessel (juglet or small jar), decorated with concentric semicircles. Potsherd from closed vessel, decorated with two painted bands.

124

Other objects One amber bead of Tiryns type. Depositional context From a survey which discovered abundant settlement remains and a possible circular ditch surrounding it. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia. 1979. Un frammento di ceramica micenea da Fondo Paviani (Legnago). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 6:599-610. Bettelli, Marco, and L.Vagnetti. 1997. Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-micenea e l’Italia settentrionale. In Le Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana. Catalogo della Mostra, edited by M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi. Milano. * Site name: Fonni (Gremanu) Metalwork Five fragments of copper oxhide ingots. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Formentera Metalwork Some copper oxhide ingots. Depositional context Shipwreck. 38° N. 1° E. at an unknown location off Formentera (Baleares, Spain). Parker (1992: 181): “A wreck apparently of copper oxhide ingots was found by a local diver near Formentera, but nothing more is known of either the site or the cargo. Unpublished. Information: S. Wignall”. Essential bibliography: Parker, A. J. 1992. Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman provinces. Oxford: B.A.R * Site name: Frattesina (Fratta Polesine) Aegean-type pottery Two open vessels - Cup with handle attachment on the rim, decorated with zig-zag pattern. Rim diam. 11.3 cm. Potsherd from open vessel, decorated with horizontal bands. Metalwork Various bronzes, but none imitating particularly Aegean models. Hoard containing bronze brooches, ivory combs and necklaces in amber and glass (Bietti Sestieri 1996; Bellintani, Gambacurta, Henderson, and Towle 2001). Other objects Frattesina was an industrial centre producing ivory items (several pieces at all stages of production), glass beads and possibly working amber. Depositional context Frattesina is a settlement of the Late Bronze Age. The Mycenaean sherds has thought to be imported in the site through Sicily, considering the presence of Sicilian pottery, but the site is a crossroad of trades close to the Adriatic sea, the Tyrrhenian sea, the Alps, central Italy and the Po valley. Later its role was continued by the not far Adria, which was a Greek emporium and also gave its name to the Adriatic sea. Frattesina was an important centre of arts and crafts, with local work of bronze, glass, bones, ivory and perhaps amber. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco, and L.Vagnetti. 1997. Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-micenea e l’Italia settentrionale. In Le Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana. Catalogo della Mostra, edited by M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi. Milano.

125

* Site name: Fuente Alamo (Almería) Other objects Necklace made of glass beads. Probably belonging to the late phase of contacts, pre-Phoenician (LH III C). Depositional context Tomb 9. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Giovinazzo Aegean-type pottery From the dolmen: one LH I cup. From the settlement: two matt decorated potsherds.They are similar to coarse ware in Vivara and some potsherds in Manaccora cave. Depositional context Gallery dolmen with a tumulus on the top. Proto-Apennine pottery and the LH I cup were found on the same context. The matt-decorated potsherds come from the settlement, and are dated LH II - III A. Potsherd pavements were present in some huts of the settlement. Essential bibliography: Lo Porto, F.G. 1968. Italici e micenei alla luce delle scoperte archeologiche pugliesi. In Atti e Memorie del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by L.Vagnetti and S. Tinè. Roma: Ateneo. Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni, Vincenzo La Rosa, Lucia Vagnetti, Dario Palermo, and Luigi Bernabo Brea, eds. 1999. Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabo Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli: Roma, 18-20 febbraio 1998. Roma: Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene. * Site name: Gonnosfanadiga (San Cosimo) Other objects Sixty-seven faience and glass beads similar to Aegean examples. They are comparable with others from Sicily and especially Lipari and Thapsos. Depositional context In a giants’ grave. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Ischia Aegean-type pottery Five sherds, three of which published by Taylour, one of a three-handled piriform jar in yellowish clay containing black and brown grits; glossy black paint.The second together with the first one were possibly part of the same vase.This sherd is however decorated with stripes. The third sherd is a rim of cup preserving the springs of a high-swung handle. “Thin pink ware with a yellow slip on the inner surface; red to brown, fairly lustrous paint. The lip is decorated with a broad band on both sides. Depositional context Buchner’s excavations on the Castiglione hill between Ischia harbour and the town of Casamicciola brought to the light three Mycenaean sherds. These were found “clearing deep fissures in the rock” (Taylour 1958: 7). The sherds were found together with Apennine or Adriatic culture materials. Essential bibliography: Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Sebastiano Tusa, eds. 2001. Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree: catalogo della mostra: Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno 2001. Napoli and Palermo: A. Lombardi; Regione siciliana, Assessorato

126

dei beni culturali e ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. * Site name: Ittireddu (Nuraghe Funtana) Metalwork Fragments of copper oxhide ingots. Depositional context From Nuraghe Funtana, split in two hoards contained in a bowl and a jar. The Nuragic pots are dated to the Final BA or EIA. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Jesi Aegean-type pottery Some potsherds of LH III B or C date. Aegean-derivative pottery Depositional context Unpublished excavations under the San Floriano Mestica palace have returned few potsherds dated, preliminarily, to the LH III B. They were probably produced in southern Italy. Essential bibliography: ANSA. 2003. Archeologia 2001 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.bur.it/nc000214.htm. * Site name: Lake Ledro Aegean-derivative pottery A small pottery cup resembling in shape a Vapheio cup (from Shaft Grave IV in Mycenae). No other vessels from Polada culture sites are so close to a Mycenaean metal type apart an handle of a cup from Barche di Solferino (Polada culture). Similar vessels were found in the Emilian Terremare. Dated to the Italian EBA. The cup constitutes however a proof of vague similarity (Barfield 1994). The Isolone cup, dated MBA is similar to the previous one, but shows also clear resemblances with common vessels, at this time, N of Po river. Peroni compared this vessel to the Vapheio cup and one from the Hungarian site of Toszeg. Other objects Amber beads (Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974) Depositional context From the excavations of the settlement. The site belongs to the Polada culture. Essential bibliography: Barfield, L. 1966. A Bronze Age Cup from Lake Ledro (Trento). Antiquity 40:48-49. Barfield, L. 1994.The Bronze Age of northern Italy. In Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart. Sheffield. * Site name: Lanusei (Perda ‘e Floris) Metalwork A copper oxhide ingot. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Lipari Aegean-type pottery There are 338 Aegean-type potsherds. The potsherds come all from the excavations in the acropolis, from the Capo Graziano,

127

Milazzese, Ausonian I and II levels. However, because the settlement of each phase was built one on the top of the other, not always the stratigraphy is reliable. Some joining potsherds were coming from different huts (Vagnetti in Cavalier and Vagnetti 1984). A recent review (Re in Carratelli et al. 1999) of pre-LH III materials suggested the presence of over 70 LH I - II B potsherds of Mycenaean ware, 10 of matt decorated ware, 2 of pseudo-Minyan ware and 13 of plain ware. Following the good catalogue by Taylour as corrected by Vagnetti in 1984, 4 potsherds are dated to the LM I, 6 are supposedly Cycladic and 2 possibly MH. Of all the other potsherds, a good description is in Taylour 1980. He was unable to recognise many vessels, with about 40% open vessels (51% including the uncertain) and 36% closed vessels (49% including the uncertain) giving a substantial parity. Most of the pottery is undecorated or decorated with simple motifs. Jars, alabastra, cups and bowls are the most common shapes. There is no evidence of the predominance of a shape at a certain point, and it would be impossible with the scanty data available to produce reliable statistics, even for periods or strata. It seems that during the Ausonian I and II periods there was a general reduction in the quantity of Aegean-type pottery. Briefly, here is a catalogue based on Taylour 1980, with the updates by Cavalier and Vagnetti in 1984. Late Minoan I: 4 undetermined vessels. Cycladic: 6 undetermined vessels. MH: 2 potsherds LH I: Closed vessels: 1 hole-mouth jar FS 100; 6 undetermined vessels. Open vessels: 1 bowl FS 279; 1 cup FS 211; 1 cup FS 218; 7 cups FS 224; 2 undetermined cups. Total: 17 vessels divided into 7 closed and 10 open. LH I – II: Closed vessels: 6 alabastra FS 80-2; 1 jug FS 103; 9 undetermined vessels. Open vessels: 9 cups FS 224; 10 cups FS 211; 1 cup FS 218; 1 pedestalled bowl or kylix FS 263; 1 pedestalled bowl FS 254. Undetermined potsherds: 3. Total: 41 vessels divided in 16 closed, 22 open (20 cups) and 3 undetermined. LH II: Closed vessels: 1 jar FS 15-16; 1 jar FS 87; 1 alabastron; 1 undetermined vessel. Open vessels: 1 bowl (cat. n. 79, Castelluccian style according to Vagnetti); 1 cup FS 213; 1 cup FS 218; 1 cup FS 224; 2 cups; 1 kylix FS 254. Undetermined vessels: 3. Total: 14 vessels divided in 4 closed, 7 open (5 cups) and 3 undetermined. LH II – III: Closed vessels: 4 alabastra; 3 jugs FS 135/112; 1 piriform jar; 3 undetermined vessels. Open vessels: 1 cup FS 219, FM 12; 14 cups (a few could be kylikes). Undetermined vessels: 47. Total: 73 vessels divided in 11 closed, 15 open and 47 undetermined. LH III A: Closed vessels: 3 piriform jars FS 44-45; 1 jug; 2 undetermined vessels. Open vessels: 7 kylikes; 3 cups; 1 mug FS 226; 1 bowl. Total: 18 vessels divided in 6 closed and 12 open. LH III A – B: Closed vessels: 1 miniature jug; 2 piriform jars; 7 undetermined vessels. Open vessels: 2 kraters FS 7-9; 7 cups. Undetermined vessels: 39. Total: 58 vessels divided in 10 closed, 9 open and 39 undetermined. LH III B: Closed vessels: 1 stirrup jar; 2 jars; 8 undetermined vessels. Open vessels: 1 krater; 4 deep bowls; 1 pedestalled bowl; 2 cups or kylikes. Total: 19 vessels divided in 11 closed and 8 closed. LH III B – C: Closed vessels: 1 jug FS 109-110; 1 jar FS 59. Open vessels: 1 deep bowl; 1 cup or kylix. Undetermined vessels: 1. Total: 5 vessels divided in 2 closed, 2 open and 1 undetermined. LH III C: Closed vessels: 1 undetermined. Open vessels: 1 kylix; 1 deep bowl; 3 kraters; 2 cups. Undetermined vessels: 2. Total: 10 vessels divided in 1 closed, 7 open and 2 undetermined. Unclassified: 17 potsherds from Milazzese strata. 14 vessels from Ausonian I strata. 5 vessels from Ausonian II strata. 6 “strays” 1 pseudo-Minyan, of LH III Italic origin according to Taylour. Considering the number of uncertain potsherds, it is difficult to draw any safe conclusion. However, many simple, undecorated

128

potsherds suggest that many vessels belong to pre-LH III plain ware. The presence of Aegean-type vessels decreased starting from LH III A - B, though it never reached big quantities. It seems that the vessels were equally distributed between open and closed vessels, as well as among all the huts. Like in Montagnola and Milazzese, the Aegean-type pottery was integrated in the local shapes and needs, with neither any particular shape emerging nor any particular function addressed. In recent years, some Aegean-type materials come from areas of Lipari other than the acropolis. A potsherd of a possible goblet FS 255, FM 12 comes from contrada Diana (Vagnetti 2000). The context is supposed to be the late Capo Graziano phase, the vase dates to LH III A 1. Two more potsherds are from the Castellaro Vecchio, Capo Graziano contexts. One is undetermined, the other is part of a cup. Aegean-derivative pottery Milazzese style vessels, which were probably produced here (including those from Milazzese); from the Recent BA pseudo-Minyan ware. Metalwork Hoard of 75 kg of bronzes dated to the Ausonian I. Other objects One clay figurine of LH III A date. Two possible Mycenaean glass beads necklaces from Monfalcone square cemetery. A decorated bone comb, likely to have produced in peninsular Italy. Depositional context In the acropolis (modern area called “Castello”, i.e. castle), a naturally fortified location, there are huts of late Capo Graziano Milazzese, Ausonian I and II phases as well as few burials and a big hoard of metals dating back to the Ausonian I phase. However, these are just the phases relevant for the Aegean-type materials, but the earliest phases from the site go back to the Neolithic as there are later phases after Ausonian II (Greek and Roman). Evidently, while on one hand Lipari is the best site to view the succession of phases (nine distinct levels), the continuous re-use of space has erased much of the early phases. Finally, from the area of Castellaro Vecchio, in the same island of Lipari, two more potsherds have been found, proving that the presence of materials was not limited to the acropolis (Cavalier 1979). The clay figurine has been found in hut “gamma 3” associated with another indigenous anthropomorphic figurine.Van Wijngaarden argues that therefore “it was employed in local cultural practices” (2002: 221). It should be noted that also the two figurines from Punta Tonno occur in a general context where indigenous incised figurines were produced and used throughout the region. During the Ausonian I most Aegean-type pottery was found associated with Sicilian and Sardinian pottery in building “beta 4”, which is a large, oval hut of outstanding quality.The apparent particularity of the building is confirmed by the fact that it contained nearly all the imported vessels at the time. Not far from the modern town of Lipari there is the thermal bath at San Calogero, which had been used as early as the late Capo Graziano phase. There are no Aegean-type products there, and the early building has been modified several times by human hands and the nature (it is on an active volcano after all), yet this is the closest match of a Mycenaean tholos building known west of the Aegean. The settlement of Capo Graziano phase is made by ten oval huts plus a larger hut (d4) that is singularly enclosed by an almost rectangular wall. It is unclear what it was used for, but the discovery of a possible votive pit in its western side does suggest a use within the community, perhaps a common, sacred storage area. A clear destruction marks the passage to the next phase, the Ausonian I, of which four huts, almost oval, and one hoard with 75 Kg of bronze items are preserved. In the hoard there were mostly weapons but probably also a copper oxhide ingot, coming from all over the Italian peninsula. During the Ausonian I most Aegean-type pottery was found associated with newly imported Sicilian and Sardinian pottery in building “beta 4”, which is a large, oval hut of outstanding quality. A less clear destruction marks the passage to the Ausonian II, which ends in the early Iron Age. This culture differs quite significantly from the previous Ausonian I and cannot be considered just the outcome of its development. The Ausonian II is a mix of sub-Apennine, proto-Villanovan and Pantalica North cultures. The known site that can be closely related to Lipari is Ausonian II Meta Piccola of Lentini, in Sicily, but there are affinities even between hut a2 in Lipari and the Palatine huts at Rome. About four huts are known for this period in Lipari, with the long oval hut a2 being the best preserved. The hut is almost rectangular, though the corners are still rounded, and partly subterranean. Not many tombs have been discovered in Lipari, as in the other islands. However, a few in Lipari and more in Milazzo, on the Sicilian coast in front of the Aeolian Islands, have significantly returned nothing certainly of Aegean origin. Shipwreck of Pignataro di Fuori (Ciabatti 1978), with Capo Graziano pottery (see ‘Filicudi’). Interpretative remarks The “tholos” building does not seem to be exactly a tholos neither for its use nor for the architecture, but because it is unique in the area and evidently projected thinking to a tholos, its Aegean connection is undisputable. What is debatable is if it was made by a Mycenaean hand or copied by a local architect. I would suggest that the building had been built by local people after speaking with Aegean sailors, since it is very unlikely that a Mycenaean architect would have built a funerary tholos for baths with an approximate knowledge of the technique.Yet the material is proof in any case that already in Capo Graziano times not only Aegean products, but also people and their ideas were arriving in the Aeolian Islands. The core of the building is the water spring, which gushes out from the rock in a white layer made by calcium and magnesium, i.e. it is not drinkable. It is unclear if the thermal use

129

began since the earliest phase. Almost certainly it was never built or used as a tomb. However, being the source very suggestive even today, it could have had some ritual role connected or not to the dead.The Mycenaeans would have never built a tholos for a water spring, but people in contact with them could have asked to them for suggestions about how to erect a great building for something connected with the subterranean world. It was a water spring in this case, though the Mycenaeans at first glance probably guessed it was a divinity of the subterranean world if not an important person gone there (dead). We do not know if the ancient Aeolians were indeed thinking that there was a connection with any funerary context, though that particular water spring, warm, is opened to speculations about life/death cycles. However, at least the Mycenaeans made, rightly or erroneously, that connection. Undoubtedly, looking to the spring with my eyes, it was impossible not to think for a moment to the white layer like the tongue of the mountain offering a purifying water. Despite many researches on the topic, the origin of the spring inside the old volcano is still mysterious, offering to the modern tourist a slice of what the thoughts of the ancient people probably were. Recent theories suggest parallels with Sardinian wells, though they do not seem very convincing. After all, the Aegeans at that time were in Lipari, not Sardinia, and no Sardinian spring is so suggestive. For a correct interpretation, I would ignore the late functional adaptation as thermal bath and concentrate on the value of the spring itself, since that is all that there was of the complex thermal bath that can be seen today at the time the tholos was built. I cannot imagine the Aeolians needing a thermal bath during prehistory: it is closed even today after all, as the volcanic activity provides better and simpler choices. A trip to the modern island of Vulcano is illuminating. Essential bibliography: Bernabò Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier. 1960. Meligunìs-Lipára 1. La stazione preistorica della contrada Diana e la necropoli protostorica di Lipari.Vol. 1. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, Madeleine Cavalier, L. W. Taylour, and Francesco D’Angelo. 1980. Meligunìs-Lipára 4. L’acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria.Vol. 4. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, Madeleine Cavalier, and P. Belli. 1990. La tholos termale di San Calogero nell’isola di Lipari. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 28:7-84. Cavalier, Madeleine, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1984. Materiali micenei vecchi e nuovi dall’acropoli di Lipari. Studi Micenei ed EgeoAnatolici 25:143-154. * Site name: Llanete

de los

Moros (Montoro)

Aegean-type pottery Two decorated potsherds, one of an open vessel (goblet according to Almagro-Gorbea and Fontes 1997; cup according to Martin de la Cruz) and one of a krater (foot ring only preserved), dated to the III A 2 or B 1. Aegean-derivative pottery Forty-four wheel-made potsherds, in plain ware. The shapes of the original vessels, here as well as in all the other sites with similar pottery, are: pithos (amphora), globular stand and globular vase (dinos?). The recognised shapes belong to eleven globular stands, seven pithoi, one globular vessel and twenty-five unrecognised shapes. Scientific analyses NAA analyses determined the two decorated potsherds come from the Mycenae Berbati region, i.e. in the Argolid.C14 analyses from strata with Cogotas I materials resulted in the following dates: 1110 ±60 BC and 1070 ±60 BC. However, one C14 date from Montoro, Cogotas I levels, where some wheel-made pottery was found, resulted in the 950 ±50 BC date. Depositional context The settlement is on the Guadalquivir valley, and is on the Phoenician route from Sicily to Iberia (Vagnetti 1982) via Sardinia and the Balearics (Formentera). It is possible that the trading route was already in use during the LBA. The materials associated with the two decorated potsherds are of the Cogotas I type. The plain ware appears instead from pre-Cogotas levels. The decorated potsherds date to the LH III A 2 -B1 and are original imports, suggesting that they were imported through the Phoenician route from Sicily, where similar pots were imported. The wheel-made pottery instead, though probably older than the colonial period, seems to refer to late periods (LH III C 2) and was likely produced locally, according to Cypriot and Protogeometric models. It is interesting to notice how the case of Iberia reflects in smaller scale that of Italy: after a phase with largely genuine imports and scarce Cypriot or eastern influences (Sicily), the contacts continue but this time instead of imports there is a local production of Aegean-type pots. In the case of the wheel-made Iberian pottery as well as of the Italic decorated grey ware and pseudo-Minyan these wares can be considered Aegean-derivative. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, Jose Clemente Martin. 1990. Die erste mykenische Keramik von der Iberischen Halbinsel. PZ 65:49-52. De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. De la Cruz, J. C. M., and M. Perlines Benito. 1993. La ceramica a torno de los contextos culturales de finales del II milenio A.C.

130

en Andalucia. In 1. Congresso de arqueologia peninsular, edited by V. O. Jorge. Porto: Sociedade portuguesa de antropologia e etnologia. * Site name: Luni

sul

Mignone

Aegean-type pottery Five decorated Aegean-type potsherds. One cup, one stirrup jar, one straight-sided alabastron and two potsherds of closed vessels. Depositional context Settlement inhabited continuously from Middle to Final Bronze Age, where some important buildings have been found, such as the so-called acropolis. One Capo Graziano potsherd was found together with few Aegean-type ones. The sherds were found almost all in different strata, even belonging to different periods.Vagnetti (Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: 363) points out that the site has been fully excavated and published, and the five sherds found constitute really all the Mycenaean materials found in the settlement. A proto-Villanovan (Final BA) rectangular building, 17 x 9 m, with roof on a low stone base has been found as in Monte Rovello. Both are interpreted as “house of the chief ”. Essential bibliography: Östenberg, Carl Eric, and Svenska institutet i Rom. 1967. Luni sul Mignone: e problemi della preistoria d’Italia. Con appendice 13. Lund: Gleerup. * Site name: Madonna

del

Petto (Barletta)

Aegean-type pottery One miniscule potsherd of closed vessel, dated to the LH III C. A potsherd of cup of possible Italic production (lower quality). Aegean-derivative pottery Dolia. Depositional context The site is located in naturally defended area, with a defensive wall on the only open access. Dolia were used in small wells to preserve food. The Aegean-type potsherd of closed vessel dates to a late phase, LH III C and was found on the surface. The other is from Final BA strata. Essential bibliography: Cinquepalmi, Angela, and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena. * Site name: Madre Chiesa (Licata) Aegean-type pottery About twenty potsherds. Three of these belong to closed vessels, probably LH III A 1 to C. Castellana reports three potsherds of LH III A date, with one possibly dating back to the LH II B. The latter, cat. MC 93/29, is a piriform jar (FS 44, FM 57 “diaper net”); among the other two, one is cat. MC 93/36 and is just the base of a possible jug type FS 144 (5YR 7/6 reddish yellow) and one is part of the body of a small jug, without traces of decoration (MC 86/23). Two more potsherds (MC 86/8 and 87/1) are almost unreadable, perhaps a jar and stirrup jar. Finally, Castellana reports of potsherd MC 93/155, possibly a FS 31 or 35 jar, of LH III A date. Aegean-derivative pottery One local stirrup jar (Castellana 1998: 129, fig. 71bis) is partially derived from Mycenaean models. Metalwork An ingot, but it is unclear if it is effectively of Aegean derivation or origin. Scientific analyses Radiocarbon dates:hut J-30-II sample 4730 was dated 3310±110 (1740-1605-1462 BC)hut J-30-IV sample 4731 was dated 2900±90 (1290-1107-939 BC) Castellana, the excavator, accepts the first date, but not the second. Depositional context The Aegean-type potsherds were found together with Thapsos style pottery. In particular, the well-known ceramic set almost always present in Thapsos was found in the huts (pedestalled bowl).Leighton (1999: 154) reports half a dozen small round huts and

131

one larger building, possibly an open compound. Interpretative remarks Castellana (1998; 2000) suggests that this settlement is the best known example of a site born as Castelluccian and evolved to Thapsos culture.Yet, there is no solution of continuity in the architecture: the huts of Thapsos times were built scrapping the old huts of Castelluccian time, without respecting the old plan, as in Thapsos or Cannatello happens between subsequent phases, though no Castelluccian presence has been recorded in these two sites. This means that the people of Thapsos culture re-used a preexisting settlement, but not evolved from one culture to another. On this problem, Castellana reports that potsherd MC 93/29 comes from a ritual area (G-33-IV) dating to the late Castelluccian, while the other two potsherds date to the LH III A and comparable with others from Cannatello, were found in huts with benches, mixed with Thapsos style pottery. Unfortunately, potsherd MC 93/29 is too small to be sure of the shape, though, it was a piriform jar. Its possible date to the LH II B is forced by the presence of late Castelluccian pottery. Although it is true that late Castelluccian pottery from Madre Chiesa, Monte Grande and few other sites evolves to shapes and decorations characteristic of the Thapsos style, especially the footed bowl and the monochromatic decoration, this could be due to a change in the influences: in fact it seems that in eastern Sicily the late Castelluccian culture was contemporary with the early Thapsos culture. Something similar happens later, with Thapsos and Pantalica. However, as it is an hazard to simplistically say that Pantalica is born from Thapsos culture, since Pantalica incorporates some elements of Thapsos culture but it is a separate different culture contemporary of the late Thapsos culture, it is an hazard here to say that the Castelluccian culture fades into Thapsos culture. This is more evident, when it is clarified that such thesis is based just on few hybrid pots in sites that could have been well in the periphery of that cultural world and a single Aegean-type potsherd that cannot prove alone that the exchanges with the East were carried on from the Castelluccian people to the Thapsos people with continuity. In addition, Madre Chiesa is the place where the late Castelluccian phase is better known, apart the area of Castelluccio itself, where nonetheless neither Aegean-type products nor evidence of the Castelluccian culture blending in the Thapsos one have been found. Moreover, in Monte Grande the late Castelluccian phase is not associated with LH III or II B pottery, but LH I – II. Contra Castellana is Amoroso (1984) who considers Pantalica the successor of Castelluccio, with Thapsos being a more Aegeanised,sea-based culture. However, again the cultures are forced to fade one in another without leaving space to the melting of people that sometimes can give birth to totally new cultures mixing existing cultures and then moving on with a different, proper, well definite identity. Apart the potsherd (MC 93/29) supposedly dated LH II B found in a late Castelluccian stratum, all the others come from early Thapsos style contexts. It should be noted however that the Thapsos style strata are on the top of the Castelluccian ones. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Castellana, Giuseppe. 1988-1989. Licata. Madre Chiesa di Gaffe. Kokalos 9-10:3-50. ———. 1993-1994. Ricerche nel territorio di Palma di Montechiaro, Ribera, Menfi e Favara. Kokalos 39-40:735-753. ———. 2000. La cultura del Medio Bronzo nell’agrigentino ed i rapporti con il mondo miceneo. Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Regionale Culturali Ambientali e della pubblica Istruzione. Castellana, Giuseppe, ed. 1998. Il santuario castellucciano di Monte Grande e l’approvvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediterraneo nell’eta del bronzo. Palermo: Regione Sicilia, Assessorato beni culturali ed ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. * Site name: Manaccora

cave

(Peschici)

Aegean-type pottery One potsherd dated LH I - II. Two further potsherds are matt decorated. Metalwork Some bronze items were found, though none particularly similar to Aegean models. Other objects Amber and glass beads. Depositional context Few potsherds found in a cave used as cemetery, though these were not connected to any burial and thus could belong to a nonfunerary context. Essential bibliography: Baumgartel, E. 1951. The cave of Manaccora, Monte Gargano. Part 2. Papers of the British School at Rome 19:23-42.

a

* Site name: Meta Piccol

132

Aegean-derivative pottery Kernos and pithos-shaped jar of Ausonian II date (Final BA and Early IA) Depositional context Settlement of Ausonian II culture. It proves that Ausonian culture spread from the Aeolian Islands also in part of Sicily, maintaining some underlying Aegean style. Ordinary buildings (huts) from here are partly subterranean, as in the Ausonian II Lipari and Otranto (Apulia). Essential bibliography: Tusa, Sebastiano. 1999. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Palermo: Sellerio. * Site name: Milena Aegean-type pottery Two vases recognisable by few sherds. The highly fragmentary decorated jar (FS 33; in at least eight small sherds, only two attaching) from tomb A (LH III B-C) has been identified as a local product, whereas the fragmentary krater (FS 8; in more than ten sherds, some attaching one with the other) from tomb B (LH III A 2 - B) was more likely imported. Metalwork From tomb B a bronze bowl similar to those found in Caldare and Sant’Angelo Muxaro as well as a Thapsos-Pertosa dagger. A rim of a second bronze bowl. Depositional context Pottery dated LH III A from the upper settlement (Serra del Palco) and pottery dated LH III B-C from the necropolis (Monte Campanella). The lower settlement is dated to the Neolithic. Necropolis: three chamber tombs (two with Aegean-type products), never properly excavated but instead looted in different times. Since the pottery was believed to be of no-value, it had been left spread in the nearby area. A looter of the second tomb, caught, reported what they had found and indicated the location of the spread materials.This appeared to be the same location where years before looters sacked the first tomb: a Mycenaean sherd found there attached perfectly with one found inside tomb A. The breakthrough with the looters allowed the recovery of some metalwork. Settlement: one certain potsherd, perhaps more present, mixed with Thapsos style pottery, found in rubbish pits. This could explain why the materials are more ancient: the inhabitants used the newer pots for the funerary offerings and the old ones they had for common use. Essential bibliography: Tusa, Sebastiano. 1999. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Palermo: Sellerio. D’Agata, A. L. 2000. Interactions between Aegean groups and local communities in Sicily in the Bronze Age: the evidence from pottery. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42 (1):19-59. * Site name: Milocca Aegean-type pottery Two three-handled piriform jars dated LH III A. One is high cm 18, with rim diameter of cm 9.75 and maximum diameter of cm 14 (Taylour n.23; FS 44, decoration similar to that of Lily or Papyrus representations, but not equal). Brownish paint on yellowish clay, recognised by Orsi as non-local clay. The other is high 13.5 cm, with a diameter of 7.25 cm on the rim, maximum diameter of 10.5 cm (Taylour n. 24; FS 45, decoration unclear). The clay and paint used are the same for the two vases, and both should be local products, as also the uncommon (Aegean-derived?) decoration suggest. Depositional context One tomb discovered by accident in June 1871. It contained two Mycenaean vases. A further dozen tombs were reported, but almost nothing survives of them, at least two were discovered before the tomb with Mycenaean vases. Singularly, this cemetery is on the plain, while all the others are on rocky hills.The tomb, a simple chamber tomb with antechamber and niche. Human bones , and at least a skull was found inside. One bone was recognised (by local farmers) as that of a domesticated animal (cattle or sheep?). Two bowls on high pedestal, two cups and a bronze sword complete the assemblage which seemed intact to the excavator, though excavated part in 1871 and part in 1898. Six more tombs, all looted in antiquity, were found nearby. Essential bibliography: Orsi, Paolo. 1903. Necropoli e stazione sicule di transizione. Necropoli di Milocca o Matrensa. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 29:136-149.

133

* Site name: Molinella Aegean-type pottery One potsherd, probably it belongs to an alabastron, it is part of the shoulder and of the necks; it is decorated in red with leaves decoration. Dated to the LH II B, it seems of lower quality than other contemporary pots and could be a later imitation. Depositional context The potsherd has been found in the remains of a floor of hut, which used part of the defensive wall for one of its side. Nearby there was a dolmen, now destroyed. The chronology for the potsherd, probably an alabastron, is LH II B. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Cazzella, Alberto. 1991. Insediamenti fortificati e controllo del territorio durante l’età del Bronzo nell’Italia sud-orientale. In Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology 1:The Archaeology of Power, edited by E. Herring, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre. * Site name: Molinello Aegean-type pottery One Mycenaean potsherd with spiral decoration and one three-handled piriform jar, FS 45. Depositional context The settlement has been located but not excavated, the necropolis is composed by about 35 tombs. Taylour reports that the sherd decorated with a spiral comes from tomb 8 while the almost complete three-handled piriform jar comes from 5 tomb. In tomb 8 there was also a smaller globular vessel with incisions. Essential bibliography: Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Site name: Monastir (Monte Zara) Aegean-derivative pottery Some potsherds of local production imitating Mycenaean pottery. Depositional context Seven sherds of which four are probably from Argolid, dated LH III B (Ugas). In addition, Ugas has suggested a comparison between the complex building “gamma” and the anaktoron of Pantalica.The building “gamma” is different from nuraghi and eventually the product of a contact with other people, specifically the Mycenaeans. Essential bibliography: Ugas, Giovanni. 1987. La fortezza di Su Mulinu-Villanova franca (CA). Un nuovo contributo per lo studio della tholos in Sardegna. In Studies in Sardinian Archaeology III: Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, edited by M. S. Balmuth. Oxford: B.A.R. * Site name: Monopoli Aegean-type pottery Three potsherds of LH II - III A 1 date possibly of burnished ware (closed shapes?).Two potsherds of standard decorated Aegeantype ware dated one (medium sized jar?) to the LH III A 2 – B 1 and one to the LH III C. Depositional context The modern town is located in the same position of the ancient BA settlement whose extent was very large according to several trenches. The potsherds come from two different trenches, one in “via Papacenere” are dated to the LH III A 2 - C 1 thanks to associated materials of Apennine and sub-Apennine date. Under modern Palmieri square, three potsherds from proto-Apennine levels, dated to the LH II A by Re (in Carratelli et al. 1999), were found. The excavator, Cinquepalmi, suggests a later LH II B date because the associated materials are already of Apennine type. Nonetheless, the production of the burnished ware continues up to the LH III A 1. Its presence is generally rare: the sites in which it can be found are Punta le Terrare and Porto Perone in Apulia, Vivara (Punta d’Alaca), Filicudi and Monte Grande on the Tyrrhenian region. However, this is the only site where it appears disconnected from other Aegean-type wares, but this is probably due to the limited area investigated. At least three potsherd pavements were found in the trench at Palmieri square, dating at least to the whole LH III period (Apennine and sub-Apennine

134

pottery), proving that they were commonly present in many households. Essential bibliography: Cinquepalmi, Angela, and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena. * Site name: Montagnana (Borgo San Zeno) Aegean-type pottery Potsherd from globular closed vessel, decorated with large zig-zag pattern. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco, and L.Vagnetti. 1997. Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-micenea e l’Italia settentrionale. In Le Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana. Catalogo della Mostra, edited by M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi. Milano. * Site name: Montagnolo (Ancona) Aegean-type pottery Two potsherds, one decorated with a spiral. Metalwork Bronze items were recovered during the same excavation. They are of northern type. Depositional context In possible Final BA levels (associated with Apennine and sub-Apennine pottery). The area of the possible settlement has been looted intensively and the two potsherds come from a disturbed zone, without a precise context. The Final BA date is suggested considering that probably looters moved the ground without mixing it too much. Essential bibliography: Marazzi, Massimiliano, Sebastiano Tusa, and Lucia Vagnetti, eds. 1986. Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica: atti del Convegno di Palermo. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Monte Grande Aegean-type pottery Thousands of Aegean (Peloponnesian) and Near Eastern potsherds have been unearthed in the site. Petrological analyses have just began, but as in other cases, it seems that early, undecorated pottery is genuinely imported. Monte Grande is certainly the site with most Aegean-type products, though it seems that not all of them are imports. It should be noted that very few potsherds belong to decorated vessels, and at a first sight nothing similar to the finely shaped and decorated vessels of LH III times is present. This excludes the trade of few valuable items, either for their intrinsic value or for their content, while it proves that some Aegean people came, with their everyday vessels, sometimes even producing them. Since many vessels are transport or storage vessels, generally of big dimensions and either undecorated or coarse, it seems that they carried with them some supplies of raw materials, probably food. 15 Groups of Aegean-type pottery have been recognised: MH I - matt decorated coarse II - coarse LH I - II I - lustrous decorated ware II - matt decorated ware III - fine orange burnished ware IV - Aegina gold mica ware V - matt decorated coarse ware VI - Levantine coarse ware VII - plain inside and matt outside ware VIII - undecorated plain ware, small vessels IX - plain ware X - polished ware, big vessels XI - undecorated ware, medium format vessels XII - coarse ware, transport and storage jars only, polished clay XIII - coarse ware, transport and storage jars only, non depurated clay More in detail: MH Aegean-type pottery is probably imported and consists of just 27 potsherds, but all found in strata later than those dating to the LH I. Group I counts 25 potsherds most of which have a dusky red colour (2.5YR 3/4), though almost all can be defined as “dusky red”. Few shapes have been recognised: a globular jar (n. 362), a globular jug with one handle (n. 363), and a globular jug type “kanne” (n. 369).This vessels were produced with non depurated clays and without the use of a wheel. The decoration is normally simple, with lines or possible geometric motifs. Group II counts only two potsherds (n. 388 and 389), matt decorated. Both sherds belong to closed vessels, possibly containers. LH I - II: Group I counts of just 14 potsherds, of small/medium format vessels generally produced with a wheel and with simple geometric motifs.The clays are not well depurated, and some vessels were made with impasto (coarse clay). Group II counts 11 potsherds of fine matt decorated. Normally the clay is reddish yellow (internally 5YR 7/6 and 7.5YR 7/6 on the surface), produced with a wheel. Group III counts four potsherds, not too dissimilar from those in Group II. The colour for three of them is reddish yellow (internally 5YR 7/6 and 5YR 6/6 on the surface), while one from Baffo Inferiore (n. 29) is internally yellowish red (5YR 5/6). They are small open vessels, similar also to class 3 ware from Vivara.

135

Group IV counts 12 potsherds, mostly from Baffo Superiore, and are of very pale brown colour (10YR 7/3). The surfaces are decorated in dark red (2.5YR 3/6). Common shape seems the jar, as potsherd n.31 seems to prove. Group V is present in large quantity in Monte Grande, and is of yellowish red colour (5YR 5/6) with dark reddish decorated lines. This Group is similar to Group XIII and has been produced without a wheel. Common shapes are medium/large format containers (jars). Group VI is another ware present in large quantity, produced with a wheel and well fired to obtain resistance. Two Levantine potsherds have been recognised, but from different provenances. The commonest shape is the transport jar. Group VI is similar to class 5 ware of Vivara. Group VII counts four potsherds of cups with convex body and depurated clay. Group VIII is the group with the largest quantity of potsherds, produced with a wheel. Common shapes are the globular jugs, though they are probably all closed vessels of small/medium format. Group IX is a ware present in large quantity. The type of clay often differs, as a result, the potsherds are of many colours. The potsherds generally belong to small to medium format closed vessels. Good parallels can be drawn with class 9 ware in Vivara. Group X counts hundreds of potsherds, entirely from Pizzo Italiano. The potsherds are generally small and showing high thickness, produced without a wheel. Probably they belong to closed vessels dedicated to transport or storage. Group XI is made by small/medium format containers produced with a wheel. Group XII is made essentially by transport jars, very resistant. One potsherd (n. 309, MG 98/3) has incised a leaf and another one (n. 326 MGP 95/a) a reversed Greek pi. Group XIII is made by coarse wares present in quantity, with three potsherds (n. 331, 346 and 347) incised with an arrow. Good parallels are with class 1 and 10 wares in Vivara. In conclusion, most of the shapes found in Monte Grande belong to closed vessels, normally transport or storage jars, as the type of clay and sometimes even the incisions suggest. The open vessels are generally extremely rare, though they have two groups dedicated. Jugs seem the second commonest shape. Finally, some potsherds come from the nearby area of Palma di Montechiaro: from Ragusetta one potsherd for each of the groups II, III and VIII, plus four of the Group IX. From Ciotta, two potsherds of the Group V.

Aegean-derivative pottery None of the Castelluccian vessels differs from the standard style; the distinction between Aegean-type and Castelluccian shapes is normally sharp, with occasional similarities that can be regarded as a coincidence: some geometric motifs or some common shapes. Other objects Glass beads (Mentast, Mollo and Framarin 2003). Scientific analyses Few radiocarbon dates are available for this site:sample A-5723 from P-8-III resulted in 5485±60 BP (4365-4349-4264 BC) sample A-5724 from F/G-17-IV/I resulted in 3700±65 (2267-2072-1977 BC)sample A-5722 from N/O-13-II/III resulted in 3495±45 (1886-1818-1744 BC). Archaeozoological analyses have been carried out, but few of the remains come from a precise context. Among these, remarkable are the five bones of mammals with signs of slaughter, four from stratum 1 and one from stratum 1a, though many more do not have any sign. In the same way, very few bones are burnt. There are many molluscs (sea-shells), roughly distinguishable in two halves: edible and for other uses. Interesting the relevant presence of murex brandaris among the latter, since it proves the use, possibly from EBA of the purple dye extracted from these gastropods. This provides a hint that not only sulphur was exchanged in Monte Grande. The only other important data is the overwhelming presence of domestic animals, such as sheep/goat, cattle and pigs, though the range of animals present is quite wide. Petrological analyses are being carried out by Jones, but so far only preliminary results are available. It seems however that all the pottery analysed comes, or could come, from the East, i.e. the Peloponnesus, the Cyclades, Cyprus, and the Levant with at least Canaan. For some potsherds it has also been determined a local production, which could be explained with the presence for long time of Aegean people, so that they needed to produce in Monte Grande further pottery.Yet, this points towards a local consumption of pottery by Aegean people, who even produced there their pottery. However, these analyses involve just few potsherds, in average one to three from any Group, so that any precise conclusion apart the presence of pottery from overseas is quite far. Peloponnesus: Part of the potsherds in Groups VI, XII and XIII could come from the Peloponnesus.Two potsherds (n. 4 Group I or MG 91/121 = MG 4/94 from Pizzo Italiano; n. 11 Group I or MG 93/93 = MG 5/1994 from Pizzo Italiano) are certainly from this area.The 13 potsherds of Group IV, similar to the Aegina gold mica ware, should come either from Laconia or the Cyclades. Same result for the matt decorated ware of Group V Outside the Peloponnesus but in the Aegean:One potsherd (n. 1 Group I or MG 93/66 = MG 6/1994 from Pizzo Italiano) comes from this area, though the other two similar potsherds analysed found in Pizzo Italiano are from the Peloponnesus. Group II pottery, coming mostly from Baffo Superiore, seems to have produced outside the Peloponnesus as the fine orange burnished ware of Group III, which is also close to the burnished ware of class 3 in Vivara. Cyprus: Part of Group XIII is of Cypriot provenance. Additionally, a potsherd (n. 326 Group XII or MG 95/a) has incised part of the Greek pi symbol, interpreted as a Cypro-Minoan letter (possibly n.59 or n.78 in Masson’s catalogue).

136

Near East: A Canaanite potsherd (n. 115 Group VI or MG 93/107 = MG 17/1994; Castellana 1998: 96) according to Jones’

analyses has a physical composition similar to that of Tell Gezer pithoi (amphorae), from Shepela area, Israel. It could be part of a jar. Another Canaanite potsherd (MGV 97/1) comes from Vicinzina.Finally, one potsherd (n. 60 Group VI or MG 93/74 = MG 16/1994) comes from a different area of the Near East and is similar in composition to other potsherds found in Vivara. Other: One potsherd (n. 164 Group VIII or MG 93/211 = MG 21/1994) is of extremely fine and depurated clay, as a result it cannot have been produced in Sicily. Local: Two potsherds of coarse ware from Group XIII (n. 348 Group XIII or MGP 91/29 = MG 12/1994; n. 354 Group XIII or MGP 91/10 =MG 14/1994) are of local production. In the same Group XIII there are also three potsherds (n. 346 or MG 91/6; n. 347 or MG 89/86; n. 331 or MG 97/1) with an incised symbol similar to an arrow as in other potsherds that are considered of Aegean-type. The symbol is present also in some Aegean wares as well as in other potsherds from Sicily itself. Depositional context Monte Grande is a hill on the sea with six excavated sites by G. Castellana along its slopes that were in use at the same time. It seems that the earliest phase dates to the Copper Age, when no Aegean-type products were present. Apparently, most of the Monte Grande sites last until the EBA. The sites are: Baffo Superiore, Baffo Inferiore, Baffo Calcarone, Pizzo Italiano, San Francesco, Marcatazzo and Vicinzina. In all the sites Aegean-type pottery has been found.The Aegean-type products found in Monte Grande are exclusively ceramic vessels dating from MH to LH II, though the relative local chronology set them all in strata dated to the EBA, mixed with Castelluccian culture pots, which are contemporary of the Capo Graziano culture in the Aeolian Islands. Therefore, the people in Monte Grande had contacts with the earliest Aegean sailors in the central Mediterranean, as the Aeolian Islands and Vivara. Despite the fact that the area of Monte Grande was inhabited since the Neolithic (Piano Vento) and until the late Romans in the antiquity, the Aegean products do not span over the EBA and additionally in no other site of Castelluccian culture Aegean-type products have been found. The first discovery of Aegean-type pottery in Monte Grande dates back to the 1991 excavations (the first excavations were carried out in 1987), when LH I - II vessels were found in stratum 1a of Baffo Superiore. In 1993 MH pottery has been found in stratum 2a, where a paved area has been uncovered, dating to about one century earlier than stratum 1a. In 1995 bigger quantities of Aegean-type pottery have been unearthed in the area of the furnaces in Baffo Superiore and for the first time huge quantities of LH I - II ware were found in Pizzo Italiano. In 1997 Aegean-type pots were found in Baffo Calcarone with Castelluccian pottery and residuals of the sulphur extraction like in Baffo Superiore and unlike in Pizzo Italiano. The last excavations, 1998 onwards, have discovered the site of Vicinzina, where Aegean-type vessels were present in Castelluccian contexts, but unlikely the other sites, in this the later strata had Thapsos style pottery. In addition, further Aegean-type pottery has been found, for the first time even in Baffo Inferiore, bringing to five the sites with Aegean-type vessels. Pizzo Italiano is a plain without furnaces at the end of the road that from Baffo Inferiore goes up to Baffo Superiore and finally to Pizzo Italiano. It is the site at the highest height within Monte Grande and it has interpreted as emporium. Most of the Aegean-type vessels from here are transport jars.The biggest percentage of overall pottery in this site belong to the Aegean-type coarse, undecorated wares, Group VI (most sherds in this group come from here),VII,VIII, IX, X (most sherds in this group come from here), XI, XII and XIII (most sherds in this group come from here), accounting for well over half of the whole. In addition some MH matt decorated coarse ware has been found, with just one potsherd of fine matt decorated ware.The site was fortified. From Baffo Superiore come many fine and coarse wares, with the former being in majority. In this site there are some furnaces, but also six megalithic enclosures, five of which circular, where large quantities of Castelluccian ceramic horns have been found. These items are common among Castelluccian sites and they have always been associated with rites connected to fertility. Interestingly, MH pottery has been found only in the central area, and the walls of “hut” 5 are partly covered by the evidently later walls of the circles. The stratum with Aegean-type MH pottery has been named 2, while the more recent stratum 1 is associated with the enclosures. In the early phase there were already some kilns (where large quantities of Aegean-type pottery have been found, among which some of Group V), probably small enclosures and a hut (hut 5). In the late phase, Castelluccian and Aegean-type LH I - II vessels, many of which of fine ware, are very common, along with the terracotta horns. Among the coarse wares, Groups V (also in the earlier phase),VII and VII, though all these potsherds were a minority among the Aegean-type potsherds found in Baffo Superiore, common are the fine wares. The Aegean-type fine wares are of Groups I (lustrous decorated), II (matt decorated), III (orange burnished) and IV (Aegina gold mica ware) coming exclusively from inside the enclosures, which were fully developed in this phase, with one bigger in the centre and no huts. However, it must be noted that neither a settlement nor a cemetery have been found anywhere within Monte Grande, but arguably few wanted to live in what was an inferno made of furnaces, people working hard, hot sun and sulphuric gases, as Monte Grande and similar sulphur-related sites have been described later. Inside the enclosures, large platforms made of terracotta were not far from small deposits of animal bones, suggesting to the excavator that common feasting took place. In addition, broken sea-shells of murex as well as weights for loom, lithic tools, and terracotta figurines and models were found. It seems to me that the ritual character of these circles cannot be doubted, but the absence of a settlement, the presence of fine wares, the production environment with at least sulphur and textiles worked in the place make this a sort of working place mixed to what could well have been a workshop/market. Probably the terracotta platforms were not used just for ceremonies but also for the common meals that the people working there must have had there since no real huts were located nearby. Accordingly, Pizzo Italiano, instead of being interpreted as an isolated emporium or acropolis as it is, it could be interpreted as the site where food was stored for the redistribution that happened in Baffo Superiore. Significantly, Pizzo Italiano was the only fortified site. Indeed, if people ate together for any reason, the food and pottery involved had to be stored together nearby, if not on the site itself, and since Pizzo Italiano lies at the end of the road could have been easily controlled. Evidently, Baffo Superiore

137

was at the heart of the system, well connected to all the other productive sites and the only site where social activities are detectable (common meals, offerings, display of produced items, etc.), and for this reason the use of the area for religious purposes can be accepted. However, it seems that the main function of the area was different: it was and remained firstly a working place, where it was unlikely that people went to pray for purely religious reasons. Instead, a market, where the displayed products were produced in place, could be seen as laboratories of artisans, workshops, which are a successful way to sell even today.The finer ceramics would become then not offerings, or at least not exclusively offerings, but also possible traded goods or containers for some other product we cannot detect nowadays. Castellana in part acknowledges that this is a place of production, consumption, exchange and cult, but he is definitely biased towards the ritual aspects at a point that he can imagine religious festivals while all around people was working and hot sulphurous gases came from the furnaces, which were continuously active. I can imagine people working, eating, buying, and even praying or at least involving religion for any of these activities, but I am unsure that effectively the religion played the main role. Even admitting that the trades were in the hands of the priests at the enclosures, as it has been suggested, they still would have been involved in trades and production activities, not in holy matters. The holiness of this or other Castelluccian enclosures then is not incompatible with my view, but at least in this case it would be functional to the activities carried out in Monte Grande. Elsewhere the ritual character of such circles is more marked, and this because the absence of working activities nearby with instead the presence of a settlement certainly helped in making those enclosures ideal places for the exchanges between humans and the divine, as well as probably protecting some more venial exchanges between humans. Thus, I do not accept the thesis that the enclosures from other settlements can be used as a good parallel for those in Monte Grande at least because the latter was not a settlement! Furthermore, there are the other sites, going down in the road from Baffo Superiore, the first is Baffo Calcarone with two furnaces, where a sulphur ingot has been found with Castelluccian and Aegean-type pottery.This was the clearest association of Aegean-type products and sulphur production, allowing Castellana to interpret Monte Grande as sanctuary workplace. Further down is Baffo Inferiore with two further enclosures.Vicinzina is the last excavated site, for which little is known, but there it is the only place where some late Castelluccian/Thapsos style hybrid pottery has been found in surface surveys. This coastal site has been used for long time, there are also Roman vessels and the sulphur was extracted until recent times. In San Francesco, the 1998 excavations have revealed Aegean-type and Castelluccian pottery, with prevalence of the former. 18 potsherds (5YR 7/3 pink) with lines in reddish paint, belonging to the Group II. One is of the red slipped type. Four more are of the Group VIII. One (MG SF 98/20) of these has an incised decoration, fragmentary, interpreted by Castellana as part of a ship. A comparable one was found in Baffo Inferiore. The symbols however could have different meanings from the proposed ship. The Aegean-type pottery from this area is largely composed by open vessels, particularly similar to Melos (Cyclades) examples. In Marcatazzo two quadrangular structures, called megara, were found each associated with one circular hut. The first megaron is long 8.90 m and wide 7.45 m while the second is long 7.60 m and wide about 6.90 m. Both have a wall inside, about at middle length, which divides in two the space leaving a narrow internal passage from one to the other. Only few potsherds of plain ware in these buildings and some LH I -II wares were found in the huts, along with Castelluccian pottery. The rectangular buildings have been used until recently (18th century), so that it is impossible to suggest a date. Underneath the two buildings a clearer stratum dated to the Chalcolithic has been found. A further circular structure has been recognised. Castellana, on the basis of the contemporaneity and the common presence of coarse wares, suggests that Vivara appears to be the closest parallel for Monte Grande. Essential bibliography: Castellana, Giuseppe, ed. 1998. Il santuario castellucciano di Monte Grande e l’approvvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediterraneo nell’eta del bronzo. Palermo: Regione Sicilia, Assessorato beni culturali ed ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. Castellana, Giuseppe. 2000. La cultura del Medio Bronzo nell’agrigentino ed i rapporti con il mondo miceneo. Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Regionale Culturali Ambientali e della pubblica Istruzione. Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni, Vincenzo La Rosa, Lucia Vagnetti, Dario Palermo, and Luigi Bernabo Brea, eds. 1999. Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabo Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli: Roma, 18-20 febbraio 1998. Roma: Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene. * Site name: Monte Rovello Aegean-type pottery One very small and badly preserved sherd, with traces of painting. Depositional context Monte Rovello is a settlement inhabited from Late Bronze Age to Etruscan period. The sherd has been found in the habitation debris of a dwelling (Stratum 9 of hut A in the section C). Together with other organic and inorganic debris, which formed the debris produced by the hut’s inhabitants throughout their lives.The other associated sherds are of sub-Apennine style. Sherds 1 and 2 come from “north house” layer 2B; sherds 3 and 4 come from layer four of the “south house”; sherd 5 comes from layer 6 of the “south house”. A proto-Villanovan (Final BA) rectangular building, 15 x 8 m, with roof on a low stone base has been found as in Luni sul Mignone. Both buildings are interpreted as “house of the chief ”.

138

Essential bibliography: Biancofiore, Franco, and Odoardo Toti. 1973. Monte Rovello.Testimonianze dei micenei nel Lazio. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Vagnetti, L. 1982. Precisazioni sulla cronologia del frammento miceneo da Monte Rovello. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 23:297-300. * Site name: Motta

di

Cirò (Cirò)

Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds of LH III C ware. One is a jug. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware. Depositional context Settlement located close to the coast, dated to the LBA. The potsherds come probably from Recent BA contexts. Essential bibliography: National museum of Crotone (Superintendence staff, pers. comm.). The materials are displayed in the civic museum of Cirò. * Site name: Nora (Pula) Aegean-type pottery Three potsherds (one of local production). Depositional context Two sherds come from a survey. Essential bibliography: Balmuth, M. S. & Tykot, R. H. (eds.) 1998. Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean: proceedings of the International Colloquium ‘Sardinian Stratigraphy and Mediterranean Chronology’, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, March 17-19, 1995, Oxbow Books, Oxford, England. Several papers by Lo Schiavo, see section about sites with oxhide ingots. * Site name: Nuoro (museum) Metalwork Three fragments of copper oxhide ingot. Depositional context Found in the province, from unknown context. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Nuragus (Serra Ilixi) Metalwork Three copper oxhide ingots preserved, but five were reported originally. Depositional context Ingots found in 1857 by Pigorini, who argued they were of Aegean origin considering the Cypro-Minoan signs impressed on them. There are three preserved oxhide ingots from Serra Ilixi, but originally they were five. The context is largely unknown, though it was reported the presence of human bones and local vessels with them. Was it a multiple tomb? Essential bibliography: Pigorini, L. 1904. Pani di rame provenienti dall’Egeo scoperti a Serra Ilixi in provincia di Cagliari. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 30:91-107.

139

* Site name: Olbia (Serra Elveghes) Metalwork Twenty-five fragments of copper oxhide ingots. Depositional context This hoard in a bowl was placed underneath a wall. The Nuragic pot dates to the Final BA. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Oliena (Sa Sedda ‘e Sos Carros) Metalwork Handle attachments. Other objects Amber beads. Depositional context Nuraghe where a lot of metalwork has been found included some imports from peninsular Italy. Some metalwork could be of Aegean origin since also few amber beads have been unearthed. Essential bibliography: Harding, A. F. 1984. The Mycenaeans and Europe. London: Academic, 1984. * Site name: Oria (San Cosimo) Aegean-type pottery Two integral stirrup jars from a necropolis in the area of Oria are preserved at the Louvre museum. They are dated to the LH III B. Depositional context The vessels were sold to the Louvre museum as “Mycenaean” pots coming from Oria. Their integrity suggests a funerary depositional context. Oria is one of two sites in Apulia with funerary tumuli. Tumulus Martucci, looted before excavations, could be the origin of the two vessels, as Aegean-type products were found in the other tumulus at Torre Santa Sabina. Rather than suggesting that the tumuli are themselves a derivation of the Aegean contacts, it would be more cautious to argue that they were built for the “wealthy”. Both tumulus Martucci and another from Torre Santa Sabina are almost unknown to archaeological literature and largely destroyed, suggesting that more tumuli could have existed but were destroyed. Essential bibliography: Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. * Site name: Orosei Aegean-type pottery Twelve Mycenaean potsherds (only a few imported, probably from Peloponnesus). One is a fragment of a krater with a tri-curved arch and iris, a handle probably belongs to the same vase.This krater should date to LH III B 2 according to some possible parallels made with the materials from Mycenae excavations. Three other sherds belong to open vessels, an additional handle is present. It is impossible to characterise the other sherds since they are too small and decontextualised. Depositional context Clandestine excavations. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma.

140

* Site name: Orroli (Nuraghe Arrubiu) Aegean-type pottery Two potsherds of a straight-sided alabastron (FS 94) from Peloponnesus. Depositional context Earliest evidence of Mycenaean pottery in Sardinia, dating back to the LH III B. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, Fulvia. 1985. Nuragic Sardinia in its Mediterranean setting: some recent advances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Archaeology Department. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia, and M. Sanges. 1994. Il nuraghe Arrubiu di Orroli.Vol. 22. Sassari: C. Delfino. Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Ortueri (Funtana ‘e Cresia) Metalwork A copper oxhide ingot. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Oschiri (Nuraghe S.Giorgio) Metalwork Twenty-two fragments of copper oxhide ingot. They weigh 9.968 kg. More could have been present but not recovered. Depositional context Clandestine excavation just outside the nuraghe. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Ossi (Sa Mandra ‘e Sa Giua) Metalwork Few fragments of copper oxhide ingots. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Otranto Aegean-type pottery Three potsherds from Recent BA (LH III B 2 -C 1). One probably is decorated with motif 42 in Furumark’s classification. Any attempt to distinguish between closed or open vessels would be an hazard. A handful more are of “lower quality”. A few very fragmentary Final BA (reported as LH III C 2 -3 by the excavators) potsherds does not allow, again, to recognise the shape, but just two are belonging one to an open vessel, the other to a closed vessel. These materials are similar to the “lower quality” of Recent BA but it is more strictly comparable with the potsherds from Leuca. Aegean-derivative pottery Some Final BA vessels have decoration similar to Aegean pots. From the same strata, dolia and Iapygian protogeometric ware. Depositional context Six trenches within the modern town of Otranto revealed part of the BA settlement, probably inhabited since the MBA. Otranto, like Broglio, returned two stylistically different categories of pots among those of Aegean-type dated to the Recent BA. One group

141

is evidently of high quality, and while not yet analysed it should be composed of imports, as it is in Broglio whereas the other group is of much lower quality band is already defined as “italo-Mycenaean”. The two groups are found in separate areas, but limits in the extension of the trenches impose caution in any comment. However, the high quality potsherds come from trenches 2, 4 and 5, which include all the central area and the upper part (acropolis?) on the sea. In the other three trenches were found the lower quality potsherds. Three are the LH III B 2 - C 1 high quality potsherds recovered. Interpretative remarks A side note must be done for the MBA structures found in Otranto, which are huts with potsherd pavements and evidence of hearths there.These huts are often partly subterranean. Huts with potsherd pavements can be found in several Apulian settlements, but in no case there is clear evidence of these structures being partly subterranean. Broglio is the best known case of settlement with partly subterranean structures, but there these can be interpreted as storage buildings because almost only dolia were found. Termitito is another case. In Toppo Daguzzo a partly subterranean circular building with central hearth of later date can be considered a hybrid due to a special situation. In Roca Vecchia instead the chambers within the wall were elevated of 15-20 cm. In Otranto instead normal houses appear to be lower than the ground level. The only other cases, contemporary, are the Ausonian II huts at Lipari and Meta Piccola. The Final BA strata are much clearer and better known. In the southern part of the town late LH III C 2 -3 potsherds were discovered mixed with Iapygian protogeometric ware, in clear Final BA levels. The presence of late LH III C and Iapygian protogeometric ware is not unusual in the region, but a clear stratigraphy is rare. In this lucky case, the stratigraphy proves that the protogeometric style began very early in Apulia. There is also evidence of contacts with the eastern side of the Adriatic, which has been recognised only in another case in southern Italy: Termitito. These centres were indeed connected to the world. Essential bibliography: Cinquepalmi, Angela, and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena. * Site name: Ottana Metalwork Two daggers are similar to Cypriot examples. Depositional context A bronze hoard. Two daggers out of ten are hook-tanged in the Cypriot manner. There were a lance head and a socketed implement too. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, Fulvia. 1985. Nuragic Sardinia in its Mediterranean setting: some recent advances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Archaeology Department. * Site name: Ozieri (Nuraghe Sant’Antioco

di

Bisarcio)

Metalwork Two copper oxhide ingots. Depositional context The ingots were found under the pavement of the tower of the nuraghe. Ingots found in 1940-5. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Paestum Aegean-derivative pottery Two sherds, possibly of Cypriot origin according to the excavator (Kolian 1969), but more probably produced in southern Italy. Depositional context Unstratified context. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L.

142

Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Palermo

museum

Other objects Two figurines which are “obvious Mycenaean imitations” according to Taylour (1958: 69). First description in Mosso 1910 (fig. 111; p. 196). Depositional context From a tomb near the city of Palermo. Essential bibliography: Mosso, A., and Chilton Harrison Marion. 1910. The dawn of Mediterranean civilisation. London: T.F. Unwin. * Site name: Palmi Aegean-type pottery Middle Helladic? potsherds are reported but they could be burnished ware of LH III date (Recent BA). Depositional context The potsherds lie inside the Pertosa cave, whose excavations remain unpublished. Probably it is a similar situation to the Cardini cave. Essential bibliography: From Genick, D., ed. 1996. L’antica età del Bronzo in Italia. Firenze: Octavo. (Proceedings of the National Congress held at Viareggio in 1995) “Comunicazione non consegnata” communication not provided for publication: Grotta Pertosa di Palmi (Reggio Calabria): un orizzonte del Bronzo Antico con importazioni del Mesoelladico in Calabria (V. Tinè) [perhaps S. Tinè?] Some minimal information was in other papers (perhaps including information originally in the presented communication). * Site name: Panarea (Capo Milazzese) Aegean-type pottery In the settlement about 120 potsherds of LH III A 2 (a few possibly LH III B 1) period were found, all mixed with Milazzese pottery and in a single stratum. Many of them belong to a few vases: two from hut 10 (cat. n. 1381, 1385 and 1386; n. 1384, 1387 and 1389); three or four from hut 11 (cat. n. 1435, 1436, 1438, 1476, 1478, 1480, 1481 and 1484; n. 1437, 1474, 1475, 1476 and 1477; n. 1473 and 1483); two vessels from hut 16 (cat. n. 1607 and 1608). The total number of vessels is supposed to be 35 or 36 (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968: 186). The vessels are extremely fragmentary, when not single potsherds. Most of the shapes are closed, though few are precisely determinable. Aegean-derivative pottery The local pottery, of Milazzese culture, is similar to that of Thapsos culture, though no proper Thapsos style pottery has been found. The local pottery then, can be sometimes regarded as partially influenced by Aegean vessels. Depositional context The settlement is in a particular position, not suitable as harbour, a promontory connected to the rest of the island by a tiny passage. The site is a “natural fortress” (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968: 50). The site gives the name to the Milazzese culture. The settlement was built at the beginning of the Milazzese phase, which follows the Capo Graziano phase in the stratigraphy of Filicudi and Lipari, and as all the other settlements in the Aeolian Islands but Lipari it was abandoned at the end of this period at the arrival of the Ausonian people.The settlement is made by 21 huts plus up to 7 (two preserved) south east, almost certainly a few more existed since the plain on which they lie has been heavily eroded, producing a total of about 30 huts or less.The settlement does not have a proper temporal sequence having been used for a short period, but it is evident that the huts built south east are separate from the main settlement by architectural techniques and perhaps a short time. Both sites however existed during the Milazzese period and there is no reason to suggest that they did not coexisted at least for some time. More probably, they were just two separate communities. The huts are all oval except the rectangular hut 16, with few having extra rooms added. Hut 2 is circular but with two additional rectangular rooms, A and B, that makes it appear as rectangular on the plan. The Aegean-type pottery has been found in the long, narrow rectangular room B, which is the entrance room and also the only room connected with both the other rooms. Huts 8 and 15/21 are irregular because evidently built later to create the Piazza or court, which was accessible only through the narrow corridor between huts 2 and 8. Huts 9 and 10 were probably like hut 2 a cluster enclosing a court, but it was so close to the cliff that now the southern side is disappeared. Something similar could have been also the northern cluster of huts 1, 5, 6 and 7, even this difficult to read because partially fallen down the eastern cliff. However, since these three clusters of huts close completely

143

the passage to other huts on the south-eastern cape, the current cliffs must have eroded more than the space of the two presumed partial groups of huts with separate court. Interestingly, hut 16 is on the cape, which was the best protected area of the settlement, with three sides, two being a steep cliff to the sea and one protected by what could well be defined as a “wall of huts”. Hut 16 is one of the wealthiest building, looking to the material evidence we have, though the partiality of the three-clustered core of the settlement makes difficult to make parallels. Remarkably, most of the pottery comes from the annexes that are normally rectangular. They are interpreted as storage rooms because of this, while the inner roundish huts would have been the place to prepare food, and rest. Accepting this, the rectangular hut 16 could be considered the community storage room, well separated and protected. However, on one hand there are also other huts with their annexes that are separated from the core and in the same cape of hut 16, and on the other some huts (15/21 in particular) are too small to have hosted an household and could have been well the storage rooms of the cluster. This combined with the location of the settlement would suggested a closed community, in danger, with a limited sense of community. Each few huts would have been then some sort of prehistoric castle, with few more even separated, but only on the cape of hut 16. I want also to stress that while the attention has been caught by the rectangular hut 16, which is undeniably wealthy for quantity and quality of ceramic products, also the other three huts in the area (18, 19 and 20) seem wealthy above average, and huts 19 and 20, the closest to hut 16, have the same space of the latter as well as imitate a rectangular shape with irregular walls that in the case of hut 20 probably made the wall of the annex more suitable to reach a low height. They could then be imitations of hut 16 made according the technique of the other huts (inner oval hut plus annexes conferring a rectangular overall plan) but emphasising the rectangularity of the structure even from inside the inner hut. Two interesting questions, which we cannot answer for now, are: was hut 16 connected with overseas people (from the Apennine region?) there to meet with the Aegeans and eventually mediate with them the last leg up to Vivara? Were the wealthy people of the local community trying to imitate hut 16 as it was a status symbol to have a rectangular hut in that cape? The architecture suggests that a rectangular plan was achieved by the use of annexes in the rest of the settlement, but the few huts, about seven, south east on the ancient shoreline, were all circular and apparently less interested both in imitating any rectangular shape (by way of adding annexes or building irregular walls) and in creating a central, protected court. Perhaps in the main Milazzese settlement there were really few middlemen, who on one way charmed the local people with their wealth, and some of them tried to get involved in some way, while most of them felt threatened by their presence in some way, or felt that protection was required. The cause was indirect in this view, because they shielded the wealthy huts with their own. In this view the wealthy people could be connected with trades, and not exchanges because wealth was generated from them for the whole community, but at the same time they were the target of pirates or hostile groups that inevitably ended to threaten even the local population.There is evidence of a hearth outside hut 2, on the southern wall, suggesting that cooking and eating unlike in Montagnola, could have been household activities and not communal. In hut 10, 11 and B, there are traces that suggest some sort of domestic activity inside the hut (possible pestle and other lithic artefacts). Unfortunately, the action of erosion, especially on the cliffs, has cancelled much of the evidence with huts (5, 6, 11, 14, 15 and 19) partially fallen down the cliff, in the sea, and winds or human activity reducing the walls to tiny traces. The modern plan of the settlement could then differ significantly from the original one. On the side connected with the rest of the island, many stones have been reported and interpreted as an ancient defensive wall. Though those stones seems effectively to belong to the huts, at least because nothing was ever built on the top of the huts, they could be well the result of later processes. Since the huts are close one to the other, it is very likely that the community shared some activities, yet the huts offer more space and are less compacted than in Montagnola. The extra rooms of some huts could have been dedicated to activities carried out on behalf of the community itself, like common storage of food or productive activities (metalworking, ceramic production, etc). Interpretative remarks The local pottery, of Milazzese style, is similar to that of Thapsos style, but the latter is not present. Instead there is a modest quantity of meso-Apennine pottery found mixed with local and Aegean-type pottery.Williams (1991) carried out some petrographical analyses that suggest a Lipari provenance for most of its Milazzese style pottery (unlike Montagnola during the Capo Graziano period) and a provenance from outside the Aeolian Archipelago for the Apennine vessels. The pottery of Milazzese style is more a hybrid between Thapsos and meso- Apennine style rather than a proper style on its own. This fact indeed proves that the Aeolian Islands were culturally “half way” from both cultures, though there is still a high degree of Thapsos material culture. It could be fair to consider the Milazzese ceramic style as a Thapsos style with evident Apennine influences, thus accepting a strong relationship with the Sicilian area as well as stressing the importance of the contact with the Apennine culture, less evident in the material culture. Panarea in fact is almost always associated with Sicily, and the connection with the central Tyrrhenian area is often analysed from within the social and cultural processes of eastern Sicily. Instead, the material culture found in Panarea could be analysed from the opposite side, considering architecture (a mix of roundish and rectangular buildings is normal in the Apennine culture, while in Sicily the rectangular buildings are normally of Aegean inspiration) and ceramic (local pottery is influenced if not hybrid). Essential bibliography: Bernabò Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier. 1968. Meligunìs-Lipára 3. Stazioni preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli.Vol. 3. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio.

144

* Site name: Pantalica Aegean-type pottery One vessel is considered an import: a LH III C jug (FS 110; FM 19: 53) from tomb 133, Pantalica North. The motif FM 19: 53 of the jug is like examples from Rhodes.The tomb belongs to the local second phase. Orsi (1899: 67), the excavator, reported that the vessel was not an original Mycenaean vase after carefully examining the clay and the colours. Contra Vagnetti 1968. In addition, Orsi recognised the shape as “not new”, but the decoration is similar to that of the jar from tomb 38, Pantalica North-West. Aegean-derivative pottery Many vases from the necropolis are clearly influenced by Mycenaean models (Peroni 1956). In particular, some jars recall shape FS 58 a jug with spout “a bocca lievemente trilobata” similar but not the same as shape FS 137. Late derivative vessels are also the askos from tomb 8 (“Cavetta” group of tombs), one from tomb 24 and another one from tomb 32 (“South-Central” group), which are similar to that from tomb 66 from the cemetery in Mount Finocchito. The particular askos in these tombs is a mixture between the shape FS 195 and Submycenaean examples, dating perhaps to the early Iron Age. Another type of askos, from tomb 4 Cavetta group, has a clay similar to that of the jug in tomb 133, but the shape is not Aegean. Undecorated, rougher versions of this type of vessel come from tomb 115 and 133. Metalwork Many of the metal forms (swords, daggers, mirrors and several types of fibulae) are typologically similar to those found in contemporary Mycenaean and Cypriot contexts, although it is not possible to say that are imports. Two fragments of a tripod, possibly Cypriot, have been reported by Bergonzi (1985: 361). Scientific analyses Orsi reports many tombs with burnt bones (1899: 93). In one case, tomb 129 (North) a three-handled basin on a high pedestal with a deep bowl contained the skeleton of a small animal, probably a rabbit. The vessel is similar in shape to those from Thapsos; it is in red polished ware (stralucido rosso). This type of vessel, easily recognisable, is as common in Pantalica as its Thapsos-style equivalent was in Thapsos tombs. Orsi also notices that considering the intact tombs, most of them have few sepultures, with many being singular depositions. There is less evidence of after-mourning rites, with most of the tombs sealed with big stones in a way that in some cases Orsi’s team had to smash it with a mace. Inside, tombs appeared untouched, with the skeletons lying undisturbed and huge assemblages, with pots sometimes covered the entire floor. In particular, tomb 133 and the others nearby had normally 1 to 5 skeletons. Depositional context Big rock-cut necropolis (about 5000 chamber tombs) with just one building discovered: the so-called anaktoron. The area is a mountain almost completely surrounded by rivers. The anaktoron is in a central position, the tombs are excavated in the hills that delimit the area. Each part of the hill with rock-cut tombs has a distinctive name, sometimes from the local name more often for the position; it seems that each group was used particularly in a period. The necropolis is divided in this way: N-W (about 600 tombs); N (about 1500 tombs); Cavetta or E (about 350 tombs) S (about 700 tombs) and Filiporto (about 500 tombs). The most ancient and biggest is Pantalica North, also called “Bottiglieria” after the name of a small torrent, tomb 133 is in this hill. All the other areas seem to date back to the Iron Age, though some Aegean-derivative pottery and perhaps metal objects persist. Finally, it should be noted that the names of the tomb groups are not used in the same way in the literature, nor each group is separated from the others: often the geographical position determines the name of the area, such as South- Central, which means the central area of the southern cluster.When instead just the name of a group is given, such as “Pantalica North, then the position is vague (in this case it is a tomb within a group of about 1500 tombs). Additionally, some tombs are outside the main groups, accounting for over 1000 extra tombs. The chamber tombs have various shapes, but roundish and irregular chambers are widespread, while rectangular chambers are more frequently among the wealthiest tombs. Orsi reports that the wealthiest tombs (for number of chambers, monumentality, precision of the cut on the rock and number of pots found) are on the “North-West” group of tombs and the western part of the “North” group.Tomb 133 is within this “wealthy” area, where in nearby tombs 37 and 62 were found also gold and silver ornaments. From the same area, Orsi reports the abundance of lithic tools, witnessing according to him the antiquity of the group of tombs. In Pantalica North-West, tombs 37 and 62 are particularly large and monumental tombs. Interestingly, these are the only two “wealthy” areas in Pantalica according to Bernabò Brea (1985), and these are also the areas from where the Aegean-type jug and the other vessel comparable for decoration come. However, it should be noted how in the similar necropolis of Cassibile, Turco (1999) noticed that there is little evidence of social hierarchy and the last materials appear to be as early as the earliest Greeks in Sicily. The building called anaktoron is similar to the palatial buildings in Mycenaean Greece. No other buildings with these characteristics have been found in Italy. It is built of huge polygonal blocks in a truly Cyclopean (megalithic) style. The building is long and narrow and originally contained six square rooms. Room A was added later, and it is also the room with Pantalica North materials. In this room there were traces of both domestic and metallurgical activity, with a jar (pithos) on the NW corner, other locally made vases many of which in fragments, ashes, burnt animal bones, and an area dedicated to the grinding of corn (residuals of corn and a concave stone, likely used as mortar). East there were five stone moulds among traces of a fire, which destroyed the building. Just outside Room A there were the two fragments of the tripod. Inside and nearby Room A other metal

145

objects, in fragments, were present. In the North-East sector there was Thapsos-type pottery. Tomasello (1996) acknowledges the different phases of the building first noticed by Bernabò Brea (1990), adding that the first two were built using geometric proportions among the rooms in the project. However, he noticed that while in the first phase the unit of measure was equivalent to 30.5 metres, the later room A had a unit of measure of 32.5 metres, similar to the 30.57 metres used in the room on the site of the earlier hut 1 in the settlement of Thapsos.Yet, the measure is different, and the other rooms of the settlement seem to use geometric proportions, but without a precise unity even within the same settlement. Differences can be attributed to progressive phases of building, but also to the fact that the only recurring element is the use of the technique: planning using geometric proportions, in a way and extent extraneous to the Sicilian cultures but not to the Aegean people whose products were found in contemporary strata in both Thapsos and Pantalica. Remains of a possible fortified wall, with quadrangular towers, lie close to the anaktoron. Essential bibliography: Orsi, P. 1899. Siracusa. Nuove esplorazioni nel Plemmyrium. Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi:26-42. ———. 1899. Pantalica e Cassibile. Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 9:33-146. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1968. Un vaso miceneo da Pantalica. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 4:132-135. Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1990. Pantalica: ricerche intorno all’anáktoron.Vol. 14. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard: Istituto di Studi Acrensi. Leighton, Robert. 1999. Sicily before history: an archaeological survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Tusa, Sebastiano. 1999. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Palermo: Sellerio. * Site name: Parabita (Masseria Vecchia) Aegean-type pottery One LH III C 1 potsherd belonging to an open vessel, decorated with a geometric motif. Two other potsherds are possibly of Aegean-type, probably LH III C, but the shape is not recognisable. Aegean-derivative pottery A few possible dolia. Depositional context The settlement is located on the top of a hill. The huts are probably ovoidal. The site is known only by preliminary reports. Essential bibliography: Ciongoli, G.P. 1986. Nuovi rinvenimenti a Parabita (LE). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Parco Tumpagno Aegean-type pottery Some “Mycenaean” vessels are reported, but more precise data are not available. Depositional context The site is unpublished. Reported by Punzi (1968: 210) and Vagnetti (1990: 372). It is located near modern Brindisi. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Pattada (Sedda Ottinnera) Metalwork Twenty-three fragments of metals (weighing 13.426 kg) of which seven belong to copper oxhide ingots (their weight is 7.732 kg). Among the other materials, an integral double-axe, a broken, thinner double-axe, a small double-axe, an axe, half of an axe, some bronze tools, daggers, some fragments of possible tools and a fragment of a bronze bowl. The double-axes are of Cypriot type whereas some axes are Nuragic but influenced by Cypriot models (derivative) and other axes and the tools are of Nuragic type. Depositional context Hoard found near a nuraghe and settlement, farther there are two giant’s graves. Mixed with the metals there were some Nuragic potsherds belonging to two shapes, one closed (jar?) and one open (bowl?). The hoard is dated to the Final BA, considering that is

146

a mixture of Cypriot, Cypriot-derivative and Nuragic metal shapes. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Pertosa Metalwork Some possible bronzes. Depositional context Hoard of bronzes, mixed and of different origins. Probably stored to be recycled. The cave was probably a sacred place, since a stream springs inside and many miniature vessels dating from Neolithic through the whole Bronze Age have been unearthed. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Pianello

di

Genga

Other objects Ivory comb, probably of late date (IA), but similar to those from Frattesina, Timmari and Torre Mordillo. Depositional context From a tomb in a necropolis of about 250 inhumations dating from the sub-Apennine to the IA (up to the Piceni, the local preRoman culture). Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Piediluco

and

Contigliano

Metalwork From the Piediluco hoard, among other bronzes, a fragment of Cypriot-style tripod. From the Contigliano hoard, two other fragments of tripod plus a wheel and a fragment of cauldron. Not all these bronzes are of the same date nor of the same provenance. Depositional context Two bronze hoards found in 1869, one from Piediluco and one from Contigliano (20 km south).The last one is called Contigliano hoard, but very probably it was originally in Piediluco too.The bronzes date from 10th to 14th century BC and possibly belonged to a founder. The materials were then probably used and broken somewhere else, and brought to Piediluco only for re-melting. There is no evidence of any direct Mycenaean presence in Piediluco. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, L. 1974. Appunti sui bronzi egei e ciprioti del ripostiglio di Contigliano. Mélanges Ecole Française Rome 86:657-671. * Site name: Pietraperzia Aegean-type pottery Possible Aegean-type MH potsherd. In origin decorated (blackish). Archaeometric analyses have not confirmed nor confuted the hypothesis of it being an import. Depositional context Single potsherd from a survey. The area shows the presence of Castelluccian settlements in almost every hill, and the potsherd belongs to one of these.

147

Essential bibliography: Tusa, Sebastiano. 1991. Functions, Resources, and Spatial Organisation in the Pietraperzia Territory (Enna-Sicily) between the Copper and Bronze Ages. In Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology 1: The Archaeology of Power, edited by E. Herring, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre. * Site name: Plemmyrion Aegean-type pottery Some fragments of LH III A pottery. Aegean-derivative pottery Many pots of possible Aegean derivation (same as Thapsos culture). Metalwork Several swords of Thapsos type, plus other bronzes. Other objects Beads of vitreous paste, amber beads, a “lantern” pendant similar to one at Mycenae, a fragment of ivory incised with spirals. Two amber beads come from tomb 10, they have been defined “amber spacer-beads” and dated LH I, though certainly reused for long time and found in a much later context (LH III A). Depositional context Fifty-three rock-cut tombs in two necropoleis and a hut indicating the site of the unexcavated settlement (Lazzarini, S., La Rosa, A., Cappellani, G. 1965. In Archivio Storico Siracusano, vol. XI, pp. 142-143). The tombs were sometimes with antechamber and lateral niches. Some further tombs are located along the coast, both northwards and southwards. The area was used to dig calcareous stone, with the mines now underwater. Traces of prehistoric viability are still preserved, confirming the antiquity and intense use of the area. The typical materials from the necropolis are of Thapsos culture. Essential bibliography: Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1966. Sicily before the Greeks. London: Thames & Hudson. Tusa, Sebastiano. 1999. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Palermo: Sellerio. * Site name: Polla Aegean-type pottery One fragment of a large LH III C 1 cup, FS 217 FM 53, decorated with a horizontal wavy line motif. A sherd from the surface has been discovered too, of the same shape and colour if not of the same vessel. Metalwork Several pieces of bronze including bracelets with spiral decoration and a bronze wheel headed pin. Depositional context Settlement in cave with Mycenaean materials in stratum with proto-Villanovan material. LH III C 1 potsherd found in layer 4. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Pontevedra Other objects One possible eastern Mediterranean ship has been represented n local rock-art. One glass bead. Depositional context Non funerary context. Essential bibliography: González-Ruibal, Alfredo. 2004. Facing two seas: Mediterranean and Atlantic contacts in the north-west of Iberiain the first millennium BC. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23 (3):287-318.

148

* Site name: Porto Cesareo (Scalo

di

Furno)

Aegean-type pottery Several sherds of LH III A - B and C pottery. The latter pottery is more frequent. A small picture of sixteen potsherds allows to recognise the presence of closed vessels (jars?) and perhaps bowls. It seems that closed vessels were more common, but in absence of a publication, this can only be a guess. Depositional context Bronze Age settlement with two levels of Mycenaean pottery. One with LH III A and B pottery associated with Apennine ceramics, the other with LH III C 1 and later pottery associated with sub-Apennine pottery. A later level, dated to the Final BA, is filled with Iapygian protogeometric ware. Remarkably the protogeometric ware seems here separated by the LH III C pottery in the stratigraphy. The huts were normally ovoidal. A series of small ovens dedicated to the production of pottery have been found in the same levels of Apennine and LH III A and B pottery. Essential bibliography: Lo Porto, F.G. 1986. Le importazione micenee in Puglia: bilancio di un decennio di studi. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia * Site name: Porto Perone

and

Satyrion

Aegean-type pottery Two fragments of a cup dated to the LH I by the excavator and found associated with Apennine pottery come from hut A. The cup should be dated to the LH III A, which would be more appropriate given its association with Apennine ceramics. However, from the same hut also few potsherds of matt-decorated ware, among which a jug recalls MH models, but it could be of LH III A date, as burnished and matt-decorated wares continue maintaining very early shapes which could be imitated or repeated later. These potsherds are doubtfully attributed to this early date. About fourteen sherds of LH III B pottery, comprising stirrup jars, cups and globular vases. Some pithoi (amphorae) and a pithos of local production were together as well as some late Apennine pottery. One hundred-sixty sherds of LH III C date associated with late Apennine pottery. Thirty sherds of LH III C 2 pottery were together with pithoi produced locally and sub-Apennine and proto-Villanovan pottery. Grand total of over 330 sherds (Fisher 1988). Among the recognised shapes: Porto Perone; eleven possible jars or jugs (closed vessels) plus one in grey ware, one stirrup jar (FS 173), two jugs, five bowls (three deep and one stemmed), seven cups. Satyrion: four jars, one juglet (FS 112) and a jug (FS 109), four cups and a bowl, one undetermined closed vessel. Aegean-derivative pottery Burnished and pseudo-Minyan ware. Depositional context The settlement lies on the top of a hill, in a promontory. Following the coast on the eastern side for 10 km it is possible to reach Torre Castelluccia, while after 12 km on the western side there is Taranto. The position is particularly strategic, controlling two bays and being so close to two other important sites, both with Aegean-type pottery.The upper part of the site (acropolis) is called Satyrion.The site has a long story, but the BA settlement was founded during the MBA and lasts until the Final Bronze Age. Some huts with a structure similar to an apse are dated to the Recent BA. From inside one of these, called hut B, most of the Aegeantype pottery comes. In hut D a pithos is very similar to Aegean prototypes. Remarkably, the hut with apse is the building with most Aegean-type pottery at Punta Tonno and it could well have been present also in Torre Castelluccia. However, here all the huts seem to have the same plan, suggesting that it is a local variant of the rectangular hut, but they appear only during the LBA, as in Satyrion the MBA huts have a different structure. In one of these, hut A, a burnished cup has been found, dated to the LH I, though now believed to be later. In the earliest levels, proto-Apennine MBA, there is matt-decorated ware, as in the Apennine huts. Originally dated as MH, it is probably later (LH I - III). Pseudo-Minyan ware is present also in Porto Perone, where many huts have been located. Yet, here the Aegean-type pottery is numerous and all dated to the LH III C. A complex defensive wall, apparently similar to that in Coppa Nevigata and a water spring nearby complete the picture of a rather large settlement in an optimal and strategic position. Essential bibliography: Lo Porto, F.G. 1963. Leporano (Taranto) - La stazione protostorica di Porto Perone. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 17:280-380. Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Gorgoglione, M., ed. 2002. Strutture e modelli di abitati del Bronzo tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia. Manduria: Filo Editore.

149

* Site name: Pozzomaggiore Aegean-derivative pottery One potsherd of open vessel, dated LH III C, probably of Italic production according to Re (in Carratelli et al. 1999). Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. and L.Vagnetti. 1986. Frammento di vaso miceneo (?) da Pozzomaggiore (SS). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Tykot, Robert H., Tamsey K. Andrews, and Miriam S. Balmuth, eds. 1992. Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a footprint in the sea: studies in Sardinian archaeology presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press. * Site name: Praia

a

Mare (Cardini

cave)

Aegean-type pottery A potsherd of fine clay possibly imported from the Aegean, undecorated. Other objects Some vitreous beads (faience). Depositional context Meso-Apennine levels with Capo Graziano pottery evidence. Settlement in cave. Essential bibliography: Bernabò Brea, Luigi, I. Biddittu, P. F. Cassoli, Madeleine Cavalier, S. Scali, A. Tagliacozzo, and L. Vagnetti. 1989. La grotta Cardini (Praia a Mare - Cosenza): Giacimento del Bronzo.Vol. n.s. 4, Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana. Roma. * Site name: Punta Le Terrare Aegean-type pottery Ten LH II A -III A Aegean-type potsherds and six of burnished ware. Among these, a three-handled piriform jar (FS 44?), two small piriform? jars (one similar to FS 77), a cup (FS 219), an open vessel, two closed vessels and three undetermined potsherds. Among the six potsherds of burnished ware only a cup and a jug could be recognised. The whitish cup is decorated with net motif. The jug is decorated with the stipple motif and dates to the LH III A 1, very similar to examples from Thapsos. Scientific analyses The thin-section of the LH III C jar has been analysed without finding any possible match. An Italic production is suspected. Deer bones and sea-shells suggest a great importance of hunting wild animals. Depositional context The site is located near modern Brindisi, in a promontory. Proto-Apennine pots were mixed with few potsherds of LH II or III A 1 date, whereas later Apennine pots were mixed with LH III A and B pottery. Remarkably, no LH III C pottery has been found, suggesting a change in the exchanges at the end of the LH III B, as it is easily detectable in Sicily but rarely in Apulia and Ionian coast.This is due probably to the massive regional production of Aegean-type pots that has hidden quantitative fluctuations among real imports. Potsherd pavements. An oven dedicated to the production of pots has been found in a hut. A simple defensive wall lies near the settlement. Essential bibliography: Franco, M. C. 1991. Salento ed Egeo: note preliminari sull’insediamento protostorico di Punta Le Terrare (Brindisi). In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Punta Tonno (Taranto, also

known as

Scoglio

del Tonno)

Aegean-type pottery There are 198 fragmentary pots and a large number of unpublished sherds (Fisher 1988). Gorgoglione, the curator of the materials, reports that there are about 500 to 1000 vessels out of an estimated 1500 in the whole of Apulia, though for many precise shape and decoration cannot be determined and the 198 vessels, nearly all product of joining potsherds, must be included in this amount. It remains the site with most Aegean-type decorated pottery in the West Mediterranean, as the first for quantity, Monte Grande, returned undecorated pottery. Like in other regional sites, most of the pottery is probably of Italic manufacture. Given the amount of pottery and considering that the settlement was larger than just Punta Tonno (San Domenico was probably part of it), it is pos-

150

sible to estimate cautiously that about 500 vessels could have been present in the area of modern Taranto (Punta Tonno up to San Domenico). Fisher reports these 198 vessels after her accurate study: 48 piriform jars (FS 34, 35, 45), 30 stirrup jars (FS 176, 171, 173, 180, 181), 18 jars (FS 58, 70), 1 squat jar, 9 jugs (FS 144), 5 juglets (FS 112-115), 1 straight-sided alabastron, 6 “bottles” (FS 188-189), including flasks, 33 kraters (FS 7-9), 6 deep bowls (FS 284), 3 basins (FS 294), 16 kylikes (FS 264, 267, 269, 275), 13 cups (FS 220), 3 mugs (FS 226), 5 kalathoi (FS 290-291), 1 milk bowl (Cypriot-type). They comprise both Biancofiore and Quagliati reported but lost vessels. The decorative motifs are various, but most are common either in Rhodes, Crete or the Peloponnesus. Variations are present. Petrological analyses have confirmed the presence of some imports specifically from these areas. Achaea and Kephallonia are other areas where some of the motifs are common, according to Fisher, but researchers in the last century suggested parallels with all the Aegean area, from Cyprus to other western sites. Two potsherds are decorated with fishes and one probably has part of a horse. On the site pictorial pottery remains very rare, as in Torre Castelluccia but unlike Termitito. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware. Biancofiore (1967) and Gorgoglione (2002) recognise that apart for the pseudo-Minyan cups, tripods are also derivative, to some extent, from Aegean models. In a similar situation to the Aeolian Islands, some further attempts to recognise Aegean influence on ordinary vessels have been carried out, offering interesting parallels. In Punta Tonno, unlike the Aeolian Islands, it is difficult to prove the arrival of new settlers, yet strong contacts are undeniable.Three types of vessels, the cup with high handle, the clepsydra-shaped support and the incised jug are among the common shapes of the early (MBA) period, just before or contemporary to the earliest Aegean-type pots. These vessels are different from pre-existing vessels, as well as from other contemporary regional wares, but they have perfect matches in the Aeolian Capo Graziano culture. The support in particular recalls the Castelluccian tradition, which then characterised the Thapsos culture, of ceramic sets used for communal libation. Similar examples later appear also in Iberia among the earliest wheel-made pottery as well as earlier examples can be traced in the Aegean, suggesting a slow spread of the shape, with Sicily finding it particularly suitable and adapting it to preexisting indigenous activities. Already earlier, the huge promontory of modern Crotone and other centres was used by several communities in evident direct contact with Sicily and possibly with Aegeans, as minimal imports suggest. This fact, perhaps more than the vague resemblance of Aegean models in early vessels from Punta Tonno, is proof of the existence of an early (LH II A and B) long-distance route connecting certainly Punta Tonno with the Aeolian Islands via Crotone. Again certain is also the fact that Aegean products were transiting through this route, though none has been recovered in Punta Tonno. However, Quagliati (1900), the excavator, reports that when he reached the Recent BA levels, the excavation terminated and they were able only to gather few materials from the destructions provoked by the dynamite employed to make room for the new harbour. No doubt that any tiny potsherd such as those from Capo Piccolo had no chance of survival, and with it the possibility to prove that Punta Tonno and Crotone were really port of call in a long distance route from Mycenaean Greece to Sicily and thus to substantiate the claim of “influenced” materials in Punta Tonno. What we have however points towards this direction, posing the problem of early contacts and later massive imitations. An early presence of Cypriot-type jugs has been recorded by Gorgoglione. Metalwork Several bronzes, from unknown depositional context, recall models in northern Italy, and in few cases of Central Europe. Other objects Two clay figurines of LH III B date. One is scarcely readable, but the other is evidently of later types than that found in Lipari. Two more (Fisher 1988) are in grey ware representing animals, which have parallels in other sites of the Sybaris plain, whereas one further representing a human figure is said to be from Punta Tonno.Possible bone or ivory items (combs?). Scientific analyses Jones has carried out some analyses suggesting that about 10% of the pottery is imported, 10% is of indigenous provenance and 80% is of unknown origin. The imports constitute the largest assemblage of imported Aegean-type decorated ware in the West Mediterranean. A variety of provenances has been confirmed; Rhodes is one of the exporting centres, as Taylour suggested after his stylistic analyses, but not the only one. It is possible that some indigenous pottery imitated the Rhodian style, but also imitations do not follow just one style, casting doubts on the real presence of Aegean potters, who would produce in series products of just one style. Depositional context Most of the pottery comes from a building with apse, but unfortunately nothing survives as the excavation was carried out quickly to allow the construction of the harbour and railway station of Taranto more than one century ago. A complex defensive wall with three circles is reported as well as several huts, some of which rectangular, but the stratigraphy is nonexistent and the data fragmentary. The Aegean-type products were divided from the others and no clear information is available on which type of indigenous materials were associated. As the site is now totally destroyed, and the materials passed from one box to the other for years in the museum, what we know can only be determined from the materials themselves. These tells us that the site was inhabited from the Neolithic to the Roman times and that any reported structure, including the wall, could have been built at any time during this long timeframe, but the “hut with apse”, also called “megaron” that was specifically reported to contain some Aegean-type materials, which range from LH III A to III C, some Italic bronzes, at least some of those from northern Italy. The huts were normally

151

rectangular and from one of these, not the “megaron”, come together the two figurines. No plan of any building is reliable, but the “megaron” was a huge building partitioned in two or three and the overall structure of the settlement resembles that of the nearby Torre Castelluccia: an upper citadel (acropolis) with the most important buildings and a lower settlement all around. The fact that the acropolis is on the sea recalls at least Porto Perone - Satyrion and Otranto, to name but a few. Large huts with apse have been found in Broglio, Porto Perone, Torre Castelluccia and, slightly different, in the Aeolian Islands. The “anaktoron” of Pantalica and the “Mycenaean” building of Thapsos are also useful comparisons, as they are all main buildings, rectangular (except at Panarea, where there was no space for a large rectangular building though it is possible to recognise a “mimic” in the presence of the two rectangular annexes that give an overall impression of rectangular building in the plan, and perhaps more than an impression in the superstructure, a rectangular hut is present though). Torre Santa Sabina is another site where a building is called megaron, though there it seems more connected with the Apennine prototype. Interpretative remarks The overall position of Punta Tonno (“Scoglio”, i.e. “rock” are few small rocks in the sea in front of the site, whereas “Punta”, i.e. “cape” was the area of the site; after its destruction what remained were the rocks that then gave the name to the site in the archaeological literature) is strategic perhaps even more than that of Porto Perone. The problem of early contacts is one without a definitive proof because most of the evidence has been destroyed. However, accepting as possible hypothesis that many products travelled not only between the route Punta Tonno to Sicily but also in the eventually shorter route mainland Greece to Punta Tonno, it becomes apparent how little impact the contact had during LH II in the Ionian coast compared to Sicily, only to see in a later period (about LH III B 2) a progressive reduction of imports in Sicily and a massive production of imitations in Apulia.The evidence suggests that all the products passed through the Ionian coast, but they were being shipped to Sicily, up to LH III B 1 (decline of Thapsos culture and Ausonian conquest of the Aeolian Islands) and then the products though not increasing in absolute quantities, simply stopped their travel in the Ionian and southern Adriatic coasts, likely along with people. During the LH III B period the Mycenaean palaces suffer definitive destructions, while the “western route” (Aegean to Sicily) was being dismantled, or better reorganised far from the palaces. Are these two situations correlated and if yes, how? The western route suffered from the social changes in Sicily, so that any problem in mainland Greece did not create, but eventually aggravated the situation. Many palaces had to suffer from the loss of the route, at least indirectly, as their Linear B records prove that they were dependant upon the availability of raw materials and an adequate workforce. And part of both was lost, suddenly and definitively.Violent reactions could be detected accepting the excavator’s interpretation of the contemporary evidence from Roca Vecchia, yet it would not be a “Mycenaean” organised campaign, rather a desperate reaction, if organised by palaces, or more likely a series of sacks and military actions perpetrated by disbanded people who could not get what they needed and probably could not, or had no reason to go back home empty handed. The fall of the palaces did not influenced the West Mediterranean directly, but probably the opposite happened.The palaces were complex but delicate social and economic structures that easily would have collapsed once the system had to be interrupted, so it had been also for the Minoan palaces after Thera’s eruption. A political unity among the Mycenaean communities was unlikely, whereas Crete was a small island and felt as microcosm. Even the later Greeks remained unable to federate and the evidence from the West Mediterranean shows a variety similar to that found in mainland Greece: the different groups did not join neither in their homeland nor in the long-distances exchanges, perhaps they competed.Yet, those involved in the exchanges had to cooperate, perhaps forming a new cultural identity, born from their unity, that was non-Mycenaean in its form but Aegean in its essence and could well have spelled the end of the palaces. Any earthquake or social turmoil would simply have been the immediate cause for the destructions, which anyway were unavoidable given that situation. As Gorgoglione (2002) point out the understanding of Punta Tonno must also consider that the site was a gateway not only towards Sicily, but also towards central Italy, where the mineral ores are. Vivara was evidently closer, but there the contacts stopped during the LH III A. Mineralogical analyses have proved that some millstones were imported from central Italy already during MBA. Pottery was of Apennine type like most of the central and southern peninsula, but some dolia, unlike those in the nearby Sybaris plain, were similar to those found in Tuscany, with a match with those from Orso cave, Sarteano (Tuscany), which is already in the area of the ores. The LH III bronzes found by Quagliati, which came from central Italy rather than from the Aegean, are another proof of this connection, which could have been exploited later by Aegean groups. Certainly, from the LH III B 2 - C Aegean-type pots of southern rather than Aegean provenance are found all over central and partly northern Italy, in what could be called the Italic “mine district”, suggesting that at this point Italic and Aegean people exploited the traffics together. The difference lies in the approach: narrow and focussed towards Sicily earlier, with the Aegeans playing the main role and probably not having resources to be present everywhere, and later wide and capillary, as only indigenous people could sustain. When this network is in place, the Mycenaean palaces are already history. The pottery from Punta Tonno is often in fine clay, but this probably because the excavator threw away the coarse pottery (excavations by Quagliati in 1899-1900). Many Aegean-type potsherds were probably lost too. Essential bibliography: Quagliati, Quintino. 1900. Prodotti industriali micenei sullo Scoglio del Tonno in Taranto. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 26:285-288. Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Fisher, Elizabeth Ann. 1988. A Comparison of Mycenaean Pottery from Apulia with Mycenaean Pottery from Western Greece. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.

152

Gorgoglione, M. 1991. La civiltà micenea nel golfo di Taranto: il saggio di S. Domenico. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. ———. 1996. Il golfo di Taranto nell’Eta del Bronzo. In Neolithic in the Near East and Europe; Proceedings of the XIII congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, edited by R. Grifoni Cremonesi. Forli. * Site name: Roca Vecchia Aegean-type pottery Several potsherds, dated from the LH II to the LH III C. From MBA strata (proto-Apennine) come one goblet (FS 254, FM 32 and 53, LH II B), a possible jug (LH II) and an undecorated potsherd. Only the goblet was produced with the wheel, and is similar to vessels found in Filicudi and Vivara (among the LH II materials of those sites).The jug is decorated with wavy lines and apart from this the type of pottery is certainly not Apennine (indigenous) pottery, yet the lathe had not been used. The same situation applies for the undetermined and undecorated potsherd. They could belong to the matt-decorated ware, a category of pottery generally not produced with the wheel and therefore be of possible Aegean origin. The undetermined potsherd could also be correctly described as belonging to the (fine orange) burnished ware, particularly that found at Monte Grande, or even the “Cycladic” (likely Cretan LM I) pots from the Aeolian Islands, at least for their decoration. From Recent BA strata (sub-Apennine) two skyphoi FS 284 (one not certain) dated to the LH III B 2. From Final BA strata (sub-Apennine and proto-Villanovan) a LH III B 2 skyphos (FS 284, FM 51) and three other skyphoi (FS 285) of LH III C 2 or later date. In addition, three undetermined closed vessels, a possible jug and a lid, all of LH III C 2 or late date. Two other skyphoi and two undetermined potsherds do not come from a stratigraphic context. All the vessels are highly fragmentary and most of the pottery, including the late LH III C when compared to the certainly indigenous LH III C Aegean-type pottery found at Leuca, seems to be of Aegean provenance after only a stylistic analyses.Yet, even if it is of Italic production, as it is likely, it is of good quality and imitating closely the Mycenaean models, like in very few sites of Apulia and the Ionian coast (notably Punta Tonno). Aegean-derivative pottery Dolia. Metalwork One dagger (MBA levels) associated with Aegean-type materials could be of Aegean origin or derivation. It was found close to the ivory duck and a corpse. Other objects Small ivory duck, burnt, from MBA levels. It has been interpreted as part of a duck pyxis by Guglielmino, though unusual probably for its dimensions, or as part of the handle of the dagger by the excavator, Pagliara, considering the depositional context. However such association would be unusual but not more than the incongruences of the supposed duck pyxis. Scientific analyses Osteological analyses on the bones proved that the children died first and that the group died laying one on the top of the other, with the adults staying on the top. Traces of heat prove that the corpses came in contact with burning materials (wooden structure?) after the death possibly due to smoke inhalation. The group was not in movement, individuals were protecting themselves from something (smoke?) with hands at the throat, not from the stones that fell later as no fractures have been detected. All the bones were still joining as found, except a few of the male individual that was in a contracted position as it had been exposed to direct fire immediately after death. His skull partly melted. Depositional context The settlement was located near small lakes separated by a thin strip of rock from the sea, like the modern Alimini lakes, not far from Roca. Subsequent anthropic action and erosion destroyed the lakes leaving a depression, but during the BA the location was very convenient because of the presence of reserves of drinkable water and vicinity to the sea. There is the possibility that at least part of the area was a lagoon.The site has a complex defensive wall with small passages and main entrances. It was built during the MBA and rebuilt during the LBA. Remarkable is the discovery of five long corridors.The architecture of all the corridors was the same but one was wider with chambers opening on the passage. The walls were at least 2m high, but the passages were covered by a wooden structure of which pieces of charcoal and the holes of vertical timbers remain.The walls were protected with a thin layer of reddish clay, like a plaster that gave them a distinct red colour. The fact that this layer becomes plastic when wet is an indirect proof that the lower section of the passage was covered. All the corridors were partly flanked by large jars other vessels and probably other materials (impression of a wicker basket, portable ovens). At the end of the main corridor, just before the “door” or “gate” opening to the exterior, a skeleton with bones disconnected and burnt as if fallen from the superstructure was recovered. It belongs to a young male, who probably owned the Aegean-type dagger and also the ivory duck, as he was the only person found in the corridor, who remained sealed after the collapse of the superstructure and part of the wall along all the corridor. Although it is rare to find corpses in context like this, there is more.There was evidently a siege at the end of the MBA (LH II B or beginning of III A) and the presence of big pots and other obstacles in

153

such narrow passages must be imagined thinking to dramatic moments. The corpse could belong to an invader fallen while trying to enter the settlement, but whoever he was, he is associated with Aegean-type products (and only Aegean-type) in a context of sheer violence. In corridor C, not the widest, seven corpses were found belonging presumably to a “family” (one man, one woman, five children). They were located at the end of the corridor, where some stones blocked the way out to the exterior. This however, was not an exit as they did not try to get out, it was a protection. Surprisingly, on the other side, towards the interior, another barrier made by large pots protected them again. Inside likely the content of the pots the food required to survive the siege and the hearths were needed to cook.This suggests a long and organised permanence in that place.The group choked to death probably for a fire, but it seems that its origin was external, smoke filtered through the stone barrier and the fire was on the wooden superstructure close to the exterior. The group was in a evident defensive struggle, whereas the armed man was probably a hostile invader (he was armed and tried to enter the settlement climbing on the walls, then for some reason he remained trapped close to the exterior, probably by the defenders on the internal side and the fire on the external side). In both cases the fire is connected with the exterior, the group choked from fire that presumably came from outside and the “warrior” once rejected by the defence could not go back to the exterior. The settlement was probably sacked and perhaps only few survivors managed to resist in the corridors, only few of which are known so far. In addition, the following rebuilding of the wall reused the same structure maintaining the collapsed parts probably considered impenetrable.This fact preserved the trapped skeletons (the man was found in a sort of collapsed niche, part of a widening or chamber) giving us a glimpse of what happened, but the presence of pots in every passage suggests that the same happened all over but either part of the corridors were cleared, at least the part easily reachable, or most of the population did not manage to escape in the walls. The four narrow passages remained obstructed, and there are no skeletons on any but corridor C. The main passage was reused, but the new gate was slightly moved, leaving the tip of the old corridor, where the “warrior” died, obstructed and unaltered, while the rest of the passage was re-used. Only the main passage remained in use, but further corpses could have been removed easily from all the passages, as those found were all located at the very end of now obstructed passages, thus explaining the relative emptiness of humans in such a dramatic scenario. At the end of the MBA is dated the first destruction of the wall, the second happened at the end of the Final BA, again due to a fire. A few buildings of Final BA date were longer than 20 m and wider than 10 m. Inside, many dolia, like those from Broglio, few potsherds of Aegean-type ware and various hearths and ovens that characterise the buildings like common working areas rather than storage buildings. Although, not yet fully excavated, their description recalls to me the “megaron” of Thapsos, which is evidently a storage and working environment, a Mycenaean palace in miniature. Megaron structures are suspected in Punta Tonno and Torre Castelluccia. Few more Aegean-type potsherds come from the settlement area, though subsequent rebuildings have prevented so far the identification of any BA structure (huts). The settlement continues its life even in the IA, and BA or IA levels returned Iapygian protogeometric ware. In the nearby “Poesia” (Poetry) cave there are hundreds of religious inscriptions in Messapian (the local pre-Roman culture appeared in the IA and using protogeometric vessels), Greek and Latin. Essential bibliography: Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Gorgoglione, M., ed. 2002. Strutture e modelli di abitati del Bronzo tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia. Manduria: Filo Editore. * Site name: Salina Aegean-type pottery Serro dei Cianfi: potsherd of open vessel with FM 76; two potsherds with decorated blackish lines; two badly preserved decorated potsherds; decorated potsherd with traces of a foot, and three potsherds of globular vessels (one big); a possible fragment of piriform jar and a potsherd of a possible cup. Grand total of 11 potsherds belonging to 11 different vessels, with both open and closed vessels represented. The vessels seem to belong to a late Capo Graziano phase, LH II or III A, but honestly it is impossible to say more given the paucity of data and the bad preservation. It should be avoided a strict parallel with the materials from Portella on the basis that the sites are close geographically and perhaps also chronologically: this would be an assumption. Recent re-examination of the potsherds from Salina (Re in Carratelli et al. 1999) suggested that two could be as old as LH I - II B. In Portella, hut F was the only hut with Aegean-type products.The hut had two phases, the first named F1 and being represented by traces of a hut very close to the new hut F, though not fully overlapped by it. In hut F1 only two small potsherds of coarse or plain ware were found near the centre. More interesting is the vessel (cat. n. 2168, 2169, 2170 and 2171) partially reconstructed from nine potsherds, decorated with a motif similar to FM 57, with foot, small. It is unclear if it was closed or not, while it could have dated back to the LH II B, or LH III A. Furthermore, two necklaces were found in the same hut: one (cat. n. 2172 and 2173) made of at least 55 beads, mostly of agate, plus a bigger amber bead, all spheroid, the other (cat. n. 2174) made of glass beads of various shapes and colours, with some being of segmented beads. Of the latter, part of a copper string, on which some glass beads were still inserted, had been recovered. Both necklaces are considered imports from the Aegean area. The few potsherds found in the pit are still unpublished, yet it seems that they could be of LH III A period. Aegean-derivative pottery Milazzese pottery is vaguely influenced by Aegean products, and so are the big storage jars, conventionally called “pithoi” using a

154

term recalling too much the Aegean. Other objects Amber and glass beads. Depositional context Two settlements, close one to the other: Serro dei Cianfi and Portella. Serro dei Cianfi is a pit with some materials, with no known traces of a settlement that probably had to lie nearby. In the same deposit Capo Graziano, Milazzese, Apennine and Aegean-type pottery was mixed, with the Capo Graziano and Aegean-type pottery being the more common. Portella is a settlement on a well defended position, dating back to the Milazzese period. Nine huts had been excavated in 1955, but in 1999-2000 seven more have been unearthed, for a grand total of 16, covering the whole of the Portella hill and leaving little space to further discoveries.The settlement then was smaller than the contemporary Montagnola and Milazzese. Lipari is a special case because it is the major island and inhabited for long after the Milazzese period, as well as there are many more modern buildings today. Traces of prehistoric times can have been easily erased or obliterated there by later buildings, whereas in all the other islands the end of the Milazzese phase coincided with the end of the settlement, so that the major threat to the evidence remained the natural erosion, being the modern buildings few and concentrated in very few areas. Therefore, while Lipari, Filicudi and Panarea hosted major centres, it is fair to say that Salina, Stromboli and Alicudi hosted minor centres, and Vulcano none possibly for its volcanic activity, still ongoing nowadays. Of the islands with minor centres, only Salina returned Aegean-type products. The huts are less compact than in Milazzese, and simpler with just oval structures, like in the old harbour of Milazzese (huts A-G, south east of the main settlement). This could mean that very rarely foreign people arrived to this site, and almost certainly they did not reside, as instead it could have been in Lipari and Panarea at least. Thus, there was little need for extended security measures, like the fortified clusters (like castles) that can be recognised in Panarea, or the compactness in Filicudi. In support of this view remains the fact that the only hut with Aegean-type products is hut F. Normally all the huts had at least a big jar to store food (pithos-like) and tools to prepare food. During the last excavation campaign, in 1999-2000, it has been possible to identify a couple of pits, one with a big jar, the other with a mortar and few potsherds of Aegean-type pottery. Since the jar and the mortar were items present in every hut and connected with everyday activities, we could assume that even the Aegean-type pottery had the same value, it was used for common domestic activities, and once broken, buried along with the other items. From this we could infer two points: first, some Aegeantype products were easily available so that at least the pottery was considered “normal” and not a prestige item, second, the Aegean and Aegean-type products were not destined to this settlement, where they had not that big value to justify their movement from as far as Greece. Finally, some small mini-channels used probably to drain waters have been identified throughout the whole site, suggesting that the simplicity of the huts was due to a choice, not to the inability of building or planning complex structures. This also proves that while not all the centres in the Aeolian Islands perhaps had direct contacts with Aegean sailors, techniques and wealth had to be shared at least to maintain an internal balance. Otherwise, the wealthier centres would have had to fear much more than occasional pirates. And this also suggests that we should speak just of major and minor centres, rather than wealthier or poorer ones. The presence of the Aegean-type products concentrated in just one hut could either be due to a case (the village has been destroyed at the end of the Milazzese phase and probably sacked), as well as mean that the person living there was connected with the transmarine exchanges. Essential bibliography: Bernabò Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier. 1968. Meligunìs-Lipára 3. Stazioni preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli.Vol. 3. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. * Site name: San Giovenale Aegean-type pottery One Mycenaean potsherd dated LH III B, but more likely to be LH III C according to Vagnetti. Depositional context Sherd found associated with proto-Villanovan material. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: San Vito

di

Pisticci

Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds dated to the LH III B 2 - C. Most of them belong to large closed vessels, jars and stirrup jars, but a few belong to smaller, perhaps open vessels. The decoration is normally simpler than in the nearby site of Termitito. The potsherds should be

155

dated all to the LH III C. especially considering the situation in the nearby Termitito. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware. Depositional context The site lies close to Termitito (9 Km), on the top of a hill like Termitito. The site was certainly connected with Termitito, a major site. Sub-Apennine pottery was found with the Aegean-type pottery. Interpretative remarks Bronze circles (spiral-like) are widespread in the territory; three four-spirals pin comes from Pisticci (Incoronata; IA, 8th century BC), from tombs 226, 481 and 565. From the same necropolis, a vessel of Greek manufacture dating to the 7th century BC is extremely similar to Mycenaean examples, though the shape is of Geometric period. Stamnos and cups with two handles. Undecorated grey ware in Pisticci is produced from LBA up to the 7th century BC (Greek times). Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, L. (ed.) 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto. * Site name: Santa Domenica di Ricadi Metalwork Fragments, possibly part of a tripod of Cypriot style. It has been suggested a Sardinian origin. Other objects Four amber beads and six glass beads from tomb 4. Three beads from tomb 5. Depositional context Seven tombs, highly looted. Only two tombs have been returned objects. Some ceramics are in Capo Graziano style. Essential bibliography: Pacci, M. 1987. Revisione e nuove proposte d’interpretazione per i materiali delle tombe di Santa Domenica di Ricadi. Sicilia Archeologica 20 (64):35 ff. * Site name: Santa Maria

di

Leuca (Punta Meliso)

Aegean-type pottery Some 300 potsherds were recovered, but the vessels must be less as some potsherds join. Only 29 shapes have been recognised, as many potsherd are badly preserved. Almost all date to the late LH III C and are probably of local production. The earliest pots are dated LH III B 2 or more likely early LH III C. Among the shapes: amphora (FS 58 or FS 63), two jugs, five kraters, seven deep bowls and one stemmed bowl. Most of the potsherds are undetermined. Scientific analyses Petrological analyses on few potsherds, twelve, and not all of Aegean-type, suggest a local production of the whole assemblage. Cleverly, the shortage of data for Italian clay sources has been compensated by comparing the vessels with Neolithic pottery, which is likely to have been produced locally (Boschian in Benzi and Graziadio 1996: 131). Depositional context Sub-Apennine settlement, located not far from the sanctuary of Santa Maria in Finibus Terrae. The Mycenaean sherds were found all out of stratigraphic context. The excavator, Benzi, believes they come from sub-Apennine strata. Three shafts, probably the remains of the “lower part of partly underground huts” (Benzi and Graziadio 1996: 97) were found. Partially underground structures are often connected with Aegean-type pots. The depositional context is disturbed, as joining sherds have been found in different levels, but this does not affect the spatial distribution across buildings. Most of the Aegean-type pottery has been found in the largest shaft (hut 3). Potsherd pavements. Iapygian protogeometric ware was mixed with the Aegean-type pottery in a context likely to be Final Bronze Age. Essential bibliography: Benzi, M., and G. Graziadio. 1991. Late Mycenaean Pottery from Punta Meliso (Santa Maria di Leuca). In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. ———. 1996. The Last Mycenaeans in Italy? Late LH IIIC Pottery from Punta Meliso, Leuca. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici (38):95-138.

156

* Site name: Santa Maria

di

Ripalta (Cerignola)

Aegean-type pottery One potsherd of LH III C Aegean-type ware, probably of Italic origin. Depositional context The settlement was built on a hill dominating a river valley connecting the Adriatic Sea to the internal areas of Lucania (also called Basilicata; the area connected is roughly that of Termitito). A partially subterranean structure contains dolia, and children are buried inside them in a nearby area. The potsherd and these structures date to the Final Bronze Age, perhaps even later. The potsherd is of LH III C date. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Santadi (Pirosu di Su Benatzu) Metalwork One bronze tripod of Cypriot manufacture has been reported by Ferrarese Ceruti (1979: 251; now in Ferrarese Ceruti et al 1997). Essential bibliography: Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro. * Site name: Sant’Angelo Muxaro Aegean-type pottery A cup (MuC 96/8) dated LC III A, has been found in the same tomb with the metal objects. It is of Cypriot type, fragmentary, clay colour 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow. Aegean-derivative pottery Late Thapsos style pottery, from the same tomb with the metal objects. Metalwork From a tomb in Contrada Capreria, few hundreds metres from the necropolis, two bowls and two daggers of Aegean-type. They are dated MBA, i.e. late Thapsos/Pantalica North period. Similar to those from Caldare and Mount Campanella (Milena), they are not identical. All sets were probably produced during the Thapsos II/Pantalica I period. Depositional context Settlement and necropolis. Many tombs from the necropolis recall the tholos type, though only one, from outside the main sepulchral area, of the earliest period of the site (MBA), had possible Mycenaean products. There are Pantalica North and late Thapsos style vessels in the tomb with the bronzes. The two daggers and two bowls, while of probable Italic production in part under Cypriot influence, evidently constitute a recurring set. Essential bibliography: Castellana, Giuseppe. 2000. La cultura del Medio Bronzo nell’agrigentino ed i rapporti con il mondo miceneo. Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Regionale Culturali Ambientali e della pubblica Istruzione. * Site name: Sàrdara (Sant’Anastasìa) Metalwork Twelve fragments from an hoard. Depositional context Bronze hoard in two bowls, underneath the floor of hut 1. The Nuragic pots date to the Final BA or EIA. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma.

157

* Site name: Sarroch (Nuraghe Antigori) Aegean-type pottery More than fifty Mycenaean potsherds, some of local production and some imported from Peloponnesus, Crete and Cyprus. In particular a LC II White Slip wishbone handle, some local imitations of Cypriot Base Ring ware and three fragments of imported pithoi. Notably also a rhyton has been found. Five sherds are considered to be from Western Crete, one from Central Crete, three from Peloponnesus, eight of local origin and one is not classified (Ugas 1995). Metalwork An iron rod has been found together with a Cypriot-type “wishbone” handle. Other objects From tower F, a faience rosette, a quartz bead from room N, two amber beads from room Q. Depositional context From Nuraghe Antigori. The Mycenaean sherds come from room a, and belong to a long period. No satisfying stratigraphy has been recovered. The sherds appear to be from Crete, Cyprus and the Near Eastern, rather than from the mainland Greece. Some Nuragic vessels associated with Aegean-type pots are similar to those found in Kommos (Final BA), as Lo Schiavo reports (1999: 507). Essential bibliography: Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro. * Site name: Sarroch (Nuraghe Sa Domu s’Orku) Aegean-type pottery Some potsherds of local production and imported vases from Peloponnesus and Crete. In particular two Aegean vases have been recognised. Depositional context From Nuraghe Sa Domu s’Orku. Essential bibliography: Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro. * Site name: Sassano (Pino

cave)

Aegean-type pottery One LH I or II matt decorated potsherd. More potsherds of plain ware, or other matt-decorated ware with vanished decoration are possible. Depositional context The cave was used as necropolis. Proto-Apennine B pottery is generally associated with the possible Aegean-type wares, though the context is very disturbed. Essential bibliography: Agostini, S., A. Di Santo, F. Fabbri, E. Pellegrini, M. Piperno, A. Tagliacozzo, and L. Vagnetti. 1996. Grotta del Pino: giacimento funerario del Bronzo medio nel Vallo di Diano (Sassano, SA). In Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by F. Facchini. Forli. * Site name: Sassari (“Sanna” museum) Other objects Amber necklace of unclear provenance. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, Fulvia. 1998. Il Museo archeologico Giovanni Antonio Sanna: anno 1998, Sassari.Viterbo: BetaGamma.

158

* Site name: Scirinda Aegean-type pottery Castellana (1993-1994) reports a fragment (part of shoulder?) of a LH III A (?) closed vessel decorated (FM 67?). Aegean-derivative pottery A possible Mycenaean “teapot” is reported by Castellana (1993-1994), who recognises its local production. Depositional context The potsherd comes from a Middle Bronze Age circular hut, phase II of the settlement.The settlement consists of large round huts and Thapsos pottery and subsequent rectangular structures (13th century onwards). Essential bibliography: Leighton, Robert. 1999. Sicily before history: an archaeological survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. * Site name: Seùlo (Is Fossus) Metalwork Fragment of copper oxhide ingot. Depositional context Surface finding. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Siniscola Metalwork Two fragments of a copper oxhide ingot from the area called Luthuthai. Pair of tongs of Syro-Palestinian or Cypriot type. Depositional context Near Luthuthai there is a Nuragic settlement. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1978. Sardegna centro-orientale dal Neolitico alla fine del mondo antico. Sassari: Dessi. Harding, A. F. 1984. The Mycenaeans and Europe. London: Academic, 1984. * Site name: Soleminis Metalwork A copper oxhide ingot. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Su Fraigu (San Sperate) Aegean-type pottery A potsherd of cup with “wishbone” handle, imported from Cyprus and dated to the Early Geometric Period according to Ugas. Other objects Six necklaces consisting of round, cylindrical and globular beads of faience and vitreous paste, and a very worn carved cylinder seal of green stone, of probable Near Eastern or Cypriot manufacture from the necropolis. Essential bibliography: Ugas, G.. 1995. Considerazioni sulle sequenze culturali e cronologiche tra l’Eneolitico e l’epoca Nuragica. Paper read at Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean, Mar, at Medford;

159

MA. * Site name: Surbo Metalwork Eight bronze pieces as follows: The hilt and half the blade of a Mycenaean or Minoan sword. A medial winged axe of Italic type but of the same shape that the mould found in the House of the Oil Merchant in Mycenae would produce. Two slender shaft-hole axes.A rod chisel of East Mediterranean form. Two hammerheads probably of Cypriot type since the closest parallels are with the finds in the Enkomi foundry. A spatula axe of central European type. Depositional context A group of bronzes is believed to have been found in Surbo, now only eight pieces are known. Interpretative remarks Another hoard, but without Aegean-type metal objects, has been found at Manduria. Essential bibliography: MacNamara, Ellen. 1970. A group of bronze from Surbo, Italy: new evidence for Aegean contacts with Apulia during Mycenaean IIIB and C. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society XXXVI:241-260. * Site name: Syracuse Aegean-type pottery A LH III A 2 straight-sided alabastron and a Base Ring II jug (Voza 1993-1994: 1289). Karageorghis (1995) identified the jug as an imitation of Base Ring vessels, of buff-pinkish fabric as the Base Ring vessels from Thapsos. Aegean-derivative pottery A jug in Thapsos style with incised decoration of fishes. Other objects A steatite seal-stone. Depositional context Tomb excavated in November 1987 on the slopes of the Temenite hill, 50 m S of the Altar of Hieron. Inside, seven skulls and partial skeletons. Dr Voza thinks there may have been a contemporary settlement just below the Greek theatre (Wilson 1988). A stratum filled in with Thapsos culture materials and traces of a hut’s wall in the Ortygia island (the first historical Greek settlement) suggests that Ortygia was the settlement even in prehistoric times, while the surrounding area was used as cemetery.The Greeks then came back to an already known settlement here. Essential bibliography: Voza, Giuseppe. 1999. Nel segno dell’antico: archeologia nel territorio di Siracusa. Palermo: A. Lombardi. * Site name: Taranto (San Domenico) Aegean-type pottery Two LH III B potsherds, one belonging to a cup and one undetermined. Aegean-derivative pottery One potsherd of pseudo-Minyan ware. One Iapygian protogeometric askos. Depositional context A trial pit in the cloister of San Domenico has revealed that the settlement of Punta Tonno (Scoglio) probably continued in the island of Taranto, or “Old City”. There is much less Aegean-type pottery than in Punta Tonno, but the fact that there is some means that Aegean-type pottery was quite spread across the territory and not concentrated in particular buildings, though a few sometimes contain particular concentrations of Aegean-type ceramics. A wall has been located, but its stratigraphy, and thus date, is very unclear.

160

Interpretative remarks This site is probably one of the most important of all, not for quantity of unearthed materials or extension but for its vicinity to Punta Tonno (about 200 m, partly of a canal ). That site is unique in the West Mediterranean for its massive presence of Aegeantype decorated pottery (the highest in the West), the complexity of the wall, the ovoidal structures, the “huts with apse” (Punta Tonno is the last place in the Ionian coast with them, but similar structures appear in the Aeolian Islands, suggesting that the Sybaris plain was culturally different and original) and the proto-Villanovan bronzes, unique in southern Italy. Unfortunately no stratigraphy has been recorded for Punta Tonno, and the site has been totally destroyed to make room for a harbour, so that even its position is approximate as the modern coastline is changed.The fact that Punta Tonno is mistakenly named after some sea-rock which were in front of it is due to the fact that Punta Tonno does not exist any more as geographic feature. However, the stratigraphy found in san Domenico is likely to be the same of Punta Tonno and it is sequentially the same of Porto Perone. Essential bibliography: Gorgoglione, M. 1991. La civiltà micenea nel golfo di Taranto: il saggio di S. Domenico. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Tas Silg Aegean-type pottery A potsherd has been reported from this site (Evans 1971: 227). Depositional context It is the second and last Aegean-type potsherd found in Malta. As the other potsherd found in Borg en Nadur, the context is unclear, but it should date to the late LH III B or C, given that Tas Silg is a site that is born in the Late Bronze Age but develops with the Phoenicians, in the Iron Age. Essential bibliography: Evans, John Davies. 1971. The prehistoric antiquities of the Maltese Islands: a survey. London: Athlone Press. * Site name: Termitito Aegean-type pottery At least thirty Mycenaean vessels, all dated to the LH III C. The potsherds are hundreds, about 215 already reported in 1982, but the area excavated is small. The concentration of Aegean-type pottery is particularly high, up to half of the whole pottery found, a very unusual fact. Most of the Aegean-type pottery is clearly of local production because of variants that can be considered real innovations and to a lesser degree for some uncertainties. The motifs are generally few, with heavy employment of metopes (triglyphs).Very few potsherds could be dated to the LH III A. Two jars, one stirrup jar, nine closed vessels (large jars?), eight cups, two open vessels, one krater, and five undetermined vessels have been described in more detail, but the shape and the motif have dubious matches with pottery from the Greek mainland, if any. This causes a high degree of uncertainty for the style based chronology, though the earliest pots cannot be dated before LH III A 2 but perhaps no Aegean-type pottery arrived before LH III B 1. Then, during LH III B 2 - C 3 (LH III C 3 equals to the late LH III C in the conventional chronology of “Mycenaean” pottery from Italy) there was a massive local production which continued very smoothly in the Iapygian protogeometric ware and Greek geometric. From the area of Termitito, there are Greek vessels as late as 5th century BC that are still “Mycenaean” in the inspiration. The LH III C vessels are a blend of Aegean and local shapes with a certain degree of originality, which created an “isolated” regional style rather than a repetitive string of imitations. The continuation of this regional Mycenaean style for so long suggests that here it was considered as rooted into the local culture rather than imported, although only culturally, or the high quantity of materials and persistence of the style itself could not be explained. The later Greek vessels have been explained as imitating “Geometric” motifs, but they are clearly imitating Mycenaean pots, which would be unique. Instead, if considering the “Mycenaean” style as the local one and the “imitation” a standard blend of Greek and local Italic cultures, as it was common in the Magna Graecia, then all the findings could be appropriately understood. This site also has the largest quantity of pictorial pottery. Van Wijngaarden (2002: 253) reports that “a fragment of a LH III B krater from this site depicts a goat, while another fragment from an open vessel with light-on-dark decoration may show a similar animal. In addition, representations of horses, a bird, and an octopus have also been found. Quite unique is the stirrup jar, which is depicted on a sherd from this site.” This is another proof of the originality of the pottery in Termitito, which is unparalleled in the West Mediterranean. Aegean-derivative pottery Decorated grey ware. Other objects Some clay figurines are reported. Although they are in coarse ware (“impasto”), there are similar figurines at Punta Tonno, where

161

also Aegean examples were found. An ivory handle of knife. Scientific analyses Some seeds have been found in the main building, which helps in its identification as a storage building, but some were scattered across the whole area and accurate studies or precise contexts are missing. Depositional context The settlement is just 7 km from the coast, on the top of a hill and therefore well defended but still close to the coast. The Aegean materials, abundant, were always found associated with local (“impasto” or coarse) pottery. It was an important site, considered the overall quantity of materials, Aegean-type and not. The presence of few LH III A potsherds in front of a bulk of exclusively LH III B 2 -C materials suggests that contact with people of Aegean culture began earlier, and this makes sense as potters in Termitito during LH III C master and develop the Mycenaean ceramic culture.The bulk of the pottery was associated to sub-Apennine and proto-Villanovan pottery (Final BA – Early IA). Among the buildings, few huts have been found, but their plan is not yet clear. However, one is much larger and ovoidal, partly subterranean and located in a privileged position. It should be noted that all the huts have a small area, partly subterranean, dedicated to the storage of food. The large hut however apart the dimensions and the position had decorations in bronze, a concentration of Aegean-type pottery, weights, and cooking pots. It was probably the hut of the “chief ” and contained the surplus of food of the settlement, which was then redistributed (weights). The hut was built during the Recent BA, as the others, and lasted until the Final BA, when some minor huts survived but not this and others. Like in Toppo Daguzzo, the control of food is important in later times to maintain social power, but in Termitito prestige items such as the bronze decorations as well as others elements (location inside the settlement, etc.) mark a social hierarchy less evident in Toppo Daguzzo. In addition, the weights suggest organised redistribution of food supplies, then stored in individual households, instead in Toppo Daguzzo there is evidence of sacrifices, or common consumption of the supplies in the main building, which had a hearth in the centre. The transition into the IA is therefore less dramatic in Termitito, as the individualism evident in the storage, preparation and consumption of food in each household already foresee the later situation.The concentration of surplus food ceases, not necessarily in a violent way (the chief could still be identified by other elements), as wealth, once again, is what attributes social power.The control of food is a powerful way to control people, but in a time when surplus was not guaranteed at all, also a double-sided weapon. The case of Termitito, for its huge local production of Aegean-type pots and the presence of a large, supposedly central building, partly subterranean, and probably mainly dedicated to the storage of food (dolia), is very similar to that of Broglio di Trebisacce. Essential bibliography: De Siena, A. 1986.Termitito. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Tertenia (Nuraghe Nastasi) Aegean-derivative pottery A sherd of local production with a decorated band. Metalwork Two fragments of an copper oxhide ingot and a fragment of a bronze figurine. Depositional context The Nuraghe Anastasi is the result of a succession of at least three building phases, with consecutive additions between the Middle Bronze and Early Iron Ages (14th to 10th centuries B.C.). Associations of dated materials with structural features at other nuraghi in the area allow us to extend this developmental sequence to the entire territory. Apparently, a first phase in the Middle Bronze Age was followed by an increase in building density throughout the area between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. A third stage showed improvement in construction techniques, but concentration of building activity at a few sites, with import of higher-quality stone from more than 20 km away. Essential bibliography: Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro. * Site name: Teti (Abini) Metalwork One fragment of copper oxhide ingot.

162

Depositional context It is possible that it belongs to a ingot from Serra Ilixi (not from Abini, then). Essential bibliography: Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro. * Site name: Thapsos Aegean-type pottery Orsi (1895) reports twenty vessels (plus four of undetermined shape), but Taylour (1958) describes only nineteen vessels, three of which come from the 1951 excavations. Taylour identified only five vessels of those reported by Orsi, plus one that is uncertain, but more came from Orsi’s excavations, though today it is impossible to re-associate many materials with their tombs of origin. In addition, Voza (1973) reports thirteen further vessels from tomb D and two from tomb A1, both excavated in 1970. A few more (5-10) potsherds have been reported from the settlement, they should date from LH III A to C, but they are still unpublished. Orsi’s vessels were unfortunately described only approximately, as a result it is impossible to say if they were truly of Aegean type. In addition, some of them could have been described by Taylour, though he was unable to identify the exact provenance. Nonetheless, the pots found by Orsi were all closed vessels (thirteen piriform jars, three alabastra, three jugs, one stirrup jar and four undetermined shapes) and they came from tombs 1, 2 (three), 7, 10, 14, 27, 28, 30 (two), 37, 48, 51, 56 (53 in Orsi), 59, 61 (two), 63, 64 (three). The majority of the recognised vessels are piriform jars, with ten described by Taylour (but thirteen cited by Orsi, two of which recognised by Taylour who also adds one from the 1951 excavations), four coming from tomb D, one from tomb A1 and one from tomb E. About the shapes, four are of FS 44 type, seven of FS 45 type, three of FS 47 type and one of unknown shape (unpublished). Among those described by Taylour, four are of FS 44 type (n. 1, FM 53, from tomb 64; n. 2, FM 64; n. 6, FM 70; n. 7, FM 57/63), three of FS 45 type (n. 3, FM 57, from tomb 27; n. 4, FM 60; n.5) and 3 of FS 47 type (n. 8, recalling also the FS 35 type, FM 64; n. 9, FM 57; n. 10, from the 1951 excavations). Among those from the 1970 excavations, one from tomb D and the one from tomb E are unpublished, the other three from the same tomb are of FS 45 type (n. 76, FM 45; n.77, FM 23; n.78, FM 62) and finally one is from tomb A1 (n. 117, FM 64) and is similar to one published by Orsi in table V n. 7. The alabastron is the second most common shape, with nine vessels, five catalogued by Taylour (n.11, FS 84, from the 1951 excavations, of possible Cypriot origin; n.15, FS 94, FM 32?, from tomb 64; n. 16, FS 94, FM 41, from tomb 2; n. 17, FS 94, from tomb 7?; n. 18, FS 94, from the 1951 excavations), three from tomb D (n. 79, FS 85, FM 32; n. 80, FS 94, FM 48; n. 81, FS 94, FM 64) and one unpublished from tomb C. Moreover, six vases are of Cypriot type: a sherd of Base Ring II jug from tomb 7 [unpublished!]; the jug n.12 in Taylour (FS 142, FM 25), in buffpink clay (imitation?); two Base Ring II jugs type 3 (n. 85, 86) and one white shaved jug type 1b (n. 87) from tomb D; one white shaved jug type 1a (FS 87; n. 118) from tomb A1. The three Base Ring II jugs are Cypriot in the form, but not in the fabric. Their clay is buff-pinkish and they are covered with a buff slip as other local vessels. Karageorghis (1995: 94-5) also recognised three further imitations of Base Ring ware, bowls with a sharply out-turned wishbone handle below the rim, though their imitation of Cypriot shapes is less evident. These are from Orsi’s tables at least the n. 15 from tomb 10 (a similar one from tomb 41); n. 19 from tomb 19 and n. 20 from tomb 22. These vessels were called cups, dippers or even other names, so that it is difficult from just the description given by Orsi to recognise more vessels not pictured. In addition, the degree of similarity with Cypriot Base Ring ware can be established only through direct examination.The remaining six vessels are of mixed type and are: one jug (Taylour n. 13, FS 149), one stirrup jar (Taylour n. 14, FS 171, FM 19, from tomb 56), one bridge-spouted jug (Taylour n. 19, FS 114, from tomb 2) and two vessels from tomb D, a cup (n. 82, FS 219, FM 64) and a kylix (n. 83, similar to type FS 263). Remarkably, the kylix appears to be undecorated, which is the common type during LH III B. French (1967: 182) reviewing the evidence from the Ivory Houses at Mycenae (LH III B 1) concluded that the decorated kylix was replaced by the deep bowl FS 284 during the LH III B 1 period as the kylix became an increasingly common shape for drinking vessels. In the West Mediterranean the kylix is a rare shape and the example from tomb D is the only one undecorated. Potsherds catalogued as from tomb 16 of Orsi’s excavations, belong to a jug, but they are unpublished. Other vessels from Orsi’s excavations cannot be accounted for, but it is clear from his accounts that he found other Aegean-type vessels now lost. The number of vessels is subject to variations, according to recent interpretations about the local origin of some, or the inclusion or not of some of the vessels mentioned by Orsi but now lost. For example, Leighton (1999), reports 14 piriform jars (excluding the unpublished one), 7 alabastra, 3 jugs (Cypriot ware), 1 stirrup jar (Taylour n. 14), 1 cup (Voza n. 82), 1 goblet (Voza n. 83) and 1 bowl. Aegean-derivative pottery There are several forms in Thapsos that are influenced by or try to imitate with scarce success the Aegean vessels. D’Agata (2000) has distinguished two forms. The first is the “small jug with tubular spout on the shoulder”, which probably imitates the Cypriot shapes FS 159-161 of LH III A 1 times.The only depicted example come from tomb 17 (Orsi pl. IV n. 11), but others were found (one each in in tomb 7 and 31). Tomb D (n. 91) and 48 (Orsi pl.V n. 12) have decorated examples of this type. The second type is the “two-handled bowl on raised base”, found in tombs 1 (Orsi pl. IV n. 2), 5, 38 (Orsi pl.V n. 5), 61 (Orsi p. 133, fig. 49), A1 (Voza

163

n.126), within the settlement as well as in Cozzo del Pantano. Overall there are just six pieces reported, one from each location. This form imitates the uncommon FS 279, the FS 283 and the FS 284, which is imitated in a different manner even in Broglio di Trebisacce. The bowl on tomb 61 was found inside a big jar and it contained a piece of charcoal.Voza (1973) reports further vessels from tomb D n. 89 is a pyxis with incised decoration, similar to that reported by Orsi from tomb 30; n. 90 is a small jug with incisions similar to motif FM 49; n. 151 from the settlement (hut in area XLIV/24) is a pithos that was collocated originally partly below the floor.Vagnetti (2001) reviewing the few potsherds of pictorial style found in Italy suggests that the incised decoration of many Thapsos vases could be a derivation. Indeed, the figured incisions often occur on Aegean-derivative vessels, but the technique is local. She proposed a LH III C date for at least some of the Aegean-derivative pottery. The vessels incised with a pictorial style and published with a picture are: flask from tomb 10 (Orsi pl. IV n. 14), jug from tomb 38 (Orsi pl.V n. 5), potsherd from tomb 56 (Orsi pl.V n.11, tomb 53), tomb A1 n. 126. Metalwork Orsi (1895: 131) reports a copper cup of possible Mycenaean origin from tomb 57, several pieces of other vessels, probably bowls, but too fragmentary, and iron rods from tomb 48 (1895: 127). A bronze dagger from tomb D, n. 116, is of Cypriot inspiration (rattail tang dagger), of the Thapsos-Pertosa type. D’Agata (1986) however notices that the dimensions of the nails and the triangular shape differ. Giardino (1995: 129; 1997) reports an oxhide ingot. Much more was present, but the tombs have been evidently extensively robbed of metal artefacts. Other objects From Orsi’s excavations:Tomb 29 with a stone bead, with hole, axe-shaped, interpreted as amulet; a terracotta bead and green glass bead, the latter of Aegean origin according to the excavator. Tomb 61 with several beads, one in amber, possibly Aegean according to Orsi. Tomb D: n. 105 four lens-shaped amber beads; n. 106 three lens-shaped amber beads, n. 108 forty-eight glass beads, all with hole; n. 110 gold bead with hole; n. 113 gold bead; n. 114 heart-shaped gold bead; n. 115 three gold beads; plus other beads in bone, stone and other materials, associated with Aegean products. Tomb A1: n. 132 sea shell (pecten); 134 thirty-six glass beads, plus other beads in bone, stone, and other materials, associated with Aegean products. Scientific analyses Inconclusive osteological analyses on 127 skeletons from the site have been carried out in order to test the hypothesis of a Aegean origin of the settlement. The analysis of Zn/Ca suggests a varied diet with a well balanced assumption of vegetarian and proteinic food (vegetables and meat), but apparently without fish, as the archaeozoological and archaeological evidences suggest. Villari (1991) found in pits 1 (on square XLIX-31) and 2 (cistern in square XLII-35) bones of minimum 17 sheep, 8 cattle, 11 pigs, 2 dogs and 4 deer. The cattle was the main resource for meat, consumed adult, after a probable use in agriculture. Goats, the second resource, were slaughtered when young or very young, while pigs when they were early adults, though it appears that they were an infrequent resource. Wild animals (only the deer is present) account for almost nothing. The recovery techniques did not allow the saving of any small element, as a result no remains of birds, fishes and molluscs has been registered. In summary, the subsistence economic pattern obtained for the Thapsos population is of both agricultural and pastoral type with an emphasis on the former. This result is similar to that recorded for the coeval communities of the Aegean isles (Rubini 1996: 518). A stressed masticatory apparatus and the presence in young age of degenerative articular diseases are indicators of alimentary and working stress compatible with that of agricultural populations. However, not all the individuals of Thapsos present traces of strong physical activities, like those required in the agricultural work, suggesting a social and working diversification within the local community (Rubini 1996: 519). The skeletons cannot be all dated to a specific period, but the osteoarchaeological evidence supports the archaeological evidence from tombs, which depicts an agricultural society that never significantly changes, though from the MBA, specialisation, probably favoured by the exchanges with the Aegeans, changed the society building an elite that worked less to obtain more. Nevertheless, the unstressed skeletons cannot be traced back to the richer tombs in the published reports, but this seems the most plausible solution. Depositional context Thapsos is a peninsula that hosts two natural harbours. On it, several excavation campaigns have found the settlement, which is largely unpublished, and three areas used as necropolis, the central one with 21 jar burials (enchytrismos in the original reports; many in the Aeolian Islands and in Milazzo), and rock-cut tombs, the other two with only rock-cut tombs. There are about 450 tombs in Thapsos, 300 of which explored by Orsi. The settlement had a first phase with circular huts (5 m diameter) and a second one with rectangular huts (5 X 9 m on average). In both cases a hearth was placed in the centre. Among the rectangular huts, a megaron-like building of 60 sq. meters has been interpreted as possible anaktoron. The second phase has no analogies in Sicily and the materials from this area are both local and Aegean-type ones. Nonetheless, it seems that the circular huts continued to be used through the second phase. A third phase is recognisable with irregular rectangular huts and thinner walls. Two lines of fortifications, with towers, divide the settlement from the cemeteries. The first, dated EBA by Voza, is similar to that in the nearby Contrada Petraro, Melilli, also dated to the EBA. Holloway (2000: 407) suggests a MBA date on the basis of a comparison with the fortifications he has excavated in Ustica. The first Thapsos fortification is curved, approximately 200m long with six semicircular (almost quadrangular in plan) bastions protruding on the seaward face.They are preserved for a very low height.The second is later

164

and irregular. None has been precisely dated, but it is possible that the second fortification was built after the BA, while the first one should not date earlier than the end of the EBA or later than the MBA. The cemeteries are known especially from the 1894 excavations by Orsi, in just one of the three necropolis. He found around 300 rock-cut tombs, many of which recall the Aegean chamber tombs, though only about 15% preserved burials, some have a possible Aegean dromos (type 2a in Leighton 1999: 164). At least two tombs were used in Greek times, proving a use of the cemetery throughout the centuries. Tomb D was found in area XXI/47 (Tusa 1999: 486), which is in the middle cemetery. Interpretative remarks A typical ceramic set can be found in almost every BA funerary assemblage, regardless of the presence or not of Aegean materials, and the same pots are present inside the huts. It is composed of an open bowl on a high pedestal and a basin on a high pedestal with a deep bowl and an inverted rim (probably to reduce the spillage of liquids). The basin has a large, bifurcate handle that is often decorated with incisions, sometimes similar to those found in Aegean-derivative forms.These vessels are then associated with other vases, with dippers and pithoi being the most common in the huts and with higher variability in the tombs.The set evidently links the tombs to the huts and connects the whole of the community in a rite, which had to be similar to a banquet. Already Orsi noticed that the particular disposition of the skeletons, often forming a circle with the children (when present) in the centre, and the repetition of the set; as a result he suggested a symbolic meaning, difficult to challenge, for this ritual behaviour, which recalled a banquet. It should be noted that this rite is recognisable in many sites in eastern Sicily, during the whole BA, suggesting that the rite was part of the local culture and not particular to Thapsos. This symbolic behaviour continued almost unchanged for one thousand years, starting well before the contacts with the Aegeans and continuing long after, and occurs even in domestic contexts, with the ceramic set being recurrent in the huts. All this suggests that the funerary rite was highly symbolic of an ethnicity that do not changes with the arrival of the Aegeans and for this reason I am cautious in interpreting the presence of Aegean-type vessels with a separate symbolism: they do not seem a recurring element in the tradition, but just represent a specific moment of the life of the site. They also appear more frequently in monumental tombs, suggesting that the existence of a belief common to everyone was not affecting the social structure. Monumental tombs were probably located in a specific area of the cemetery: Orsi reported that tomb 28, “princely”, was located near tombs 31, 32 and the tomb discovered by Cavallari in 1890. Of this particular group however, only tomb 28 had a Mycenaean jar. Aegean-type pots would then identify members of the elite and wealthier people, thanks to the exchanges possibly, yet the common identity was remarked by the ritual “banquet” that linked the dead to the living people in funerary context. As a result, the Aegean-type pots in the tombs represented only the pots, and perhaps the contacts, that were already present in the everyday life of some people, without adding any symbolism to the ancient rite of banquet, being used in it. However, from a social point of view, the Aegean-type products could have symbolised wealth deriving from the connection with the exchanges, and thus could have been used in the formation process of a social elite, both in life and after death. In this view, particularly interesting are the metal objects and the beads, which support, though not exclusively, the possibility of exchanges of prestige goods in quantities not too lower than the true ceramic imports. Their presence alone is enough to speak about the existence of a social differentiation. The kylix from tomb D seem undecorated, though probably it had some tenuous monochromatic varnish or slip. Similar kylikes were found at Zafer Papoura (Crete) and Nichoria, but they are generally frequent in the Mycenaean area. Undecorated kylikes became pretty common during LH III B 1 as everyday drinking vessels. Essential bibliography: Cavallari, Francesco Saverio. 1880. Le città e le opere di escavazione in Sicilia anteriori ai greci. Appendice.Thapsos. Palermo. Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1970. Thapsos - primi indizi dell’abitato dell’età del bronzo. Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua:139-151. Voza, G. 1973. Thapsos. In Archeologia nella Sicilia Sud-Orientale. Napoli: Centre Jean Bérard Napoli. ———. 1973.Thapsos. Resoconto sulle campagne di scavo del 1970-71. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 15:133-157. ———. 1993-1994. Attività archeologica della Soprintendenza di Siracusa e Ragusa. Kokalos 39-40:1281-1294. Voza, Giuseppe. 1999. Nel segno dell’antico: archeologia nel territorio di Siracusa. Palermo: A. Lombardi. Voza, G., and Mimmo Jodice. 1990. The Archaeological Museum of Syracuse Paolo Orsi. Siracusa: Ediprint. Wijngaarden, G. J. van. 2002. Use and appreciation of Mycenaean pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca. 1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. * Site name: Tharros Aegean-type pottery One possible Mycenaean potsherd. Some of the Cypriot sherds reported by Acquaro, according to Ugas (Ugas 1995) can be considered as Mycenaean at least in part. Essential bibliography: Ugas, G. 1995. Considerazioni sulle sequenze culturali e cronologiche tra l’Eneolitico e l’epoca Nuragica. Paper read at Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean, Mar, at Medford; MA.

165

* Site name: Timmari (Matera) Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds dated to the LH III B -C. Aegean-derivative pottery Early Iapygian protogeometric ware and possible Aegean-derivative pottery have been found in the nearby large settlement. Metalwork Two pins from necropolis are similar to Aegean models. Other objects Ivory comb, similar to those from Frattesina, Pianello di Genga and Torre Mordillo. Also bone disc decorated with dots and circles, like similar objects elsewhere, for example Punta Tonno and Torre Mordillo. Depositional context Settlement near Matera with necropolis.The settlement is on the top of a hill. Scarce traces of Aegean culture, and the depositional context is often unclear. Essential bibliography: Lo Porto, Felice Gino. 1991. Timmari: l’abitato, le necropoli, la stipe votiva, Archaeologica. Roma: G. Bretschneider. * Site name: Timpone Motta (Francavilla Marittima) Aegean-type pottery One potsherd dated to the LH III B or C, part of a stirrup jar. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware. Depositional context One potsherd from unstratified context. Possible presence of dolia. The area was used as sanctuary during Greek times. Several strata dating to the LBA have been uncovered, but the single Aegean-type potsherd remains unique in its category at Timpone Motta. Interpretative remarks Francavilla Marittima, necropolis: askoi as proof of contacts with Greeks before their arrival (LIA). Syrian or Phoenician scarab with askos in tomb 69, 3rd quarter of 8th century BC. Also other vessels of Greek provenance. Note: some of the items (for example scarabs) are original imports. Scarabs and amber from tombs 8 and 69, but there also other tombs with these items Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Toppo Daguzzo (Rapolla) Aegean-type pottery Some potsherds, dated to the LH III B - C. From tomb 3, six potsherds of possible LH III C jugs, though context is unsure (associated with nine sepultures or fallen in the area of the tomb from the settlement area) as shape (they are very small). Metalwork Various bronzes, particularly swords and daggers, in a depositional context suggesting they were prestige items (tomb 3). There are good parallels between the bronze items found and Aegean models, especially for the swords. Other objects Amber, glass beads and one rock-crystal from tomb 3. Scientific analyses One C14 date for the level of destruction at Toppo Daguzzo is 1010 ±140 BC. This refers to the early IA, when Iapygian protogeometric ware was in use.

166

Depositional context Settlement on the top of a hill, naturally defended. Far from the sea, but in a strategic position for exchanges between inland and coast. There are Chalcolithic defensive walls, but it is unclear if these remained in use during later times. The Aegean-type pottery was found mainly in the settlement, but six potsherds from the proto-Apennine B tomb 3. The earliest ware should be dated LH III B 1 or perhaps 2 and refers to late moments in tomb 3 and the settlement. During the proto-Apennine B MBA some underground structures began to be built, which have no parallels in southern Italy and are only partially similar to Mycenaean examples. Crete would offer a better cultural parallel, though the tombs of Toppo Daguzzo are architecturally original and different from any Aegean model. In tomb 3 bones from nine skeletons were found mixed in an antechamber and in a separate area eleven individuals were recovered with their assemblages integral. DNA analyses proved that they belonged all to the same family, and that all the members were healthy and possibly wealthy, considering the assemblages (amber and glass beads connected with female depositions and bronzes associated with males) and their nutrition. Interestingly, a set made of two jugs and a mug was found associated with the skeleton of a child, whereas the only other pot is a pyxis found in the hand of a female individual. Six potsherds (jugs?) of Aegean-type pottery were found instead in the external corridor, likely, yet not certainly, connected with the nine burials found in disturbed context. The mini-set found near the child was probably used to drink and eat. As it is evident, the cultural meaning of these sepultures recalls the Mesara tholoi, in the same area of Crete that was in contact with the West as findings of Nuragic pottery at Kommos, not far from the tholoi, and Chania as well as Cretanstyle pots in Lipari prove. These structures remained in use also in later times and specifically during the Apennine and sub-Apennine period more were built. Two of these, the nr 4 and 5 each now called “ipogeo”, were closed by lithic slabs that allowed the structures to be closed and reopened frequently. However, no traces of funerary use were found. A similar situation appears also in the nearby Matera, at the tomb of St Francesco. These type of structures were used for special rites by the population, in a similar way as many caves in Apulia, following a tradition that stretches from the Palaeolithic to the Roman times and beyond. Nonetheless, in Toppo Daguzzo the structures are purposely built, and perhaps it is not a case they resemble communal, “familiar” tombs still in use at the time. Therefore, nature has little to do with them; they eventually refer to the ancestors of the entire society that built them, recalling again the Mesara tholoi. Because no sepulture was made, nor the existing tombs were used for special rites, then a new social hierarchy was being created on new concepts (ancestors rather than wealth or inherited power for example), at a time when the Aegean material culture, mediated or not, reached the settlement likely with associated cultural elements. Interpretative remarks The development of the tombs into “ipogei” seems to rule out the Aegean idea that tombs could be used for other purposes than the strictly funerary one, but the culture that originated these structures is surprisingly similar to the Cretan one, in spite of differences in the material culture. No parallels can be found elsewhere, and similar tombs appear only nearby after Toppo Daguzzo, yet the only culturally “new” element we can trace at the time refers to the Aegean (amber, glass beads, swords, Aegean-type pottery). To sum up, the tombs are built underground, communal and there are references to drinking and eating as in the Mesara tholoi, but they are strictly limited to members of single families and not opened to non-funerary rites. The “ipogei”, built slightly later but contemporary for few centuries, are recalling these tombs, they are programmatically re-used frequently, not referring to any particular family and likely to be dedicated to the ancestors and underground deities. Inside, rites involving sacrifices and eventually common drinking and eating were carried out, recalling in all but the physical absence of sepultures (and the architecture) the Mesara tholoi. A link between ancestors and social power, new and apparently founding a new social hierarchy, can be detected as well as the indigenous refusal of using tombs for social rites, which lead, in short time, to the foundation of the “ipogei”. To the Apennine phase belong rectangular huts and a circular structure partly subterranean with a hearth in the centre. This structure is interpreted as a meeting place for the community, at a time when the “ipogei” were in use. Later, in the Final Bronze Age, a major modification, just before the destruction, suggests a social turmoil. The new important building is yet again a communal one, containing dolia (storage of food) and is associated to sacrifices, like those carried out in the earlier “ipogei” or in contemporary buildings at Broglio. The presence of Aegean-type pottery cannot be detected any more. In Toppo Daguzzo the extraordinary changes in the society and its culture, evidently connected to the Aegean culture, leave a system that founds social power on the approval and involvement, at certain levels, of the entire community. Such a sophisticated system does not imply democracy and allows a very strong control on the society. The previous system as witnessed by the tombs is founded instead on wealth and power that does not need the approval from the rest of the society, but is weaker. As the contact with people of Aegean culture terminates, the system slowly collapses. An attempt to associate the social power simply to the storage of food and its availability, with continued common rituals, was probably not enough to support the power itself, as a famine could have easily destroyed such a simple and flimsy system. Indeed, the site continues its life in a late period with Iapygian protogeometric ware, but when all the other nearby sites arrived so far continue almost smoothly into the IA, and similar “ipogei” (for instance only one near Matera is known) simply vanish as isolate episodes, Toppo Daguzzo burns. Essential bibliography: Cipolloni Sampò, Mirella. 1986. Le tombe di Toppo Daguzzo (Basilicata nord-orientale): considerazioni sulle comunità della media età del Bronzo nel sud- est italiano. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Maffei, M. 1994. Analisi del DNA mitocondriale negli individui della tomba 3 di Toppo Daguzzo (media età del Bronzo). Bulletino

167

di Preistoria Italiana 84:367-384. * Site name: Torcello (Mazzorbo

and Torcello)

Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds. Four “Mycenaean” and two “Cypriot” small vases have been in the Torcello museum for over one century. Although three “Mycenaean” vases were in the 1888 catalogue of the Torcello museum and said to be excavated in Mazzorbo, only one of these is recognisable from the actual ones. Three possible Mycenaean potsherds come from the Torcello excavations carried out in the Sixties. The vessels have been dated from the LH III A 2 to the LH III B 2, though they should be dated to the LH III B 1 - 2. There are two alabastra (one straight-sided), a stirrup jar and a feeding bottle dated to the LH III A 2 - B1. The two Cypriot-type vessels are a beaked jug and a bowl, both of MC III white decorated ware. Depositional context None of the potsherds and whole vases come from a known context. The findings in the museum of Torcello were already reported by Taylour in 1958 but were suspected to be found in Greece and be included in some Venetian antiquarian collection, later donated to the museum. However, three vases were registered as coming from Mazzorbo in the 1888 catalogue, but unfortunately only one can be recognised (the rounded alabastron) as excavated in 1881. The Cypriot-type bowl was donated in 1881 to the museum, but the year of discovery is unknown, as any other information and it has been assumed that all six come from the 1881 excavations in Mazzorbo. Mazzorbo is an island few hundred metres from Torcello, but the two changed and change shape continuously, so that in antiquity the territory certainly appeared differently. The three potsherds found in Torcello during excavations in the Sixties substantiate the possibility of the vessels in the museum to be indeed from the area. In 1997 the local Superintendence received a few Aegean-type potsherds found occasionally in 1949 on the shores of Torcello. In the meantime, the person who discovered them died and no further details were available. Again, no depositional context is available, not even their origin. Interpretative remarks The area of Torcello and Mazzorbo is known to be the earliest inhabited in the lagoon, almost certainly from late Roman times but probably, given the presence of the Roman town of Altinum nearby, frequented throughout the whole classical period. Canal (1998), after his comprehensive survey, reports that while traces of inhabitation in the lagoon are recognisable since the late Neolithic, the Bronze Age in particular appears as under-represented. A more intense activity is recorded for the Iron Age, with a climax in the first century AD, in Roman times. Consequently, it is reasonable to think about the Mycenaean materials as vessels that arrived during the Iron Age, from the nearby Po valley (Frattesina), which was in contact with the southern Italy till the very end of the Bronze Age (the materials would have moved from Frattesina at the end of the contacts or later). In conclusion, there is no evidence in the lagoon, including the area of the findings, of a Bronze Age site, but a Iron Age settlement could well have existed. It should be noted that during the Iron Age the lagoon was in contact with southern Italy, as some vessels coming from Magna Graecia prove. The “Mycenaean” vessels in the museum, could be arrived as product of late regional or peninsular exchanges, very likely excluding any direct contact with Aegean sailors. The fact that they are integral would suggest a funerary context of deposition; the vessels can be dated to the LH III B 2 or C phases. The morphology of the lagoon is very particular: up to few centuries ago, before work was undertaken by the Serenissima (Republic of Venice), some rivers flew into it, creating channels and shaping easily the sandy land in islands. In this way islands were created and destroyed, united and separated continuously. The same Grand Canal is nothing else than the riverbed of a river that changed course, preserved only thanks to human building activity. In the area of the findings the water flowing continuously would have not permitted a settlement to remain for long without adjustments every decade. Therefore in the absence of any evidence of prolonged building activity it is possible to argue that nothing was ever built, not anything that lasted more than few decades. In addition, in this area it passed, reported in Roman times but likely earlier, a unique way of communication, part ground road and part water route that connected the southern Po Valley with the northern Adriatic area and the Veneto and Friuli plains. This “way” can be traced back at least to the Etruscans, in the IA, and thanks to the employment of ships was successfully used to “ship” large quantity of materials safely (the route united the benefit of sailing like in a river with the possibility of moving across vast areas and distances like by sea, yet if necessity be the ships could easily find repair in any island or change route, always avoiding the open sea). It should be noticed that the Venice lagoon is part of a system of interconnected lagoons which stretches from Adria (Etruscan)/Frattesina (LBA) to modern Trieste for about 200 km in length. Thus, instead of a stable settlement, of which there is no evidence, it is possible that the Aegean-type pottery was brought during the EIA through this route. Indeed, the settlements in the Po Valley, south of this area, were in contact during the LBA with southern Italy and imported from there Aegean-type pottery. Last, if the whole vessels come from tombs (in Mazzorbo the memory of the discoveries has unfortunately vanished, but people there seem to have never heard of “ruins” found there), then it could be one or more tombs “along the way” of merchants, comparable to the tombs “along the road” in Roman times of those died during the journey, and it would explain the absence of fixed structures dated to the BA in the whole lagoon, not just in the fairly small slice of it that are Mazzorbo and Torcello.The assemblage of six vessels recall those from tombs A1 and D in Thapsos, for the mixture of Cypriot and Mycenaean elements. They also belong to the same period (LH III B), which was the last with Aegean-type pottery in Thapsos. Their similitude to those from the tombs of Thapsos, as well as their minuscule dimen-

168

sions suggest again that they were used in a tomb. Remarkably, all the other potsherds from northern Italy date to the LH III B 2 or, better, C and are more easily connected with the materials found in the southern Italian peninsula. Essential bibliography: Fogolari, Giulia. 1993. Il Museo di Torcello: bronzi, ceramiche, marmi di eta antica.Venezia: Marsilio. * Site name: Torre Castelluccia Aegean-type pottery About twenty potsherds, dated to the LH III C (or B 2) and of “low quality”, especially when compared with those from Porto Perone and Punta Tonno. Among these: seven storage jars, a stirrup jar, three jugs, two kraters and four bowls or cups. A set of cup and jug has been proposed by Biancofiore (1967), accepted then by Vagnetti (2002). The motifs of a papyrus in a cup and a bird on a closed vessel suggest influences from, respectively, Crete and Rhodes. The pictorial style is rare in the West Mediterranean, so these two potsherds confirm the presence of this style but also its rarity and concentration in very few sites (Punta Tonno and Termitito above all). Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware.Coarse pottery with holes, from Torre Castelluccia, is regarded as influenced from Cypriot models (milk bowls). Scientific analyses A few seeds of cereals have been found inside the dolia. Olive stones come from the settlement. Depositional context The settlement is located on the top of a hill; there are only traces of a possible defensive wall.The settlement was probably founded during the MBA and it became more important in later times, up to the IA. Under building 7, where a proto-Villanovan bronze hoard was unearthed, and in a deeper layer Iapygian protogeometric ware had been recovered in quantity, some possible dolia were found.The Final BA huts are rectangular, but the excavations have been carried out sporadically for a very long time and are largely unpublished, casting a certain degree of uncertainty on the depositional context. Nonetheless, in Torre Castelluccia a “megaron” or “hut with apse” has been detected and the overall structure of the settlement is divided in upper (acropolis) and lower settlement, as at Porto Perone - Satyrion and possibly Punta Tonno. The Aegean-type pottery, all coming from a fracture in the ground which revealed three strata: one dated to the MBA?, one (LBA?) with LH III B 2 and especially C pottery and another one, the upper layer, with proto- Villanovan materials (IA). A clearer stratigraphy is not available. The site is located at walking distance (10 km) from another important site, Porto Perone. Essential bibliography: Gorgoglione, M., ed. 2002. Strutture e modelli di abitati del Bronzo tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia. Manduria: Filo Editore. * Site name: Torre Guaceto Aegean-type pottery One potsherd dated to the LH III C 1, brownish paint, from large vessel, in fine clay. Tricurved arch. Several potsherds of massive storage/transport vessels, likely to belong to some type of dolium. Aegean-derivative pottery Dolia and possibly other transport or storage vessels, now in the museum of Brindisi. Depositional context The site was a large promontory, probably delimiting a lagoon, excellent shelter for ships. Today the promontory has collapsed, there are two small island and a short promontory visible. The river forming the lagoon has been transformed in a canal. The overall context is destroyed, but the potsherd, perhaps more than one, were recovered from a hut, which could have been ovoidal or rectangular. Interpretative remarks Several matt-decorated potsherds from the area (especially Morelli cave). Some protogeometric sherds with spirals, not too dissimilar from Aegean-type wares, are hybrids between LH III C and Iapygian protogeometric wares.Late (IA) askos from Torre Guaceto, suggesting continuity like at Pantalica, Sicily. It was associated with proto-Villanovan wares. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria

169

italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Torre Mordillo Aegean-type pottery Six potsherds, ranging from LH III A to III C, among which are recognisable two bowls and a cup. Aegean-derivative pottery Pseudo-Minyan ware, dolia, and very few sherds of grey decorated ware. Other objects Ivory comb similar to examples found in Frattesina, Pianello di Genga and Timmari in the West Mediterranean and the LC tomb 6 of Enkomi, Cyprus, in the East Mediterranean. Archaeologists found also a second piece of elephant ivory (bone disc?), but it is so fragmentary that it is unclear what item it was in origin. Scientific analyses Petrological and chemical analyses recognised a regional production for most of the Aegean-type pots. Depositional context Settlement on the top of a hill, not particularly close to the sea but in a strategic position near two rivers and their valleys leading to the sea, 15 km away but visible from the hill. A complex rectangular structure dates to the Final BA, whereas two fortification systems are dated one MBA and one Recent BA. Presence of some dolia and pseudo-Minyan ware. The rectangular building had to be particularly important and from there come most of the Aegean-type pottery. Inside it was found also an ivory comb, similar to Aegean models. Essential bibliography: Arancio, L., V. Buffa, I. Damiani, F. Trucco, A. Tagliacozzo, and L. Vagnetti. 1995. L’abitato di Torre Mordillo nel quadro dello sviluppo dell’insediamento protostorico nell’alto Ionio (Sibartide). Oxbow Monograph (41):227-240. Arancio, M. L., Flavia Trucco, and Lucia Vagnetti. 2001. Torre Mordillo 1987-1990: le relazioni egee di una comunità protostorica della Sibaritide, Incunabula Graeca. Roma: Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici. * Site name: Torre Santa Sabina (Carovigno) Aegean-type pottery Tomb 12: minuscule cup FS 227 (Vapheio) FM 67, alabastron FS 94 FM 64 and huge, thick matt-decorated jug with net motif, which could be an Aegean-derivative vessel, all but the jug dated to the LH III A 2 - B 1. However, I would suggest either a LH III A 1 or LH III B 2 date, according to the interpretation of some typical LH III A 2 - B 1 characteristics to the very early stage (immature) or to a very late moment. Accepting a standard date (LH III A 2 - B 1) would suggest a low quality, contradicted by the overall appearance and the depositional context. Accepting an early date would leave a wider chronological gap between necropolis and settlement.Thus, the best date would be LH III B 2, or late B 1, which would be contemporary to the settlement materials, eventually suggesting that the materials in the tomb are of slight earlier date (transition LH III B 1 - 2), fixing to this moment the first arrival of Aegean-type products. Cup is unusual in the West Mediterranean, very small and barely recalling a standard Vapheio cup, at least the other examples found in the West Mediterranean. Settlement: twenty-three potsherds of which 2 belong to kraters, 1 to a jug, 1 to a cup and 19 are undetermined. There should be however a substantial parity between closed and open vessels. Metalwork A dagger similar to LH III A 2 - B 1 types, one of which was found also at Punta Tonno. Dagger from shaft grave with a T-shaped handle which is similar to LH III C types from Epirus. Depositional context In a series of excavations, a group of shaft graves, two funerary tumuli containing a few sepultures and a settlement have been located. Torre Santa Sabina is one of two Apulian sites with tumuli, the other being Oria. Interesting is the tumulus of Contrada Morelli, where in tomb 12 an assemblage largely composed by Aegean-type items has been recovered. It is the only burial where a rock-cut pillow singles out the burial (wealth). LH III A 2 or B 1 pottery was found with a Aegean-type dagger and indigenous pottery. The tomb is located at the centre of the tumulus and it is by far the wealthiest. Many of the twenty-five tombs had no grave goods at all. In the nearby settlement, two partly subterranean structures, probably storage buildings and perhaps also communal cooking area, were protected by a defensive wall in timbers. Many LH III B 2 and C potsherds were found inside. One is sometimes referred to as “megaron”, like that in Punta Tonno, and inside there was, apparently, evidence of rituals. This however would still connect the building with Apennine prototypes (for rituals see the building in Toppo Daguzzo).

170

Essential bibliography: Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Lo Porto, F. G. 1963. Sepolcreto tardo-apenninico con ceramica micenea a S. Sabina presso Brindisi. Bollettino d’Arte 48:125 ff. * Site name: Treazzano Aegean-type pottery One potsherd. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Triei (Nuraghe Bau Nuraxi) Metalwork A copper oxhide ingot. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. * Site name: Trinitapoli Other objects Two ivory figurines representing a man with bull-head and a wild boar. Depositional context From underground necropolis (ipogei). Essential bibliography: Tunzi Sisto, Anna Maria, and Fulvio Bartoli. 1999. Ipogei della Daunia: preistoria di un territorio. Foggia: C. Grenzi. * Site name: Turre (Almería) Aegean-derivative pottery One wheel-made plain pithos. Depositional context LBA contexts. Essential bibliography: De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. * Site name: Tursi (Contrada Castello) Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds dated to the LH III C. Depositional context In the settlement of Tursi - Contrada Castello, located on the top of a hill, few potsherds of LH III C pottery were associated with sub-Apennine pottery in strata dated to the Recent BA. In the strata of Final BA, the Iapygian protogeometric pottery has already substituted the Aegean-type pottery. In the nearby settlement of Tursi - Cozzo San Martino the situation is identical, as they are both natural hills near the modern town of Tursi. The settlements are close to the sea and undoubtedly were in contact. A necropolis with the use of cremation and no Aegean-type materials were found. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria

171

italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Tursi (Cozzo San Martino) Aegean-type pottery Few potsherds dated to the LH III C. Depositional context In the settlement of Tursi - Cozzo San Martino, located on the top of a hill, few potsherds of LH III C pottery were associated with sub-Apennine pottery in strata dated to the Recent BA. In the strata of Final BA, the Iapygian protogeometric pottery has already substituted the Aegean-type pottery. In the nearby settlement of Tursi - Contrada Castello the situation is identical, as they are both natural hills near the modern town of Tursi. The settlements are close to the sea and undoubtedly were in contact. A necropolis with the use of cremation and no Aegean-type materials were found. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Tursi (Pane e Vino) Other objects A necklace with glass beads, similar to Phoenician types. Depositional context A tomb near the settlements near modern Tursi. The presence of a sceptre suggests that it was the sepulture of a chief. Incised geometric ware dates this to the MBA, possibly LH III A. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. * Site name: Ustica (Faraglioni) Aegean-type pottery Only a single Mycenaean potsherd (LH III B – C) is reported by Leighton (1999) as found in a surface stratum.The single potsherd has been considered as belonging to a stirrup jar (Marazzi and Tusa 2001). Metalwork Four flat axe moulds and an ingot fragment prove that metalwork was carried out on the site (Albanese Procelli 2000: 77). Other objects A single glass bead has been reported by Mannino, in Valente (Marazzi, Tusa and Vagnetti 1986). Scientific analyses Goats and cattle predominate in the faunal sample, with fewer pigs and small numbers of fish and bird bones. Exactly there were 874 bones of sheep or goat (40 individuals minimum); 938 bones of cattle (21 individuals minimum); 165 bones of pig (12 individuals minimum) and three bones of dog (two individuals). Depositional context Milazzese culture settlement. Mycenaean sherds were found together with highly influenced pottery at least on the shapes: threehandled piriform jars, pithoi, pyxides, pithoi (amphorae) and Thapsos pottery on high pedestal. Part of this production could have intended as imitation of Mycenaean pottery, although the techniques used are evidently local. Apennine sherds and a glass bead constitute the evidence of foreign contacts together with the Mycenaean sherds. Overall, the site of Faraglioni had limited contacts with other cultures and it appears as a marginal settlement of Milazzese culture destroyed at a certain point. Certainly it was part of a network of sites that controlled the sea routes of Aegean interest, but only for a short period. It was a fortified village, with walls similar to those found in Thapsos and Contrada Petraro, Melilli, dated to the EBA by Voza, contra Holloway (excavator of Ustica), who suggests that they were contemporary (Holloway 2000: 407). Bernabò Brea and Cavalier think it could be a site founded by late Milazzese people, possibly to reinforce the route to Sardinia and later to escape from the fate of the Aeolian Islands.

172

Essential bibliography: Mannino, G. 1982. Il villaggio dei Faraglioni di Ustica. Notizie preliminari. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 21:279-297. * Site name: Valsavoia Other objects A few glass beads were found in tombs 3 and 18, while in tomb 18 there was an amber bead. Scientific analyses Some animal bones have been found: 129 of sheep/goats (10 individuals minimum); 161 of cattle (10 individuals minimum); 43 of pigs (6 individuals minimum); 4 of dogs (2 individuals minimum) and 3 of one deer. Depositional context About 20 monumental tombs of the EBA were discovered by Orsi. Most of them have an antechamber, plus several niches. Many were found empty, with just few bronze tools and some vases left. The rock was soft, this made easier the carving of big tombs. Castelluccian culture settlement with analogies in the building techniques with the Monte Grande site, of Castelluccian culture as well (Castellana). The presence of dry walls possibly defending groups of huts suggest a connection with Monte Grande.The material should date to the Castelluccian / Monte Grande time (EBA). Essential bibliography: Orsi, P. 1902. La necropoli di Valsavoia. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 28:103-119. * Site name: Villa San Pietro Other objects Some hundreds of glass beads, part of necklaces. Depositional context Inside a “giants’ grave”. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. * Site name: Villabartolomea (Fabbrica

dei

Soci)

Aegean-type pottery Seven potsherds. Two joining potsherds from closed vessel, decorated with two rows of running spirals. Two potsherds from probable closed vessel, decoration present but unclear. Potsherd from closed vessel, decorated with two horizontal bands. Potsherd from closed vessel, decorated with one band. Essential bibliography: Bettelli, Marco, and L.Vagnetti. 1997. Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-micenea e l’Italia settentrionale. In Le Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana. Catalogo della Mostra, edited by M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi. Milano. * Site name: Villagrande Strisàili (Nuraghe Corte Macceddos

e

S’Arcu ‘e

is

Forras)

Metalwork Twelve fragments of copper oxhide ingots. Depositional context From Nuraghe Corte Macceddos e S’Arcu ‘e is Forras. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, F. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma.

173

* Site name: Villanovaforru (Baccus Simeone) Metalwork Ten fragments of copper oxhide ingots in a hoard weighing 7.551 kg. Depositional context Few potsherds of a bowl or jar mixed with 115 fragments of metal objects, ten of which belong to copper oxhide ingots.The hoard should date to the Final BA, but as this date is based on the fragmentary pot, it is uncertain. Nearby lies a small Nuragic settlement. Three lithic slabs found near the materials could have been a protection for it, though the ground being in pendency slided and the slabs moved while the pot was broken and the objects inside spread across a small area. A less likely possibility is that each element (slabs, metals and pot) were originally separate and got closer as a result of the sliding of the ground. Essential bibliography: Lo Schiavo, Fulvia. 1985. Nuragic Sardinia in its Mediterranean setting: some recent advances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Archaeology Department. * Site name: Vivara Aegean-type pottery Sherds belonging to up to two-hundred vases were reported at the end of the 1981 campaign. Re (in Carratelli et al. 1999: 412) reports thirty-two sherds dated LH I - II B, eighty-six classified as matt decorated polychrome, thirty-nine as Minyan ware, thirty as plain ware and forty-three as Levantine ware. Aegean-type vessels date from LH I to LH III A 1. At least ten types of undecorated Aegean-type vessels have been recognised and some have been compared to those at Monte Grande. Aegean-derivative pottery Aegean-derivative pottery is possibly present but no precise shape has been reported yet. Metalwork Metalworking, particularly smelting was certainly an important activity at Vivara. Among the bronze items, pins, arrowheads and vessels. Other objects Tokens, interpreted as basic form of counting, typical in pre-literary societies are present. In one case these small ceramic discs were evidently bound together in number of six, and were probably used to keep track of commercial transactions. A tablet with possible ticks might be a more sophisticated system to record numbers. Glass beads and gold pendant. Scientific analyses Petrological analyses (Jones, Levi and Vagnetti 2002) have proved inconclusive, but there is the suspicion that some undecorated wares could be of Italic production. Archaeobotanical studies have proved the presence of wheat, barley, broad beans, peas and lentils. There were also olives and grapes.The diet included also a selection of game, wild plants, fish and molluscs (among which oysters).The dog was already present. Depositional context Two main excavations: Punta d’Alaca and Punta di Mezzogiorno on a little island that has been recognised an important centre for Aegean exchange during the Bronze Age. It is unclear how this excavations relate, though it is likely that all refer to one settlement with harbour because the island is very small. The island of Vivara was connected with Procida in antiquity. Other minor excavations in the whole island, especially at Punta Capitello. At Punta Mezzogiorno, in semicircular huts few Capo Graziano style potsherds and evidence of metalworking have been unearthed. A possible furnace has been reported as well. In the following phase Aegean-type pottery appears and buildings appear also at Punta d’Alaca. The huts are rectangular, though not perfectly geometric, and smaller circular structures, often located next to the rectangular huts, would seem storage buildings. Hut 2 is a particular well known hut, large, rectangular and with a partly subterranean circular annexe; its roof was covered with tiles. In the circular structure (pit “beta”) there was a Canaanite jar. At least fifty vessels were found inside the hut, in the majority open and undecorated, but large jars, also of Aegean-type, accounted for less than 10%. Several tokens, lithic tools, a mould for a possible Aegean-derivative sword were all part of the findings. In a nearby pit, named “alpha”, bronze items, glass beads, possibly a metallic vessel and a gold pendant were found together in a possible religious or funerary context. Human bones were mixed in the stratum with glass beads, but in other strata large amounts of animal bones were recovered. Interpretative remarks Vivara is the only site with clear evidence of an advanced pre-literary numerical system. Unfortunately, the excavations are still patchy and more evidence is required for any interpretation. There is evidence that natural catastrophes began to happen and the

174

people moved to Ischia. Vivara was once a volcano, though the caldera has collapsed in antiquity and is difficult to recognise its shape. The harbour sank about 10 metres, but staircases and structures interpreted as storage buildings can be seen underwater. Several caves, now partially underwater, could have been used as a shelter for ships. At Ischia the Greeks founded their first colony in the West: Pithekoussai. It seems that Ischia survived the catastrophes and re-emerged later. However, from LH III A 2 and on the coastline of the mainland there is no evidence of Aegean-type materials, except for few potsherds probably imported from the southern centres. Hence, although it is likely that Apennine people never interfered directly with the contacts at Vivara, they never allowed the contacts to happen on the mainland either. Essential bibliography: Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Claudio Mocchegiani Carpano. 1998. Vivara: un’isola al centro della storia. Napoli: Altrastampa. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Sebastiano Tusa. 1976. Testimonianze micenee da Vivara. La Parola del passato 31 (171):473-485. ———, eds. 2001. Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree: catalogo della mostra: Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno 2001. Napoli and Palermo: A. Lombardi; Regione siciliana, Assessorato dei beni culturali e ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. * Site name: Wilflingen Metalwork Four fragments of at least two copper oxhide ingots of type pillow-shaped (Buchholz Ib). Scientific analyses The ingots are almost in pure copper. Depositional context The ingots were found in 1932. Essential bibliography: Primas, M. 1997. Bronze Age Economy and Ideology: Central Europe in Focus. Journal of European Archaeology 5 (1):115-130. * Site name: Zambrone Aegean-type pottery Possible LH III A potsherds. Depositional context Unpublished excavation, unknown context. Essential bibliography: Vagnetti, Lucia. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Superintendence of Syracuse, pers. comm. [on the state of publication]

175

Additional data from visits to Sicilian archaeological museums Diffusion of Thapsos material culture A few Thapsos style materials have been found on the north western side of Sicily at Mangiapane cave (Trapani), Puntali and Ferraro caves (Palermo), Ulina and on the south western side, such as at Marcita (Castelvetrano). Only two sites are known in the central area: Caldare and Milena. The concentration of sites remains in the area of Syracuse. The Thapsos material culture is highly defined and regionalised unlike previous Sicilian cultures, e.g. Castelluccian culture, but it is possible to notice that a limited “corridor” is traced from the central area of Sicily to the north-west largely in caves, not built settlements. It is possible that this was a trade route to Sardinia rather than a regional exchange network because the latter case is normally associated to a wide spread, not linear and limited to one type of site, caves. In addition, caves might have been connected with religion and therefore ideal locations for foreign contacts or trade because naturally (and supernaturally) protected. Miniature vessels Pots in the cemeteries are generally small, except the large cauldrons, and sometimes they are proper miniatures. The very smallest vessels could not be functional. In the centralnorthern area of the settlement twelve miniature vessels have been found, all schematised, and called “toys”: 1 pedestalled bowl, similar to those of Castelluccian style; 2 idols; 3 dippers; 1 simple cup; 1 cup with a possible bipartite handle; 3 jars/ closed vessels and a dish. In the central area, a few more items have been found, these are bigger, though not enough to be functional: few jars and two bowls without pedestal and with tripartite handle, similar to those of the big pedestalled bowls, but they could also be a variant of dippers. The two series are probable sets: we do have all the elements of the first set in the tombs and it seems that also the second set can be matched with the vessels from the tombs. Mountjoy (1986: 101, fig. 123, FS 126) reports that miniature vases “are common during the whole LH III B, but do not appear in the preceding or succeeding periods”, a statement that is as valid in Mycenaean Greece as at Thapsos. In some cases, for example tomb 37, inv. n. 14741 (7 in showcase), Aegean-type vessels were so small that they could not be functional, true miniature vessels. Aegean-derivative vessels The two-handled bowls on raised base are normally incised, though very irregular. They are high quality Aegean-derivative vessels, though their evident irregularity would have prevented their employment as special, luxury items. Some globular Thapsos style vessels could derive from the small handleless jar FS 77 of LH III A1 period, though it could well be a coincidence. The incisions on various vessels, including the bowls, normally depict birds or fishes, as well as geometric motifs, probably stylisations of natural motifs. Birds in particular are the subject of many incisions. The adoption of natural symbols to decorate vessels contrasts with the refusal of Mycenaean pictorial pottery, though in that case human beings were also depicted. Interestingly, at Cannatello vessels decorated with octopi have been found suggesting that the problem was indeed with the depiction of human beings. If there were a belief that depicting a living being would have had effects on it, in a similar way that Palaeolithic figures seems to have had, then

the incisions would simply express the hope that natural resources would have continued to sustain the community. The large cauldrons, representing some figure closer than any other to the human being, probably deities, would easily fit in this interpretation. Incised vessels often can be considered luxury vessels, like the Aegean-type pottery. Luxury items A bronze ingot from Thapsos settlement is almost regular, not oxhide. It is called “talanton”. However, Giardino (1997) confirms that an oxhide ingot has been found in Thapsos. An ivory comb had been found in the settlement of Thapsos and another one, decorated with concentric lines (false spirals), was found in Plemmyrion. Museum of Syracuse Detailed description of artefacts from tombs Tomb 1: Ceramic idol, h.4.7, painted in brownish. It was a pendent (hole), probably used for religious “protection”. Pyxis cat. n. 14644. H. about 10 cm with lid.Very simple shape.Thick body, min. 1 cm. Heavy. Four-handled bowl, with simple incised decoration, on small pedestal. H. about 14.5 cm; limited capacity (less than pyxis). Thick, min. 1.5 cm. Aegean-type piriform jar (cat. n. 14651); FS 45 (LH III A 2); h. 8.7 cm; about 0.5 – 1 cm thick; diameter: 4.5 cm rim, 7.5 max, 3.9 base; Munsell 10YR 8/4 very pale brown. Fine clay, medium weight, banded. Tomb 2: Cylindrical pyxis without lid, incised. Body thick 0.5 cm, indigenous production. Deep bowl with four handles. Group of eight potsherds, some are the product of more joining fragments. They belong at least to two cups, FS 219 or less likely 218, Munsell 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, both highly fragmentary. One simple handle, vertical, long max 4 cm, max space inside is 2.8 cm.Two bases, one with diameter of 2.7 cm, the other 3.5 cm; both are fragmentary. Two potsherds have a slightly down-sloping rim. Three other potsherds are bodies/ undetermined. Of all the potsherds, only two are convex. Dated to the LH III B 1. Aegean-type alabastron, Munsell 10YR 8/2 white; diam. rim about 6.3 cm (restored in part), max 10 cm; h. 7.5 cm. Its base is missing. It is an angular alabastron, FS 94 (LH III B 1), in fine clay, of light weight. Painted line (band) just above the attachment of the handle, dotted line at handle level, another band at the height of the lower attachment of the handle. Miniature jug FS 114 (LH III B 1); Munsell 10YR 8/2 white; h. 8.7 cm; diam.: 8.9 max, base 4 cm. It could belong to other variants, since it is incomplete. Base without foot, slightly concave. Banded. Tomb 7: Aegean-type straight sided alabastron, FS 94 (LH III B 1); Munsell 10YR 8/1 white; brownish paint unreadable; h. cm 5.9 (but base is missing, it would be an estimate of about 6.5 cm); diam. rim 4.2 cm, max 9 cm; body thickness of 0.5 cm on average. Fine clay, light weight. Two Aegean-type potsherds, one with handle and the other with traces of the base. It should belong to a straight sided alabastron (FS 94?). Munsell 10YR 8/1 white; thickness of body (excluding handles) 3 – 5 cm.The handle is long 3.5 cm ext, 1.5 int., max height 1.7 cm, max height inside handle 0.8 cm. Medium sized jug (cat. n. 14672), incised, dark brownish paint. Tubular spout, long neck, large handle, globular body. Possible partial derivation from FS 159-

176

161. Neck like FS 58.Very simple, medium weight, non-depurated clay. Small jug/oil flask. An internal protective white layer suggests it was used for oils. Thick body and fine, depurated clay. Piriform jar, with incisions and three handles, that appears to be an Aegean-derivative vessel from the common LH III B1 shape FS 48. It is fragmentary. H. 11.3 cm; max diam. excluding handles about 8.5 cm; base 3.2 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm (low value among local pots); Munsell 7.5YR 7/4 pink. Clay is not depurated, medium weight. The incisions recall Aegean painted motifs (net), as the reduced thickness and shape connect the vessel to Aegean examples. The clay is not depurated, though. The shape is not common in Thapsos tombs. Tomb 10: Aegean-type piriform jar (cat. n. 14686), three handles, FS 47-48 (LH III B 1), banded on lower part and inside rim. FM 64? on shoulder. Munsell 10YR 8/2 white; h. 14.8 cm; diam. rim 8.9 cm, max 12.6 cm, concave base 4.4 cm. Handles long 3.7 cm ext., 2 cm inside, h. of handle is 2.4 cm. Thickness of body 0.5 cm. Medium weight, fine clay. Pinkish appearance due to residual of paint. Flask with 3 incised birds within geometrically designed areas, all similar. Globular body, long neck, big handle. Non-depurated clay. Munsell 10YR 6/2 light brownish grey. H. 14.5 cm, body thickness 0.3 cm. Medium weight/heavy. Small jar with two handles, possible derivation from FS 284 (LH III B 1). Almost globular. Munsell 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; h. 8.8 cm; diam. rim 5cm, max 8.7, base about 3 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm. Geometric and floral incisions. Non-depurated clay, medium weight. Tomb 27: Aegean-type piriform jar (cat. n. 14720), with three handles but none preserved. FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 64 foliate band (contra Taylour FM 57). Banded (lower part), dots on rim, blackish paint. H. 7.5 cm; diam. rim 3.5 cm, max 6.8 cm, flat concave base 2.9 cm; body thickness 0.4 – 0.5 cm; Munsell 10 YR 8/4 very pale brown. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegean derivative jug with tubular spout (cat. n. 14719). Incised is the motif of a net. In part recalls jug FS 114 (LH III B 1), for the globular shape and the handle, and the stirrup jar FS 173 (LH III B 1), but both the handle and the neck have working spout. Part of the spout on the neck has not been preserved. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Rough clay, medium weight. Tomb 37: Bronze sword long about 28 cm, max width 3.5 cm. Two small separated rods. Aegean-type beaked jug, FS 145 (LH III A 2). Banded with geometric motif (FM 25 bivalves?) on shoulder. Munsell 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; h. 11.5 cm; diam. concave and raised base 2.9 cm; body thickness 0.4 cm. Partially restored (uncertain max diam.). H. of handle is 3.8 cm ext., 3.3 cm inside. Medium weight, fine clay. Tomb 38: Small four-handled? piriform jar (only part of the body with two traces of handles has been preserved). Possible derivation from Aegean shapes. Non-depurated dark clay. Two deep bowls, probably deriving from FS 284. One incised with birds (2 on one side) and fishes (2 on the opposite side). Arrowheaded handles just traced (without producing a hole). H. 7.1 cm; diam. rim 9 cm, max 12.2 cm, base 2.5 cm. Non-depurated clay, light weight. The other bowl is non-incised, with evident arrow-headed handles (without hole). Diam. raised base 3.1 cm, max 11 cm; body thickness 0.5 cm. Non-depurated clay, medium weight. Tomb 48: Aegean-type piriform jar (cat. n. 14769), FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 64 foliate band. Banded, even on the top inside with blackish colour. It could also be FS 48 (LH III

B 1). Munsell 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; h. 14.3 cm; diam. rim 8.7 cm, max 12.7 cm, base 5.2 cm; body thickness 0.3 – 0.4 cm; flat rim 1 cm. There is a fingerprint at the centre of the slightly concave base. Length of handles: 3.8 cm ext, 1 cm inside, h. 1 cm. There are traces of the use of a wheel inside. Fine clay, light weight. Deep bowl (cat. n. 14758), height 8.6 cm, body thickness 0.4 cm. Three acuminated handles with perforation to simulate hole. On raised base. In profile is like FS 284. Medium weight, non-depurated clay. Deep bowl (cat. n. 14763), body thickness 0.3 cm.Three acuminated handles with perforation to simulate hole. On raised base. In profile is like FS 284. Geometric incisions. Heavy, non-depurated clay, with residuals of bronze inside. Four-handled jar (cat. n. 14761), on raised base. It could well be a derivation from FS 75 (or the contrary), LH III B 2. H. 9.1 cm, diam. max (excl. handles) 10.1 cm; base (torus) 4.2 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm. Two layers of clay: grey inside, reddish outside. Heavy, non-depurated clay. Tomb 56: Potsherd of miniature vessel (cup?, bowl?; cat. n. 14778).Traces of raised base, not of rim. H. 3.7 cm, for an original height of about 4 cm; body thickness 0.3 – 0.4 cm. Incised is a donkey, or similar animal. This is the only known exception to fishes and birds, which are normally associated. Traces of one acuminated handle. Miniature of FS 284? Miniature vessels are common, though this is the only one incised. Nondepurated clay, estimated medium weight (it is less than half). Aegean-type globular stirrup jar, FS 171 or 173 (LH III B 1) H. 10.5 cm; diam. max about 10.5 cm (10.7 cm but it is very fragmentary, it could be slightly less or more), false mouth 2.5 cm, spout 1.8 cm. It seems that the height equals diameter in this vessel; body thickness 0.3 – 0.5 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/4 very pale brown. FM 19 multiple stem, tongue (Mountjoy n. 10 p. 94), banded. Paint scarcely readable. Fine clay. Tomb 57: Copper sheet (cup?, bowl?), cat. n. 14783. Max diameter 17 cm; thin, less than 1 mm. It has no recognisable shape. It could be a piece of scrap metal, or a sheet imitating cloth sheets (sort of napkin or metal layer for cup/bowl), on which to deposit offerings. There are signs of manufacture but these do not seem to create any shape, rather they do suggest/ give the impression that it was a cloth (golden cloth?). Tomb 61: Aegean-type piriform jar (cat. n. 14793), like FS 48 (LH III B 1), with torus base (Mountjoy 1986 p. 98 fig. 116/2), but with just two handles. The marked piriform shape, at a certain point recalling the kylix, does suggest that this shape was produced not earlier than LH III B 1. The clay is not well depurated and signs of uncertainty in the shape itself (the vessel appears to be slightly lending) could mean that it is an Italic production. A vessel from tomb 64 (cat. n. 14813) is a very close match. Reddish paint for some bands. H. 14 cm, diam. rim about 8.5 cm, max (excl. handles) 13 cm, torus base 4.9 cm, Munsell 10YR 8/2 white. Medium weight. Tomb 63: Aegean-type miniature jug like FS 126 but wheelmade (cat. n. 14806), banded in reddish paint. H. of preserved portion (narrow neck is missing) 7.7 cm, estimated height max 10 cm; diam. max 7.4 cm, raised base 2.9 cm; body thickness 0.3 – 0.4 cm; Munsell 5YR 8/4 pink. Depurated clay, medium weight. One of the potsherds inside the big jar from tomb 64, part of a body, is so similar that it could well be part of the jug for clay, decoration and dimensions, though the jug is integral but for the neck. Cypriot type? Tomb 64: Small cup in rough clay with massive handle (only

177

attachment preserved), cat. n. 14815. The handle of the cups are generally high-swung for dippers or like pedestalled bowls, referring back to the Castellucian style. Diam. rim (estimated) about 11 cm, base (estimated) about 4.5 cm. Group of 13 mixed type potsherds found inside big jar. In one it is written “Th. 16”. Some are as thin as 1 cm, probably wheel-made, in depurated clay. One is like part of the body of the jar 14806 from tomb 63 (which is complete) and inside (non-decorated side) there are evident traces of wheel. This potsherd is decorated as the jug from tomb 63, with the colour on that (external) side corresponding to Munsell 5YR 8/4 pink, inside is 10YR 8/2 white, with traces of a white layer (protective?). Aegean-type straight-sided alabastron, like FS 94, but very fragmentary. Traces of decoration in reddish paint, probably like FM 19 multiple stem, apparently not FM 32 as suggested by Taylour. Diam. max 10.6 cm, base about 10.5 cm; body thickness 0.5 – 0.6 cm. Fine clay, but the manufacture seem less accurate than in other alabastra. Estimated weight: heavy. Munsell 5YR 7/4 pink. Aegean-type piriform jar (cat. n. 14813), like FS 48 but with two handles. Identical to the jar 14793 from tomb 61 (even for the decoration, for what is preserved on the other one). FM 60; h. 13.3 cm; diam. rim 9.3 cm, max (excl. handles) 13.2 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/2 white. Incomplete torus base. Depurated clay, medium weight. Aegean-type piriform jar with potsherds inside, FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 53 wavy line. Blackish paint, banded. Contra Taylour FS 44, but the body appears to me more piriform. H. 19.7 cm; diam. rim 10.4 cm, max (excl. handles) 14.2 cm, base 5.5 cm; body thickness about 0.5 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. Fine clay, medium weight. Tomb A1: Aegean-type piriform jar FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 64, cat. n. 69312. The fact that FS 45 vessels are late is confirmed by the fact that they are of a particular piriform shape, which “anticipates” the LH III B 1 shape FS 48. Blackish paint, banded. H. 14.4 cm; diam. rim 8.5 cm, max 11.8 cm, raised base 4.9 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/2 white. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegean-type Cypriot style white shaved jug, cat. n. 69307. There is clear evidence of “shaving”, which suggests that the vessel is a true import. H. about 17.7 cm; Munsell 10YR 7/4 very pale brown. Vertical handle. Rim is modelled to produce a spout. Non-depurated clay, light weight. Small jug, cat. n. 69298. Like tomb D n. 69333, with tubular spout. Not incised and without raised base. Simple, globular body.Vertical handle. H. 8.5 cm. Medium weight. Three-handled piriform jar, with acuminated handles, fragmentary. Incised are three birds, separated by handles. Birds are similar, yet not the same. Estimated h. about 11 cm; diam. rim (estimated) about 7.5 cm, max 8.3 cm. Small vertical hole through each handle. Estimated heavy weight. Tomb C: Three deep bowls with acuminated handles. One is possibly a derivation from FS 279. Aegean-type rounded alabastron FS 84, LH III A 1 (but considered FS 85). Three handles, pinkish clay, black paint. Estimated body thickness: 0.5 cm. Fine clay. Tomb D: Aegean-type deep bowl FS 284 (LH III A 2), cat. n. 69346. Low part entirely decorated with bands, motif similar to FM 67 curved stripes. H. 12.5 cm; diam. rim 18.4 cm, max (excl. handles) 19 cm, raised base 6 cm; body thickness 0.4 – 0.5 cm; Munsell 7.5YR 8/4 pink. Handles, average thickness is about 1.5 cm; h. about 4.2 cm. Fine clay, heavy (but

also of high dimensions). Aegean-type piriform jar, incomplete with only one handle preserved, cat. n. 69345.The body is very piriform, suggesting at first glance, given the fragmentation, a kylix.The shape also recalls the two-handled piriform jars from tomb 61 (14793) and 64 (14813), though in the present vessel there is no way to count the handles (two or three). Vertical handle, banded in reddish paint. Deep torus base. It could well be FS 40 or FS 48 (LH III B 1), FM 23? horizontal whorl-shell according to the excavator. H. (up to the handle) 16.5 cm, estimated 17 cm; diam. torus base 5.2 cm; depth torus 1.3 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. Fine clay, but potter was either too quick or uncertain when working. Medium weight. Aegean-type piriform jar FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 45 U pattern, cat. n. 69343. H. 14.2 cm; diam. rim 9.4 cm (8.1 cm without rim itself), max 11.8 cm, torus base 4.5 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/1 white. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegean-type straight sided alabastron FS 94 (LH III B 1), FM 64 foliate band, cat. n. 69339. Particularly well preserved, it recalls a stirrup jar from Torcello. Reddish paint, bands. Wheel made. H. 9.1 cm; diam. rim 7.2 cm, max 11.7 cm, base (identified by concentric circles) about 4.1 cm; body thickness about 0.3 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/4 very pale brown. Fine clay, light weight. Aegean-type straight sided alabastron, FS 94 (LH III B 1), FM 48? running quirk, cat. n. 69340. Decoration in blackish paint: bands on the body and concentric circles to sign the base. H. 7.9 cm; diam. max 10.6 cm, base about 3.7 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/1 white. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegeantype shallow cup FS 220 (LH III A 2), FM 64 foliate band in reddish paint, banded, cat. n. 69342. Irregular shape. H. about 4.4 cm; diam. rim about 12.3 cm, torus base 2.9 cm; Munsell 7.5YR 8/4 pink. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegean-type rounded alabastron FS 85 (LH III A 2), FM 32? rock pattern according to the excavator (unreadable at the time of my visit), banded, cat. n. 69341. H. 7.9 cm, diam. rim 5.7 cm, max 10 cm, base (signed by incised circle) about 3.9 cm; Munsell 2.5YR 8/2 white. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegean-type piriform jar with three handles, FS 48 (LH III B 1), FM 62? Tricurved arch (like in Mountjoy 1986:68, n. 29), cat. n. 69344. The motif is common in LH III A 2, but in a relative short period between LH III A 2 and B 1 some mixture between motifs and shapes could have happened. A sharp transition is unlikely. Reddish paint, banded, with vertical handles. H. about 17 cm; diam. rim about 10.5 cm, max 14.3 cm; body thickness 0.2 – 0.3 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/6 yellow. Fine clay, heavy. Aegean-type kylix FS 263 (LH III A 2), monochrome, white? paint, cat. n. 69338. H. 14.1 cm; diam. rim 15.5 cm, max 15.7 cm, base 7.9 cm; max depth inside 11 cm; body thickness 0.4 – 0.5 cm; Munsell 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. Almost fine clay, medium/light (considered the dimensions) weight. Aegean-type Cypriot style Base Ring II jug, cat. n. 69337.Very fragmentary. H. 13.8 cm; diam. rim about 3 cm, estimated base about 5 cm; Munsell 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. There is another similar jug from the tomb, slightly higher but also more irregular. Fine clay. Small piriform jar, almost globular, with incisions (geometric lines and birds), cat. n. 69354. Highly fragmentary, estimated h. about 8 cm. Small jug with tubular spout, cat. n. 69333. H. with handle 14.1 cm. Incised curved lines. Similar to tomb 7 n. 14672 and others. In part it is like FS 155 (strainer jug), without foot/base. Probably it is a mix of indigenous, FS 151 (stirrup jug, late LH III A 2) and FS 160 (feeding bottle, LH III A 2) vessels.

178

Remarkably, the Mycenaean types are all found especially in tombs. Medium weight. Tomb E: Aegean-type piriform jar, cat. n. 63772, badly preserved. FS 45? (LH III A 2). Decoration not preserved. Splaying base, estimated body thickness 0.3 – 0.5 cm. Depurated, white clay. Cup on foot. Buscemi (contrada Maiorana): Aegean-type squat stirrup jar FS 179 (rounded; LH III A 2), banded in blackish paint, cat. n. 72357. Fragmentary. H. (preserved up to the neck) 10 cm; diam. rim (neck) 2.2 cm, max 11.4 m, raised base 4.9 cm; body thickness 0.3 – 0.4 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/2 white. Fine clay, light weight. Cozzo del Pantano: Aegean-type kylix FS 256 (LH III A 2), FM 16, cat. n. 11177. The shape is common in early LH III A 2, but the motif, similar to FM 18A (Mountjoy fig. 114 n. 2), is of the late period. Decorated in reddish paint, banded. The motif is made by a fairly sure hand and is repeated equally three times from handle to handle (six times in total). In the best preserved copy the painter used too much colour, so that it partially dropped on the bands just below. H. 17.7 cm; diam. rim about 15.5 cm, max 14.7 cm, domed base 9.6 cm; max depth inside 10.8 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. Fragmentary, estimated medium weight, depurated clay. Floridia: Aegean-type straight sided alabastron FS 94 (LH III B 1), FM 64 foliate band, cat. n. 30037. H. 9.9 cm; diam. rim 6.5 cm, max 11.3, concentric lines on base 1.8 cm; body thickness 0.2 – 0.3 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/1 white. Blackish paint. Light/medium weight, fine clay. Milocca: Aegean-type piriform jar FS 44 (LH III A 1), decoration similar to FM 9 lily (simpler), cat. n. 15995. Blackish paint, banded almost up to the base. Slightly irregular in profile. H. 18.2 cm; diam. rim 9.8 cm, max 14.2 cm, bevelled base 5.4 cm; body thickness 0.3 – 0.4 cm; Munsell 10YR 8/2 white. Fine clay, medium weight. Aegean-type piriform jar FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 19 multiple stem, almost geometric according to Taylour but FM 58 chevron by edge of handle ring (Mountjoy fig. 79 n. 4) in my opinion. H. 13.5 cm; diam. rim 7.5 cm, max 10.3 cm, torus base 4 cm; body thickness 0.5 cm; Munsell 10YR 7/2 light grey. Evident signs of wheel, depurated clay, heavy. Molinello: Aegean-type piriform jar FS 45 (LH III A 2), FM 64 foliate band, cat. n. 21821. Fragmentary, blackish paint, banded. H. (preserved) 11 cm, estimated 12.5 cm; diam. max 9.6 cm, splaying base 3.8 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm; Munsell 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. Fine clay, estimated light weight. Pantalica: Linear jug, FS 110, FM 19?, from tomb 133 in the N necropolis, cat. n. 17392. The motif anticipates the middle LH III C FM 51 stemmed spiral, but it is still simple, not far from the FM 19 hooked multiple stem (Mountjoy fig. 161 n. 4, on deep bowl). There is an attempt of producing a spiral, which in its simplicity excludes any proper LH III C form. Mountjoy 1986: 101, about FS 110, says that the stemmed spiral appears on LH III B examples, but in those dated LH III C there are only linear motifs. Since the context of the find is one of the oldest tombs of Pantalica (N necropolis), Pantalica I/Thapsos II in relative chronology, a date in LH III C would create a hiatus between the LH III B 1 Thapsos I vessels and a supposed early LH III C Pantalica I/Thapsos II as long as LH III B 2. The manufacture of the vessel (thick body and mas-

sive handle) is also similar to the indigenous Thapsos I style pottery. Consequently, it is my opinion that the pot should be dated to the LH III B 2, though a later date, early LH III C, cannot be excluded especially if it is an imitation, as I believe. Indeed, it seems that the Aegean-derived vessels there are out of step with the Aegean ones, that is to say late: when the Greeks arrive in Sicily they carried geometric pottery, but the local pottery has no traces of the protogeometric style, though LH III C influences could be proposed (askoi, jugs, etc.). The decoration is painted in reddish on the vivid orange clay, perhaps treated with pigments since underneath the colour of the clay becomes darker. H. 13.5 cm; diam. rim 8.3 cm, max 11 cm, ring base 5.2 cm; body thickness 0.5 – 0.6 cm; Munsell 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow (surface), 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow (underneath the surface). Non-depurated clay, heavy. Plemmyrion (tomb 48): Seven amber beads, cat. n. 17153. Ivory comb, cat. n. 17154, with incised spiral. Cup. Piriform jar with lid, acuminated handles. Incised jug. Syracuse (tomb in the Temenite hill, viale Paolo Orsi): Aegean-type small straight sided alabastron FS 94 (LH III A 2), with acuminated handles. Fine white clay. Cypriot style Base Ring II jug, in grey clay like that examined from tomb D. Small; non-depurated clay. Small deep bowl (impasto ware) with acuminated handles, estimated body thickness 0.5 cm min. Aegean derivative from FS 279. Big jug, with incised fishes (only two?), each in its frame. From the handle, empty space , curved line, fish, leaves, fish, curved line… Miscellaneous items Globular jug with handles (olla sferica con anse) from Marmo, cat. n. 33217. Handles with the motif appearing in the Castelluccian door slabs.Three-dimensional effect. A similar motif is also in a deep bowl from Thapsos settlement (showcase 73 n.2). Bowls and basins on high foot/pedestal, decorated or not, come from Castelluccio and its contemporary site of Chiusazza cave. Clay horns from Chiusazza cave. EBA burial jars in Messina as well as Milazzo (San Papino). In Vallelunga there is a geometric type of high foot bowls. Mount Sallia: vessel 37967 is a cup with one handle, painted in reddish on bright background. Glass bead from tomb 29, Thapsos. Jug dated to Pantalica III, no registered context, blackish paint on white clay, cat. n. 36150. Similar to the Aegean one from tomb 133 N. Tomb 133 N, Pantalica: one sherd of pithos. The tombs in the area had sometimes additional chambers to the main one, but these could have each their antechamber. There is a high variability; simple types are common too. From tomb 130 S, Pantalica, a bronze knife with ivory handle. From tomb 30 S an askos in “impasto” ware (brownish clay); from tomb 145 S an askos in plumed ware (yellowish clay, reddish paint), cat. n. 20686; from tomb 55 S an askos with hole in the middle, cat. n. 20602; from tomb 68 S three askoi in impasto ware. Many more askoi, dated Pantalica II and III and sometimes decorated, were found in Pantalica and other nearby cemeteries. From Madonna del Piano two askoi in “impasto”, cat. n. 18841 and 18844; from the same site, tomb 45, a decorated askos (reddish paint on orange clay), cat. n. 70683. Mount Finocchito returned many askoi, some of which are: tomb 11 in Cozzo delle Giummarre, “impasto” askos cat. n. 16568; tomb 3 NW, cat. n. 13123, askos with painted geometric motifs; tomb 3 W, cat. n. 13122, “impasto” askos; tomb 54 N, cat. n. 16837, “impasto” askos; tomb 2 W, cat. n. 13136, askos with reddish

179

painted decoration on yellowish clay; tomb 4 N, cat. n. 16739, “impasto” askos; tomb 1 N, cat. n. 16735, askos in orange clay; tomb 44 N, cat. n. 16805, askos. In addition to these, the askos (not seen) from tomb 66, reported to be of similar manufacture to the jug from tomb 133 N, Pantalica, as all those above. Askoi appear in Pantalica II contexts, perhaps late Pantalica I, and continue into the Greek period. Remarkably, from Pantalica IV there is geometric ware, though plumed ware and many other local wares continue. During Pantalica III, the bowl on high foot is still present, though modified, during Iron Age, even at the time of the first Greek vessels. Tomb A 9, Realmese, dated to the Pantalica III period, has a jug (showcase 111, n. 4) that seems to be an imitation of white shaved ware (grey clay but white surface). Museum of the Aeolian Islands Analysis of materials from settlements: Milazzese culture: the vessels are larger than in Thapsos. Ceramic idol dates to this period. Decorated transport jars are present. Luxury items have been found in the necropolis at Monfalcone square. Possible LH III C pottery from Ausonian II period still belongs to large vessels but it is produced with less care. Horns are frequently found. Ausonian II pottery has a few similarities with Pantalica pottery. In Filicudi the potsherds of first and second phase sometimes belong to large (transport?) vessels. In Panarea the oldest vessels date to the LH III, like in Salina, but there are some large jars as well.The direct contacts are supposed to have taken place between the 16th and the 11th centuries. Early materials are mostly dotted or banded. There are few cups, some small vessels (especially bowls and alabastra). Jars, if present, are a minority. Bone comb with incisions and glass beads among the luxury items. Minoan and Cycladic ware seem to be jars. Blackish or reddish paint used for all of the Aegean-type vessels. Some vessels are very thick and big. Almost all the Aegeantype vessels have depurated clay. LM I A ware– Capo Graziano I levels at Lipari: Potsherds are 5YR 6/2 pinkish grey, sometimes (3 potsherds, 1 dark) darkened up to 10YR 4/3 brown, or 5YR pink 7-8/3-4. Body thickness from 0.3 to 0.5 cm. One handle has two small holes at the points in which it attaches to the body, one passes from side to side. Cycladic ware – Capo Graziano I levels at Lipari: Vase decorated with waves: 5YR 8/4 pink (core) and 5YR 8/2 pinkish white (surface), not-depurated clay, body thickness about 1 cm. Vase with painted octopus 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, fine yet not-depurated clay, body thickness 0.5 – 1 cm. Part of rim 5YR 7/4 pink; vase with motif of net: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. LH I – Capo Graziano I levels at Lipari: LH I motifs: FM 76 stone pattern; FM 46 running spiral; FM 64 foliate band. Cat. n. 7982: 2.5YR 6/6 light red (base decorated with reddish paint, sometimes it uses also the background in natural clay). Others: 2.5YR 5/6 red; 2.5YR 6/6 light red; 10YR 6/2 light brownish grey; FS 224 Vapheio cup type II, FM 46 spiral, 2.5YR 6/6 light red (core) and 5YR 8/3 pink (surface), body thickness 0.3 cm, evident traces of wheel, rim painted inside and outside. Normally the range is 2.5YR light red/red 4-6/6-8 and 10YR very pale brown 7-8/3-4. Three potsherds with reddish stone pattern probably belong to the same vessel, body thickness 0.4 cm; 2.5YR 6/6 light red. One sherd with body thickness 1 cm is 7.5YR 7/3 pink; another one is body thickness 0.5 – 0.8 cm,

7.5YR 8/3 pink; and finally one with the motif of foliate band is body thickness 0.3 cm, 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. LH II – Capo Graziano I levels at Lipari: 5YR pink 7-8/3-4. Often there is a variable thickness in vessels, as well as a difference in the colour of the clay from core to surface. Normally reddish core and greyish surface. Alabastron (less fragmentary) core 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown, surface 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white. Cat. n. 8028, FS 211? semi-globular cup, FM 46 running spiral; diam. raised concave base 3.9 cm; body thickness 0.3 cm; reddish paint; 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. Goblet FS 254 (LH II B), 10YR 8/3 very pale brown (surface) and 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow (core); handle has oval section, traces of the use of wheel, fine clay, body thickness 0.5 – 0.6 cm. LH III A – Capo Graziano II and Milazzese levels at Lipari: 10YR very pale brown 7-8/3-4 is normal range of colours. Motifs: bands, FM 57 net, FM 70 scale pattern; FM 22 argonaut; FM 64 foliate band; FM 62 tricurved arch. Piriform jar FS 31, FM 70 scale pattern; h. 24 cm; body thickness about 0.6 – 0.7 cm; vertical handles; banded; 10YR 8/2 white. Reddish vessel dated LH III A: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. Another is 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, though a joining sherd has a darker colour due to the chemistry of the soil. Some potsherds are 5YR pink 7-8/3-4, but most are 10YR very pale brown 7-8/3-4. All in fine clay. Potsherd with tricurved arch (LH III A 2), 10YR 7/2 light grey, body thickness 0.5 cm. LH III A 2 – C 1 – Ausonian I levels at Lipari: In this period there were also very few imports of grey and Nuragic ware. Vase LH III B 1? with FM 18 flower, 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, body thickness about 0.5 cm; vase with FM 62 tricurved arch? or FM 25 bivalve shell in FS 283 or FM 19 multiple stem, in two potsherds from the panel, tricurved arch and rim, probably belong to the same vessel. They are completely painted even inside (open vessel); body thickness about 0.5 cm; 7.5YR 8/4 pink. Range of vessels starts with possible late III A 2 and reaches III B 2. Only one potsherd is very thick, notdepurated clay and could be III C, 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, fine clay not-depurated, body thickness about 1 cm, decoration one large black band, traces of another one. Colours range: 10YR very pale brown 7-8/3-4; the cores are sometimes 5YR reddish yellow 6-7/6-8. LH III B 2 – C – Ausonian II levels at Lipari: Amber and stone beads. Nuragic ware. Early LH III C krater, FM 58 vertical chevron. Presence of askoi, like one is hut A 6. Generally the vessels are very thick, big, poorly decorated and very similar to storage/transport vessels. The local pottery is not dissimilar considering the shapes/functions. Colours range: 5YR pink 7-8/3-4. Bone comb like the one from Capo Graziano levels, found between Ausonian I and II levels. Decorated with incised circles. It is either an imitation of Aegean models or a very late Aegean comb. The almost contemporary comb from Plemmyrion seems manufactured in a more careful way. Essentially fine clay, but never depurated. Few vessels have a body thickness of about 0.5 cm, more have a body thickness of 1 cm. Only two are of about 0.5 cm and part of a third. Six plus part of one are thick about 1 cm, up to 1.2 cm. Potsherd with band (cat. n. 5746) is 5YR 6/8 reddish yellow (part of core) and 7.5YR 8/4 pink (surface). Cat. n. 4581, black foliate band is 7.5YR 7/4 pink. Cat. n. 5970, 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; n. 9000, 10YR 7/6 yellow. Cat. n. 8046 is 10YR 6/2 light brownish grey (core) and 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow surface,

180

with FM 59 V pattern. Cat. n. 7937, with part of the base, is 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. Filicudi (Montagnola di Capo Graziano): Decorated or mattpainted pottery, generally very thick, especially the oldest. Oldest vessels are 10YR 8/2 white, some 5YR reddish yellow 6-7/6-8. LH I to III A 1 phase 1 EBA LH III A 1 to A 2 phase 2 MBA The four Capo Graziano phases are plain ware Piano del Porto; incised ware Piano del Porto; Montagnola I; Montagnola II with Aegean imports. Same variety of pottery in the two phases, thick vessels continue throughout all the phases as the range of colours.The readable decoration from the existing potsherds is limited to bands and net motifs. One potsherd is decorated with waves like one dated to the late Cycladic period (uncertain date). Some potsherds have been darkened by the chemistry of the soil. Some miniature vessels come from the same context: they are jugs and dippers, very rough though. Between huts 8, 10 and 12: potsherd (4203) banded in orange paint (matt painted?), body thickness about 0.7 cm, 7.5YR 7/4 pink. Another one (4204), with painted blackish wavy lines, body thickness 0.7 – 0.9 cm, 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. A third one (15215), with reddish bands (matt painted?), body thickness about 0.5 cm, 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. Hut 1, level 7: n. 4070, body thickness 0.7 cm, 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; n. 4071, body thickness 0.5 – 0.6 cm, 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, fine clay; hut 1, level 9: n. 4073, body thickness 0.9 cm, 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, n. 4099, body thickness up to 1.8 cm, 10YR 7/6 yellow (surface), 5Y 7/1 light grey (core); hut 1, level 5: n. 4065, body thickness about 0.4 cm, 10YR 8/1 white. Sometimes fine clay has been used, well depurated, though often the clays are not depurated. Rare evidence of wheel although many vessels were produced with it. Hut 12, blackish and reddish vases, all in a not depurated impasto, hand-made. Probably the blackish one is fired more.While evidently the technique was not well refined and the temperature of the kiln was not under precise control, it is evident that there were attempts to vary the temperature to obtain different types of ceramic. In the case of the high pedestalled bowls, for example, while different in the clay used from those found in Thapsos, they are still incised. To facilitate the incisions, or because the vessel was exceptionally massive, it was not well fired, the ceramic being almost raw inside. Hut 12 Montagnola, Aegean-derivative from FS 268 (jar), FS 247 (one

handled bowl), jugs (less precise). From the latest phase, associated to Aegean-type LH III A 1 – 2 pottery, there are vessels similar vessels that in mainland Greece are dated to the LH III C.The belly-handled amphora FS 58; the jugs FS 106, 115 and similar; the lekythoi FS 122, 123 and 124; the hydria FS 128; and the trefoil-mouthed jug FS 137 – 138 are all introduced during the LH III C and sometimes remain rare. On one hand these shapes all contribute to the sense of decline registered during the period, and remarkably all are closed. On the other hand, they are all very similar to Sicilian shapes developed from Aegean models and maintained in use for much longer than in Greece. The case of plumed ware has to be recalled: it appears immediately after the last imports in Sicily, perhaps it is also contemporary with them for a short period, and it continues with some Aegean elements still present up to the arrival of the Greeks in Italy, when plumed and geometric ware were used together. Therefore, in Sicily the BA ceramic shapes were fewer than in Greece and lasted for longer. The introduction of new shapes was often due to foreign people; Sicily was a very conservative place at least considering that the pedestalled bowls and basins continue almost unchanged for centuries, the whole BA and part of the Iron Age. The Milazzese depositional contexts still have examples (called fruttiere) that recall Castelluccian examples. Salina: Hut F, piriform jar FS 45 LH III A 2, 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. Panarea (Milazzese): Many miniature vessels. Were they models for potters/customers? Toys? They are found in the Aeolian Islands especially in settlements while in Thapsos they are common even in funerary contexts. Alabastron FS 85, fragmentary, LH III A 2, painted with spirals, fine clay, 10YR 8/2 white (partly darkened). Decorations in other vessels: spirals, bands, FM 64 foliate band. Deep bowl FS 283?, fragmentary, fine clay, bands, 10YR 8/2 white. Few vessels are thick, though thick vessels remain in use at any time. Range of colours: 7.5YR pink 7-8/4 and 5YR pink 7-8/3-4. Hut 18: n. 1704, open vessel, bands in both sides (concentric circles at the base?), v pattern in reddish paint, 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; n. 1804, (running?) spiral in blackish paint, 7.5YR 7/4 pink; hut 10: n. 1385-1386, bands in blackish paint, 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. In all but 1704 evident signs of wheel; fine clay. A stone mould was found in Milazzese along with the Aegean-type vessels.

Additional data from visits to Ionian and Apulian archaeological museums Museum of Taranto

stirrup jar of LH III C. One jug is similar to MH models. Two rims of cup are dated to the LH I. Punta Tonno (Scoglio del Tonno) is a promontory with possible defences, 3 m width. Inhabited area was approximately 14000 m².A figurine comes from oval hut. Most of the Aegeantype pottery comes from an apsidal building. In Broglio the hut containing some Aegean-type pottery, grey ware and the foundation deposit had an apse too, where the pots were stored.Wall or defensive system is complicated, with three lines of stone fortifications or walls alternated by two moats.The exact situation is not well known as it was destroyed shortly after the discovery, over one century ago. The site today does not exist any more as the construction of the port by the railway station has ripped off entirely the ground, leaving a cement quay stretch-

Tomb of Monte Rotondo, Gioia del Colle, Bari. Cypriotlike jug in black (burnished) ware. Incised with dots on band, Aegean-derivative. Laterza, Taranto: tomb 4 is rock-cut (grotticella). Pendant in leather, copper knives and possible fragmentary stirrup jar in burnished ware, Aegean-derivative. Pedestalled bowl recalls exemplars found in Thapsos (or Castelluccian), undecorated, it is a miniature. Apennine and Sub-Apennine ware. Fine clay jar(?) with spirals, medium-sized, LH III C. Santa Maria di Leuca, pottery dated to the LH III B. Erba cave, Avetrana, miniature jug and jar in fine clay. Porto Perone, brownish stirrup jar, brownish paint, pinkish clay, LH III B 2 / C. Alabastron and

181

ing forward to the sea; only Neolithic structures survive as they were closer to the modern railway station. Punta Tonno was an important Neolithic and BA site, where influences from other areas, particularly the Aegean, continue from the Neolithic to the Greek colony. A big jar with octopus is very large, height more than 50 cm. Generally, all the vessels are quite big, including stirrup jars. Various bronze tools, swords however are the most common. Bone handles (of knives?) decorated according to Aegean styles. Figurines are two, similar to that found in Lipari, however at Punta Tonno other indigenous figurines have been found, fundamentally similar, though the manufacture and style are evidently different. The indigenous figurines, one seen, are in burnished ware, simpler, incised rather than painted. Three small stirrup jars. Larger vessels are not always in fine clay; it seems that they are more likely in coarse or non-depurated ware. Big jug in reddish or brownish paint.The chemicals of the ground have modified the colours of paint from brownish to reddish in many cases, with some integral pieces evidently showing the change of colour. An alternative view considers the cause to be a wrong exposure to heat in the kiln. The pottery from Punta Tonno is often in fine clay, but this probably because the excavator threw away the coarse pottery (excavations by Quagliati in 1899-1900). Coarse pottery with holes, from Torre Castelluccia, is regarded as influenced from Cypriot models (milk bowls). Miniature bowl or pedestal, similar examples found in BA strata from Iberia to the Aegean. Miniature support in pseudo-Minyan ware. Pseudo-Minyan ware often recalls Apennine, Sub-Apennine and Iron Age Italic wares more than Aegean Minyan ware. Most of the Aegeantype pottery from Punta Tonno comes from a building with apse. From Punta Tonno there are the most imports but only because there are larger quantities of pottery. Five hundred to one thousand vessels come from Scoglio del Tonno, whose structure are largely unknown. Fine pots. Normally here and in the nearby area they are larger than in Sicily. Few alabastra. Alabastra are present also in Torre Castelluccia. About 1500 pots are reported across Apulia. Materials from Scoglio are thick, many imports seem to be similar in style to those found at Rhodes, but petrological analyses cannot confirm this yet. Torre Castelluccia, Iapygian protogeometric ware is very similar, for decoration,to late Mycenaean ware (SubMycenaean). Interestingly, no Aegean protogeometric ware has ever been found in the Italian peninsula or Sicily. Apennine and SubApennine wares are present too. Glass and amber beads. Bronze bracelets. Rock-cut tombs. Known materials date to the LH III A 2 – B 2. Structures there are forming acropolis, then 15 metres down there is a lower settlement and a separate necropolis. Five doors in the walls of the acropolis. Molinella, Vieste (Foggia): miniscule potsherd dated LH II B, red paint, fine ware but unlikely an import. Timmari, Matera: LBA bone disc with circles, like in handle from Punta Tonno and other bone-made items from the area. Glass beads are spread across the whole area, for example Pozzillo and Masseria Cupola, Manfredonia (Foggia). Both in Torre Castelluccia and Punta Tonno (Scoglio) the huts are normally rectangular or quadrangular as in the Apennine and Sub-Apennine settlements. Defensive wall in Torre Castelluccia, though some structures existed outside the wall and a few reuses one side of the wall, internal or external, casting doubts, at least in later times, on the effectiveness of the wall for defensive

purposes. Giovinazzo (dolmen): small potsherd in very fine clay, LH II B or III A 1. Several bronze hoards, like in Surbo (Lecce) and Manduria (Taranto). Smooth transition in the whole territory from LBA – IA into Greek colonial period, certainly at Porto Saturo (Leporano), Punta Tonno and Avetrana. In BA Apulia sites are scattered mainly along the coast, though only a few are directly on the sea. Clusters in the areas of Taranto, Santa Maria di Leuca, Bari and the three delimiting zones of the Gargano. Dolmen localised between Gargano and Bari (Giovinazzo, for example) are possible relic of older culture, indigenous. During the Chalcolithic, the distribution of sites is very similar to that of the BA, but megalithic monuments are spread across the whole region, yet scarce traces of human activity are recorded in the area of the BA dolmens. It seems that a movement of people in that area occurred, and this people kept alive old traditions disappearing elsewhere.

Museum of Egnazia Coppa Nevigata: potsherd with bands in reddish/pinkish and brownish paint. LH III C. It belongs to a small open vessel (cup or bowl?). From the settlement, mixed with subApennine pottery. About 50 potsherds have been found at Coppa Nevigata, but they are not all published. Trinitapoli: dromos in front of some “ipogei” (subterranean tombs) could be simple access corridors. Madonna del Petto (Barletta): few potsherds, one decorated, of small open vessels (bowls?) Smooth transition to protogeometric ware. Settlement, LH III C, potsherds from protoVillanovan strata. Bari: very small potsherd with band, LH III C, possibly of alabastron. It is thick. Proto-Apennine levels, from hut with oval perimeter. Monopoli (via Papacenere): two potsherds, brownish paint, possible closed shapes. LH I- II. In Monopoli, Punta le Terrare and Giovinazzo settlement (not dolmen!) there are some possible ovens. They were found with many potsherds covering them. Apparently they were sophisticated and ready for “industrial” production: manufacture activity. There is a special association between Aegean-type pottery and ovens in Apulia. In the BA settlement of Egnazia (Fasano) defensive wall. Torre Santa Sabina: from tomb 12 a bronze dagger, alabastron (III A, smaller and thinner than Sicilian alabastra), a cup with handle (III A, very tiny) and a jug (net motif, not too dissimilar from protogeometric examples). Cup is of an unusual shape in the West Mediterranean. Jug is thick and huge. In other tombs there are cups in plain (indigenous) ware. Excavations 1990: sub-Apennine culture and LH III C pottery. Gap LH III A 1 to B 2 – C. Tomb 12 of possible LH III B 1 – 2. Punta le Terrare: LH III A 1 jug (decorated with “stipple” motif) similar to globular jugs from Thapsos (and Aegina). It has similar characteristics also on the internal side with evident traces of wheel. Pinkish clay, banded (as in Sicily). Whitish cup with piriform jar decorated with net motif. Wheel-made plain ware. In this site there are rectangular, square and circular huts. Ovens for cooking with loads of potsherds. Deer bones and sea-shells among the faunal remains. The hunt targeting wild animals was very active. Smooth transition BA – IA protogeometric in nearby areas (modern Brindisi).

182

Museum of Brindisi

Capo Piccolo, where mould for dagger comes from. During MBA – LBA Capo Piccolo is the only site with Aegean-type (Mycenaean) imports. During 8th century Kroton, the Greek colony, is founded. Corinthian ware appears, and notably pottery of Thapsos group is present too. Earliest Greek ware: sub-Geometric. From the Civic Museum collection, some four spiral objects in bronze that present similarities with EBA Castelluccian culture. They might also be Iron Age items. Previous connections with Sicily begin as early as Neolithic, with Stentinello culture and Aeolian Islands. It seems that Kroton was at the heart of an exchange network, as the Nuragic boat from the Hera sanctuary (Capo Colonna) proves. This network could be as old as Neolithic.

Torre Guaceto: LH III C 1 potsherd, brownish paint, from large vessel, in fine clay. Tricurved arch. Several potsherds of massive storage/transport vessels, likely to belong to some type of dolium. Several matt-painted potsherds from the area (especially Morelli cave). Some protogeometric sherds with spirals, not too dissimilar from Aegean-type wares, are hybrids between LH III C and Iapygian protogeometric wares. Late (IA) askos from Torre Guaceto, suggesting continuity like at Pantalica, Sicily. It was associated with proto-Villanovan wares.

Museum of Sybaris Plain Torre Mordillo: EIA or late Geometric kotyle (9th – 8th century BC); LBA oven; bell-shaped big jar containing several potsherds. Bone disc, ivory comb, protogeometric ware (Enotrian and Iapygian). Apennine and sub-Apennine pottery. Grey ware is decorated. Some Aegean-type pottery, some big containers (deep bowls). Simple decorations (arches, net). It is evident that is an imitation. Wooden palisade on rampart; settlement and tombs. Broglio di Trebisacce: grey ware (LBA) decorated and not. The decorated grey ware uses the same motifs of Aegeantype pottery. Apennine and sub-Apennine ware. Big jars (Aegean-type, recalling pithoi) are dolia. Very simple, almost protogeometric motifs. Pottery is thick, for big vessels, normally in fine clay. New technologies: turning-lathe. Grey ware for wine containers. Plain grey ware is used like standard ware, though a good one because wheel-made. For the first time large jars (pithoi) are introduced in the West Mediterranean (MBA – LBA). In Broglio the fortification dates after the BA or at the very end of the LBA. After the Mycenaeans war, and the smaller centres, less defended, are united with the larger ones. Intense contacts later, in Greek and Phoenician times. Central hut returned most of the Aegean-type pottery. Plan similar to horse-shoe (apse?) with two rooms. 8 metres long and 7 metres large; roof made by straw. Francavilla Marittima, necropolis: askoi as proof of contacts with Greeks before their arrival (LIA). Syrian or Phoenician scarab with askos in tomb 69, 3rd quarter of 8th century BC. Also other vessels of Greek provenance. Note: some of the items (for example scarabs) are original imports. Scarabs and amber from tombs 8 and 69, but there are also other tombs with these items.

Museum of Metaponto Termitito: sub-Apennine and proto-Villanovan materials mixed with Aegean-type pots. Alabastra, jugs, but mainly large jars in thick fine clay. Both Termitito and San Vito are close, near rivers and appear during the Apennine period. Few limited vessels of (Iapygian or Enotrian) protogeometric type. It seems that the sites produced their own Aegean-type pottery for the largest part, but direct contacts were in place. Once the contacts end for the sites begins the decline. The Aegean-type pottery from Termitito is quite splendid; evidently the potter was capable of mastering, and eventually innovating, the Aegean tradition. However, some oddities reveal their local origin. It is the case of the spirals, simply different from many Aegean models. However, the motifs are not limited to the simple ones. There are some that are very complex indeed, in some cases (decoration as metope) even anticipating (or being at the same level of) the Aegean models. Some imports cannot be ruled out, while some locally produced pots are clearly (attempts of) imitating Aegean models. Handles of knives in bone decorated with circles and dots in the centre like at Punta Tonno. A few pots from Termitito use the pictorial style: there is a human figure depicted on a stirrup jar. San Vito di Pisticci: several potsherds of large vessels (most of them jars and stirrup jars) with fewer smaller ones. It should be noted that both depositional and functional context point towards an association of Aegean-type vessels and storage of food, implying value as well as necessity. The decoration appears simpler than in Termitito. Ordinary ware is coarse, only in some cases it is incised or decorated imitating incisions (mainly dots). Presence of sub-Apennine ware. Bronze round pins (spiral-like) are widespread in the territory; three fourspirals pin comes from Pisticci (Incoronata; IA, 8th century BC), from tombs 226, 481 and 565. From the same necropolis, a vessel of Greek manufacture dating to the 7th century BC is extremely similar to Mycenaean examples, though the shape is of the Geometric period. Stamnos and cups with two handles. Undecorated grey ware in Pisticci is produced from LBA up to the 7th century BC (Greek times).

Museum of Crotone LH I potsherd from Capo Piccolo in pinkish clay with white slip? Pink is sandwiched in two external layers of white. Decoration in brownish paint, it seems to be spiral motif. Fine clay, yet thick (approx. 1 cm). Apennine and sub-Apennine pottery from the same settlement. Middle Neolithic, same area, potsherd very similar to the previous. Brownish lines, possibly motif. During the EBA the site of Corazzo (near Crotone) has materials decorated with triangles or impressed dots, which reveals contacts with the Aeolian Islands and Tuscany up to the Po Valley. During the MBA, in the next local phase, Capo Piccolo has Apennine pottery as in Calabria, Aeolian Islands and Campania. Copper from Sila, exchanged also in

183

Additional data kindly provided by Dr M. Gorgoglione, Superintendence of Apulia Since the late Neolithic / Chalcolithic, many items in the West Mediterranean are influenced by possible Aegean models. The case of a clay model of small house 5 x 5 cm, with figurines and a calcareous lid representing female(?) hairs and containing ochre is an example. From a cave, found out of context, dated to the 4th millennium BC. Also from Apulia a (decorated?) figurine of octopus, similar to LM models depicted on vases. Those are in relief and decorated. No imports before LH I

however. No Aegean-derivative products before late Neolithic. It should be noted that LN in Apulia and nearby is contemporary to MM III – LM I / MH – LH I pottery. MBA strata in the southern Italian peninsula contain LH III A pottery. Some areas were probably used for the same purpose for very long times, much earlier than thought. This could be the case of the Greek sanctuary in Torre Castelluccia, and perhaps the Greek sanctuaries in Kroton (Capo Colonna) and Aegina (Greece).

184

185

tte ry

er y

Yes

Yes

Bernstorf

Borg en Nadur

Yes

Cannatello

Yes

Capo Piccolo

No

Yes

Yes

(Ciudad Real)

Coppa Nevigata

Coria del Río

Encantada

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Necropolis

Necropolis

Settlement

Settlement

necropolis

Settlement and

Settlement

Settlement

Cave

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement?

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

necropolis

Cerro de la

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Canabarbara

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Tyrrhenian coast

Iberia

Ionian coast

Apulia A

Western Sicily

Eastern Sicily

Western Sicily

Eastern Sicily

Ionian coast

Eastern Sicily

North

Apulia A

North

Apulia I

North

Sardinia

Western Sicily

Iberia

Apulia A

Iberia

Eastern Sicily

Adriatic coast

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Settlement and

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Cava

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Northern

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Ae ge an o b jec type ts me ta l

Yes

ate ria ls

Tartaro (Cerea)

Yes

Casale Nuovo

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

ns

Castello del

No

(Sevilla)

Carmona

Yes

(Trani)

No

No

No

Capo Colonna

No

No

No

No

Camaro

Yes

No

No

No

No

San Vincenzo)

Caldare (Monte

Maiorana)

(Contrada

Buscemi

Trebisacce

Yes

No

Bari

Broglio di

No

Yes

Solferino

Barche di

No

No

No

Avetrana

No

No

No

No

Aunjetitz

De co

ery

ot t

ep

De riv ati v

ot t

rat ed p

Yes

hid

nly ot so ei ng Ox

po

Pla in

Albucciu)

(Nuraghe

Arzachena

Agrigento)

(Marina di

Cy p

am e

en

Sit

Agrigento

Nu

rio tm

ery ot t rag ic p

ial s n t i ne ma ter Le va

ild ing s ple xb u Co m

fs ite eo Ty p

fic ati o or ti F

ea Ar

MH

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

I

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

LH

II

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

LH

A III

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

LH

B III

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

LH

C III

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

LH

186

Yes

Egnazia (Fasano)

Yes

Giovinazzo

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

(San Cosimo)

Ischia

Jesi

Lake Ledro

Lipari

Gonnosfanadiga

No

(Almería)

Fuente Alamo

Polesine)

Yes

Yes

Fondo Paviani

Frattesina (Fratta

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Floridia

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Capo Graziano)

(Montagnola di

Filicudi

Mazara)

(Campobello di

Erbe Bianche

Terremare

Emilian

(Almería)

No

Yes

Eboli

El Oficio

No

No

(Mitza Purdia)

Decimoputzu

Negro (Granada)

Cuesta del

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Crotone

Yes

Yes

(Palagiano)

Cozzo Marziotta

Castello)

(Torano

Cozzo la Torre

Pantano

Cozzo del

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

necropolis

Settlement and

Necropolis

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

necropolis

Settlement and

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

necropolis

Settlement and

Necropolis

Aeolian Islands

North

Adriatic coast

Northern

Tyrrhenian coast

Sardinia

Apulia A

Iberia

Adriatic coast

Northern

Adriatic coast

Northern

Eastern Sicily

Aeolian Islands

Western Sicily

North

Iberia

Apulia A

Tyrrhenian coast

Sardinia

Iberia

Ionian coast

Apulia A

Ionian coast

Eastern Sicily

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

187

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Milena

Milocca

Molinella

Molinello

Yes

Orosei

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Ottana

Paestum

Palermo museum

Palmi

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Otranto

No

No

No

Arrubiu)

Orroli (Nuraghe

Yes

Cosimo)

Oria (San

'e Sos Carros)

No

No

Yes

Nora (Pula)

Oliena (Sa Sedda

No

Yes

(Cirò)

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Cave

Necropolis

Settlement

Hoard

Settlement

Settlement

Undetermined

Necropolis ?

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Other

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Settlement

Necropolis

Necropolis

Settlement

Cave

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Adriatic coast

Northern

Apulia A

Sardinia

Eastern Sicily

Apulia A

Eastern Sicily

Western Sicily

Tyrrhenian coast

Western Sicily

Tyrrhenian coast

Sardinia

Apulia A

Sardinia

Sardinia

Apulia A

Sardinia

Sardinia

Ionian coast

Tyrrhenian coast

Western Sicily

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No No

Apulia A

No

No

No

No

Eastern Sicily

Western Sicily

Apulia A

Tyrrhenian coast

Iberia

Yes

Motta di Cirò

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Monte Rovello

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Adriatic coast

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Monte Grande

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

(Ancona)

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Northern

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Montagnolo

Zeno)

(Borgo San

No

Monopoli

Montagnana

No

Yes

Zara)

Monastir (Monte

Yes

Meta Piccola

Yes

(Peschici)

Manaccora cave

(Licata)

Madre Chiesa

Petto (Barletta)

Yes

Yes

Luni sul Mignone

Madonna del

Yes

(Montoro)

Moros

Llanete de los

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

188

Yes

Pantalica

Yes

No

No

Parco Tumpagno

Pertosa

Pianello di Genga

No

Pontevedra

No

Pozzomaggiore

Yes

Punta Le Terrare

Yes

San Giovenale

Meliso)

Leuca (Punta

Santa Maria di

di Ricadi

Santa Domenica

Pisticci

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Salina

San Vito di

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Roca Vecchia

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

del Tonno)

known as Scoglio

(Taranto, also

Punta Tonno

Yes

(Cardini cave)

Praia a Mare

Yes

and Satyrion

Porto Perone

(Scalo di Furno)

Yes

Yes

Polla

Porto Cesareo

Yes

Plemmyrion

No

No

No

No

Yes

Pietraperzia

No

No

No

No

No

No

Contigliano

Piediluco and

Yes

Vecchia)

(Masseria

Parabita

Yes

Milazzese)

Panarea (Capo

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Cave

Cave

Settlement

Settlement

Cave

Necropolis

Settlement

Hoard

Necropolis

Cave

Settlement?

Settlement

necropolis

Settlement and

Apulia A

Tyrrhenian coast

Ionian coast

Tyrrhenian coast

Aeolian Islands

Apulia A

Apulia I

Apulia A

Tyrrhenian coast

Sardinia

Apulia I

Apulia I

Iberia

Tyrrhenian coast

Eastern Sicily

Western Sicily

Tyrrhenian coast

Adriatic coast

Northern

Tyrrhenian coast

Apulia A

Apulia I

Eastern Sicily

Aeolian Islands

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

189

No

Siniscola

Yes

Tas Silg

Termitito

Tharros

Yes

Yes

Torre Guaceto

Yes

Castelluccia

Torre

Torcello)

(Mazzorbo and

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Settlement

Necropolis

Settlement

necropolis

Settlement and

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Hoard

Settlement

Settlement

necropolis?

Settlement and

necropolis

Torcello

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No No

No

No No

Settlement and

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No No

(Rapolla)

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Toppo Daguzzo

Marittima)

(Francavilla

Timpone Motta

(Matera)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Thapsos

Timmari

No

Nastasi)

(Nuraghe

Tertenia

Yes

Yes

Domenico)

No

No

No

Settlement?

Settlement

Out of context

Necropolis

Settlement

Settlement

Yes

Taranto (San

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Syracuse

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Cave

Settlement

necropolis

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Surbo

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Sperate)

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Settlement and

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Su Fraigu (San

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Scirinda

Yes

Yes

Yes

museum)

Sassari ("Sanna"

cave)

Sassano (Pino

Domu s'Orku)

(Nuraghe Sa

Sarroch

Antigori)

(Nuraghe

No

Yes

No

necropolis

Sarroch

Yes

No

No

Muxaro

No

No

Settlement and

No

Yes

Sant'Angelo

Su Benatzu)

Santadi (Pirosu di

(Cerignola)

Ripalta

Santa Maria di

Apulia A

Apulia I

Adriatic coast

Northern

Ionian coast

Ionian coast

Ionian coast

Sardinia

Eastern Sicily

Sardinia

Ionian coast

Eastern Sicily

Apulia I

Eastern Sicily

Apulia A

Sardinia

Sardinia

Western Sicily

Sardinia

Tyrrhenian coast

Sardinia

Sardinia

Western Sicily

Sardinia

Apulia A

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

190

Torre Mordillo

No

No

Trinitapoli

Turre (Almería)

No

Villa San Pietro

Yes

Zambrone

Table 17: Additional data.

Yes

Vivara

Soci)

(Fabbrica dei

Yes

No

Villabartolomea

Yes

Valsavoia

No

Yes

(Faraglioni)

Ustica

Vino)

Tursi (Pane e

Martino)

Tursi (Cozzo San

Castello)

Yes

Yes

Treazzano

Tursi (Contrada

Yes

Yes

(Carovigno)

Sabina

Torre Santa

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Necropolis

Settlement

Necropolis

Settlement

Settlement

Settlement

Necropolis

Settlement

necropolis

Settlement and

Settlement

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Tyrrhenian coast

No

Tyrrhenian coast Yes

Adriatic coast

Northern

Sardinia

Eastern Sicily

Eastern Sicily

Ionian coast

Ionian coast

Ionian coast

Iberia

Apulia A

Adriatic coast

Northern

Apulia A

Ionian coast

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Bibliography S-PLUS 6 for Windows Guide to Statistics.Vol. 1. Seattle, WA: Insightful Corporation. A., L. 2001. Quando gli jesini scesero dagli alberi. Il Messaggero [27 January 2001], 27 January 2001. Agostini, S., A. Di Santo, F. Fabbri, E. Pellegrini, M. Piperno, A. Tagliacozzo, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1996. Grotta del Pino: giacimento funerario del Bronzo medio nel Vallo di Diano (Sassano, SA). In Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by F. Facchini. Forli. Albanese Procelli, Rosa Maria. 1995. Contacts and Exchanges in Protohistoric Sicily. In Ancient Sicily, edited by T. Fischer-Hansen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. ———. 1996. Produzione metallurgica e innovazioni tecnologiche nella Sicilia protostorica. In Early Societies in Sicily: New Developments in Archaeological Research, edited by R. Leighton. London: Accordia Research Centre. Albanese, Rosa Maria. 1993. Ripostigli di bronzi della Sicilia nel Museo archeologico di Siracusa. Palermo: Accademia nazionale di scienze, lettere e arti. Almagro-Gorbea, M., and F. Fontes. 1997. The introduction of wheel-made pottery in the Iberian Peninsula: Myceneans or pre- Orientalizing contacts? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16 (3):345-362. ANSA. 2003. Archeologia 2001 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.bur.it/nc000214.htm. Antona Ruju, Angela, and Maria Luisa Ferrarese Ceruti. 1992. Il nuraghe Albucciu e i monumenti di Arzachena.Vol. 19. Sassari: C. Delfino editore. Appadurai, Arjun, ed. 1986. The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. 1st pbk ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Arancio, L.,V. Buffa, I. Damiani, F. Trucco, A. Tagliacozzo, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1995. L’abitato di Torre Mordillo nel quadro dello sviluppo dell’insediamento protostorico nell’alto Ionio (Sibartide). Oxbow Monograph (41):227-240. Arancio, M. L., Flavia Trucco, and Lucia Vagnetti. 2001. Torre Mordillo 1987-1990: le relazioni egee di una comunità protostorica della Sibaritide, Incunabula Graeca. Roma: Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici. Archi, Alfonso. 1984. Circulation of goods in non-palatial context in the ancient Near East: proceedings of the international conference, Incunabula Graeca. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Aubert, C. 1991. La diffusion de l’ambre a l’epoque mycenienne: hypothese d’un role de la peninsule iberique. In Secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. Avila, Robert. 1980. Grabungen in der Unterburg 1971, Forschungen und Berichte / Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut Athen.Tiryns; 9. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Bacci Spigo, G. M. 1993-1994. Un idoletto di tipo egeo da Camaro presso Messina. Kokalos 39-40:171-180. Baffetti, Adriana, ed. 1993. Vulcano a Mezzano: insediamento e produzioni.Valentano: Museo Civico. Balmuth, Miriam S., ed. 1987. Studies in Sardinian archaeology. III. Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean world.Vol. 387. Oxford: B.A.R. ———, ed. 1989. Studies in Sardinian archaeology. II. Sardinia in the Mediterranean.Vol. (1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Balmuth, Miriam S., and Robert J. Rowland, eds. 1984. Studies in Sardinian archaeology. I. Ann Anrbor: University of Michigan Press. Balmuth, Miriam S., and Robert H. Tykot, eds. 1998. Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean: proceedings of the International Colloquium ‘Sardinian Stratigraphy and Mediterranean Chronology’,Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, March 17-19, 1995. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Barbieri, Umberto, and Renato Peroni. 1984. Nuove ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. Roma: Paleani editrice. Barfield, L. 1966. A Bronze Age Cup from Lake Ledro (Trento). Antiquity 40:48-49. ———. 1994. The Bronze Age of northern Italy. In Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart. Sheffield. Bass, George F. 1967. Cape Gelidonya: a bronze age shipwreck. Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. N.S. 57 (8). ———. 1991. Evicence of trade from Bronze Age shipwrecks. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. Baumgartel, E. 1951. The cave of Manaccora, Monte Gargano. Part 2. Papers of the British School at Rome 19:23-42. Begemann, Friedrich, Sigrid Schmitt-Strecker, Ernst Pernicka, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 2001. Chemical composition and lead isotopy of copper and bronze from Nuragic Sardinia. European Journal of Archaeology 4 (1):43. Belardelli, Clarissa. 1989. Aegean-Type Pottery from Coppa Nevigata, Apulia. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Belardelli, Clarissa. 1994. Ceramica decorata egeo-micenea in Italia. In La Società Micenea, edited by M. Marazzi. Roma: Bagatto. Belardelli, Clarissa. 1996. Coppa Nevigata (Manfredonia-Puglia): uno scavo stratigrafico del 1904. In Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by F. Facchini. Forli. Bellintani, Paolo, Giovanna Gambacurta, Julian Henderson, and Andrew Towle. 2001. Frattesina and Adria: report of scientific analysis of early glass from the Veneto. Padusa 37:7-68. Benzi, M., and G. Graziadio. 1991. Late Mycenaean Pottery from Punta Meliso (Santa Maria di Leuca). In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. ———. 1996. The Last Mycenaeans in Italy? Late LH IIIC Pottery from Punta Meliso, Leuca. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici (38):95-138. Bergonzi, Giovanna. 1985. Southern Italy and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age: Economic Strategies and Specialised Craft Products. In Papers in Italian Archaeology 4. Part 3: Patterns in Protohistory, edited by C. Malone and S. Stoddart. Oxford: B.A.R. ———. 1991. Bilance nelle tombe: qualche considerazione su di un rituale funerario del Tardo Elladico. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. Bergonzi, Giovanna,Vittoria Buffa, Beatrice Capoferri, and Renato Peroni. 1984. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. 3. Roma: Paleani. Bergonzi, Giovanna,Vittoria Buffa, and Andrea Cardarelli. 1982. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. 2. Naples: Institut français de Naples. Bergonzi, Giovanna, Andrea Cardarelli, and Pier Giovanni Guzzo. 1982. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. 1. Naples: Institut français de Naples. Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1954. La Sicilia prehistórica y sus relaciones con Oriente y con la Península Ibérica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma. ———. 1956. Akrai. Catania: Società di Storia Patria per la Sicilia Orientale. ———. 1966. Sicily before the Greeks. London: Thames & Hudson.

191

———. 1968-1969. Considerazioni sull’eneolitico e sulla prima età del bronzo della Sicilia e della Magna Grecia. Kokalos 14-15:20-59. ———. 1970. Thapsos - primi indizi dell’abitato dell’età del bronzo. Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua:139-151. ———. 1971. Archeologia nella Sicilia sud-orientale. Siracusa: Sopraintendenza alle antichità. ———. 1978. Alcune considerazioni sul carico di ceramiche dell’età del Bronzo di Pignataro di Fuori e sugli antichi scali marittimi nell’isola di Lipari. Sicilia Archeologica 36:36. ———. 1979. L’età del bronzo tarda e finale nelle isole Eolie. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 21:571-. ———. 1985. Relitto della prima età del Bronzo di Pignataro di Fuori. Supplemento al Bollettino d’Arte 29:48-52. ———. 1990. Pantalica: ricerche intorno all’anáktoron.Vol. 14. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard: Istituto di Studi Acrensi. ———. 1991. Meligunìs-Lipára 6. Filicudi. Insediamenti dell’età del Bronzo. Palermo. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, I. Biddittu, P. F. Cassoli, Madeleine Cavalier, S. Scali, A. Tagliacozzo, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1989. La grotta Cardini (Praia a Mare - Cosenza): Giacimento del Bronzo.Vol. n.s. 4, Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana. Roma. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier. 1956. Civilita’ preistoriche delle isole Eolie e del territorio di Milazzo. Roma: Museo Preistorico-Etnografico “L. Pigorini”. ———. 1958. Il castello di Lipari: e il Museo Archeologico Eoliano. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. ———. 1960. Meligunìs-Lipára 1. La stazione preistorica della contrada Diana e la necropoli protostorica di Lipari.Vol. 1. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. ———. 1968. Meligunìs-Lipára 3. Stazioni preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli.Vol. 3. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. ———. 1979. Il castello di Lipari e il Museo archeologico eoliano. 2a ed. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. ———. 1980. L’acropoli de Lipari nella preistoria. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, Madeleine Cavalier, and P. Belli. 1990. La tholos termale di San Calogero nell’isola di Lipari. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 28:7-84. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, Madeleine Cavalier, L. W. Taylour, and Francesco D’Angelo. 1980. Meligunìs-Lipára 4. L’acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria.Vol. 4. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio. Bernabo Brea, M., Madeleine Cavalier, and Luigi Bernabo Brea. 2002. In memoria di Luigi Bernabo Brea: Mario Grispo. Bernstein, R.J. 1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. Bettelli, Marco, and D. De Angelis. 1996. Diverse technological levels of specialized pottery production in Late Bronze Age Southern Italy: grey and coarse ware cups and bowls from Broglio di Trebisacce in Calabria. In Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by F. Facchini. Forli. Bettelli, Marco, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1997. Aspetti delle relazioni fra l’area egeo-micenea e l’Italia settentrionale. In Le Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana. Catalogo della Mostra, edited by M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli and M. Cremaschi. Milano. Biancofiore, Franco. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell’Italia meridionale. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. ———. 1968. Osservazioni sulle origini degli stanziamenti micenei in Apulia. In Atti e Memorie del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by L. Vagnetti and S. Tinè. Roma: Ateneo. Biancofiore, Franco, and Odoardo Toti. 1973. Monte Rovello.Testimonianze dei micenei nel Lazio. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. 1985. Contact, exchange, and conflict in the Italian Bronze Age: the Mycenaeans on the Tyrrhenian coasts and islands. In Papers in Italian Archaeology 4. Part 3: Patterns in Protohistory, edited by C. Malone and S. Stoddart. Oxford: B.A.R. ———. 1988. The ‘Mycenaean Connection’ and its Impact on Central Mediterranean Societies. Dialoghi di Archeologia 6 (1):23-51. ———. 1992. The Iron Age community of Osteria dell’Osa: a study of socio-political development in central Tyrrhenian Italy, New studies in archaeology. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1996. Protostoria: teoria e pratica. Roma: NIS. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria, and J. De Grossi Mazzorin. 2001. L’avorio dell’abitato protostorico di Frattesina (Rovigo, Italia). In The World of Elephants, edited by G. Cavarretta, P. Gioia, M. Mussi and M. R. Palombo. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Binford, Lewis Roberts. 1989. Debating archaeology. San Diego; London: Academic Press. Bisi, A.M. 1968. Fenici o micenei in Sicilia nella Seconda metà del II millennio a.C. In Atti e Memorie del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by L.Vagnetti and S. Tinè. Roma: Ateneo. Bouzek, Jan. 1985. The Aegean, Anatolia, and Europe: cultural interrelations in the second millennium B.C. Göteborg: Paul Åstroms Förlag. Branigan, K. 1981. Minoan Colonialism. Annual of the British School at Athens 76:23-33. Bryan, Betsy M. 2000. The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by I. Shaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buccellati, Giorgio, and Marilyn Kelly Buccellati. 1983. Terqa: The first eight seasons. Les annales archéologiques arabes syriennes: Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire 32:47-67. Cassano, S.M., A. Cazzella, Alberto Manfredini, and M. Moscoloni, eds. 1987. Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio. Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennia a.C. Ministero per i beni culturali ed ambientali, Soprintendenza archeologica della Puglia. Università degli studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Castellana, Giuseppe. 1988-1989. Licata. Madre Chiesa di Gaffe. Kokalos 9-10:3-50. ———. 1993-1994. Ricerche nel territorio di Palma di Montechiaro, Ribera, Menfi e Favara. Kokalos 39-40:735-753. ———, ed. 1998. Il santuario castellucciano di Monte Grande e l’approvvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediterraneo nell’eta del bronzo. Palermo: Regione Sicilia, Assessorato beni culturali ed ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. ———. 2000. La cultura del Medio Bronzo nell’agrigentino ed i rapporti con il mondo miceneo. Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato Regionale Culturali Ambientali e della pubblica Istruzione. Castelnuovo, Enrico. 1986. I Mesi di Trento: gli affreschi di Torre Aquila e il gotico internazionale. Trento: Temi. Cavalier, Madeleine. 1960. Les cultures préhistoriques des îles Éoliennes et leur rapport avec le monde égéen. BCH 84:319-346. ———. 1984-1985. Attività archeologica nelle isole Eolie. Kokalos 30-31:698-. Cavalier, Madeleine, and Luigi Bernabò Brea. 1993-1994. Attività della Soprintendenza: isole Eolie. Kokalos 39-40:987-1000. Cavalier, Madeleine, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1984. Materiali micenei vecchi e nuovi dall’acropoli di Lipari. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 25:143-154. Cavalier, Madeleine and L.Vagnetti. 1986. Arcipelago eoliano. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Cavallari, Francesco Saverio. 1880. Le città e le opere di escavazione in Sicilia anteriori ai greci. Appendice.Thapsos. Palermo. Cavanagh, W., C. Mee, and J. Renard. The Kouphovouno project 2002 season - Excavation season 2 [Word file kouph2002.doc] 2002 [cited. Available from http://www.liv.ac.uk/Archaeology_Classics/research/projects/kouphovouno/kouph2002.doc. Cazzella, Alberto, I. Damiani, F. Di Gennaro, M. Moscoloni, M. Pacciarelli, A.C. Saltini, S. Tusa, and I.Valente. 1986. L’isola di Vivara. In Traffici micenei nel

192

mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Cazzella, Alberto. 1991. Insediamenti fortificati e controllo del territorio durante l’età del Bronzo nell’Italia sud-orientale. In Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology 1:The Archaeology of Power, edited by E. Herring, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre. Cazzella, Alberto, Massimiliano Marazzi, and Sebastiano Tusa. 1991. Vivara: centro commerciale mediterraneo dell’età del bronzo. Roma: Bagatto libri. Cazzella, Alberto, and M. Moscoloni. 1996. Coppa Nevigata e gli insediamenti fortificati della Puglia settentrionale. In Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by F. Facchini. Forli. Cazzella, Alberto, and Maurizio Moscoloni. 1999. The Walled Bronze Age Settlement of Coppa Nevigata, Manfredonia, and the Development of Craft Specialisation in Southeastern Italy. In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, edited by R. H. Tykot, J. Morter and J. E. Robb. London: Accordia Research Institute. Cherry, J. F., and Arthur Bernard Knapp. 1991. Quantitative Provenance Studies and Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Some Preliminary Reflections. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale. Jonserde: Paul Åströms Förlag. Chiarucci, Pino. 1985. Materiali dell’età del bronzo nelle acque del Lago Albano. Quaderni del centro di studio per l’archeologia Etrusco-Italica. Archeologia Laziale 7 (11):34-39. Childe,V. Gordon. 1939. The dawn of European civilization. 3rd ed, History of civilization. London: Trubner & Co. Ciabatti, E. 1978. Relitto dell’età del Bronzo rinvenuto nell’isola di Lipari: Relazione sulla prima e seconda campagna di scavi. Sicilia Archeologica 36:7. Cinquepalmi, Angela, and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena. Ciongoli, G.P. 1986. Nuovi rinvenimenti a Parabita (LE). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Cipolloni Sampò, Mirella. 1986. Le tombe di Toppo Daguzzo (Basilicata nord-orientale): considerazioni sulle comunità della media età del Bronzo nel sud- est italiano. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Cita, M. B., and G. Aloisi. 2000. Deep-sea tsunami deposits triggered by the explosion of Santorini (3500y BP), eastern Mediterranean. Sedimentary Geology 135 (1-4):181-203. Classen, C. 1996. Sugar cane, Coca-Cola and hypermarkets: consumtpion and surrealism in the Argentine Northwest. In Cross-cultural consumption, edited by D. Howes. London: Routledge. Cline, E. H. 1994. Sailing the wine-dark sea: international trade and the late Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Cultraro, M. 1996. Metalli, ambra e pasta vitrea: una riconsiderazione sugli oggetti di prestigio nella Sicilia dell’antica Eta del Bronzo. In Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, edited by F. Facchini. Forli. D’Agata, A.L. 1986. Considerazioni su alcune spade siliciane della media e tarda età del bronzo. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. D’Agata, A. L. 2000. Interactions between Aegean groups and local communities in Sicily in the Bronze Age: the evidence from pottery. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42 (1):19-59. De Blasio, Abele. 1898. Le antichità primitive di Castelvenere pel dott. Abele De Blasio. Rivista mensile di Psichiatria forense, antropologia criminale e scienze affini 2 (1). De la Cruz, Jose Clemente Martin. 1990. Die erste mykenische Keramik von der Iberischen Halbinsel. PZ 65:49-52. De la Cruz, J. C. Martin. 1991. Nuevas ceramicas de importación en Andalucia (España): Sus implicaciones culturales. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. De la Cruz, J. C. M., and M. Perlines Benito. 1993. La ceramica a torno de los contextos culturales de finales del II milenio A.C. en Andalucia. In 1. Congresso de arqueologia peninsular, edited by V. O. Jorge. Porto: Sociedade portuguesa de antropologia e etnologia. De Miro, D. 1991. Recenti ritrovamenti micenei nell’Agrigentino. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. De Miro, Ernesto. 1968. Il miceneo nel territorio di Agrigento. In Atti e Memorie del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by L.Vagnetti and S. Tinè. Roma: Ateneo. ———. 1995. Archai della Sicilia greca. Presenze egeocipriote sulla costa meridionale dell’isola. L’emporio miceneo di Cannatello. In Rencontre scientifique en hommage a Georges Vallet: La colonisation Grecque en Mediterranee occidentale, edited by G.Vallet. Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome. De Miro, Ernesto, Louis Godart, and Anna Sacconi. 1996. Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia, Secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia. Roma: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. De Siena, A. 1986. Termitito. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Deorsola, D. 1991. Il villaggio del Medio Bronzo di Cannatello presso Agrigento. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. D’Ercole,Vincenzo, and Roberta Cairoli. 1998. Archeologia in Abruzzo: storia di un metanodotto tra industria e cultura. Montalto di Castro: Arethusa. Dolfi, Giovanni. 1998.Villaggio palafitticolo delle Macine. Controluce, January/February, 20. Douglas, Mary, and Food International Commission on the Anthropology of. 1987. Constructive drinking: perspectives on drink from anthropology. Cambridge; New York; Paris: Cambridge University Press: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Doumas, Christos. 1999. The Wallpaintings of Thera. Thera: Thera Foundation. Ebert, Max. 1924. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte: unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgelehrter. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Eigen, M. 1973. The Origin of Biological Information. In The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, edited by J. Mehra. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Evans, A. 1905. The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos. Archaeologia 59 (2):391-562. Evans, John Davies. 1971. The prehistoric antiquities of the Maltese Islands: a survey. London: Athlone Press. Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro. Ferrarese Ceruti, M.L.F. 1979. Ceramica micenea in Sardegna (Notizia preliminare). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 34 (1-2):242-253. Ferrarese Ceruti, M.L.F., Lucia Vagnetti, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1987. Minoici, Micenei e Ciprioti in Sardegna alla luce delle più recenti scoperte, edited by M. S. Balmuth. Fiorentini, Graziella. 1993-1994. Contatti e scambi egei nel territorio agrigentino nel III e II millennio a.C.: i micenei ad Agrigento. Agrigento: Museo archeologico regionale di Agrigento. Fisher, Elizabeth Ann. 1988. A Comparison of Mycenaean Pottery from Apulia with Mycenaean Pottery from Western Greece. Ph.D. Dissertation,

193

University of Minnesota. Fogolari, Giulia. 1993. Il Museo di Torcello: bronzi, ceramiche, marmi di eta antica.Venezia: Marsilio. Franco, M. C. 1991. Salento ed Egeo: note preliminari sull’insediamento protostorico di Punta Le Terrare (Brindisi). In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. French, E. 1967. Pottery from LH III B1 destruction contexts at Mycenae. British School at Athens 62:149-193. Friedman, Jonathan. 1992. The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity. American Anthropologist 94 (4):837-859. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, William Glen-Doepel, Garrett Barden, and John Cumming. 1975. Truth and method. London: Sheed and Ward. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, and David Edward Linge. 1976. Philosophical hermeneutics. Berkley, Calif: University of California Press. Gale, Noel H. 1991. Copper Oxhide Ingots: Their Origin and their Place in the Bronze Age Metals Trade in the Mediterranean. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale: Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg. ———. 2001. Archaeology, science-based archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age metals trade: a contribution to the debate. European Journal of Archaeology 4 (1):113. Garrigós, J. Buxeda I, R. E. Jones,V. Kilikoglou, S. T. Levi,Y. Maniatis, J. Mitchell, L.Vagnetti, K. A. Wardle, and S. Andreou. 2003. Technology Transfer at the Periphery of the Mycenaean World: The Cases of Mycenaean Pottery Found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy). Archaeometry 45 (2):263-284. Gebhard, R., and K. H. Rieder. 2003. Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, 12. April 2001 2000 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.blfd.bayern. de/Aktuelles/Pressemitteilung/pr29.htm. Geertz, C. 1976. The Religion of Java. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gell, A. 1992. Barter and gift-exchange in old Melanesia. In Barter, exchange and value, edited by C. Humphrey and S. Hugh-Jones. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Genick, D., ed. 1996. L’antica età del Bronzo in Italia. Firenze: Octavo. Giardino, Claudio, ed. 1995. Il Mediterraneo Occidentale fra XIV ed VII secolo a.C: cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche = The West Mediterranean between the 14th and 8th centuries B.C. Oxford: B.A.R. Giardino, C. 1997. Sicilian hoards and protohistoric metal trade in the Central West Mediterranean. In The supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age Europe, edited by C. F. E. Pare. Birmingham: Oxbow. González-Ruibal, Alfredo. 2004. Facing two seas: Mediterranean and Atlantic contacts in the north-west of Iberiain the first millennium BC. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23 (3):287-318. Goren,Y., S. Bunimovitz, I. Finkelstein, and N. Na’aman. 2003. The Location of Alashiya: New Evidence from Petrographic Investigation of Alashiyan Tablets from El-Amarna and Ugarit. American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2):233-256. Gorgoglione, Mariantonia. 1986. L’insediamento dell’età del Bronzo di Cozza Marziotta, Palagiano, Taranto. Presenza di ceramica micenea. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. ———. 1991. La civiltà micenea nel golfo di Taranto: il saggio di S. Domenico. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. ———. 1996. Il golfo di Taranto nell’Eta del Bronzo. In Neolithic in the Near East and Europe; Proceedings of the XIII congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, edited by R. Grifoni Cremonesi. Forli. ———, ed. 2002. Strutture e modelli di abitati del Bronzo tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia. Manduria: Filo Editore. Guzzardi, L. 1986. Elementi di tradizione micenea nell’architettura funeraria calabrese. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Guzzo, Pier Giovanni, Claude Albore Livadie, and Caterina Cicirelli. 2003. Prima di Pompei: un insediamento protostorico nel Golfo di Napoli. La Parola del passato 58 (2):81-168. Halstead, Paul, and John O’Shea. 1989. Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty, New directions in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harding, A., and H. Hughes-Brock. 1974. Amber in the Mycenaean World. British School at Athens 69:145-172. Harding, A. F. 1984. The Mycenaeans and Europe. London: Academic, 1984. ———. 2000. European societies in the bronze age, Cambridge world archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. 2001. Globalization. In The Oxford companion to politics of the world, edited by M. E. Crahan and J. Krieger. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henderson, Jeffrey, Peter Dicken, Martin Hess, Neil Coe, and Henry Wai-Chung Yeung. 2002. Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Review of International Political Economy 9 (3):436-464. Hieke, W., and F. Werner. 2000. The Augias megaturbidite in the central Ionian Sea (central Mediterranean) and its relation to the Holocene Santorini event. Sedimentary Geology 135 (1-4):205-218. Hiller, Stefan. 1975. Mykenische Keramik, Alt-Ägina. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture, New studies in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1986. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ———. 1987. The Archaeology of contextual meanings, New directions in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———, ed. 1989. The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989. ———. 1991. Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ———. 1994. Interpreting archaeology: finding meaning in the past. London, New York: Routledge. ———. 1999. Symbolism at Catalhoeyuek. Proceedings- British Academy 99:177-192. ———. 2000. Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara / BIAA monograph. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Holloway, R. R. 2000. LEIGHTON, Sicily before History: An Archaeological Survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2):406. Howes, David. 1996. Cross-cultural consumption: global markets, local realities. London; New York: Routledge. Irwin, G. 1983. Chieftainship, Kula and trade in the Massim. In The Kula, edited by E. Leach and J. Leach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, Caroline M. 2005. ARCHAEOLOGY: Glassmaking in Bronze-Age Egypt. Science 308 (5729):1750-1752. Jenkins, D., Richard E. Jones, Sara Tiziana Levi, Lucia Vagnetti, and J. Williams. 2002. Mycenaean and Aegean-type Pottery from Northern Italy. Archaeological and Archaeometric Studies. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 44 (2):221-261. Jones, Richard E. 1986. Chemical Analysis of Aegean-type Late Bronze Age Pottery Found in Italy. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici

194

e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Jones, Richard E., and L.Vagnetti. 1991. Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean: Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale: Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg. Jones, Richard E., and P. Day. 1986. Aegean-type Pottery on Sardinia: Identification of Imports and Local Imitations by Chemical Analysis. In Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean world, edited by M. S. Balmuth. Oxford: B.A.R. Jones, Richard E., Sara Tiziana Levi, and Lucia Vagnetti. 2002. Connections between the Aegean and Italy in the Later Bronze Age: The Ceramic Evidence. Bar International Series 1011:171-184. Jones, Richard E., and Christopher Mee. 1978. Spectrographic Analyses of Mycenaean Pottery from Ialysos on Rhodes: Results and Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:461-470. Kanta, A. 1980. The late Minoan III period in Crete: a survey of sites, pottery and their distribution. Karageorghis,Vassos, and Demetrios Michaelides, eds. 1995. Cyprus and the sea: International symposium. Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Kilian, Klaus. 1975. Trachtzubehör der Eisenzeit zwischen Ägäis und Adria. Berlin: de Gruyter. Killen, John Tyrell, and Sofia Voutsaki. 2001. Economy and politics in the Mycenaean Palace States: proceedings of a conference held on 1-3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Knapp, Arthur Bernard. 2000. Archaeology, science-based archaeology and the mediterranean bronze age metals trade. European Journal of Archaeology 3 (1):31-56. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2 ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leighton, Robert. 1999. Sicily before history: an archaeological survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Levi, Sara Tiziana, M. L. Amadori, M. Di Fillo, and F. Fratini. 1994. Archaeometric and archaeologic research on the pottery of Coppa Nevigata (FG Italy): production and provenance. In The ceramics cultural heritage, edited by P.Vincenzini. Florence; Italy: TECHNA Srl. Levi, Sara Tiziana, and Salvatore Bianco. 1999. Produzione e circolazione della ceramica nella Sibaritide protostorica.Vol. 1. Firenze: All’insegna del giglio. Lewartowski, Kazimierz. 2000. Late Helladic simple graves: a study of Mycenaean burial customs. Lilliu, Giovanni. 1973. Tripode bronzeo di tradizione cipriota dalla Grotta Pirosu-Su Benatzu di Santadi (Cagliari). In Estudios dedicados al profesor dr. Luis Pericot. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona. Liverani, Mario. 1990. Prestige and interest: international relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. Padova: Sargon. Lo Porto, Felice Gino. 1963. Leporano (Taranto) - La stazione protostorica di Porto Perone. Notizie degli scavi di antichità 17:280-380. ———. 1963. Sepolcreto tardo-apenninico con ceramica micenea a S. Sabina presso Brindisi. Bollettino d’Arte 48:125 ff. ———. 1968. Italici e micenei alla luce delle scoperte archeologiche pugliesi. In Atti e Memorie del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by L.Vagnetti and S. Tinè. Roma: Ateneo. ———. 1969. Rapporti culturali fra la Puglia e il mondo egeo in età protostorica. Archivio Storico Pugliese 22:3-7. ———. 1986. Le importazione micenee in Puglia: bilancio di un decennio di studi. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. ———. 1991. Timmari: l’abitato, le necropoli, la stipe votiva, Archaeologica. Roma: G. Bretschneider. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia. 1978. Sardegna centro-orientale dal Neolitico alla fine del mondo antico. Sassari: Dessi. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia, and L.Vagnetti. 1980. Micenei in Sardegna? Rendiconti dei Lincei 35:731-384. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia. 1985. Nuragic Sardinia in its Mediterranean setting: some recent advances. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Archaeology Department. ———. 1993. Cyprus and Sardinia in the Mediterranean Trade Routes Toward the West. In Cyprus and the sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia. ———. 1995. Sardinia in the Mediterranean: Introduction. In Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth and R. H. Tykot. Oxford. ———. 1998. Il Museo archeologico Giovanni Antonio Sanna: anno 1998, Sassari.Viterbo: BetaGamma. ———. 1999. I lingotti oxhide nel Mediterraneo ed in Europa centrale. In Epi ponton plazomenoi: simposio italiano di studi egei, dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo and L.Vagnetti. Roma. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia, Ellen MacNamara, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1985. Late Cypriot Imports to Italy and Their Influence on Local Bronzework. British School at Rome 53:1-71. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia, and M. Sanges. 1994. Il nuraghe Arrubiu di Orroli.Vol. 22. Sassari: C. Delfino. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia, and R.Valera. 1998. Archaeomining and Archaeometallurgy: An Essential Multidisciplimary Approach. Silver in the Prehistory of Sardinia. In Beginning of the use of metals and alloys. Matsue: Sendai. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia and L.Vagnetti. 1986. Frammento di vaso miceneo (?) da Pozzomaggiore (SS). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. MacDougall, J. Paige. 2003. Transnational Commodities as Local Cultural Icons: Barbie Dolls in Mexico. J Popular Culture 37 (2):257-275. MacNamara, Ellen. 1970. A group of bronze from Surbo, Italy: new evidence for Aegean contacts with Apulia during Mycenaean IIIB and C. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society XXXVI:241-260. Maffei, M. 1994. Analisi del DNA mitocondriale negli individui della tomba 3 di Toppo Daguzzo (media età del Bronzo). Bulletino di Preistoria Italiana 84:367-384. Mannino, G. 1982. Il villaggio dei Faraglioni di Ustica. Notizie preliminari. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 21:279297. Marazzi, Massimiliano. 1976. Egeo e Occidente alla fine del 2. millennio a. C.: considerazioni per l’impostazione di uno studio storico sui rapporti fra il mondo egeo e l’ambiente italico e siculo nei secoli 13.-10. a. C, Filologia e critica. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. ———. 1978. La società micenea. Roma: Riuniti. ———. 1980. Die mykenische Gesellschaft im Lichte der ägäischen Warenzirkulation im westlichen Mittelmeerraum. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 21 (4):594-609. ———. 1985. Minoan and Mycenaean Overseas Trade, a Review of Recent Conferences. Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica 50 (3):107-116. ———. 1988. La più antica marineria micenea in occidente. Dialoghi di Archeologia 6 (1):5-22. ———. 1991. Tirreno e mondo egeo: sistemi grafici ed espedienti mnemotecnici. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. Marazzi, Massimiliano. 1993. The Early Aegean-Mycenaean Presence in the Gulf of Naples: Past and Recent Discoveries. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical

195

Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ———. 1994. I Micenei nei mari d’Occidente. In La Società Micenea., edited by M. Marazzi. Rome: Bagatto. Marazzi, Massimiliano, G. Bockisch, and Clarissa Belardelli. 1994. La società micenea.Vol. 2. Roma: Bagatto. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Claudio Mocchegiani Carpano. 1998. Vivara: un’isola al centro della storia. Napoli: Altrastampa. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Sebastiano Tusa. 1976. Testimonianze micenee da Vivara. La Parola del passato 31 (171):473-485. ———, eds. 2001. Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree: catalogo della mostra: Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno 2001. Napoli and Palermo: A. Lombardi; Regione siciliana, Assessorato dei beni culturali e ambientali e della pubblica istruzione. Marazzi, Massimiliano, Sebastiano Tusa, and Lucia Vagnetti, eds. 1986. Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica: atti del Convegno di Palermo. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Marazzi, Massimiliano and L. Re. 1986. Importazioni egeo-micenee dall’isola di Vivara (Procida). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Marino, D., and S. Festuccia. 1995. Siti costieri dal bronzo medio al bronzo finale nella Calabria centro-orientale. Oxbow Monograph:241-252. Marino, D., and A. M. Palmieri. 1996. La métallurgie de l’âge du bronze en calabre: premières données analytiques. Paper read at Actes du Colloque International “L’atelier du bronzier: élaboration, transformation et consommation du bronze en Europe du XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère”, at Neuchâtel et Dijon. McCracken, Grant David. 1988. Culture and consumption: new approaches to the symbolic character of consumer goods and activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. McDonald, William A., and Nancy C. Wilkie. 1992. Excavations at Nichoria in southwest Greece.Vol. The Bronze Age occupation The Bronze Age ocupation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. Mentast, Rosa, Rosanna Mollo, and Patrizia Framarin. 2003. Glass throughout Time: History and Technique of Glassmaking from the Ancient World to the Present. Milan: Skira Editore. Miller, Daniel. 1985. Artefacts as categories: a study of ceramic variability in central India, New studies in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1987. Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. ———. 1995. Consumption and Commodities. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:141-161. ———, ed. 1995. Worlds apart: modernity through the prism of the local, ASA decennial conference series: the uses of knowledge: global and local relations. London: Routledge. Miller, Daniel, and Christopher Tilley, eds. 1984. Ideology, power, and prehistory, New directions in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Montelius, Oscar. 1869. The Tyrrhenians in Greece and Italy. Journal of the Anthropological Institute. 26:254-271, 16. ———. 1899. Der Orient und Europa: Einfluss der orientalischen Cultur auf Europa bis zur Mitte des letzten Jahrtausends v. Chr: Stockholm. ———. 1912. Die vorklassische Chronologie Italiens. Stockholm: I. Haeggstrom. ———. 1986. Dating in the Bronze Age with special reference to Scandinavia. Stockholm: Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. Moosauer, M. 2003. Die befestigte Siedlung der Bronzezeit 1999 [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.kranznet.indi.de/brzeit/index.htm. Moscetta, M. P. 1988. Il ripostiglio di Lipari. Nuove considerazioni per un inquadramento cronologico e culturale. Dialoghi di Archeologia 6 (1):53-78. Mosso, Angelo. 1908.Villaggi preistorici di Caldare e Cannatello presso Girgenti. Monumenti antichi. ———. 1909. Stazione preistorica di Copa Nevigata presso Manfredonia. Monumenti antichi. ———. 1910. Le origini della civiltà Mediterranea, La preistoria. Milano: Fratelli Treves. Mosso, Angelo, and Chilton Harrison Marion. 1910. The dawn of Mediterranean civilisation. London: T.F. Unwin. Mountjoy, Penelope A. 1983. Orchomenos V: Mycenaean pottery from Orchomenos, Eutresis and other Boeotian sites, Abhandlungen / Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. München:Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 1986. Mycenaean decorated pottery: a guide to identification, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology. Goteborg: Astroms. ———. 1993. Mycenaean pottery: an introduction, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology monograph; no.36. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. ———. 1999. Regional Mycenaean decorated pottery. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. Müller-Karpe, Hermann. 1974. Beiträge zu italienischen und griechischen Bronzefunden, Prähistorische Bronzefunde. München: Beck. ———, ed. 1981. Allgemeine und vergleichende Archäologie als Forschungsgegenstand, Kolloquien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie. München: Beck. Negroni Catacchio, N. 1973. La problematica dell’ambra nella protostoria italiana. In Atti della XV Riunione Scientifica IIPP. Firenze. Olivier, Jean-Pierre, and Frieda Vandenabeele. 1979. Les idéogrammes archéologiques du linéaire B. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Orsi, Paolo. 1889. Pantalica (Herbessus?). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 15:162-188. ———. 1891. Contributi all’archeologia preellenica sicula. Parma. ———. 1891. La necropoli sicula del Plemmirio (Siracusa). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 17:115-139. ———. 1892. La necropoli sicula di Castelluccio (Siracusa). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana:1-34; 67-84. ———. 1893. Necropoli sicula presso Siracusa con vasi e bronzi micenei. Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 2:5-36. ———. 1893. Scarichi del villaggio siculo di Castelluccio. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 19:30-51. ———. 1894. Quattro anni di esplorazioni sicule nella provincia di Siracusa (1890-93). Parma: Stabilimento Tipografico I. Battei. ———. 1895. Thapsos: necropoli sicula con vasi e bronzi Micenei. Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 6:89-150. ———. 1897. Sepolcro di Caldare. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 23:8-15. ———. 1899. Pantalica e Cassibile. Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 9:33-146. ———. 1899. Siracusa. Nuove esplorazioni nel Plemmyrium. Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi:26-42. ———. 1900.Villaggio preistorico di Matrensa. Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi:208. ———. 1902. La necropoli di Valsavoia. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 28:103-119. ———. 1902. Sepolcreto di Cava di Cana Barbara (Siracusa). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 28:184. ———. 1903. Necropoli e stazione sicule di transizione. Necropoli di Milocca o Matrensa. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 29:136-149. ———. 1905. Necropoli e stazioni sicule di transizione, 5. Necropoli al Molino della Badia presso Grammichele. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 31:96-133. ———. 1909. Floridia. Sepolcreto siculo con vaso miceneo. Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi 6:374-378. ———. 1912. Pantalica e M. Dessueri. Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 21:301-408. Östenberg, Carl Eric, and Svenska institutet i Rom. 1967. Luni sul Mignone: e problemi della preistoria d’Italia. Con appendice 13. Lund: Gleerup. Pacci, M. 1987. Revisione e nuove proposte d’interpretazione per i materiali delle tombe di Santa Domenica di Ricadi. Sicilia Archeologica 20 (64):35 ff.

196

Parker, A. J. 1992. Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman provinces. Oxford: B.A.R. Parker,V. 1999. Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln. Floreant Studia Mycenaea 2:495-502. Peroni, Renato. 1959. Per una definizione dell’aspetto culturale subappeninico come fase cronologica a se stante. Roma. ———. 1969. Per uno studio dell’economia di scambio in Italia nel quadro dell’ambiente culturale dei secoli intorno al mille a.C. Parola del Passato 24:134-160. ———. 1982. Presenze micenee e forme socio-economiche nell’Italia protostorica. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo:211-284. Peroni, Renato, F. Trucco and L.Vagnetti. 1986. Broglio di Trebisacce (CS). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Peroni, Renato. 1994. Introduzione alla protostoria italiana. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Peroni, Renato, and Umberto Barbieri. 1984. Nuove ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide. Roma: Paleani. Peroni, Renato, Clarissa Belardelli, and Flavia Trucco. 1994. Enotri e micenei nella Sibaritide, Magna Graecia. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Peroni, Renato, and Centro studi di protostoria. 1980. Il bronzo finale in Italia, Archeologia: materiali e problemi. Bari: De Donato. Peroni, Renato, Alessandro Vanzetti, and Stefania Bagella. 1998. Broglio di Trebisacce, 1990-1994: elementi e problemi nuovi dalle recenti campagne di scavo. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro): Rubbettino. Peruzzi, Emilio, and Lucia Vagnetti. 1980. Mycenaeans in early Latium.Vol. v. 75. Roma: Ateneo & Bizzarri. Phelps, W.,Yannos B. Lólos, and Yannis Vichos, eds. 1999. The Point Iria wreck: interconnections in the Mediterranean, ca. 1200 BC. Athens: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology. Pigorini, L. 1904. Pani di rame provenienti dall’Egeo scoperti a Serra Ilixi in provincia di Cagliari. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 30:91-107. Poo, Mu-chou. 2005. Enemies of Civilization: Attitudes toward Foreigners in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China. New York: State University of New York Press. Primas, M. 1997. Bronze Age Economy and Ideology: Central Europe in Focus. Journal of European Archaeology 5 (1):115-130. Pugliese Carratelli, Giovanni,Vincenzo La Rosa, Lucia Vagnetti, Dario Palermo, and Luigi Bernabo Brea, eds. 1999. Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabo Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli: Roma, 18-20 febbraio 1998. Roma: Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene. Pulak, Cemal. 1998. The Uluburun shipwreck: an overview. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27 (3):188-224. Quagliati, Quintino. 1900. Prodotti industriali micenei sullo Scoglio del Tonno in Taranto. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 26:285-288. Re, Licia. 1991. La ceramica d’uso corrente egeo-micenea rinvenuta sull’isola di Vivara (Procida-Napoli). In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. Re, Licia. 1993. Early Mycenaean Plain and Coarse Ware from Italy. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 19391989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Rehak, Paul, and John G.Younger. 1998. Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete. American Journal of Archaeology 102:91-173. Rehren, Thilo, and Edgar B. Pusch. 2005. Late Bronze Age Glass Production at Qantir-Piramesses, Egypt. Science 308 (5729):1756-1758. Reinecke, Paul, Kurt Böhner, and Friedrich Wagner. 1965. Mainzer Aufsätze zur Chronologie der Bronze- und Eisenzeit. Bonn: Habelt. Rice, Prudence M. 1987. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Roth, Klaus. 2001. Material culture and intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 25 (5):563-580. Rothwell, R. G., M. S. Reeder, G. Anastasakis, D. A. Stow, J. Thomson, and G. Kahler. 2000. Low sea-level stand emplacement of megaturbidites in the western and eastern Mediterranean Sea. Sedimentary Geology 135 (1-4):75-88. Rougemont, F. 2001. Some Thoughts On the Identification of the “Collectors” in the Linear B Tablets. In Economy and politics in the Mycenaean palace states, edited by S.Voutsaki and J. Killen. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Rubini, M., M. Licitra, and Giuseppe Voza. 1996. Skeletal stress and occupational indicators in the Middle Bronze Age community of Thapsos (Syracuse, sicily, Italy). In XIII U.I.S.P.P. Proceedings, edited by C. Arias. Forlì: Abaco. Säflund, G. 1939. Le Terremare. Uppsala. Sahlins, M. D. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Salmon, M. H. 1982. Philosophy and archaeology, Studies in archaeology. New York; London: Academic Press. Scetta, Angelo Raffaele. 1971. Una palafitta a Castelvenere. Naples: A. De Frede. Scheuerman, William. 2002. “Globalization”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2002 Edition), edited by Z. E. N.: http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2002/entries/globalization/. Schnapp Gourbeillon, A. 1986. Ceramica di tipo miceneo a Montedoro di Eboli. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. Shamsavari, Ali. 2005. Global production networks and linkages: a new development perspective, Economics discussion paper (Kingston University (London, England). School of Economics) ; 2005/03. Kingston upon Thames: Faculty of Human Sciences, Kingston University. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley. 1987. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice, New studies in archaeology. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press. Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. 1985. The perfume industry of Mycenaean Pylos, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology. Pocket-book ; 34. Göteborg: Åströms. Sjöberg, Birgitta, Christina Risberg, and Carole Gillis. 1995. Trade and production in premonetary Greece: aspects of trade, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology and literature. Pocket-book; 134. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ———. 1997. Trade and production in premonetary Greece: production and the craftsman. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. ———. 2000. Trade and production in premonetary Greece: acquisition and distribution of raw materials and finished products, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology and literature. Pocket-book; 134. Jonsered, Sweden: Paul Astrom. Smith, S. 1962. The land of Punt. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 1:59-60. Smith, Thyrza R. 1987. Mycenaean trade and interaction in the West Central Mediterranean 1600-1000 B.C.Vol. 371. Oxford: B.A.R. Soprintendenza archeologica d’Abruzzo. 1988. Dallo scavo al museo: il sito protostorico delle Paludi di Celano: Tecnoconsud. Steel, Louise. 1998. The social impact of Mycenaean imported pottery in Cyprus. British School at Athens 93:285-296. ———. 2002. Consuming Passions: A Contextual Study of the Local Consumption of Mycenaean Pottery at Tell el-`Ajjul. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15 (1):25-51. Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

197

Tinè, S., and Lucia Vagnetti. 1967. Micenei in Italia. Taranto: Museo Nazionale di Taranto. Tomasello, Francesco. 1996. Un caso di progettazione “micenea” in Sicilia: L’Anáktoron di Pantalica. In Secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Roma-Napoli: Rome: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. Tournavitou, Iphiyenia. 1992. Practical use and social function: a neglected aspect of Mycenaean pottery. British School at Athens 87:181-210. Tournavitou, Iphiyenia, and Athens British School at. 1995. The ìvory houses’ at Mycenae. London: The British School at Athens. Tunzi Sisto, Anna Maria, and Fulvio Bartoli. 1999. Ipogei della Daunia: preistoria di un territorio. Foggia: C. Grenzi. Turco, Maria, and Centre Jean Bérard. 2000. La necropoli di Cassibile (Scavi Paolo Orsi 1897 e 1923).Vol. 21. Naples: Paris: Centre Jean Bérard; Diff. de Boccard. Turner, Jack. 2004. Spice: the history of a temptation. xxxviii, 409 p., [16] p. of plates vols. London: Harper Perennial. Tusa, Sebastiano, and Massimiliano Marazzi. 1979. Die mykenische Penetration im westlichen Mittelmeerraum. Probleme und Voraussetzungen bei der Gestaltung einer Forschung über die italienischen und sizilianischen Handelszentren. Klio 61 (2):309-352. Tusa, Sebastiano. 1984. Sicilia e relazioni tirreniche nell’antica eta’ del bronzo. ———. 1985. Tyrrhenian Relations and Mycenaean Exchange in the Early Bronze Age. Malone, Caroline, and Simon Stoddart, eds. Papers in Italian Archaeology 4. Part 3: Patterns in Protohistory. BAR-IS 245:339-354. ———. 1986. Dinamiche storiche nel territorio selinuntino nel II millennio alla luce delle recenti ricerche in contrada Marcita (Castelvetrano). In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L. Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. ———. 1989. Partanna nella preistoria dell’area mediterranea. Palermo: OIDA edizioni. Tusa, Sebastiano. 1991. Functions, Resources, and Spatial Organisation in the Pietraperzia Territory (Enna-Sicily) between the Copper and Bronze Ages. In Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology 1:The Archaeology of Power, edited by E. Herring, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre. Tusa, Sebastiano. 1993. The Bronze Age Settlements at Vivara (Naples): The Local Context. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ———. 1994. La preistoria del basso Belice e della Sicilia meridionale nel quadro della preistoria siciliana e mediterranea. Palermo: Società siciliana di storia patria: Istituto di archeologia, Facoltà di lettere. ———. 1994. Sicilia preistorica. Palermo: Flaccovio. ———. 1997. Ethnic Development and Political Formation in Sicily between II and I Millennia b.C. In Papers from the EAA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997:Volume I: Pre- and Protohistory , edited by M. Pearce and M. Tosi. Ravenna: BAR Publishing. ———. 1997. Il Contributo delle Isole Minori del Mediterraneo Centrale nella Formazione delle Civilta Preistoriche: I Casi Eoliano e Maltese. In Papers from the EAA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997:Volume I: Pre- and Protohistory , edited by M. Pearce and M. Tosi. Ravenna; Italy: BAR Publishing. ———. 1997. Prima Sicilia: alle origini della società siciliana. Palermo: Ediprint. ———. 1999. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Palermo: Sellerio. Tusa, Sebastiano, and Luigi Lentini. 1997. L’insediamento dell’età del bronzo con bicchiere campaniforme di marcita: Castelvetrano,Trapani. Trapani: Corrao. Tusa, Sebastiano, and Marco Pacci. 1990. La collezione dei vasi preistorici di Partanna e Naro: ceramiche dell’antica età del bronzo nel Sicilia centro-occidentale . Palermo: Sellerio editore. Tykot, Robert H., Tamsey K. Andrews, and Miriam S. Balmuth, eds. 1992. Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a footprint in the sea: studies in Sardinian archaeology presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press. Ugas, Giovanni. 1987. La fortezza di Su Mulinu-Villanova franca (CA). Un nuovo contributo per lo studio della tholos in Sardegna. In Studies in Sardinian Archaeology III: Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, edited by M. S. Balmuth. Oxford: B.A.R. ———. 1991. Relazioni tra la Sardegna e l’Egeo attraverso l’architettura e le fonti letterarie. In Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, edited by E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Rome. ———. 1995. Considerazioni sulle sequenze culturali e cronologiche tra l’Eneolitico e l’epoca Nuragica. In Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth and R. H. Tykot. Oxford. Vagnetti. 1991. Ceramiche protostoriche del mediterraneo: il contributo dell’archeometria alla definizione dei circuiti di scambio tra l’Egeo e l’Italia. In Archaeometric research and archaeological studies on ancient ceramics, edited by F. Burragato, O. Grubessi and L. Lazzarini. Rome: Rome. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1968. I bacili di bronzo di Caldare sono ciprioti? Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 7:129-138. ———. 1968. Un vaso miceneo da Pantalica. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 4:132-135. ———. 1969. Il Convegno di Taranto. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 9:106-107. ———. 1970. I micenei in Italia: La documentazione archeologica. La Parola del passato 25 (134):358-380. ———. 1970. Preistoria Eoliana. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 11:143-145. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1971. Il deposito votivo di Campetti a Veio. (Materiale degli scavi 1937-1938) . Firenze: Sansoni. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1972. Un anello del Museo archeologico di Firenze e le oreficerie di Sant’Angelo Muxaro. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 15:189-201. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1974. Appunti sui bronzi egei e ciprioti del ripostiglio di Contigliano. Mélanges Ecole Française Rome 86:657-671. ———. 1979. Il Bronzo finale in Puglia nei suoi rapporti con il Mediterranio Orientale. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 21:537-549. ———. 1979. Un frammento di ceramica micenea da Fondo Paviani (Legnago). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 6:599-610.———, ed. 1982. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Edited by L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. ———. 1982. Precisazioni sulla cronologia del frammento miceneo da Monte Rovello. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 23:297-300. ———. 1985. Ceramiche del Tardo Minoico III rinvenute in Italia. Liverani Mario, Alba Palmieri, and Renato Peroni, eds. Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi:825-832. ———. 1985. Cypriot Elements Beyond the Aegean in the Bronze Age. In Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident, edited by V. Karageorghis. Nicosia: Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Communications and Works Department of Antiquities. ———. 1985. Late Minoan III Crete and Italy: Another View. La Parola del passato 220:29-33. Vagnetti, Lucia, and Richard E. Jones. 1988. Towards the Identification of Local Mycenaean Pottery in Italy. French, E.B. and K.A. Wardle, eds. Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986:335-348. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1989. Ricerche recenti sulle relazioni fra l’Egeo e l’occidente mediterraneo. Maria Rocchi and Lucia Vagnetti, eds. Seminari. Anno 1988:2944. ———. 1989. A Sardinian Askos from Crete. British School at Athens 84:355-360.

198

———. 1990. Aspetti della presenza micenea nel sud-est italiano. In I messapi. Taranto. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study. In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 19391989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Dec. 2-3, 1989., edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1995. Introductory Remarks. In Sardinian and Aegean chronology: towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth and R. H. Tykot. Oxford. ———. 1996. Mycenaean pottery in the central Mediterranean: imports and local production in their context. In The complex past of pottery, production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (sixteenth to early fifth, edited by J. P. Crielaard,V. Stissi and G. J. v. Wijngaarden. Amsterdam: Amsterdam. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1996. Primi contatti fra il mondo minoico-miceneo e il Mediterraneo occidentale. In I Greci in Occidente, edited by G. P. Carratelli: Milan: Bompiani. Vagnetti, Lucia. 1998. How far did White Slip Pottery Travel? Some Evidence from Italy and from the Libyan Coast. In The White Slip ware of late Bronze Age Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis. Nicosia: Austrian Academy of Science Press. ———. 1998.Variety and Function of the Aegean Derivative Pottery in the Central Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age. Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar, and Ephraim Stern, eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition:Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan:6677. ———. 1999. I Micenei fra Mediterraneo Orientale ed Occidentale dopo la fine dei Palazzi. In Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia; Magna Grecia e oriente mediterraneo prima dell’eta ellenistica. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. ———. 1999. Mycenaeans and Cypriots in the Central Mediterranean before and after 1200 B.C. In The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 B.C. Proceedings of the International Conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998, edited by W. Phelps,Y. Lolos and Y.Vichos: Athens: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology; Athina: Institouto Enalion Archaiologikon Ereunon. Vagnetti, Lucia, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1989. Late Bronze Age Long Distance Trade in the Mediterranean. The Role of the Cypriots. In Early Societies in Cyprus, edited by E. Peltenburg. Edinburgh. Vagnetti, Lucia, and Licia Re. 1995. DEDALO: l’informatica applicata alle relazioni Egeo - Italia nell’Eta del Bronzo. Paper read at Archeologia e informatica, at Rome. Vagnetti, Lucia, and S. Tinè. 1968. Atti e memorie del primo congresso internazionale di Micenologia, Roma 27 Settembre-3 Ottobre 1967. Roma: Ateneo. Vagnetti, Lucia and Richard E. Jones. 1993. Prime testimonianze micenee nel Latium Vetus: le ceramiche di tipo egeo. La Parola del passato 270:211-213. Valente, I. 1986. Indizi di presenza micenea nella Sicilia occidentale durante la media età del bronzo. In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa and L.Vagnetti. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia. van Raaij, W. Fred. 1997. Globalisation of marketing communication? Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (2-3):259-270. Villari, P. 1991. Faunal remains from Thapsos, pits 1-2 (Syracuse, Sicily). Bulletin, Musée d’anthropologie préhistorique de Monaco 34, 1991:109-124. Voutsaki, S. 2001. Economic Control, Power and Prestige in the Mycenaean World: the Archaeological Evidence. In Economy and politics in the Mycenaean palace states, edited by S.Voutsaki and J. Killen. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Voza, Giuseppe. 1973. Thapsos. In Archeologia nella Sicilia Sud-Orientale. Napoli: Centre Jean Bérard Napoli. ———. 1973. Thapsos. Resoconto sulle campagne di scavo del 1970-71. Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 15:133157. ———. 1993-1994. Attività archeologica della Soprintendenza di Siracusa e Ragusa. Kokalos 39-40:1281-1294. ———. 1999. Nel segno dell’antico: archeologia nel territorio di Siracusa. Palermo: A. Lombardi. Voza, Giuseppe, and Mimmo Jodice. 1990. The Archaeological Museum of Syracuse Paolo Orsi. Siracusa: Ediprint. Watrous,Vance L. 1994. Review of Aegean PRehistory III: Crete from Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial Period. American Journal of Archaeology 98:695-753. Watson, John, Steven Lysonski, Tamara Gillan, and Leslie Raymore. 2002. Cultural values and important possessions: a cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Research 55 (11):923-931. Whitelaw, T. 2001. Reading Between the Tablets: Assessing Mycenaean Palatial Involvement in Ceramic Production and Consumption. In Economy and politics in the Mycenaean palace states, edited by S.Voutsaki and J. Killen. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Wijngaarden, Gert Jan van. 2002. Use and appreciation of Mycenaean pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca. 1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wijngaarden, Gert Jan van, Jan Paul Crielaard, and Vladimir Stissi, eds. 1999. The complex past of pottery: production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (16th to early 5th centuries BC): proceedings of the ARCHON International Conference, held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November, 1996. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Wilk, Richard. 1995. Learning to be local in Belize: global systems of common difference. In Worlds Apart. Modernity through the prism of the local, edited by D. Miller. London: Routledge. Wilson, R. J. A. 1996. Archaeology in Sicily 1988-95. In Archaeological Reports for 1995-1996. London: Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Wylie, Alison. 2002. Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley; London: University of California Press. Zaccagnini, Carlo. 1973. Lo scambio dei doni nel Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XV-XIII. Roma: Centro per le antichità e la storia dell’arte del vicino Oriente. ———. 1983. Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42:245-264.

199

URES

TABLES AND FIG

Tables 1, 2: Detailed overview of Aegean-type pottery found in Sicily Eastern and insular Sicily

LM I

Cycladic

LH I - LH I - II A LH II B - LH III A 2 - LH III B

MH

II A

(all)

III A 1

B1

2-C

Jar Piriform jar

3 1

3 1

0 10

4 35

1 0

Alabastron

9

9

7

13

0

of which straight-sided

0

0

0

8

0

Jug

2

2

5

14

1

Stirrup jar

1

1

2

5

1

Undetermined closed vessels

2

44

46

30

22

1

TOTAL

2

60

62

54

93

4

Cup

39

39

20

13

3

Kylix

3

3

8

5

1

Bowl

3

3

1

11

5

Undetermined open vessels TOTAL

no

of which

date

Cypriot

7

0

7

0

2

2

2

0

47

47

31

29

9

0

Undetermined vessels

4

6

3

11

24

58

73

27

7

GRAND TOTAL

4

6

5

118

133

143

195

40

7

7

Note: In this table all the known vessels have been included. This means that all the unpublished and lost vases of which I have notice were added. For Thapsos, the "existing and lost" column has been used.

Western Sicily

LM I Cycladic MH

Jar

1

LH I - LH I - II A LH II B - LH III A 2 - LH III B II A

(all) 1

III A 1 2

Piriform jar

0

Alabastron

0

of which straight-sided

B1 13 1

2

2

Stirrup jar

4

1

22

24

3

9

TOTAL

5

25

30

6

34

0

5

Kylix

0

2

Bowl

0

4

Undetermined open vessels

0

GRAND TOTAL

0

0

1

8

2

Undetermined vessels

Eastern

1

Undetermined closed vessels

TOTAL

of which Near

Cypriot

2 2

0

Cup

of which

2

0

Jug

2-C

0

0

0

0

11

22

14

36

14

2

27

39

66

20

47

1

0 1

0

1

1

1

Note:

201

0 1

In this table the LH I - II A includes only Group I decorated wares from Monte Grande. All the other groups are excluded. There are about 1000 potsherds belonging to jars, 100 to jugs, 1900 to undetermined closed vessels and 1000 of undetermined vessels.

0

1

Table 3: Aegean-type pottery found at Thapsos Thapsos

Existing

Reported but

Existing

of which

lost (min.)

AND lost

Cypriot

Jar

1

1

10

26

Piriform jar

16

Alabastron

9

9

of which straight-sided

6

6

Jug

9

2

11

Stirrup jar

1

1

2

35

14

49

Undetermined closed vessels

6

0

TOTAL Cup

3

3

Kylix

1

1

Bowl

6

0

Undetermined open vessels

0

TOTAL

4

0

4

Undetermined vessels

5

4

9

44

18

62

GRAND TOTAL

0

6

Notes: 1. All materials from Thapsos date LH III A 2 - B 1

2. Orsi reported 24 vessels but these were only part of his findings. Taylour then reported only what he was able to see: 16 vessels from Orsi's excavations and 3 others. Of the 16 vessels, at least 10 were among those unpublished. It is impossible to count how many Aegean-type vessels Orsi found and how many of these survived. In addition to all this, several vessels from recent excavations are still unpublished. In the "existing" column I keep track of all the vessels that survive, including all those reported from Taylour, all the unpublished ones I could be aware of and a jug plus two cups from Orsi's excavations which have never been reported but I could see. This are the only vessels that could belong to the 18 vessels reported only by Orsi and lost.

Table 4: Aegean-type pottery reported by Orsi Shape

Quantity

piriform jar

13

1, 2,

stirrup jar

1

alabastron

3

2, 7,

jug

3

2,

undetermined

4

Tombs 48, 51,

10, 14, 27, 28,

59, 61 (2),

64 (2)

56 (or 53) 64 37,

63

30 (2)

202

203

Tomb

37

31

30

28

27

17

piriform jar (height mm 105)

no bones

no bones

remote times

and it appeared not opened since

2 skeletons, the tomb was found sealed

wall and the bodies towards the centre

V n. 4)

jug (reddish paint on white background, pl.

none

two undetermined Mycenaean vases

piriform jar (height mm 75, Taylour n. 3)

few bones

5 skeletons with the heads towards the

none

unknown

none

niche (like pl. IV n. 17)

small jug with tubular spout on the shoulder on a

none

n. 17)

small jug with tubular spout on the shoulder (pl. IV

decorated (pl. IV n. 11)

chisel

stone), a bronze rod and a bronze

sword (fig. 31, found under a

none

none

none

10

none bracelet like the one from tomb

piriform jar (pl. IV n. 8)

3 small jug with tubular spout on the shoulder,

and a bracelet

base

too dissimilar to the two-handled bowl on raised none

pl. IV n. 12)

children

few pieces of metals, partly of

small parts of swords and an axe?

none

notably near the head of one dead

supposed presence of swords,

none

Metalwork

and bowl (pl. IV n. 13) decorated with incisions not swords (nails), but a piece of vase,

to small jug with tubular spout on the shoulder

flask (pl. IV n. 14) decorated with incisions similar

piriform jar? (fig. 8)

two-handled bowl on raised base

none

two-handled bowl on raised base

Aegean-derivative

14

piriform jar (white clay and brownish paint,

(Graziadio 1997: 683)

fragmentary imitation of Base Ring jug

straight-sided alabastron (Taylour n. 17);

none

unpublished potsherds of two cups.

Taylour n. 16), jug? (like pl. V n. 17);

49, at least, among which several

cut bench

4, on the border where there is a rock-

on the floor with the bowl)

headrest, possibly of later times, plus 4

7 (3 on a rock-cut funerary couch with

3, near the wall

straight-sided alabastron (white clay, fig. 4;

piriform jar (buff-pink slip, pl. V n. 24),

piriform jar (pl. IV n. 3)

Aegean-type

10

7

5

2

1

position)

centre, leg turned suggesting a seated

22 (19 placed on the wall and 3 on the

Skeletons

none

one dish on the floor, nothing else

none

where all the tombs were luxurious

was a special tomb for the elite, in an area

the architecture of the tomb is particular: it

none

none

terracotta model of bench

none

none

none

none

two figurines, terracotta animal head

Special objects

204 1 piriform jar, FS 45?

unknown (unpublished tomb)

E

kylix, 2 Cypriot Base Ring jugs and one

12 (4 piriform jars, 3 alabastra, 1 cup and a

1 alabastron FS 84 (considered FS 85)

shaved jug)

2 (piriform jar and one Cypriot white

brownish paint, fig. 52; Taylour n. 15)

sided alabastron (buff-pink slip and

and similar to pl. V n. 24) and a straight-

two piriform jars (pl. V n. 18; Taylour n. 1

jug (pl. V n. 17)

paint on white background, fig. 49)

fragmentary jar and piriform jar (reddish

Cypriot white shaved jug)

49 skeletons

unknown (unpublished tomb)

unknown

the centre)

the wall and 2 skeletons of children in

22 skeletons (20 with the heads towards

12 skeletons

19 skeletons

border and 3 with the skull at the centre

D

C

A1

64

63

61

59

57 piriform jar

none

21 skeletons

16 skeletons (13 with skull facing the

stirrup jar (fig. 42; Taylour n. 14)

no bones

56

piriform jar

3 skeletons

51

piriform jar (pl. V n. 7)

none

particular disposition)

25 skeletons (in two layers, without any

child)

were on the niches, one of which was a

in the space between each skull; three

heads towards the wall, the vases were

Aegean-type

48

38

Skeletons

24 skeletons (21 skeletons with the

a vase, similar to that in tomb 57

several pieces among which part of

Metalwork

possibly a cup on foot

shoulder)

pyxis, jugs (one small jug with tubular spout on the

derived from FS 279

3 two-handled bowls on raised base, at least one

two-handled bowl on raised base

none

none

two-handled bowl on raised base (fig. 49)

category

Orsi, but some vessels could have been in this

none recognisable from the description given by

none

none

none

n. 12)

none

dagger

none

none

none

none

none

two braceletes

like the one from tomb 10

copper cup (diam. cm 15); bracelet

several pieces among which:

none

none

rods, two in iron

small jug with tubular spout on the shoulder (pl V. several pieces among which many

two-handled bowl on raised base (pl. V n. 5)

Aegean-derivative

Table 5: Detailed overview of the tombs with Aegean-type and Aegean-derivative products discovered at Thapsos

In this table are included some vessels reported by Orsi but now lost.

Note:

Tomb

none

beads, Malta ware (Borg in-Nadur)

amber beads, glass beads, gold beads and other

none

glass beads

none

none

several beads, one in amber

metal objects

few potsherd, for the rest only bones and

potsherd (donkey?)

terracotta models of bench and chair; incised

bead

none

none

Special objects

205

5

12

32 S-C

and one at the entrance)

the arms on the top of the skull

3 (two inside on the right with

centre

persons, with the skulls in the

4 one adult and three young

them

4 with the objects surrounding

Skeletons

24 S-C

8 Cavetta

4 Cavetta

133 North

Tomb

Table 6: Pantalica

none

none

none

none

LH III C jug

Aegean-type

(mother with three children?)

produce Aegean imitations such as the jug

Bronze: six rings, a pin and part

bronze pin and three rings

the skeleton at the entrance

tomb 8 Cavetta and 24 S-C

elaborated, a pin

simple ring and one more

askos painted with geometric motifs as in of the chain of a necklace. Iron:

tomb 8 Cavetta and 32 S-C

askos painted with geometric motifs as in

inside)

near the skull of one of the two skeletons

tomb 24 and 32 S-C (this askos was placed two bronze rings belonging to

askos painted with geometric motifs as in

from tomb 133

bronze bracelets and rings, probably belonging to a woman

of the same techniques employed to

bronze bracelet

Metalwork

Aegean shape but depurated clay and use

askos (paint scarcely readable) with non-

shape not Aegean

shape of the askos from tomb 4 Cavetta,

A simple undecorated vase has the same

Aegean-derivative

Cups and jugs, many reduced to fragments

fragments of further askoi

three painted cups, one more askos and a jug. Many

none

two more askoi, these undecorated

undecorated local pots were present.

cemeteries but almost unknown in Pantalica. Other

same type of those found in the on the coastal

bowl "bacino espanso" that Orsi reports was of the

stone bead, probably the Thapsos ceramic set. The

Special objects

206

part of rim and handle 3

unknown

part of body

part of body

pasrt of neck

big closed vessel

jar

small bowl

jar

jar

small jar

stirrup jar; FS 180

krater

amphoriskos; FS 59

kylix

cup

alabastron; FS 94

jug

stirrup jar

closed vessel

closed vessel

closed vessel

jar

stirrup jar; FS 164

cup; FS 284

jar

closed vessel

4

5

12

14

15

19

23

24

26

27

28

29

30

33

34

35

36

38

43

44

49

58

part of shoulder

part of body

part of rim and body

unknown

body

part of shoulder and

part of shoulder

part of body

unknown

handle

part of rim

unknown

part of body

unknown

part of body

part of body

part of body

part of body

part of body

jar

3

1

1

several

unknown

1

1

1

unknown

1

1

1

1

unknown

1

unknown

1

3

1

unknown

1

1

1

1

part of body

1

part of the foot

jar

Nr. potsherds

kylix

Conserved

2

Vessel

1

Nr.

Table 7: Cannatello Clay

depurated

depurated

LH III A

part of body and foot

body

depurated

traces of wheel

lines, with evident

horizontal reddish

horizontal lines

rough

depurated

235 stirrup jar

part of handle

1

1

1

3

depurated

depurated

rough

(octopus?)

wavy orange lines

under the rim, FM 24

reddish horizontal line

motif in reddish paint

complex geometrical

Minoan symbol

rough

rough

depurated

rough

Cypro-Minoan symbol rough

reddish paint; inscribed

shells)

circles, FM 24 (sea-

reddish paint for lines,

reddish paint; FM 21

horizontal lines, all in

body has three

have an octopus, lower

shoulder and body

reddish horizontal lines depurated

orange horizontal lines rough

circles

reddish lines and

inscribed Cypro-

LH III B

part of body

part of rim

part of inverted rim

rough

and FM 65 on the body unknown

FM 58 on the shoulder

with circles

reddish unclear motif

paint

168 closed vessel

144 small jar

141 cup (mug)

unknown

rough

rough

Clay

reddish horizontal lines rough

paint

inside all in reddish

on the rim, FM 75

wavy lines and FM 25

reddish paint

lines; FM 49

two orange horizontal

Decoration

orange line and depurated

unknown

1

1

several

1

1

18

unknown

1

1

4

1

1

Nr. potsherds

in reddish and orange

horizontal lines inside

body (FM 48) and two

rim, wavy lines on the

horizontal line near the

unknown

reddish paint

section)

139 stirrup jar

132 with low raised foot?)

cup (low foot, saucer

124 stirrup jar; FS 164

part of shoulder and

part of shoulder

part of body

burnt

part of body and foot,

unknown

part of body

part of body

part of rim and body

part of body

part of body

Conserved

part of handle (circular rough

closed vessel

stirrup jar

stirrup jar; FS 180

closed vessel

jar

220

123 alabastron; FS 94

95

76

73

71

68

66

closed vessel

65

cup or small bowl; FS

closed vessel

Vessel

61

Nr.

lines

depurated

unknown

rough

depurated

LH III A- B

LH III B

LH III B

Date

two brownish crossed

FM 49

traces of orange paint;

unknown

Minoan symbol

inscribed Cypro-

traces of black paint

depurated

depurated

orange lines

unknown

white lines

rough

unknown

depurated

rough

rough

unknown

depurated

concentric lines

reddish lines; FM 76

and drops

FM 42 plus curved lines

central arches; FM 42

reddish lines and

horizontal lines

between two

reddish wavy line

three reddish lines

unknown

blackish line

reddish horizontal lines depurated

(net)

FM 6 in blackish paint

orange horizontal lines depurated

orange paint

orange concentric lines depurated

Decoration

LH III A

LH III A -B

LH III A 2 - B

LH III B

Date

LH III A 2 - C Jar

Sicily

Sardinia

19

2

Apulia & I.c.

North

143

0

Piriform jar

36

0

63

0

Alabastron

55

1

11

2

of which straight-sided

10

1

7

1

Jug

16

0

30

0

Stirrup jar

14

2

44

1

0

0

3

0 1

Flask Feeding bottle Undetermined closed vessels TOTAL Cup

0

0

0

32

2

74

8

172

7

368

12

21

2

50

1

Mug

0

0

16

0

Goblet - kylix

9

1

25

0

20

2

26

1

Deep bowl - krater

0

1

155

0

Rhyton

0

1

0

0

Undetermined open vessels

0

4

105

2

Bowl

TOTAL

50

11

377

4

Other / undetermined vessels

103

15

256

12

GRAND TOTAL

325

33

1001

28

Table 8: Comparative summary of Aegean-type pottery

SHAPE

FM

QUANTITY

FS 266

1

FS 284

1

Cup

2

TOTAL CUPS

4

Alabastron

1

Globular

43; 53

Undetermined

one is FM 49

3 8

TOTAL CLOSED VESSELS

12

Undetermined vessels

4

GRAND TOTAL

20

Note: Two vessels among the undetermined ones appear to belong to big sized vessels.

Table 9: Aegean-type pottery found at Eboli

207

208

0

0

0

0

0

Alabastron

of which straight-sided

Jug

Stirrup jar

Undetermined closed vessels

0

0

Bowl

Undetermined open vessels

4

GRAND TOTAL

6

6

0

MH

32

25

0

0

0

0

0

4 7

0

2

0

0

0

1

157

25

47

2

3

3

39

66 85

1

4

0

9

1

4

1

6

0

9

1

5

199

60

47

2

3

3

39

70 92

A (all) 0

163

72

31

2

1

8

20

33 60

2

7

0

7

11

III A 1

244

76

41

0

15

8

18

31 127

13

15

10

15

36

17

2-B1

2-C

41

27

9

0

5

1

3

1 5

1

1

0

0

0

2

LH I - II LH II B - LH III A LH III B

Table 10: Aegean-type pottery from Sicily and Malta

A

LH I - II

2. LM I, Cycladic and MH pots are included in the LH I - II A (all) table.

1. The table excludes undecorated wares from Monte Grande.

Notes:

4

Undetermined vessels

TOTAL

0

0

Kylix 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cup

TOTAL

0 0

0

0

Cycladic

0

LM I

Jar Piriform jar

Sicily and Malta

7

7

0 0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

no date Cypriot

8

0

0 1

0

0

1

0 7

0

7

0

0

0

0

of which Eastern

Near

1

1

0 0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

of which

CG1 - Capo Graziano 1 period (late Capo Graziano phase) Cat. Nr.

Context

18

Area B

19

Area A

Ɣ

42

Area J

Ɣ

63

Piazza

Ɣ

64

Piazza

Ɣ

66

Piazza

16

Hut 3

52

Hut 9

60

Hut 18 L.5

61

Hut 18 L.4

58

Hut 12 L.3

Totals:

11 vessels

MP

MPP

MF

P

Other

Ɣ

Closed vessel

Open vessel

FS

FM

224

78

●? LH I - II

Ɣ

LH I - II A

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

LH I

Ɣ Ɣ

164

Ɣ Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ 3

Chronology LH I

Ɣ

0

Undetermined

Ɣ

Ɣ 5

3

0

8

1 + 1?

1

Closed vessel

Open vessel

Undetermined

CG2 - Capo Graziano 2 period (late Capo Graziano phase) Cat. Nr.

Context

MP

3

Trial 14 L.3

●

7

Hut 1 L.9 ins.

4

Hut 1 L.7 ins.

5

Hut 1 L.7 ins.

8

Hut 1 L.7 ins.

10

Hut 1 L.7 ins.

MPP

MF

P

Other

Chronology

● ●

●

●

LH I - II A

●

●

FS

FM

211

48

MH/LH LH I

●

LH I - II A

●

●

LH I - II

63 211

53

● ●

●

6

Hut 1 L.6

9

Hut 1 L.5 ins.

12

Hut 1 L.7-9 outs.

11

Hut 1 outs.

13

Hut 1 outs.

14

Hut 1 outs.

15

Hut 1 outs.

20

Hut 4 ground

●

●

21

Hut 4 L.3

●?

●

LH

●

● ●

Aegina ●

MH/LH

● ●

MH/LH

●

●?

● ●

● LH I

69

Hut 25 L.7

●

71

Hut 25 L.6

●

●

●

75

Hut 25 L.6

●

●

70

Hut 25 L.5-6

●

●

LH II A

211/221

76

Hut 25 L.5-6

●

●

LH I

254/255

72

Hut 25 L.2

●

●

LH II A

74 73

Hut 25 L.2 Hut 25 L.1-2

77

Hut 25 L.1-2

78

Hut 25 L.1-2

79

Hut 26 L.6-7

80

Hut 26 L.4-7

Totals:

27 vessels

●

● ●

●

●

● ●

12

LH I

117

46 34 46 30

● ●

2 + 2?

211

●

● 4

LH II

6

● 1

18

5

4

Open vessel

Undetermined

CG/M - Capo Graziano to Milazzese transitional period (early Milazzese phase) Cat. Nr.

Context

MP

MPP

MF

P

Other

Closed vessel

43 Area A-B

●

●

44 Area A-B

●

●

45 Area A-B

● ●

●

47 Area A-B

●

●

48 Area E

●

●

83 hill

●

●

84 hill

●

●

17 Hut 2 L.5

●

●

55 Hut 11 L.4

●

56 Hut 11 L.2

●

11 vessels

0

0

8

FS

FM

●

46 Area A-B

Totals:

Chronology

LH II ●

● 3

0

9

1

209

1

80-83/87

LH II A

221

62

LH II B

80-83/87

12

M - mature Milazzese (late Milazzese) Cat. Nr.

Context

53

Hut 9 L.3

57

Hut 11 L.2

67

Hut 24 L.1-2

68

Hut 24 L.1-2

Totals:

4 vessels

MP

MPP

MF

P

Other

● ●

Undetermined

Chronology

FS

FM

Chronology

FS

FM

LH III

164

● ●

● 0

Open vessel

●

● 0

Closed vessel

●

2

2

0

4

0

0

MF

P

Other

Closed vessel

Open vessel

Undetermined

M/CG - Capo Graziano or Milazzese phase Cat. Nr.

Context

1

Trial 7

MP

MPP

●

●

2

Trial 13 L.3

●

●

LH II A

80-83/87

51

Settlement

●

●

LH III A 1 ?

30

24

Hut 5 L.4 ins.

●

●

LH II

30

25

Hut 5 L.4 ins.

●

●

LH III A 1

30

26

Hut 5 L.4 ins.

●

29

Hut 5 L.4 ins.

27 30

Hut 5 L.3 ins. Hut 5 L.3 ins.

●

28

Hut 5 L.1 ins.

●

31

Hut 5 L.3 outs.

●

36

Hut 6 L.5

●

32

Hut 6 L.4

●

●

33

Hut 6 L.4

●

●

37

Hut 6 L.4

●

●

38

Hut 6 L.4

●

●

39

Hut 6 L.4

●

34

Hut 6 L.1

●

●

35

Hut 6 L.1

●

●

40

Hut 6 L.1

● ●

●

●

● ●

LH II - III A 1 ?

● ● ● LH III A 1

LH II B - III A 1

Hut 6 L.1 Hut 7

●

54

Hut 10 L.3

●

Totals:

23 vessels

30 46

●

●

41

22

●

●

49 + 50

63

● ●

LH III A 1 LH III A 1

●

0

0

14

9

0

21

0

2

MPP

MF

P

Other

Closed vessel

Open vessel

Undetermined

22 144

U - Uncertain context Cat. Nr.

Context

MP

62

Piazza

●

●

Chronology

FS

65

Piazza

●

81

Settlement

●

●

LH I - II A

80-83/87

82

Settlement

●

●

LH II

80-83/87

●

LH III

164

LH III A 1

255

85

Sea

●

23

Hut 4 L.3

●

22

Hut 4

●

Totals:

7 vessels

1

0

6

●

● ● 0

0

5

1

46

1

Legend MP

matt painted ware

MPP

matt painted polychrome ware

MF

Mycenaean fine ware

P

plain ware

FS

Furumark shape

FM

Furumark motif

FM

LH III A ?

Table 11: Montagnola di Capo Graziano, Aeolian Islands (updated, after Vagnetti)

210

Hut

Cat. n. / Taylour

Context

Shape

2

1103bis

inside the entrance room B

FS 23?, piriform jar

1165 / 9

inside the hut along few metal slags, only evidence of

possible jug or stirrup jar (closed vessel)

1165

metalworking in the settlement

closed vessel

painted in red

5

1228

inside the hut

undetermined

FM 16? In reddish paint

7

1723 / 1

inside the hut, whose perimeter is however unclear

rim of alabastron

painted in red

9

1325

inside room A of the hut

possible alabastron

painted with blackish lines painted bull

3

10

1379

FS 18-19 piriform jar

1383 / 7

handle of possible FS 255 kylix

painted

1381, 1385, 1386

closed vessel

painted octopus?

1384, 1387, 1389

inside the hut

1380 / 5

1804 1803

1475, 1437, 1474, 1476, 1477 / 6, 11 1473, 1483 / 8

16

open area between huts 8 and 10

metalworking

20

painted

kylix, FS 255?

FM 64? and FM 18?

piriform jar FS 31?

FM 70 (clear motif)

bowl piriform jar FS 44 or 45 inside the hut

1703

closed vessel closed vessel, perhaps bowl FS 279 or stemmed bowl FS 304 inside the hut

undetermined

1705

undetermined

1612 1640 1823

painted with lines painted lines

piriform jar

1706 1613

FM 46

bowl FS 281 or large kylix FS 255

inside the hut inside the hut

1820 A

painted spirals

undetermined

1608 / 2

1714

19

closed vessel FS 46?

1433 / 4 1607 / 3

painted in red

undetermined inside the hut, there was also a stone mould, evidence of

1547

18

painted lines painted with spirals?

FS 322?

1435, 1436, 1438, 1476, 1478, 1484, 1480, 1481 11

closed vessel kylix, FS 255, 256, 262 or 269 now undetermined; if Taylour n. 12 then dish

1382 /12? Piazza

Decoration

inside the hut

1822

Table 12: Milazzese (Aeolian Islands)

211

painted in red

undetermined

painted with blackish lines

jug?

painted with brownish line

closed vessel

painted wavy line

pithos

plain

closed vessel

painted with brownish line

cup with high handle FS 262?

painted with brownish line

Tables 13, 14:Vivara DECORATED POTTERY

1976-1982

Semiglobular cup

1987 onwards (preliminary)

5

Vaphio cup

Undecorated pottery 1

yes

2

yes

10

Goblet

no

1

Undetermined open vessels

8

OPEN VESSELS

24

3

Alabastron

13

1

no

2

yes

of which straight-sided

2

Squat jug

3

Piriform jar

1

yes

1

yes

Beaked jug Undetermined closed vessels

91

CLOSED VESSELS

109

Undetermined vessels

3

5

TOTAL DECORATED POTTERY

138

6

Note: Re (1995: ) reports that typical shapes of undecorated pottery are pithoi, jars, jugs, stirrup jars, cups and kylikes. Goblets are suspected. Painted with simple bands or not painted in most cases. Decorated pottery 1976-1982

138

Decorated pottery 1987 onwards

6

Undecorated pottery (Re 1999)

230

GRAND TOTAL

374

UNDECORATED POTTERY

Fine painted

Matt painted polichrome

Minyan

Plain

Levantine

Vivara classes

4

1; 2; 6; 7; 8; 10

3

9

5

Pithos

2

Jar Jug Undetermined small-sized closed vessels Undetermined medium-sized closed vessels

1

3

10

10

1

1

1

1

5

7

3

17

6

16

88

1

15

31

145

16

33

17

Undetermined big-sized closed vessels

3

9

2

Undetermined closed vessels

1

6

4

21

52

28

CLOSED VESSELS

TOTAL

Cup

11 13 1

Kylix

1

Undetermined small-sized open vessels

1

1

1

Undetermined medium-sized open vessels

2

3

6

1

2

3

Undetermined open vessels

1

OPEN VESSELS

3

3

5

Undetermined vessels

8

14

TOTAL 1976-1982

32

TOTAL (Re 1999)

32

2 1

13

1

7

1

2

11

3

25

6

6

9

43

69

39

30

43

213

86

39

30

43

230

Notes: 1. All data are estimated because the ongoing excavation is producing addictions to and revisions in the classification of the published potsherds. 2. Mynian ware is published as coarse in the final report of 1976-1982 excavations.

212

213

1

IONIAN COAST

Matt painted polichrome

8

8

2

2

0

96

86

86

500

Matt painted 2

19

1

1

14

4

10

0

4

2

2

2

3

3

5

5

49

39

39

100

pseudo-Minyan

Table 15: Summary of LH I - II B Aegean-type pottery found in the West Mediterranean

4. Data for pseudo-Minyan, plain and coarse wares refer only to the sites with LH I - II B pottery and are merely indicative.

3. Monte Grande is considered apart given the uncertainties in quantities; it does not figure in any total.

2. Minimum estimates.

1. After Re 1999.

Notes:

139

32

TYRRHENIAN COAST

GRAND TOTAL

0 32

Vivara

39

97

Sassano

Monte Grande

AEOLIAN ISLANDS

2

1 2

Capo Piccolo

25

1

Porto Perone

Salina

8

EASTERN APULIAN COAST

Filicudi

2

Punta Le Terrare

70

3

Santa Sabina

Lipari

1

Monopoli

Giovinazzo

Manaccora

Fine painted 1

Site

Molinella

0

4

1

3

68

31

30

1

2000

33

20

13

Plain

0

3

3

0

3

0

1000

Coarse

0

0

0

43

43

43

100

Levantine

Aegina

1

0

12

1

1

0

0

214

1

20

5

2

2

2

5

4

2

1

1

1

Table 16: LH III Aegean-type pottery from the Tyrrhenian coast

2. Zambrone is an unpublished site. Every value is estimated

4

12

1. Vivara is excluded, though some early LH III A pottery has been found.

Notes:

GRAND TOTAL

Undetermined vessels

CLOSED VESSELS

8

Undetermined closed vessels

1

3 1

1

Globular (jug?)

Piriform jar

Stirrup jar

Alabastron

1

1 0

Monte Rovello

Paestum

0

Polla

1

1

0

2

2

0

2

0

2

2 0

Praia a Mare

0

San Giovenale

Zambrone

0

TOTAL

8

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

39

12

19

10

3

2

2

2

8

4

1

Luni sul Mignone

0 0

4

Ischia

OPEN VESSELS

Eboli

Undetermined open vessels

Cup

Casale Nuovo

Aegean-type pottery in Sardinia

Sarroch -

Orroli LH III A 2

LH III B 1 - C

Stemmed bowl (FS 304)

Sarroch - Sa

Orosei

Antigori

Domu s'Orku

LH III B 2

LH III B 2 - C

Nora

Su Fraigu

Tharros

TOTAL

LH III C

late LH III C

late LH III C

1

1

Krater

1

1

Kylix

1

1

One handled conical bowl (FS 242)

1

1

Cup

1

Conical rhyton (FS 199)

1

Undetermined open vessels

1

3

6

4

OPEN VESSELS

0

1

2 1 4

0

0

1

0

11

Pithos

2

2

Stirrup jar

2

2

Straight-sided alabastron (FS 94)

1

1

Undetermined closed vessels CLOSED VESSELS

2 1

Undetermined vessels GRAND TOTAL

1

2

6

0

0

0

1

7

2

2

13

11

2

2

0

1

0

7

3

15

3

33

of which are Cypriot Base Ring II ware

2

2

Pithos

1

1

Cup

1

1

Undetermined late LH III C

3

Aegean-derivative pottery in

Monastir -

Sardinia

Monte Zara

Barumini - Su Tertenia - Nuraghe Nuraxi

Nastasi

LH III B 1 - C

LH III B2 - C

LH III B 2 - C

Pozzomaggiore

TOTAL

LH III C

Stemmed bowl (FS 304)

0

Krater

0

Kylix

0

One handled conical bowl (FS 242)

0

Cup

0

Undetermined open vessels OPEN VESSELS

1 0

Pithos

0

0

1

5

1 1 5

Conical rhyton (FS 199)

0

Stirrup jar

0

Staright-sided alabastron (FS 94)

0

0

Undetermined closed vessels

0

CLOSED VESSELS

0

Undetermined vessels

5

GRAND TOTAL

5

5

0

0

1 5

1

Notes: 1. Values for Monastir and Barumini are estimated. 2. Aegean-derivative vessels from these sites seem to be of Italic, non-Sardinian manufacture.

Tables 17, 18: Sardinia 215

5 6

1

12

3

NORTH PO VALLEY Castello del Tartaro

Fondo Paviani

Frattesina

Villabartolomea

Montagnana

TOTAL

Closed vessels

1

2

0

1

4

8

Open vessels

0

0

2

0

1

3

One cup at Frattesina ADRIATIC COAST

Jesi

Montagnolo

Treazzano

Venetian lagoon

Alabastron

2

Stirrup jar

1

Feeding bottle

1

Undetermined closed vessels CLOSED VESSELS

4

Bowl

1

Undetermined open vessels OPEN VESSELS

1

Undetermined potsherds

2

2

1

3

GRAND TOTAL Closed vessels

12

Open vessels

4

Undetermined potsherds

8

TOTAL

24

Table 19: Aegean-type pottery from the northern Italian peninsula

Capo Piccolo

Giovinazzo

Molinella

Monopoli

Punta le Terrare

Punta Manaccora

Roca Vecchia

Torre Santa Sabina

CLOSED VESSELS

Jar

1

Jug

1

1

Alabastron

1

OPEN VESSELS Cup

1

1

Goblet

1

Undetermined potsherds TOTAL GRAND TOTAL:

3

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

14

Notes: 1. Some potsherds/vessels from Monopoli, Punta le Terrare and Roca Vecchia belong to the burnished ware, which could have been produced during the LH III. 2. All the pots date to the LH II B, but those from Capo Piccolo (LH II A). 3. No evidence has been recovered from Punta Tonno, but likely there were early imports up to the LH I, considering the Aegean-derivative pottery. 4. This table differs from that after Re because of differences in categorising pottery. The low quantities increase the difficulty, but evidently the contacts were limited during LH II.

Table 20: LH II Aegean-type pottery from the Ionian coast and Apulia

216

217

1

Bowl

4

3

536

230

156

100

2

21

3

3

18

5

2

4

2

1

1

1

1

5

2

0

2

2

6

2

1

1

1

1

7

6

3

2

1

3

2

1

9

1

1

3

5

87

68

1

41

6

20

19

8 1

3

2

2

6

2

1

2

11

9

9

1

2

1

1

13

1

10

10

2

3

3

6

3

1

2

11

11

2

1

1

15

13

13

12

188

76

198

1

19

16

19

221

84

39

39

80

1

1

34

8

8

3

14

137

6

1

1

1

13 3

0

118

6

7

2

13

112

3

1

1

5 30

5 30

4 29

9

9

6

2

1 2

45

45

19 20

14b

3

14

19

13b

1

2

2

34

20

13

13

1

3

6

24

1

13

2

9

1

1

10

15

16

4

1

1

3

3

1

4

9

21

7

7

14

17

1

1

6

19

9

3

1

4

1

10

2

1

18

1

24

19

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

19

3

1

10

4

1

2

1

6

1

1

1

20

1001

254

2

377

105

24

155

1

25

1

16

50

368

74

3

1

44

4

25

7

11

35

28

143

TOTAL

"another perspective", data from Bettelli have been blindly accepted.

1. The values reported here are taken from Bettelli 2002, simplified (for example several categories of bowls have been reduced to one) and integrated with other data. To avoid confusion and present

Notes:

GRAND TOTAL

Undetermined vessels

Lid (FS 334)

OPEN VESSELS

vessels

Undetermined open

Kylix

Deep bowl and krater

27

8

Goblet

3

1

Milk-bowl (Cypriot)

9

Mug

150

9

1

62

3

Cup

CLOSED VESSELS

vessels

Undetermined closed

Flask

Strainer jug

Stirrup jar

Beaked jug

Jug

1

1

1

of which straight sided

10

3

1

1

80

2

3

1

Alabastron

large size

Piriform jar, medium to

Piriform jar, small size

Jar

LH III

Apulia & Ionian coast

218

Table 21: LH III Aegean-type pottery from the Ionian coast and Apulia; legend on the right

attribution to any one shape for any of the categories presented. Resulting percentages for broad categories are as reliable as possible.

Torre Santa Sabina Other minor sites

20

13b

19

Punta Tonno (Bettelli) Punta Tonno (Fisher)

13

Torre Mordillo

Leuca

12

Torre Castelluccia

San Vito

11

18

Roca Vecchia

10

Toppo Daguzzo

Punta le Terrare

9

17

Porto Perone

8

16

Porto Cesareo

7

Termitito

Otranto

6

15

Oria

5

Taranto

Cozzo Marziotta

4

Taranto - all reported vessels

Coppa Nevigata

3

14

Broglio

2

14b

Avetrana

1

any container suitable for storage and so on. Additionally, in this region the massive production of Aegean-type pottery has also resulted in many "odd" shapes. There is no intent to offer a precise

4. Sometimes similar shapes can be confused, as for cups and mugs; this table should be read with caution accepting that "cups" are any small open vessels, "mugs" any possible drinking vessels, "jars"

categories, a comprehensive and fairly reliable overview of the function of the vessels present in each site.

problems maximising the recognised vessels. The values are subject to change, and sometimes debatable, as it is possible to see comparing the data in the database, but it offers, simplifying the

3. The second purpose of this table is to indicate the most common vessels in each site. It seemed correct then to present here Bettelli's work that ignores undetermined potsherds and possible

an idea of how things can change according to different perspectives.

it seems good to present Bettelli's categorisation built including also some unpublished or briefly named materials and accepting highly uncertain attributions that, when compared to the database, gives

work that needs to be done. Most of the potsherds are often undeterminable and many are lost, unacessible or awaiting to be studied, making the studies on them very much a work in progress. Here

2. The values presented here could differ significantly from those in the database. Main reason is that the database wants to present a cautious view of what has been found, showing clearly also the

1979-1985

Broglio

LOCAL

1990-1999

TOTAL

Bettelli

IMPORTS

Jar

13

2

15

81

Jug

4

2

6

1

Stirrup jar

2

2

3

Alabastron (straight-sided) Undetermined closed vessels CLOSED VESSELS:

2

3

62

62

62

62

87

150 9

2 19

6

Cup

4

4

Mug

2

2

9

Kylix

1

1

2

Bowl Deep bowl - krater

1

1

8

14

14

27 1

Goblet 100

100

100

22

0

100

122

156

Undetermined vessels

306

4

17

327

230

TOTAL:

347

10

179

536

536

Undetermined open vessels OPEN VESSELS:

Undetermined vessels:

306

4

179

489

392

88%

40%

100%

91%

73%

Notes: 1. The undetermined vessels from the 1979-1985 excavations have been identified, when possible, as belonging to open and closed vessels. Closed vessels seem to prevail. However, here the distinction is reported only for the most recent excavations as example. There are severe uncertainties that do not allow any speculation further the recognition of closed shapes being the majority, and this is of little value. 2. A comparison is made between Bettelli's attempt to attribute undetermined potsherds and the safer minimum total. Bettelli includes all the possible jugs or jars among jars. Undetermined potsherds are ignored by Bettelli and added here to maintain grand total.

Table 22: Broglio di Trebisacce

219

220

0

Askos

8

Bowl

2

6

131

Rhyton

Undetermined open

OPEN VESSELS

293

2

3

0

6

1

3

3

1

2

7

158

12

106

5

0

25

10

26

17

7

16

40

12

LH III A 2 - B 2

LH I - III A 1

3

2

1

1

1

1

(Little Circle)

(tholos)

2

6

1

1

2

12

0

12

LH III A 2 - B 2

Tables 23, 24: pattern painted pottery found at Nichoria and Aegina

GRAND TOTAL

17

1

Kylix

Undetermined

29

Goblet

2

1

Mug

Deep bowl - krater

82

Cup

145

0

Feeding bottle

CLOSED VESSELS

1

Flask

80

1

Stirrup jar

Undetermined closed

2

10

1

15

6

29

LH I - III A 1

Beaked jug

Jug

Straight-sided alabastron

Rounded alabastron

Small piriform jar

Large jar

Nichoria

GRAND TOTAL

Undetermined

OPEN VESSELS

228

2

123

4

148

1

86

1

Undetermined open

4

Rhyton

30

Composite vase

Kylix

5 16 6

1

4

5

21

61

Krater

Deep bowl

35

10

Mug Bowl

67

Cup

CLOSED VESSELS

103

2

Undetermined closed

29

1

Kettle

20

3

15

7

5

4

8

Stirrup jar

1 4

Feeding bottle

13

Beaked jug

LH III A 2 - B 2

Flask

15

Jug

1

19

Straight-sided alabastron

Rounded alabastron

7 10

LH I - III A 1

Small piriform jar

Large jar

Aegina

Mycenae - "Ivory Houses" Large jar Small piriform jar Jug

Tiryns

LH III B 1 destruction contexts

Flask

4

Small piriform jar Rounded alabastron

1

1

Straight-sided alabastron

16 1

Stirrup jar

LH III A 2 - B 2

Large jar

Jug

110

Beaked jug

3

Stirrup jar

10 1

Flask CLOSED VESSELS

131

Feeding bottle Askos

Cup

17

Undetermined closed

42

CLOSED VESSELS

58

Mug

1

Bowl

31

Cup

6

Kylix

1

Mug

3

Bowl OPEN VESSELS

Deep bowl - krater

50

31 149

Goblet GRAND TOTAL

181

Kylix

5

Rhyton

LH III A - B

Zafer Papoura

Large jar Small piriform jar

Milatos 2

4

10

2

of which beaked

8

2

Stirrup jar

16

4

2

Flask

1

Feeding bottle

1

CLOSED VESSELS

11

34

8

49

Cup

3

1

3

Bowl

3

1

6

2

1

OPEN VESSELS

12

6

4

GRAND TOTAL

46

14

53

Deep bowl - krater Kylix

1 361

Note:

6

Jug

302

GRAND TOTAL

3 2

108

OPEN VESSELS Undetermined

1 26

Rounded alabastron Straight-sided alabastron

Thapsos

Undetermined open

Only fine decorated ware from few published buildings is included (vol. 9 of "Tiryns"). Depositional context: settlement (buildings).

2

Tables 25, 26, 27: Mycenaean pattern-painted pottery found at Mycenae (Ivory Houses) and Tiryns; comparison of pottery from the cemeteries of Zafer Papoura , Milatos and Thapsos

221

West House

House of Shields

House of Oil Merchant

House of Sphinxes

TOTAL DECORATED:

West House

House of Shields

House of Oil Merchant

House of Sphinxes

TOTAL PLAIN:

West House

House of Shields

House of Oil Merchant

House of Sphinxes

TOTAL ALL:

0

0

0

0

1

0

13

6

20

1

0

13

6

20

5

1

0

8

14

0

0

0

1

1

5

1

0

9

15

1

0

1

0

2

3

0

16

6

25

4

0

17

6

27

0

1

0

0

1

15

0

1

2

18

15

1

1

2

19

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

3

6

3

0

0

3

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

70

0

33

7

110

1

3

2

0

6

71

3

35

7

116

Flask (48)

3

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

Cup (58)

0

0

0

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

3

Cup (60)

0

0

0

1

1

19

0

1

233

253

19

0

1

234

254

Mug (62)

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

3

1

1

0

2

4

Form

0

Pithos (6) Piriform jar (7) Piriform jar (9) Amphora (11) Jar (13) Globular jug (24) Strainer jug (43) Feeding bottle (45) Stirrup jar (46)

Dipper (67)

0

0

7

0

7

1

0

0

10

11

1

0

7

10

18

Cup (70/71)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

Cup (72)

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Cup (75)

4

0

0

0

4

-4

0

1

0

-3

0

0

1

0

1

Spouted cup (78)

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

2

Kylix (79)

1

0

0

0

1

86

3

42

657

788

87

3

42

657

789

Krater (80)

13

1

8

0

22

1

0

0

5

6

14

1

8

5

28

Bowl (85)

0

0

0

0

0

37

0

14

35

86

37

0

14

35

86

Bowl (87)

1

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

3

Bowl (88)

5

1

0

0

6

0

0

0

3

3

5

1

0

3

9

Ladle (91)

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

12

6

20

2

0

12

6

20

Tripod (95)

0

0

0

0

0

5

2

0

13

20

5

2

0

13

20

Lid (102)

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

3

5

2

0

0

3

5

Table 28: pattern-painted pottery from Mycenae, Ivory Houses

222

Pylos

LH III B Plain

TOTAL

Decorated 95

8

103

Piriform jar

7

20

27

Alabastron

0

2

2

Jar

38

43

81

Stirrup jar

1

58

59

Kettle

0

0

0

Flask

0

0

0

Feeding bottle

0

0

0

Undetermined closed

0

0

0

CLOSED VESSELS

141

131

272

1763

8

1771

Jug

Cup Mug Bowl Deep bowl - krater

0

0

0

1439

5

1444

229

18

247

3934

0

3934

Rhyton

0

0

0

Undetermined open

0

0

0

7365

31

7396

175

1

176

7681

163

7844

Goblet - kylix

OPEN VESSELS Other / undetermined GRAND TOTAL Note:

The table includes both plain (most) and decorated (few) vessels. The assemblage could not be understood properly dividing the two categories.

Table 29: Mycenaean pottery found at Pylos

223

Orchomenos

LH I - II A

LH II B - III A 1

LH I - III A 1

LH III A 2 - B 1

LH III B 2 - C

LH III A 2 - C

2

9

6

7

3

4

4

8

3

3

2

3

5

14

14

Stirrup jar

0

12

12

Kettle

0

Jar

2

Piriform jar

1

Alabastron Jug

Feeding bottle

1

Undetermined closed CLOSED VESSELS Cup

1

Deep bowl - krater Goblet - kylix

1

1

1

0

0

0

23 6

Mug Bowl

3

0

0

Flask

14

5

1

47

6

12

2

2

2

8

8

1

2

12

3

4

4

43

24

67

18

19

16

1

17

6

8 15

0

Rhyton

0

Undetermined open

0

0

OPEN VESSELS

39

115

Other / undetermined

1

2

1

GRAND TOTAL

5

6

1

64

168

Table 30: Mycenaean pattern painted pottery found at Orchomenos

Drachmani - Piperi

LH I - II A

LH II B - III A 1

LH I - III A 1

Alabastron

4

Jug

5

LH III B 2 - C

LH III A 2 - C

0

1

1

8

8

1

1

1

5

Jar Piriform jar

LH III A 2 - B 1

0

5

1

1

Stirrup jar

0

4

4

Kettle

0

0

Flask

0

0

Feeding bottle

0

0

Undetermined closed

0

0

CLOSED VESSELS Cup

18 6

Mug Bowl

7

2

8

1

1

1

1

2

11

11

2 1

1

13

Goblet - kylix

2

4

6

12

Rhyton

1

2

3

Deep bowl - krater

1

1

6

19 12 0

Undetermined open

0

0

OPEN VESSELS

21

44

0

0

39

51

Other / undetermined GRAND TOTAL

Table 31: Mycenaean pattern painted pottery found at Drachmani - Piperi

224

Figure 1: Eastern and insular Sicily

45

Jar Stirrup jar Bowl

40

Kylix Alabastron

35

Jug Piriform jar Cup

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 LH I - II A

LH I - II A (all)

LH II B - III A 1

LH III A 2 - B 1

Chronology

LH III B 2 - C

Figure 2: Thapsos pottery in eastern Sicily, LH III A 2 - B 1

Thapsos

Eastern and insular Sicily 80

73 70

60

50

40

35

30

26 22

20 14

13 10

13

11

9

5

4

2

1

11

3 0

9

5 1

0

0

0 Jar

Piriform jar

Alabastron

Jug

Stirrup jar

Undetermined closed vessels

Shapes

225

Cup

Kylix

Bowl

Undetermined

Undetermined

open vessels

vessels

226 l v es er se m ls in ed ve ss els

Bo w

1

et

en

op

2 3

Ky lix

5

ed

er m in

8

U nd

et

0

U nd

9

C up

2

up clo jar se d ve ss els

Ju g

1

St irr

1

er m in ed

10

et

10

U nd

Jar Pi rif or m jar Al ab as tr on

Figure 3: Thapsos - Cannatello

30 Thapsos

26 Cannatello

25

20

15

11 10 9

4 2 3

1 1

0 0 00

Figure 4: Eastern and insular Sicily

45

LH III B 2 - C

30 15 0 45

LH III A 2 - B 1

30 15 0 45

LH II B - III A 1

30 15 0 45

LH I - II A (all)

30 15 0 Jar

Piriform jar

Alabastron

Jug

Stirrup jar

Undetermined

Cup

Kylix

Bowl

closed vessels

Undetermined open vessels

Figure 5: Central Sicily

LH III B 2 - C 45

30 LH III A 2 - B 1

15

0 LH II B - III A 1

45

30 LH I - II A (all)

15

0 Jar

Piriform jar

Alabastron

Jug

Stirrup jar

Undetermined closed vessels

227

Cup

Kylix

Bowl

Undetermined open vessels

TYRRHENIAN COAST AEOLIAN ISLANDS

IONIAN COAST

EASTERN APULIAN COAST

Fine painted Matt painted Matt painted polichrome

pseudoMinyan

Plain

Coarse

Levantine

Aegina

Figure 7: Types of pottery (including Monte Grande)

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600

TYRRHENIAN COAST

400

AEOLIAN ISLANDS

200

EASTERN APULIAN COAST

0

Fine painted

Matt

Matt

pseudo-

painted

painted

Minyan

Plain

Coarse

Levantine

polichrome

228

Aegina

229

O th er /

p

un de te

w

rm in ed

l

kr at er

Bo w

-k yli x

M ug

ve ss els

ve ss els

Rh yt on

l-

op en

bo

G ob let

Cu p

ls

bo ttl e

Fla sk

jar

Ju g

ve ss e

di ng

clo se d

Fe e

er m in ed

D ee

er m in ed

Un de t

Un de t

jar

as tr on

St irr up

Al ab

Pi rif or m

Jar

i

Vi va ra

Sa ss an o

Sa lin a

Fil icu d

Li pa ri

ol i Sa nt aS ab Pu in a nt aL e Te rr ar e Po rt o Pe ro ne C ap o Pi cc ol o

op

vi n az zo

M on

G io

lla

co ra

in e

M an ac

M ol

Figure 8: Pottery types per site

90

80

70

60

50 Levantine

Aegina

40

30 Plain

Coarse

20 Matt painted

pseudo-Minyan

10

0 Fine painted

Matt painted polichrome

Figure 9: LH III A 2 - C

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Sicily

Apulia & I.c.

p

230

w

l-

30

26

6

3

1

1

Ky lix

3

kr at er

1

l

1

bo

3

Bo w

4

C up

bo ttl e

2

di ng

2

Fla sk

1

2

jar

3

St irr up

4

Ju g

ala ba st ro n

10

D ee

ed

jar

10

Fe e

St ra igh t-s id

or m

5

ala ba st ro n

pi rif

jar

2

Ro un de d

Sm all

La rg e

pi rif

La rg e jar

D ee p bo w

2

0

l

t

Figure 11: LH III A - B cemeteries

Milatos Zafer Papoura

25

Thapsos

20

15

16

11

6

2

1

Rh yt on

90

Ky lix

le

kr at er

Bo w

M ug

C up

As ko s

bo ttl e

Fla sk

jar

ju g

Ju g

G ob

l-

di ng

Fe e

ak ed

St irr up

Be

or Ro m un jar de d St ala ra igh ba st t-s ro id n ed ala ba st ro n

Sm all

Figure 10: Nichoria

LH I - III A 1

80 LH III A 2 - B 2

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 12: percentages of pattern-painted pottery at Mycenae and Pylos

Figure 13: percentages of all pottery shapes from Mycenae and Pylos

231

Figure 14: “palatial“ pattern from pattern-painted pottery at Pylos, Mycenae and ideograms Figure 15:Taranto and the Ionian coast

232

Figure 16, 17: pottery based patterns of Mycenaean cemeteries and settlements

233

234

Figure 18: Boxplots

235

236

Figures 29, 30: settlement of Lipari

247

Figure 31, 32: “tholos” of San Calogero, Lipari

248

Figure 33: site of the settlement of Milazzese, Panarea

Figure 34: circular huts with rectangular annexes at Milazzese, Panarea

249

Figure 35: adjacent huts at Milazzese, Panarea

Figure 36: hut at Milazzese, Panarea

250

Figure 37: tomb at Pantalica

Figure 38: LH III C jug from tomb 133, Pantalica

251

Figure 39: monumental multi-chambered building in the settlement of Thapsos, workshop

Figure 40: monumental multi-chambered building in the settlement of Thapsos

252

Figure 41: monumental multi-chambered building in the settlement of Thapsos, view of orthogonal internal walls

Figure 42: access to chambered tomb in the necropolis N of Thapsos, explored by Orsi

253

Figure 43: internal view of tomb in the middle necropolis of Thapsos, roof has collapsed

Figure 44: piriform jars from the necropolis of Milocca © Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Paolo Orsi’ Siracusa su concessione dell’Assessorato dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione – Dipartimento Regionale Beni Culturali Ambientali ed E.P. Palermo

254

Figure 45: Aegean-type (centre) and -derivative (sides) vessels found in the necropolis of Thapsos, tomb 48 © Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Paolo Orsi’ Siracusa su concessione dell’Assessorato dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione – Dipartimento Regionale Beni Culturali Ambientali ed E.P. Palermo

Figure 46: Aegean-type (centre) and -derivative (sides) vessels found in the necropolis of Thapsos, tomb 10 © Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Paolo Orsi’ Siracusa su concessione dell’Assessorato dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione – Dipartimento Regionale Beni Culturali Ambientali ed E.P. Palermo

Figure 47: Aegean-type cup (left) and alabastron (right) from the necropolis of Thapsos, tomb D © Museo Archeologico Regionale ‘Paolo Orsi’ Siracusa su concessione dell’Assessorato dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione – Dipartimento Regionale Beni Culturali Ambientali ed E.P. Palermo

256

Figure 48: details of ceramic fabrics of vessels found in eastern Sicily