Temple University Aegean Symposium: A Compendium 9781931534826, 1931534829

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Preface, by Philip P. Betancourt
The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the Eighteenth Dynasty inConfusing Minoan Chronology, by Leon Pomerance.
Metal Inlaying in Minoan and Mycenaean Art, by Ellen N. Davis
Radiocarbon Dates from Akrotiri on Thera, by Henry N. Michael
The Ox-hide Ingots and the Development of Copper Metallurgy in the Late Bronze Age,by James D. Muhly
Economic Implications of the Reed Painter’s Vases, by Philip P. Betancourt
Some Faience, Blue Frit, and Glass from Fifteenth Century Knossos,by Gerald Cadogan
On Theoretical Principles in Aegean Bronze Age Mural Restoration,by M.A.S. Cameron
SITE SURVEY Aegean Settlements and Transhumance, by L. Vance Watrous
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION Some Unpublished Mycenaean Pottery from Sarepta, by Robert Koehl
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY The People of Kato Zakro, by M.J. Becker
PHILOLOGY DA and TA as Premisses for Rational Arguments, by Emmett L. Bennett, Jr
ART HISTORY Perspective and the Third Dimension in Theran Painting, by Philip P. Betancourt
METALLURGY The Ancient Tin Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East,by Tamara S. Wheeler
RADIOCARBON DATING New Radiocarbon Dates from Akrotiri, Thera, by H.N. Michael and G.A. Weinstein
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION Aegean Leisure, by Claireve Grandjouan
The Mount Holyoke Collection of Minoan Pottery, by Karen Polinger Foster
The LM IB Painted Pottery of Eastern Crete, by Jean Silverman
Obsidian from Crete: Problems in Lithic Analysis, by Nicholas Hartmann
Thoughts on Prehistoric Potters and Ceramic Change, by Karen D. Vitelli
A Bronze Pivot Shoe from the Residential Building of Gla, by Sp. Iakovides
Excavations at Kommos (1977), by Joseph W. Shaw
A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term “Submycenaean”, by Jeremy B. Rutter
Introduction, by Philip P. Betancourt
Excavating at Gournia, by Jean Silverman
The Pottery Chronology: A Brief Sketch, by Philip P. Betancourt
Towards a Reconstruction of the Palace at Gournia, by Jeffrey S. Soles
The Master of the Gournia Octopus Stirrup Jar and a Late Minoan IA Pottery Workshopat Gournia Exporting to Thera, by Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier
The Date of the Gournia Shrine, by Pamela Russel
The Silver Kantharos from Gournia, by Ellen N. Davis
Ground Stone Implements at Gournia: Comments and Queries,by Harriet Blitzer Watrous
Two Seals of the “Hieroglyphic Deposit Group” from Gournia, by Paul Yule
Addresses of speakers at the symposium
Itinerant Aegean Builders, by W. Willson Cummer
Madonna Lilies in Aegean Wall Paintings, by Susan Petrakis
Minoan Relations with Cyprus: The Late Minoan I Pottery from Toumba touSkourou, Morphou, by Emily Verm
Metals and Metallurgy in Crete and the Aegean at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age,by James D. Muhly
Minoan Influence on the Greek Mainland during the Sixteenth Century B.C. and theOrigins of Mycenaean Civilization, by Hartmut Matthäus
The Problem of Minoan Relations with the West at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age,by Hans-Günter Buchholz
Considerations in Minoan Contacts at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age,by Reed Phythyon
Introduction, by Philip P. Betancourt
The Seal from Shaft Grave Gamma—A “Mycenaean Chieftain”?, by John H. Betts
Faience from the Shaft Graves, by Karen Polinger Foster
Royal Shaft Graves outside Mycenae, by Spyros Iakovidis
Evidence for Local Style on the Shaft Grave Diadems, by Barbara Kling
Treasure and Aesthetic Sensibility—The Question of the Shaft Grave Stelai,by Günter Kopcke
Were There Connections between the Aegean and Levant at the Period ofthe Shaft Graves? by Ora Negbi
Hafting Methods on Type B Swords and Daggers, by Judith R. Weinstein
Shaft Graves at Nichoria, by Nancy C. Wilkie
The Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Workshop III, by John G. Younger
Bronze Age Cycladic Ships, by Paul F. Johnston
Plus and Minus Thera: Trade in the Western Aegean in Late Cycladic I–II,by Elizabeth Schofield
Linear A in the Cyclades: The Trade and Travel of a Script, by Thomas G. Palaima
Thoughts on Prehistoric and Archaic Delos, by Jack L. Davis
The Crocus and Festoons Motif: Evidence for Traveling Vase-Painters?by Philip P. Betancourt
The Hub of Commerce: Keos and Middle Helladic Greece, by John C. Overbeck
Cycladic Imports in Crete: A Brief Survey, by Steven L. Stucynski
Gold Analysis and Sources of Gold in the Bronze Age, by James D. Muhly
Gold and Goldworking in Early Bronze Age Crete, by Keith Branigan
Aegean and Near Eastern Gold Jewelry in the Early Bronze Age,by Lucinda Rasmussen McCallum
The Gold of the Shaft Graves: The Transylvanian Connection, by Ellen N. Davis
Chronological Problems of Some Late Minoan Signet Rings, by Ingo Pini
Goldwork of the Extreme End of the Aegean Bronze Age, by Reynold Higgins
Mycenaean Artistic Koine: The Example of Jewelry, by Robert Laffineur
The Mycenaeans and Their Northern Neighbors, by Stefan Hiller
Problems in Mycenaean Contact with the Western Mediterranean,by Elizabeth K. French
Crete in Transition: Aspects of Village Architecture in the LM IIIA–IIIB Period,by Barbara Hayden
The Bird Motif in the Mycenaean IIIC:1b Pottery of Cyprus, by Barbara Kling
Umpiring the Mycenaean Empire, by James C. Wright
Repertory of Decorative Motifs on Middle Cycladic Pottery from Ayia Irini, Kea,by Gatewood Folger Overbeck
Early Elements in Middle Minoan Pottery, by Gisela E. Walberg
MM IB and MM IIA at Kommos, by Philip P. Betancourt
An Exercise in Form vs. Function: The Significance of the Duck Vase,by Jeremy Rutter
A Middle Cypriot Jug from Kommos, by Pamela J. Russell
The Development of a Bronze Age Coarse Ware Chronology for the Khania Regionof West Crete, by Jennifer Moody

Citation preview

Temple University Aegean Symposium A Compendium

Temple University Aegean Symposium A Compendium

Temple University Aegean Symposium A Compendium edited by

Philip P. Betancourt

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2015

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Temple University Aegean Symposium, author, organizer. [Papers] Temple University Aegean Symposium : a compendium / edited by Philip P. Betancourt. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-931534-82-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Art, Ancient—Aegean Islands (Greece and Turkey)—Congresses. 2. Civilization, Aegean—Congresses. 3. Aegean Islands (Greece and Turkey)—Antiquities—Congresses. I. Betancourt, Philip P., 1936– editor. II. Title. N5475.T46 2015 2015027570

The Temple University Aegean Symposium was an annual event from 1976 until 1985 sponsored by the Department of Art History at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. Each year, the symposium focused on a specific theme in Aegean Bronze Age art and archaeology. This book is a collection of the 10 volumes of articles that were published. Aside from incorporating errata and reducing Rutter’s two figures in volume 10, the articles are unchanged from the original publications. A new preface and page numbering system are included in this compendium.

Copyright © 2015 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Preface, by Philip P. Betancourt.. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi VOLUME 1 (1976): AEGEAN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the Eighteenth Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology, by Leon Pomerance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Metal Inlaying in Minoan and Mycenaean Art, by Ellen N. Davis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Radiocarbon Dates from Akrotiri on Thera, by Henry N. Michael... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Ox-hide Ingots and the Development of Copper Metallurgy in the Late Bronze Age, by James D. Muhly.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Economic Implications of the Reed Painter’s Vases, by Philip P. Betancourt... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Some Faience, Blue Frit, and Glass from Fifteenth Century Knossos, by Gerald Cadogan.. . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 On Theoretical Principles in Aegean Bronze Age Mural Restoration, by M.A.S. Cameron.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 VOLUME 2 (1977): THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH SITE SURVEY

Aegean Settlements and Transhumance, by L. Vance Watrous... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .49

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION

Some Unpublished Mycenaean Pottery from Sarepta, by Robert Koehl.. . .......................... 55 PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

The People of Kato Zakro, by M.J. Becker.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 61 PHILOLOGY

DA and TA as Premisses for Rational Arguments, by Emmett L. Bennett, Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 ART HISTORY

Perspective and the Third Dimension in Theran Painting, by Philip P. Betancourt... . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 METALLURGY

The Ancient Tin Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, by Tamara S. Wheeler... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 RADIOCARBON DATING

New Radiocarbon Dates from Akrotiri, Thera, by H.N. Michael and G.A. Weinstein.. . .......... 77 HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Aegean Leisure, by Claireve Grandjouan................................................................. 81 VOLUME 3 (1978): STUDIES OF NEW AND LITTLE KNOWN MATERIAL FROM THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE The Mount Holyoke Collection of Minoan Pottery, by Karen Polinger Foster.. . ................... 87 The LM IB Painted Pottery of Eastern Crete, by Jean Silverman.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Obsidian from Crete: Problems in Lithic Analysis, by Nicholas Hartmann........................ 123 Thoughts on Prehistoric Potters and Ceramic Change, by Karen D. Vitelli.. . .................... 131 A Bronze Pivot Shoe from the Residential Building of Gla, by Sp. Iakovides.. . .................. 135 Excavations at Kommos (1977), by Joseph W. Shaw... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 A Plea for the Abandonment of the Term “Submycenaean”, by Jeremy B. Rutter... . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 VOLUME 4 (1979): GOURNIA, CRETE. THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EXCAVATIONS Introduction, by Philip P. Betancourt................................................................... 157 Excavating at Gournia, by Jean Silverman.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 The Pottery Chronology: A Brief Sketch, by Philip P. Betancourt.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Towards a Reconstruction of the Palace at Gournia, by Jeffrey S. Soles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 The Master of the Gournia Octopus Stirrup Jar and a Late Minoan IA Pottery Workshop at Gournia Exporting to Thera, by Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 The Date of the Gournia Shrine, by Pamela Russel... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 The Silver Kantharos from Gournia, by Ellen N. Davis... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Ground Stone Implements at Gournia: Comments and Queries, by Harriet Blitzer Watrous.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Two Seals of the “Hieroglyphic Deposit Group” from Gournia, by Paul Yule.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

vi

VOLUME 5 (1980): MINOAN FOREIGN RELATIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE Addresses of speakers at the symposium.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Itinerant Aegean Builders, by W. Willson Cummer.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Madonna Lilies in Aegean Wall Paintings, by Susan Petrakis... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Minoan Relations with Cyprus: The Late Minoan I Pottery from Toumba tou Skourou, Morphou, by Emily Vermeule... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Metals and Metallurgy in Crete and the Aegean at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age, by James D. Muhly.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Minoan Influence on the Greek Mainland during the Sixteenth Century B.C. and the Origins of Mycenaean Civilization, by Hartmut Matthäus.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 The Problem of Minoan Relations with the West at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age, by Hans-Günter Buchholz.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Considerations in Minoan Contacts at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age, by Reed Phythyon.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 VOLUME 6 (1981): SHAFT GRAVES IN BRONZE AGE GREECE Introduction, by Philip P. Betancourt................................................................... 287 The Seal from Shaft Grave Gamma—A “Mycenaean Chieftain”?, by John H. Betts.. . . . . . . . . . 289 Faience from the Shaft Graves, by Karen Polinger Foster.......................................... 297 Royal Shaft Graves outside Mycenae, by Spyros Iakovidis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Evidence for Local Style on the Shaft Grave Diadems, by Barbara Kling... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Treasure and Aesthetic Sensibility—The Question of the Shaft Grave Stelai, by Günter Kopcke.. . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Were There Connections between the Aegean and Levant at the Period of the Shaft Graves? by Ora Negbi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Hafting Methods on Type B Swords and Daggers, by Judith R. Weinstein... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Shaft Graves at Nichoria, by Nancy C. Wilkie.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 The Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Workshop III, by John G. Younger... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 VOLUME 7 (1982): TRADE AND TRAVEL IN THE CYCLADES DURING THE BRONZE AGE Bronze Age Cycladic Ships, by Paul F. Johnston.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Plus and Minus Thera: Trade in the Western Aegean in Late Cycladic I–II, by Elizabeth Schofield.. . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Linear A in the Cyclades: The Trade and Travel of a Script, by Thomas G. Palaima... . . . . . . . . 377 Thoughts on Prehistoric and Archaic Delos, by Jack L. Davis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 The Crocus and Festoons Motif: Evidence for Traveling Vase-Painters? by Philip P. Betancourt............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

vii

The Hub of Commerce: Keos and Middle Helladic Greece, by John C. Overbeck.. . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Cycladic Imports in Crete: A Brief Survey, by Steven L. Stucynski. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 VOLUME 8 (1983): GOLD IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE Gold Analysis and Sources of Gold in the Bronze Age, by James D. Muhly.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 Gold and Goldworking in Early Bronze Age Crete, by Keith Branigan............................. 439 Aegean and Near Eastern Gold Jewelry in the Early Bronze Age, by Lucinda Rasmussen McCallum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 The Gold of the Shaft Graves: The Transylvanian Connection, by Ellen N. Davis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 Chronological Problems of Some Late Minoan Signet Rings, by Ingo Pini.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 Goldwork of the Extreme End of the Aegean Bronze Age, by Reynold Higgins.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 VOLUME 9 (1984): THE SCOPE AND EXTENT OF THE MYCENAEAN EMPIRE Mycenaean Artistic Koine: The Example of Jewelry, by Robert Laffineur... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 The Mycenaeans and Their Northern Neighbors, by Stefan Hiller... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 Problems in Mycenaean Contact with the Western Mediterranean, by Elizabeth K. French.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 Crete in Transition: Aspects of Village Architecture in the LM IIIA–IIIB Period, by Barbara Hayden................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 The Bird Motif in the Mycenaean IIIC:1b Pottery of Cyprus, by Barbara Kling... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 Umpiring the Mycenaean Empire, by James C. Wright.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 VOLUME 10 (1985): ASPECTS OF AEGEAN POTTERY IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE Repertory of Decorative Motifs on Middle Cycladic Pottery from Ayia Irini, Kea, by Gatewood Folger Overbeck.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 Early Elements in Middle Minoan Pottery, by Gisela E. Walberg.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 MM IB and MM IIA at Kommos, by Philip P. Betancourt.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 An Exercise in Form vs. Function: The Significance of the Duck Vase, by Jeremy Rutter.. . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 A Middle Cypriot Jug from Kommos, by Pamela J. Russell.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 The Develpoment of a Bronze Age Coarse Ware Chronology for the Khania Region of West Crete, by Jennifer Moody... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609

viii

Preface

The Temple University Aegean Symposium was an annual event from 1976 until 1985 sponsored by the Department of Art History at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. Each year, the symposium focused on a specific theme. In the last generation before computers transformed the field of archaeology, this annual event was used to meet a serious need for scholarly interaction on subjects dealing with the prehistoric periods of Greece and nearby regions. The symposium in Philadelphia provided an opportunity to present scholarly papers to a wide audience. It was managed on a very modest scale. The papers were all prepared by the speakers ahead of time on a manual typewriter, and they were duplicated the day before the conference (sometimes with a bit of panic). A little over a hundred bound volumes were prepared, and they were passed out for free at the conference to all who wished to attend. Obvious­ly, no time was available for any editing, and the volumes published whatever was received. No other annual conferences with free published proceedings existed in this field in the 1970s and 1980s in the United States, and the symposia were well attended by both students and faculty from the three institutions offering advanced courses in Aegean Prehistory in Philadelphia (the University of Pennsylvania and Bryn Mawr College as well as Temple University) as well as from neighboring cities in the northeast of the United States. It was a nice opportunity to speak to old friends and make new ones. The Department of Art History at Temple provided the travel costs for one speaker each year, and the others managed their own expenses. Several of the people who are distinguished senior scholars in the 21st century delivered one of their earliest papers in the United States at this conference. The proceedings, not easily available for many years, are reproduced here in their

original form. They are of interest for the history of Aegean archaeology just before scientific and technological advancements changed the field (and especially its publications). A surprising number of the papers were never published elsewhere, and some of them offer insights into the field that are still as new and fresh as when they were written. Philip P. Betancourt 2015

The compendium includes articles by: Marshall J. Becker, Emmett Bennett Jr., Philip P. Betancourt, John H. Betts, Harriet Blitzer, Keith Branigan, Hans-Günter Buchholz, Gerald Cadogan, M.A.S. Cameron, W. Wilson Cummer, Ellen N. Davis, Jack L. Davis, Karen Polinger Foster, Elizabeth K. French, Claireve Grandjouan, Nicholas Hartmann, Barbara Hayden, Reynold Higgins, Stefan Hiller, Spyros Iakovidis, Paul F. Johnston, Barbara Kling, Robert Koehl, Günter Kopcke, Robert Laffineur, Harmut Matthäus, Lucinda Rasmussen McCallum, Henry N. Michael, Jennifer Moody, James D. Muhly, Ora Negbi, WolfDietrich Niemeier, Gatewood Folger Overbeck, John C. Overbeck, Thomas G. Palaima, Susan Petrakis, Reed Phythyon, Ingo Pini, Leon Pomerance, Pamela J. Russell, Jeremy Rutter, Elizabeth Schofield, Joseph W. Shaw, Jean Silverman, Jeffrey S. Soles, Steven L. Stucynski, Emily Vermeule, Karen D. Vitelli, Gisela E. Walberg, L. Vance Watrous, Gail A. Weinstein, Judith R. Weinstein, Tamara S. Wheeler, Nancy C. Wilkie, James C. Wright, John G. Younger, and Paul Yule.

x

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM

1

1976 A symposium sponsored by the Department of Art History, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, on Feb. 2?i 1976, with the theme "Aegean Art and Archaeology in the Late Bronze Age,"

edited by Philip P, Betancourt

The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology by Leon Pomerance The find of two early Dynastic Egyptian bowls in the cult depository of the palace of Zakro in September 1963, which were clearly 1400 years out of time context, led to the first investigations of Sir Arthur Evans’ theory that datable Egyptian objects found in the same stratigraphic level with Minoan artifacts could furnish a chronological base. From Evans1 Egyptian finds at Knossos in Palace of Minos, through Pendlebury's Aegyptiaca to Warren’s Minoan Stone Vases, the erroneous assumption that the arrival time of the Egyptian objects in Crete coincided with the time of their fabrication is, from the evidence, patently false. The Aegean archaeologist, increasingly knowledgeable of the devel­ opment of ceramic periods and faced consistently with out of time context pieces, found himself frustrated by a difficult problem. The theory of Evans was the cornerstone of Aegean chronology, and if that was destroyed, what time clock was left? A feeble attempt was made to consider some of these objects as "heirlooms.” But the fragile quality of many of the Nilotic objects and the archaeological evidence of several serious seismic disturbances for over a millennium precluded such a possibility of handdowns from one generation to another. This paper does not provide a time clock. It offers only a possible explanation for the find on Crete of Egyptian material in out of time contexts, suggesting the indiscriminate looting from tombs of the predynastic, Old Kingdom, Intermediate, Middle Kingdom, Hyksos and New Kingdom periods. The depiction of the men of Kheftiu (Mycenaeans-Minoans) in four of the vizier tombs of the 18th Dynasty suggests that the chief administrative officer of the pharaonic courts had contact with the Aegean groups. Also, as chief judicial officer who tried tomb robbers apprehended in Egypt, he had control of the loot. This material may have been given in trade, as souveniers, or as incentives to return to Egypt. The Egyptian material found in Crete is mostly second rate antiquities: stone bowls, scarabs, amulets etc. Nothing with the exception of the Thutmose vase found at Katsamba is of royal quality. Another possibility is that a great amount of loot was smuggled into the Syro-Palestinian cities where the Minoans had contact and purchased in Byblos, Tyre, and Ras Shamra. Significant material found in the royal Cananite cities of Palestine, again out of time context, suggests a lively business in Egyptian antiquities, particu­ larly in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. Productive investigations in the future will undoubtedly lie in Egypt where there can be little doubt that Minoan and Mycenaean objects were brought to the Nile area contemporaneously with their manufacture.

Figure 1 An Egypto-Minoan Time Chart Based on Warren's Catalogued Egyptian Vases^ (MSV Pages 105 - 115)

TIME GAP BETWEEN EGYPTIAN OBJECT and MINOAN CONTEXT

APPROXIMATE DATING EGYPTIAN PERIOD

APPROXIMATE DATING MINOAN CONTEXT

1st Dynasty

LM 1 B

1400 years

A 4 Bowl

3rd Dynasty

LM III A-l

1200 years

A 8 Zakro Bowl

lst~3rd Dynasty

LM 1 B

1200 years

A 9 Fragment Spheroid Bowl

Pre-Qynastic Early Dynastic

LM 1 A

I OO years

B 1 Heart Shaped Jar

Late Pre-Dynastic

LM 1 B

1400 years

C 1 Bowl Fragment

1st - II Dynasty

EM II - MM 1

D 1 Bowl Found at Katsamba with

III-IV Dynasty

LM III A - 1

J

I O -I O B.C. (See D 1)

LM III A - 1

D 2 Marble Bowl

III - IV Dynasty

MM III B - LM 1 A

D 3 Bowl as D 2

Early Dynastic

LM ?

70 years 1100 years 1100 years

D 4 Bowl as D 1

III - IV Dynasty

LM II - III A - 1

1200 years

E 1 Shallow Bowl

IV - VI Dynasty

MM III

G 1 Block vase

Pre-Dynastic ?

MM III B

1000 years 1500 years

G 2 Bowl

Early Dynastic

LM II - III A - 1

1400 years

DESCRIPTION of EGYPTIAN OBJECT A

3 Zakro Bowl

Thutmoses III Jar

5 4 45

5

5OO years 1200 years

All vases in unstratified context were eliminated as were vases or fragments of questionable Egyptian shape, material or provenance (Warren's judgment)* The time Gap in years is based on a median arbitrary date within both the Egyptian and Minoan periods listed.

4

Metal Inlaying in Minoan and Jfycenaean Art by Ellen N. Davis The question has long been debated whether or to what extent the elaborate inlaid daggers from Mycenae and other Greek mainland sites had their origin in Minoan Crete. A study of the inlaid metal vessels can help to shed some light on this question. They indicate that cold-hammered inlaying, without the use of "niello," was a technique practiced by the Minoans. An inlaid copper cup in a private collection in London (Archeologia (Paris) 51, 1972, p. 51) provides us with new evidence. Although extensive portions of the upper wall, including the handle, are missing, enough remains for a probable restoration. The cup is of the "Vapheio" shape, and probably had a spool handle. It also had a separate inner lining. Both the bottom and wall are decorated with gold, silver, and electrum inlays, cut out of thin sheets of metal and hammered into corresponding beds cut into the copper wall. Occasional undercutting around the beds and hammering of the surface produced small overlaps that held the inlays in place. The ornament on the bottom, cut from one sheet of silver, is a 12-petaled rosette growing from a central ring with smaller petals inside the larger ones. The rosette is identical to those found on Minoan inlaid gaming boards from Knossos and the Shaft Graves, and also found painted on the bottom of cups from the Old Palace period. This supports the dealerfs report that the cup was found in Crete, and in any case strongly suggests that it was of Minoan manufacture. The wall of the cup was decorated with two bands, parallel to the rim, and six bucrania, set between inverted double axes. The bucrania are of silver with electrum horns, and the axes are gold. Eight-petaled rosettes of silver are set between the horns, and above each axe-handle is a slightly smaller rosette of gold. The true bucranium is fairly rare in the Aegean, although it occurs on a sealing from Zakros, and the curious inverted axes also have a parallel in Crete on a vase from Palaikastro. The Minoan manufacture of the cup is borne out by its close resemblance to an inlaid silver cup, fragments of which were found outside the LH II-IIIA:1 Panoply Tomb at Midea Dendra, where they may have been dropped by tomb robbers (AthMit 82, 1967, pp. 52-53, beil. 30-31, 1.). Small fragments only of the rim, handle, and wall are preserved, but they are sufficient, with the help of the London cup, to allow a fairly sure restoration. The wall consisted of three layers: an outer layer of silver, an intermediate layer of copper, and a thin inner lining of silver. It had a spool handle, and a thick copper inlay once covered the upper surface, except for a narrow silver band around the edge. This was, in turn, inlaid with a silver bucranium with electrum horns, an electrum rosette between the horns, and an electrum double-axe emerging on either side of the muzzle. The axe blades and horns are further ornamented with incisions. The bottom of the handle preserves traces of a similar decoration inlaid into another inset copper plate.

The wall fragments indicate that the ornament followed the same format as that of the London cup. A band of gold and below it a thinner band of electrum provided the same border at the rim. Below was a frieze of bucrania between inverted double-axes. Only cuttings for the bucrania remain, so their material is unknown, but the axes were of gold, with smaller gold rosettes placed above the handles, and slightly larger electrum rosettes set between the horns in a scheme almost identical to that of the copper cup. The handle was riveted fairly low on the wall of the cup, a feature characteristic of Minoan versions of the "Vapheio" cup, as is the separate inner lining. The preserved handle rivet is significant; it is large and decoratively rounded on the inside of the cup, a feature characteristic of all known metal vessels from Late Bronze Age Crete, and one only rarely imitated by Mycenaean metalworkers. The evidence, therefore, indicates that both cups were made by Minoan craftsmen, and testifies to their practive of cold-hammered inlaying. The electrum goblet from Shaft Grave IV (Marinatos, Crete and Mycenae, PI. 186) helps to confirm this conclusion, for it was surely made by a Minoan artist, probably working for a Mycenaean. The Mycenaeans had a predilection for large stemmed goblets, and cupswith stems are not found in Crete until later in the LM II-III:A period. But the component shapes of this unique vessel are thoroughly Minoan, as are the techniques of manufacture and details like the unusual rivet heads and the ornamental motifs. Although the border strips are bedded in "niello," the more delicate gold flowerpot inlays were cold-hammered, with details incised in the gold. The fact that the artist relied on cold-hammering for the more difficult inlays and used "niello" only tentatively for the borders suggests that he was more at home with the cold-hammering technique, and may have adopted the "niello" later, when he came to work at Mycenae. The existence of two Minoan cups inlaid without "niello" and its tentative use on the electrum goblet strengthen the evidence that "niello" was not used in Crete, but was introduced to the Aegean by the Mycenaeans. They did not invent it, for it is found earlier on a bronze ceremonial harpe from the tomb of Prince Ypchemouabi at Byblos and earlier or perhaps contemporary with its first occurrence in the Shaft Graves on a dagger from the Ahotep burial in Egypt. The chemical composition of the black metallic substance used in the Bronze Age is unknown, and it is actually very unlikely that it really is niello, a metallic substance produced by a reaction of sulphur with silver and copper to form sulphides. True niello cannot be applied to copper or bronze, which it usually is on Bronze Age examples, and an analysis of the black substance of the Enkomi cup yielded no trace of sulphides (Nature 187, 1960, pp. 1051-1052). Since we do not know what it is, we do not know its properties or how it was worked. Some evidence suggests that it was more malleable and easier to work than other metals, and it may even have functioned as an adhesive to hold the inlays. On the Byblos and Egyptian weapons, the inlays are gold wire rather than cut-outs, and a cavity left by a missing wire on the harpe does not show any sign of undercutting to hold the inlay. On the Enkomi cup, the black substance was noted underneath the inlays, even though they were cold-hammered. On most of the Aegean objects made after the Shaft Grave period, the inlays are set into the black substance rather than directly into the metal.

6

We must wait for chemical analyses of the substances and careful technical investigations of the objects containing them before making any authoritative statements about the techniques of manufacture. But meanwhile, the establishment of cold-hammered inlaying as a Minoan technique can help us to identify Minoan products. The silver cup from Chamber Tomb 24 at Mycenae (Marinatos, Crete and Mycenae» PI. 196) with inlaid male heads does not appear to contain any "niello." An elaborate foliate spray on the handles and borders was made by cold-hammering individual gold leaves, and the incisions bordering the sprays once contained inlaid wire. The leaves on the handle were themselves inlaid with a second material, probably copper, now lost. Each of the 21 male heads consists of a cold-hammered gold cut-out, with the hair and beard area depressed and slightly undercut to receive a second inlay. Several of those preserved are clearly copper, and in several cases where the substance looks darker, it is apparently decomposed copper rather than "niello." Additional small inlays formed the eyes, while facial features and outer contours were incised. The rounded cup with the handle formed of one piece with the body (the plate is merely a decorative addition) is common in Minoan metalwork, as are the large rounded rivet heads inside the cup. Another vessel inlaid without "niello" is a fragmentary copper cup from Mycenae, although without exact context (Archaiologike Ephemeris 1957, "Chronika" p.6). It was once lined with gold, and the large rounded rivet heads were also gold-plated. The high curved strap handle was ornamented with a repeated pattern of argonauts, each consisting of eight separate cut-outs of gold, cold-hammered into the copper, a motif also found on a stone handle in the Ashmolean Museum from Katsamba, dated to LM II-III:A:1. The visible copper surface has an unusually dark color and smooth surface, and appears to have been deliberately darkened to contrast with the gold inlays. The inlaid inset plates of the lion hunt dagger fromShaft Grave IV have the same appearance, and the artist’s use of thin silver inlays to separate the hair from the background indicates that the dark color was part of the original appearance. A similar technique was practiced in Egypt to blacken bronze intended for gold inlays, although the objects that I have seen have a different grittier-looking surface. Cooney, who collected the Egyptian evidence, has surmised that the surface was darkened by sulphides, although to ray knowledge no tests have been conducted to verify this (ZAeS 93, 1966, pp. 43-47). The lion hunt dagger is almost universally acknowledged to be a Minoan product, and the movement of the figures in a frieze-like composition, the deliberate variety, and the spatial sense conjured up by the lost profile of the gazelle on the back all bear this out. Although the dagger apparently contains "niello," it is used very sparingly, on the shield straps, the oxhide shield, and perhaps to darken the deeper incisions. It is used merely for color accent, and never as a bed for the inlaying, which is all done by cold-hammering. It is, therefore, technically the counterpart of the electrum goblet from the same grave, both made by Minoan artists as commissions for the Mycenaeans.

7

Another dagger produced entirely by cold-hammering without "niello," which ought to be a Minoan product, is the fragmentary swimmers' dagger from Vapheio (Evans, Palace of Minos III, p. 127, fig. 81), and this attribution too is borne out by the lithe movement and variety of the slender figures. A final example is a dagger from Thera, inlaid with a pattern of axes (Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze A g e , PI, XIII, C), This, however, is most likely a local Theran product, since the motif repeated along a frieze seems to be very much to their taste. Since the artistic connections of Thera with Crete are so strong, the practice of coldhammered inlaying there strengthens our contention that the Minoans practiced the technique. One question remains to be answered: did the Minoans inlay daggers prior to the period of the Shaft Graves, or was this a Mycenaean idea? Whatever the answer, the most striking difference between the Aegean daggers and the inlaid examples from Byblos and Egypt is the use of cut-out shapes rather than linear designs with wire. The Mycenaeans themselves rely primarily on line in their own art. The predominating element of shape in the Aegean daggers must be a Minoan contribution, and one made through the medium of cold-hammered inlay work. Bibliographical note: most of the material on inlaying is collected by Robert Laffineur in "L'Incrustation a L'Epoque Mycenienne," L'Antiquite Classique A3, 1974, pp. 5-37.

8

Radiocarbon Dates from Akrotiri on Thera by Henry N. Michael From 1968 to 1971 samples for radiocarbon dating were collected from the site of Akrotiri on the island of Thera. The results suggest that if the destruction of the site is connected with the eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera (Santorini), the eruption occurred about 150 to 200 years earlier than the conventionally accepted date of 1500 B.C. The sug­ gestion of an earlier date is supported by corrected radiocarbon dates of samples from the same period (LH I and LM IA) obtained on the Greek mainland and on Crete.

Akrotiri Radiocarbon Samples 5730 HalfMASCA Correction Lab No.___________ Description________________ Life B.C._________ Factor (1973) Added

P-1601

Charcoal from Trench Arvaniti 1509 + 59 3. Found in erosion soil at bottom of 6.0 m trench in pure Middle Cycladic Ill-Late Cycladic I context. Coll. 8 August 1968 and submitted by S. Marinatos. Wood identified by Forest Pro­ ducts Laboratory as olive (Plea sp« ) No NaOH

1730-1690 + 59

P-1602

Charcoal from Trench Arvaniti 1548 + 43 3. Found in erosion soil at bottom of 6.0 m trench in pure Middle Cycladic Ill-Late Cycladic I context. Coll. 8 August 1968 and submitted by S. Marinatos. Wood identified by Forest Pro­ ducts Laboratory as pine (Pinus sp.) No NaOH

1870-1720 + 43

P-1885

Seeds of legumes (?) found in 1394 + 49 Structure D, room 1, storage jar no. 3. "Some of the seeds had sprouted" (C. Doumas). MASCA comment: rootlets could be seen growing through the charred seeds; as many as possible were removed by hand* Coll. by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas, 27 August 1970, submitted by H. Michael. No NaOH C^3 - + 1.0

1630-1600 + 49 ~

Lab No.

5730 HalfDescrlption______________ Life B.C.

MASCA Correction Factor(1973) Added

P-1888

Charcoal from structure D-2, N.E. of bedstead. (Bedstead on exhibit at Nat. Mus. in Athens.) Probably from shrubs (Forest Products La­ boratory). Coll. October 12, 1970 by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael. NaOH

1273 + 52

1490 + 52

P-1889

Charcoal from structure D-l, next to storage jar no. 5. Probably from shrubs (Forest Products Laboratory). Coll. by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas August 29, 1970; submitted by H.N. Michael. NaOH

1447 + 54

1680-1660 + 54

P-1890

Charcoal from structure B, room 5, within the destruc­ tion level. Coll. October 9-10, 1969 by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael. Species of Pinus (Forest Products Laboratory) NaOH

1494 + 64

1710-1690 + 64

P-1891

Charcoal from pit dug for modern roof pillar no. 11 within structure B. Probably from shrubs (Forest Products Laboratory). Coll. September 5, 1969 by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael. No NaOH

1630 + 69 ~

2000-1960 + 69

P-1892

Charcoal from area 6 of Bronos 1482 + 54 bridge; destruction level. Pro~ bably from shrubs(Forest Products Laboratory). Coll. September 3, 1969 by S. Mari­ natos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael. NaOH

10

1690 + 54

Lab No.

5730 Half­ Life B.C.

Description

MASCA Correction Factor(1973) Added

P-1894

Charcoalfrom Room 3 of 1457 + 67 structure A (delta), under the paved floor. Probably from shrubs (Forest Products Labora­ tory) . Coll. September 8, 1970 by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael. NaOH

1680 + 67

P-1895

1474 + 53 Charcoalfrom pit dug for modern pillar no. 2 within structurev(gamma) Destruc­ tion level. Probably from shrubs (Forest Products Laboratory). Coll. September 3, 1969 by S. Marinatos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael No NaOH

1690 + 53

P-1893

Charcoal from the area E 2157 + 73 of room 4 in structure A (delta), two meters below floor level. Found while excavating for base of roofsupporting pillar. Identified as a species of Pinus(Forest Products Laboratory). Coll. September 4, 1970 by S. Mari­ natos and C. Doumas, submitted by H.N. Michael. No NaOH

2600 + 73

Notes:

P-1887: P-1599,

Contained no carbon, P-1619, P-1886:

Samples were too small for processing.

11

The Ox-hide Ingots and the Development of Copper Metallurgy in the Late Bronze Age by James D. Muhly Work over the past four years, conducted in part with Robert Maddin and Tamara Wheeler, has concentrated upon the study of the copper ox-hide ingots in the eastern Mediterranean during the period 1500-1200 B.C. These ingots have played a major role in all discussions of LBA trade in the eastern Mediterranean, of the importance of Crete and Cyprus as sources of copper and centers for the metals trade, and in the question of the Keftiu and the location of the land of Alashiya. These are all important questions, but they have perhaps been discussed apart from basic questions regarding the nature of the ingots themselves and the information to be derived from the proper technical study of the ingots. The fact that the ingots are so often described as being made of bronze, and that an actual analysis purporting to show that one of them contained 7.5% Sn passed so long without challenge, indicates that there is still considerable confusion regarding the nature and purpose of the ox-hide ingots in LBA metallurgy. The idea that these ingots represented an early form of currency is still with us (Kyrou 1972), though even the linguistic basis for this belief has been abandoned, the original meaning of pecunia now held to be frichesse mobiliere1, having nothing to do with cattle or currency (Benveniste 1970). Our interest has been with the ingots themselves and with what can be learned from the way they were made and what sort of copper they were made from. The latter problem has usually been seen as one of composition analysis, and elemental analyses of a number of the ox-hide ingots have long been available, especially of those from Hagia Triada (Buchholz 1959: 11). Beyond the basic fact that these analyses show the ingots to be made of very pure copper, the main interest in such work has come from the hope that the trace element composition would provide evidence for tracking down the source of the original copper ore. Such ’finger­ printing1 has been the technique upon which all provenance (or provenience) studies have been based. The main center for such study today is Stuttgart, where Junghans, Sangmeister and Schroder (JSS) have now published more than 12,000 spectrographic analyses, made from Bronze Age objects of copper and its alloys, in the volume known as SAM II. Thousands of analyses remain to be published. On the basis of the evidence in SAM II JSS have distin­ guished 29 different groups of copper used throughout Europe and the Mediterranean, the distribution of types (with identifications such as A, Al, CIA, C1B, E00, E01A) being shown by means of an elaborate set of distribution maps. The groups are based upon a statistical study of the relative concentrations of five elements: antimony, arsenic, bismuth, nickel and silver, with the first three being the most significant. Unfortunately grave doubts have been raised regarding both the statistical basis and the metallurgical assumptions involved in these

Men from Keftiu carrying an ox-hide ingot and other objects, as shown in the tomb of Rekmire (Theban tomb 100). Drawing by N. de G. Davies.

groupings (cf. Boomert 1975: with relevant bibliography). The conclusions of JSS often make little archaeological or historical sense (Muhly 1973: 339-342). The problems involved in metallurgical provenance studies have yet to be properly clarified, but my feeling is that they are of such complexity that there is little hope of ever being able to trace the copper used in making an ancient artifact back to a known ore source. The attention given to matters of provenance has obscured the real contribution that metallurgical analysis has to make. There is, of course, one major obstacle to be faced. The advantage of elemental analysis is that it requires taking only a minute drilled sample or, in the case of x-ray fluorescence, no sample at all. Proper metallography requires a real sample of metal, and what this means has been seen by Hector Catling (1964: 12f.): "The laboratory processes are far more destructive than those involved in mere analysis— for example, much can be done by the microscopic examination of a longitudinal section cut through a bronze weapon or tool. Not one museum curator in a hundred would countenance such treatment of his objects." Fortunately for us this attitude is now changing. We have had excellent luck in getting actual samples of metal from the working edge of a number of early iron objects in the Ashmolean Museum and the British Museum and are soon to extend this work to the Oriental Institute Museum and the Louvre. Actually there is not that much to be learned from the metallography of copper and bronze artifacts. Iron and steel have a more complex metallurgy and are therefore more rewarding. The metallography of raw copper, cast in ingot form, is another matter for here proper study can reveal information on smelting and casting techniques as well as on the type of ore smelted to obtain the copper. Also, as these ingots are not exactly works of art, it should be easier to obtain an actual sample of metal than in dealing with objects of artistic value. The ox-hide ingots are made of what is known as blister copper,i.e. unrefined copper with rough surface due to the evolution of gases (hydrogen, oxygen & sulfur dioxide) during cooling (this surface was once thought to be a deliberate attempt to represent the hide of an ox!) They were cast outside the furnace, probably in a rough mould which had been made in the wet sand, as opposed to plano-convex ingots which were formed in the bottom of the smelting furnace. As 30 kg of copper was a great deal of molten metal to handle, the ox-hide ingots must have been cast one at a time. There is virtually no native copper in the eastern Mediterranean so the ingots must have been smelted either from oxide ores such as cuprite, tenorite, malachite and azurite (listed in decreasing concentration of copper) or from the sulfide ores, chiefly chalcocite, covellite, bornite and chalcopyrite (listed as above). The traditional belief has it that, as Cyprus had no oxide ore deposits and, as sulfide smelting did not take place before Roman times, therefore Cyprus could not have been a source of copper during the Bronze Age. The first point has been reit­ erated only recently (Constantinou & Govett 1972): It is clear that the Cyprus deposits are characterized by the overwhelming presence of copper as a sulphide and the comparative

15

absence of oxides and the total absence of native copper due to the unique type of weathering and the reduced degree of secondary enrichment.11 We now know that this is not true, for recent (as yet unpublished) evidence indicates that Cyprus did have a substantial oxide zone. The second point concerns the absence of matte at any Bronze Age smelting site. Matte (copper-iron-sulfide) is an inevitable by-product of any sulfide smelting operation, yet it is virtually unknown from any LBA context. Apart from dubious examples claimed for Troy and Ugarit (Thompson 1958:5), the earliest example of matte is that from a smelting furnace excavated by Turkish archaeologists at the site of Demir dilrufu, near Alaca Huyiik* The material saved from this excavation, on display in the Alaca Museum, includes a plano-convex ingot, pieces of fayalite slag, pieces of matte and the top of a large beaked jug. The excavators call the material Old Hittite and place it in the 18th century B.C. Samples of slag and matte were collected in 1973, thanks to Raci Temizer, the Director of the Hittite Museum in Ankara, and studied by Rodney Tylecote using thermo-gravometric analysis. This material shows that copper sulfide smelting was being carried out in Anatolia during the first half of the second millennium B.C. This paper will summarize the evidence for copper sulfide smelting in the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. The best evidence comes from Mycenae and from the site of Athienou on Cyprus. This material will then be related to the analytical work done on various samples from ox-hide ingots found in Greece, Crete, Cyprus and Turkey (Wheeler, Maddin & Muhly 1975). It will be argued that the evidence shows a gradual increase in the use of sulfide ores during the LBA and a decrease in the quality of the copper being produced. The nadir is represented by the copper in the ingots from the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck (Maddin & Muhly 1974). This is probably all to be explained in terms of the gradual depletion of the weathered surface deposits of copper ore brought about by the expanding metallurgical operations of the LBA. This exhaustion of the oxide deposits forced the ancient metalworkers to go beneath the surface zone and to use mixed ores with an increasing amount of sulfide. Until the proper roasting technique was developed this meant a growing concentration of sulfide and matte in the copper being produced, making it more and more difficult to work. A crisis seems to have been reached by the end of the 13th century B.C., a situation that might have been a factor in the switch to iron during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. REFERENCES Benveniste, E. 1970. Les valeurs economiques dans le vocabulaire indoeuropeen. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia: 307-320. Boomert, A. 1975. A Contribution to the Classification of Spectroanalyses of Prehistoric Metal Objects. Helinium. 15: 134-161.

16

Buchholz, H,~G, 1959. Keftlubarren und Erzhandel im zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, P Z . 37: 1-40. Catling, H. W. 1964, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford. Constantinou, G, & G.J.S. Govetto 1972. Genesis of Sulfide Deposits, Ochre and Umber of Cyprus, Trans, Instn. Mining and Metallurgy. 81B: 34-46. Junghans, S,, E. Sangmeister & M. Schroder, 1968. Kupfer und Bronze in der fruhen Metallzeit Europas. 3 Vols, Berlin (Studien zu den Anfangen der Metallurgie, II), Kyrou, A, K, 1972. The Development of Coinage in Greek History. Nomismatika Chronika. 1: 64-75 (in Modern Greek). Maddin, R. & J. D, Muhly. 1974. Some Notes on the Copper Trade in the Ancient Mid-East. Journal of Metals. 26/5: 1-7. Muhly, J. D. 1973, Copper and Tin. The Development of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age. Hamden, Conn. (Trans, of Conn, Acad, of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 43). Thompson, F. C. 1958. The Early Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze. Man. 58: 1-7. Wheeler, T. S., R. Maddin & J. D. Muhly. 1975, Ingots and the Bronze Age Copper Trade in the Mediterranean: A Progress Report. Expedition. 17/4: 31-39.

17

Economic Implications of the Reed Painter’s Vases by Philip P. Betancourt A group of ceramic vases dating to Late Minoan IB may be joined ^ together as the work of one artist, the Reed Painter (see catalogue). The composition is always the same, a field of reeds rising from a wavy ground or water line, usually with small shoots between the reeds and roots showing beneath the wavy line. This was a popular mot^f during LM IB, and other artists who used it may also be recognized. It is the brushwork which marks the group as the work of a single individual, a careful painter who used the reeds primarily for jugs and one-handled cups with a hole in the bottom ("flower pots"). One of the interesting facets of this group of vases comes from the light it sheds on thenature of Minoan trade. In all cases the pieces found outside ofCrete are obvious imports made in a fabric and style quite different from the local ceramics. One may also note that the "flower pots," and most likely the jugs as well, were surely not containers for other materials. The pottery was thus shipped abroad for its own sake; one must imagine a clientele interested enough in fine Minoan ceramics to have it brought in over a considerable distance. The geographic distribution of these vases is shown in fig. 1. They occur from a fairly broad area within the Aegean, with all the sites linked by sea to the Cretan ports. Since the wares were painted by a single hand, they suggest an economic sphere radiating from one point. Knossos is the most likely candidate for this position. Although it has occasionally been suggested that some of the fine Minoan ceramics from LM IB could have been manufactured at Phaistos also, the fabric of this group looks very much like that of the Knossian pottery. Catalogue To the following list of the artist’s work may be added several examples from Ayia Irini, Keos, and from Knossos, Crete, not yet published*, Crete 1. Fragments of a large closed vessel, from Knossos, Crete, in Herakleion, Arch. Mus. no. 5181 (Popham, BSA 62 (1967) pi. 79f). Attributed by Popham. 2. Fragment of a closed vessel, from Knossos, Crete, in New York, Metropolitan Museum no. 11.186.47 (Richter, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 7 (1912) 29 fig. 13 upper row center). Attributed by Betancourt. 3. Jug, from Phaistos, Crete, in Herakleion, Arch. Mus. no. 3962 (Pernier and Banti, II Palazzo Minoico di Festos II, fig. 106; Marinatos and Hirmer, Crete and Mycenae, pi. 79). Attributed by Popham* 4. Fragment of a small open vessel, from Crete, exact site unk., in Philadelphia, University Museum no. 60-19-59. Attributed by Betancourt.

5, Fragment of a jug, from Crete, exact site unk. , in Philadelphia, University Museum no, 60-19-46. Attributed by Betancourt. Keos 6. "Flower pot," from Ayia Irini, Keos, no, K.3362 (Caskey, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 113 (1969) 438 fig, 6; Hesperia 41 (1972) pi. 95 no0 H8). Attributed by Popham. 70 Fragments of a jug, from Ayia Irini, Keos, no. K2643 (Caskey, Hesperia 31 (1962) pi, 96d). Attributed by Popham, Kythera 8. Fragments of a "flower pot," from Kastri, Kythera, ksi-112 (Coldstream and Huxley, Kythera, fig. 45 no. 112 and pi. 39 no. 112). Attributed by Popham, 9. Fragment of a "flower pot," from Kastri, Kythera, omega-215 (Coldstream and Huxley, Kythera, pi. 55 n o 0 215). Attributed by Popham0

Fig, 1. Sites in the Aegean where the Reed Painter's work has been found: (1) Knossos, Crete; (2) Phaistos, Crete; (3) Ayia Irini, Keos; (4) Kastri, Kythera; (5) Phylakopi, Melos; (6) Ialyssos, Rhodes.

20

Helos 10* Fragments, from Phylakopi, Melos (Dawkins and Droop, BSA 17 (1910-1911) pi, 14 nos, 2 and 4-5). Attributed by Popham. Rhodes 11. Fragments from a large closed vessel, from Ialyssos, Rhodes (Monaco, Clara Rhodos 10 (1941) 59 fig. 9 nos. 15-17, 60 fig. 10, and 61 fig. 12 no, 5). Attributed by Popham, Footnotes ^ The name was given by M. Popham, who first noted that several of the vases in the list were by a single hand. See BSA 62 (1967) 342 n. 24. 2 Another reed painter, whose style is very close to the Reed Painter’s, has been noted by Popham, supra n. 1, 341-342. To the examples from Zakros and Knossos add another cup from Zakros, in Hera­ kleion, Arch. Mus. no, 76372. The Painter of Keos 1310 (Caskey, Hesperia 31 (1962) pi. 96e) has other examples from Ayia Irini, Keos (unpublished). A Painter of Crowded, Cursive Reeds may be recognized from several vases found at Kythera (Coldstream and Huxley, Kythera, 140: fig. 44 no, 1 and pi. 38 no, 1; pi. 38 nos. 2-4; pi. 53 no. 104; pi, 53 no. 105),

21

Some Faience, Blue Frit and Glass from Fifteenth Century Knossos

by Gerald Cadogan Mr. Sinclair Hood's excavations at Knossos for the British School at Athens have produced some faience, blue frit and glass fragments, most of which came from a Late Minoan IB deposit to the north of the Royal Road, I shall be publishing them as part of Mr. Hood's report: until that is ready, any attributions to a Minoan phase are provisional. I should like to thank Mr. Hood and the managing committee of the British School at Athens for permission to discuss them here, and I shall be grateful for suggestions for the final report. The principal pieces are« Faience Minoan 1. Inlays: discs, bars and triangles One bar-inlay has the same mark of three curved thumbnail impressions as a disc-inlay from Shaft Grave IV, 2. Sacral knot, perhaps a handle or ornament of an inlaid box or game-board.

Egyptian 1, Bowl or jar fragments, including a ribbed basket-vase which can be partly paralleled at Kerma and Lisht. 2. Pot-stands, with parallels at Lisht and Serabit el Khadim The parallel at Serabit el Khadim may well be con­ temporary with LM IBi but Lisht and Kerma can hardly be dated after 1550, a gap of three quarters of a cen­ tury (or more if Kerma is dated to the Middle Kingdom as the excavator believed). Another Egyptian faience vase from Knossos is a pond-bowl in Mavro Spelio Tomb 5» another pond-bowl was found in the Argive Heraion tholos tomb. Blue frit 1. Fragments of two closed vases and a pot-stand (Ho­ garth's houses, LM II), presumably imported from Egypt. 2. Lumps, presumably for use for coloring. Glass Waste, presumably evidence that glass was manufactured

in LM IB at Knossos. Faience was known in Crete from EM II (Mochlos Tomb 6* decayed bowl and beads — one cannot decide if they were im­ ports or Cretan products), and flourished thereafter, parti­ cularly at Knossos which must have been a (or the?) center of the industry* e.g. vat room deposit (probably MM IA), loom weight basement group (MM IIB), town mosaic (MM IIB or IIIA), temple repository group (MM IIIB), royal draught-board (LM IA). In Late Minoan IB the industry continued at Knossos, perhaps even in a shop by the Royal Road, and would seem to have sup­ plied faience inlays for boxes or game boards in the fourth shaft grave and in Mycenae Tomb 102, just as earlier faience vases from Grave Circle B must also be imports from Knossos. The imports from Egypt at Knossos, both faience and blue frit, are interesting but may not have been as rare or as an­ tique as they seem to us today* we have so few excavated sites of the early New Kingdom in central Egypt. A blue color like that of the frit is well known at Knossos on frescoes (Blue Monkey fresco, Lady in Blue, etc.), and is found in LM II and IIIA*1 tombs, both for coloring wooden coffins and for paint­ ing on the floor of the tombs. The glass waste is important for being the first evidence for Aegean glass making, although the contemporary imported Mesopotamian glass beads (Nuzi beads) on the mainland (Mycenae, Prosymna, Englianos, Kakovatos) and the first mold-made plaquebead (third shaft grave) of faience, of a type well known in glass from the later fifteenth century, might be interpreted to show that the mainland acquired the skill of glass making at about the same time. At any rate, it is clear that the first steps to glass making in the Aegean came in the first half of the fifteenth century; by the time of the destruction of Knossos, the industry in blue glass jewelry was well established, both in Crete and on the mainland, while faience beads were much fewer. The making of faience vases and inlays seems to have died out then, the faience vases, figurines and objects we know being generally imports; and we lack anything comparable to, say, the faience of Kition, el Amarna or Kantir until the LH IIIB*1 pieces from the House of Shields at Mycenae, which may themselves have been imports. No analyses have yet been made of the fragments from Knossos.

24

On Theoretical Principles in Aegean Bronze Age Mural Restoration* by M.A.S. Cameron In memory of Zacharias Kanakis Aegean Bronze Age wall paintings, executed on lime plasters, have generally survived only as larger or smaller collections of shattered pieces, with few remaining in situ on their walls* After whatever reconstruction (i.e. physical conservation and mending by joining) of the original fragments has been effected, a restorer’s task is to associate the pieces and to complete the missing details in such a way as to create as far as he can a convincing rendering as to how the pristine painting may once have appeared® For present purposes, let a restorer be defined as an individual or team to whom the original material is directly accessible for study and who intends to make the result public in one way or another. My concern is with various problems underlying a restorer’s theoretical completion of the missing areas of the originals rather more than with technical aspects of the conservator's role in the physical reconstruction and preservation of the extant remains, even though the two activities have often appeared almost interchangeable simply because conservator and restorer have so often been one and the same person. But restoration in particular has fallen under considerable scholarly and lay suspicion on account of its hypothetical nature and results, and all the more because mistakes have been recognised in some restorations: everyone knows that Sir Arthur Evans's "blue boy" picking crocuses has turned^into a blue monkey mischievously wrecking some Minoan dignitary's garden® But in my view that suspicion, which is fair up to a point, seriously confuses several different issues in this field of study which I believe it is important for Aegean Bronze Age studies to try to identify and resolve. But to do this, it is time Aegean studies— not just restorers— looked at the issues seriously: for some critical appraisal is long overdue. The crux of the matter is that not so much restoration but certain methods and common outlooks of conservators have got out of hand. The use of hard-setting gypsum or other backing plasters as mounts for the display of "panels" containing original fresco pieces has, on the one hand, conferred on many restorations an air of final authority in the restorer's conception of the scenes, which is undeserved as later research has already proved extensively^; on the other hand, it has impeded much progress towards validly recreating the original compositions by the discovery later of new joins or additions of other fragments previously omitted. Besides this, the same plaster-supports have been used by many excavators to extract the fresco fragments from their deposits: this is an efficient and cheap way to lift the pieces out, but the modern plasters set hard around the broken edges of the pieces making both the conservator's and the restorer's later work extremely difficult even to begin (note 21). In consequence, errors in restoration are not merely bound to be more prevalent than they need be, but worse: one wonders if there has not resulted a general breakdown in understanding what the role of the restorer should or could be. Indeed, Aegean fresco restorations as a whole vary in their visual effectiveness so widely— not just because the physical preservation of the originals of course varies, too— that one may be forgiven

for thinking that perhaps even the restorers have lost sight of the nature of their calling. For them, the main question is: how can one extract and reproduce the maximum information from these dishearteningly shattered remains? Thus stated, the main issues which spring to mind are: (a) Why, if at all, should we attempt to restore the frescoes? (b) What could or should be the role of a restorer today when we know more about conservation processes, about the paintings them­ selves as an art form, and about processes of display or publication than was true, say, in 1900-1935 when the majority of outstanding examples were already found? (c) What principles and procedures can help a restorer produce the best and most useful results, making his conception of the original theoretically and artistically both plausible and intelligible, and open to later correction? (d) Under what circumstances should original fresco material be set into "fixed" mounts for their display and/or very survival, and what alternative media are at a restorer's disposal? (e) How may we best avoid repeating the restorational mistakes of the past? (f) Do the displays of the restored frescoes exhibit them as mural works of art that even now may be brought back to life, or more simply as "specimens of old stucco"? Restorational mistakes still continue to appear in abundance, in this writer's work as much as in others',most of which, however, Aegean studies tend to pass over unnoticed^; and our restorations are sometimes not as full as perhaps they could be. So we deprive ourselves of much-needed further knowledge in this field of studies, as though that did not matter. Meanwhile, the general public may sometimes be overheard to express puzzlement at the results which, with only one exceptional display, have so often been set high up in display rooms, enframed like easel paintings or large cameos (not as murals reflecting original architectural positions), curtained by plexiglass whose glare from reflected light breaks up their original two-dimensional unity and breadth of design which the original artists desired to be understood at a glance. A list of possible aims and principles for restoration is first suggested, followed by a commentary on a few main points that arise. The expansion, modification or correction of this list, as needs be, should be seriously considered by everyone at all concerned with the frustrating but irresistibly fascinating paintings of the Aegean Bronze Age civilisa­ tions. Chief aims 1. To create a comprehensive and reliable visual conception of the original, as accurately and fully as possible, as it may once have appeared. 2. To convey a sense of the paintings pristine condition and colours, and its artistic spirit and life. 3. To determine so far as possible the original's dimensions and general architectural role as a frieze, panel or other decorative unit on a wall, floor, ceiling or any other architectural location.^ 4. To "put back" the restored composition into its actual or known architectural surroundings, or else to suggest a plausible architectural setting according to known fresco locations in typical Aegean Bronze Age wall-schemes (Fig. 1). 5. To create a restoration which in whole and in part may be plausibly

26

explained and reasonably justified on scholarly and artistic grounds, so that the result excludes unnecessary ambiguity of interpretation of the restorer1s conception of the original. Suggested principles of restoration 1.

However the restorer copies the original fragments, he must take every suitable precaution to preserve their physical condition as a first step in his proceedings. 2. He should record as fully as possible the provenance, the physical condition and any significant technical features of the front, back and edges of the original fragments, not only for their intrinsic restorational or other information but also in the event of their loss or the occurrence of damage. This is especially important if the original pieces are to be set into fixed backing-plaster or other solid mounts for later exhibition, when such information is not generally recoverable later except with greatest difficulty. 3. Ideally, the restorer should be able to fit all the extant pieces into his design and in practice he should aim to use as many of the pieces as is feasible. 4. In general, restoration of original fragments in fixed or "permanent" mounts for public display should be avoided because if several alternative designs for restoration are theoretically possible".... every precaution must be taken to avoid putting mistakes into the most irreversible physical forms"®. The following may constitute exceptional circumstances: (a) if the original is, as a matter of fact, unquestionably complete^; (b) if the original is so nearly complete as to leave no serious question as to the correctness of the proposed completion of missing parts-*-^; (c) if the imminent collapse or rapid deterioration of the painting are such as to make the use of gypsum-plaster (or other solidifying preservative substances) imperative for its continued survival^; (d) if the proposed restoration or design is demonstrably the only possible correct theoretical solution, provided that no significant original fragment has been omitted or, if further pieces have been left out, their inclusion would not add any further useful or significant meaning to our understanding of the original theme, extent or function of the painting^; (e) if, as the lesser of two evils, setting original pieces into a solid mount were clearly to prove the only sensible means of our comprehending the original composition (e.g. inthe case of a fresco both too large or too long and fragmentary to be clearly understood otherwise-*-®). 5. Restoration should seek a compact assembly of the original pieces as the basis for a design which, though difficult to achieve, results in a more convincing restoration than one in which the pieces appear unnecessarily strung out!4ft 6. The restorer must seek to envisage a reliable design that may go far beyond the physical limitations and extant edges of the surviving individual fragments, in order to reach the full limits of the potential of the painting: for the aim in fact is to conceive an idea of the whole composition as it may once have graced an entire wall or room.

27

70

8*

9.

10o

11.

12.

13.

It is a restorers special responsibility to give us his informed conception of the original— no matter how many alternative designs are theoretically possible— because that is his raison d fetre. But it is a grave mistake for him or anyone else to suppose that he is or should be supplying the definitive or "once-and-for-all" restoration (except perhaps under the special circumstances mentioned above under point 4). The restorer1s conception of the original must be clear and unambiguous to the view of anyone else, so that there should remain no good reason why the viewer should depart more confused than enlightened. This obliges the restorer to render the visual links (i.e. the restored lines of the design) between the original fragments he assembles, which the alleged or implied "logical association" in his chosen arrangement of them in any case p r e s u p p o s e s - ^ ; thus the design as a whole and its meaning as the restorer conceives it may become immediately intelligible. The conventions of depiction, the iconography, and the style appropriate to the spirit, the scale of work‘d and the known pictorial repertory of the original (or, in the first instance, of the atelier to which the painting may be reasonably attributed: see below) must be reproduced as faithfully as the restorer is able, lest stylistic, pictorial, regional or chronological anomalies should creep into the restored design*. Note: this is not intended to gloss over the considerable problem of the artistic skills of the restorer himself: much depends on whether or not he is a professional artist and draughtsman executing his own or someone elsefs conception of the original. If possible, the restorer should provide some indication of alternative restorational possibilities (viz. in diagrams or written comment) which he realises the Bronze Age artists may equally well have employed in the more uncertainly restored parts of his design, so that nobody is mislead to suppose his chosen solution to a particular problem is necessarily the correct o n e , ^ Both the restorer and the viewer or critic should understand that accuracy in a restoration may be limited by the following factors: (a) the visual class of restoration p r o p o s e d ^ ; (b) the media of restoration; (c) the scale of restoration; (d) the possibility of future joins or additions of original material previously omitted or of alternative designs by later restorers; (e) the circumstances of recovery of the original pieces from their archaeological deposits (which the restorer should of course noteD^ A restoration (or accompanying diagrams, commentary or display of the original fragments) should as a general rule clearly indicate what is original and what is not, unless the scale of the restoration or the complexity of its details causes inclusion of the areas of the original to obscure the design or "mainlines" as a whole (e.g. as in small or rough sketches for restoration, or in "artists1impressions" of very detailed compositions rendered at reduced scales of depiction). Restoration should go as far as is plausible and intelligently possible, to a point where two or more restorational options suddenly present a diversity of interpretations of the basic meaning of the composition,

28

14.

any one of which may be as convincing as the next. There restoration should certainly stop, as indeed it should wherever untrammelled fancy overtakes well-informed and disciplined conjecture. There is good reason to consider "artists* impressions11 as probably the most valuable type of restoration in this field, so long as it is possible to check them against the surviving fragmentary compositions.^*^ COMMENTARY

To restore or not to restore? The present century has reacted critically to earlier attempts to restore original works of art, including old wall paintings of many different periods and cultures, for much the same reasons as Max Doerner has stated: "The conservation, not the restoration, of the original state is the problem. This is much more difficult than the practice of old-time traditional restorers, who overpainted entirely too much, and who more often than not substituted their own handiwork for that of the original. The modern conservator modestly takes his place behind the work of art"24B A similar sentiment has not infrequently been expressed in regard to Aegean Bronze Age mural restorations, as, for example, by Gerhard Rodenwaldt^ of whom, however, Mrs. Emily Vermeule has wistfully remarked a propos the hunting scenes from Tiryns: "A pity that Rodenwaldt, whose sense and taste were so sure in these studies, from a delicate sense of uncertainty refused to suggest dogmatically how the various scenes and fragments fitted" . Over-restoration, ideosyncratic artistic substitution, immodesty and dogmatism are, it seems, the serious charges to be levelled at those who have put their hand to Aegean Bronze Age fresco restoration. But are these charges wholly accurate and to be taken seriously, and are they necessarily true of all forms of restoration open to todayTs restorers? If they are, perhaps we should pack our bags and go home. The strongest case for continued restoration of Aegean Bronze Age wall paintings rests with the material itself. As nearly all of it has been severely damaged in antiquity by its collapse from its walls; by fire, pulverisation and abrasion; by haphazard dispersal, disintegration and chemical erosion or incrustation by its long immersion in the earth, it should not come as a surprise that the surviving relics are rarely intrinsically clear or understandable whether collectively or individually. The restorers* efforts can only be viewed in most cases as honest attempts to recreate sense and intelligibility from what would otherwise leave most of us— scholars and laymen alike— singularly confused and uninformed, however much it may be true that restorational mistakes have been made and that undesirable materials for restoration of the originals have been employed. Unless the role of the restorer were to be abolished— and it could be seriously argued such a measure would set back, not further, the progress of Aegean studies— the task of fresco restoration should rightly continue. The real problem, then is not restoration itself but how to achieve its goals most effectively without causing any further damage to the original compositions That restorers may abuse their calling is of course possible. But it is equally possible and more likely that they may perform an invaluable service to Aegean and related studies if they have a clear grasp of the advantages and disadvantages of available media and

29

of certain aims, principles of approach and methods of procedure upon which there is general agreeraento If restoration can be done well— and several examples from Ak.roteri on Thera alone show that it c a n ^ — then restorers need not apologise for their efforts or calling. This, by definition, requires them to envisage and complete responsibly what is not and probably never will be there in the original, which at its best is a matter of good, even shrewd, conjecture that has as much place in scholarship as any other branch of hypothetical study. The warnings of critics to restorers "not to substitute their own handiwork for that of the original" is well under­ stood by most restorers today who are well aware that their job is to supple­ ment, not to replace or tamper with, the art of the original— in precisely those areas where the original evidently no longer exists. Further, unconstrained pessimism towards restoration is out of place, if only because it is possible that later discoveries and research may generously corroborate a restorer's handiwork in principle and even in detail^. The remaining objections here cited relate to the restorers' use of certain media for fixing original fragments of the paintings into mounts for public display, which could indeed be said to have had a "fossilising" effect on progress in this field of study in some respects, for reasons already mentioned (p*20 )30o The media of restoration The media most often used in fixed (i0e 0 more or less permanent) mounts of the original pieces for display are gypsum or plaster of Paris, wax, and polyvinyl and sand; glue on canvas, as used in the "strappo" and "stacco" methods of detachment and restoration of the originals, is yet to come in this sphere of ancient painting*,^ The charge of "dogmatic" restoration arises from past use of these materials in circumstances that would seem unwarranted, either because their employment was not in fact imperative from a conservational stand-point (v*. Principle 4) or because the restoration itself was quite clearly incomplete and therefore open to later theoretical revision. The result has been in a number of cases that further work on reconstructing the original by the primary valid, and only objective, means— that is, by finding new joins in the pieces— has been as good as prevented, and so has impeded scholarly p r o g r e s s . 32 gut there have been circumstances when restorers have rightly used such media, to prevent worse calamities than simply fixing the original pieces in unchangeable physical relationships0 Clearly, the moral is that such media should only be used under very special circumstances, such as Principle 4 attempts to define, after a careful review of other possible media open to the restorer by those who are curatorially responsible for looking after the frescoes and their display or storage. Otherwise,, the temptation to set original fragments in fixed backing materials should be firmly resisted, particularly because there are in fact other means of making the shattered remains intelligible and their restoration useful*. Happily in their case, the charges of "dogmatic" restoration or of undesirable effects on the original pieces collapse to the ground simply because the work of restoration no longer involves the incorporation of the original material. I refer of course to restorations on paper, in facsimile or in replica, whereupon the restorer enters into the primarily theoretical or conceptual sphere of scholarly and artistic design and representation, leaving the world of Doerner's "old-time traditional restorer" behind him. If his imitative restoration should turn out to be wrong or defective, the well-being of the original painting would remain unaffected and the erroneous design could be quietly removed and

30

f o r g o t t e n 3 3 . Such restorations allow for an infinite number of possible revisions, at minimal inconvenience to all concerned. All are then free to devise new "paper" restorations and to continue the good work of reconstruct­ ing the original by finding new joins* Thus we may indeed fulfill the true purpose of the whole exercise: to extract the maximum information from what little of the original is left. Historically, it seems, conservator and restorer have most often been one and the same individual. This need no longer be necessary. The fresco restorer need not be an experienced museum or laboratory technician because the use of imitative media in effect removes restoration to the spheres of the artist and art-historian. The most insidious result of traditional use of solid or fixing media could therefore be said to have encouraged a distorted notion as to what should be expected of a restorer, namely, that he should somehow supply a definitive, unalterable, "once-and-for-all" restoration. But in the light of the fact that nearly all extant frescoes have been found in a fragmentary, incomplete and damaged condition, the absurdity of such an expectation (which in particular has brought the role of the restorer into suspicion, if not ill-repute) is clear: it is in the nature of the surviving material that different theoretical recreations of the originals are not only possible but should also be expected. What, then, is more accurately the role of a restorer?

The restorer redefined Except under the special conditions noted under Principle 4 above, the restorer snould confine himself to the role of theoretical designer. While he cannot reasonably be expected to produce "the definitive restoration," he should strive nevertheless to create a clear, unambiguous and sensitive visual rendering of his own (or his adviserfs) conception of the original as completely as the surviving painting itself, disciplined scholarly consi­ derations and good sense allow.His job i*s to make that conception readily intelligible and useful to others,which implies that his restoration should be capable of sensible explanation and justification, as a whole and in detail, both visually and descriptively, It is precisely his job to go beyond the evidence of what actually survives in order to gain a convincing conception of a greater entity that once certainly existed but which is now lost* In practice, this, in turn, means that he is under some obligation to complete the "missing links" or details of his picture so that his conception of the whole and the "logic" of his particular arrangement of the extant fragments in his design are made clear at a glance^. That is, he must cast aside that persistent habit of restorers and scholars— responsible for so many restorational and interpretational errors— of thinking solely in terms of the surviving fragments or reconstructed sections and much less in terms of complete compositions that once adorned entire walls and rooms— to which extant fragments and reconstructed sections are simply the clues. On this view, then the role of the restorer is properly much wider than that of the conservator because it is his raison d'etre to give us as full a notion of the entire original composition as it is sanely possible to do. If, in the first place, he can confine himself to imitative restorational media, objections to his efforts can only be on strictly academic or aesthetic grounds. If he must use conservational media for restoration of the actual material, then it should only be because he has no other practical alternative: in that case, criticism of the results must take second place to gratitude for all careful attempts to preserve the existence of the original fragments according to all due rules.

31

Variations on the scope of restoration There are basically two opposing approaches to restoration, "artists' impressions" and what I call "minimal" restoration,, The former boldly seeks to envisage how the original composition as a whole might have a p p e a r e d . 35 "Minimal" restoration is more deferential to the limitations of the factual data supplied by the extant fragments, to the uncertainties inherent in this type of work and to the danger of over-restoration. As a rule, it restores only the bare essentials of what is relatively obvious and leaves restoration at t h a t 3 6 , a third approach falls somewhere in between insofar as "artists' impressions" are supplied of various limited areas of a single composition but the restorer refrains from bringing all those restored areas together into some unified conception of the entire painting— in other words, as an "artists' impression" as it is here defined.^ To some extent these different approaches to the scope of restoration may be demanded by the material itself*, However, the "minimal" and "half-way" approaches are open to the objection that they characteristically and often quite unnecessarily restrain our natural desire to envisage an original composition to the utmost of its potential, or needlessly refrain from presenting the restorer's own conception of a coherent thematic whole— which is what constitutes, in my view, the special responsibility and highest aim of the restorer, no matter how many alternative designs may theoretically be possible. If, moreover, such restorations assemble the fragments in a certain "logical relation" to one another and yet decline to add visible restored lines linking the pieces together in ways that the alleged or implied "logical association" of the fragments presupposes, then one may well ask: what is the point or particular value of the restoration beyond presentation of the disparate fragments in the first place? Some may suggest that this is where a restorer should preserve "a delicate sense of uncertainty": but if the result leaves each one of us to become his own restorer, the logical conclusion is that all broken paintings should be left unrestored. But how many people, even including Aegean scholars, would comprehend the unrestored compositions at all satisfactorily? Better, it would seem, that a restorer should not thus "hedge his bets"; rather, he should help us by supplying his conception of a more unified entity and any obvious alternatives to his design in accompanying diagrams or commentary. So long as we, for our part, do not imagine that his design is the one-and-only one, it is hard to think what further reasonable objections to this suggestion may remain. Clearly, it is the bias of this paper that "artists' impressions" of as much of the composition as may be sensibly restored, whether worked out as simple sketches or in great detail, are intrinsically more satisfying and useful so long as we can check them against the extant pieces of the original painting*, Though no doubt more open to over-restoration, they have the great advantages of a broader vision of the theme, design and extent of the original, and superior clarity in the possible relations of all elements to one another. Further, only thus do restorations stand much chance of capturing a sense of the original's spirit or life. In addition, the "artist's impression" is best suited to another important aim of restoration which is to convey some idea of the architectural setting and mural qualities of the original. As readily intelligible recreations of the originaLs they become most valuable aids for research and teaching purposes; and as displayed in public galleries are especially interesting, it seems, to the eye of the general public.

32

Fortunately, there has been a noticeable trend in recent scholarly publications to supply "artists* impressions"®®* It might therefore appear ungrateful to wish that even more of them had been supplied®^. But the real point is: if, with their unique opportunities to study the original material at first hand, those responsible for the restoration and publication of the frescoes do not create them, then who will? The suggestion is, therefore, that progress in this field of Aegean studies might proceed more rapidly if we had more, not fewer, "artists* impressions," so long as line-drawings, photographs or colour plates of the original pieces in primary publications or their nearby display in exhibitions were to allow us to keep an eye on the accuracy and insights of the restorers. Scale, colours and damage That restorations should ideally be worked out at a 1/1 ratio with the originals seems too obvious a point on which to delay. So, too, the warning that the smaller the scale of the restored design, the less accurately a restorer can work on already small details— a point worth bearing in mind when over- or under- magnification can turn a passable sketch into a vulgar cartoon or a miserable scribble* In publications, therefore, it might assist the reader to appreciate the relative accuracy of the restoration if the fractional scale at which it was worked out, as well as a metric scale to indicate the size of the original, were to be added to the illustration or in the accompanying commentary. The exact matching of original colours is a special problem in itself, and much depends on the restorer's artistic skills and on the pigments' surviving condition. Colour distinction, when feasible, of what is original and what is not is preferable to indication only of continuous or dotted contours in restored areas. The former, even if only very approximate, increases the sense of a painting's original life and spirit,, whereas the latter seem best suited only to small and uncomplicated designs free of much overlapping subject-matter: their extensive use is weak and monotonous.^® If a prime aim of restoration is to recreate a notion of the pristine condition of the original, as a general rule it seems unnecessary to denote details of surface damage except where their exclusion may mislead. Such damage may be readily appreciated from accompanying drawings and photographs or from display of the original fragments themselves. Further discussion of these aspects of restoration falls outside the scope of this paper, even though some unmentioned considerations are important. Procedure in restoration Fresco restoration, to be sure, is like completing a jig-saw puzzle, but normally with the difference that most of the "pieces11 of the puzzle are missing^. In both situations thought processes are similar, insofar as one moves from pieces whose subjects or relative positions in the design are certain to others less easily identifiable. Starting points vary according to the condition of preservation in each individual case: pieces found in situ, for example, would provide useful "fixed points" from which to extend the conjectured design. Whatever the starting point, the restorer must first try to establish the principle of the design if it be an abstract or geometrical painting i.e. the way(s) in which a pattern or motif repeats itself and continues; or, in so-called "narrative" scenes, their pictorial raison d'etre. Unless

33

the architectural circumstances of discovery already supply the information, the height and length of the composition are important to determine, if at all possible, so that one knows with what class of painting (e.g. a frieze or "panel") and with what original location in the wall-scheme one may be dealing. In this connection, changes in background colours, differences in the heights of the same series of border stripes,^ and marked variations in the treatment of background detail may indicate a series of friezes or panels on more than one wall of a room^o Horizontal and vertical border impressions may supply information on the manner in which the original was once supported or confined by its architectural surroundings , and may weigh in determining the subject-matter or relative position of original fragments^. The same may be said of impressions in the backs of the fragments , and of brushmarks and brushwork on the painted surfaces which may supplement the information of pictorial detail^, if parts of a motif on a fragment are missing, a first rule— surprisingly often ignored, it seems— is of course to check the rest of the surviving material for the missing original pieces that would complete the subject: here observation of the cleanness or otherwise of the broken edges of the piece in hand often indicates whether or not a joining fragment, freshly separated (usually in the course of extraction from the deposit), may be e x p e c t e d . ^8 While "sinopie" or cartoons concealed by the slip or "intonaco" were once thought to be absent in Aegean Bronze Age m u r a l s ^ , their frequent occurrence has now been recognised especially in Minoan private house wall paintings-^: these may throw light on the nature or arrangement of entirely missing elements of the final painting executed on top of the superimposed slip“^. Other considerations enter into restoration if the restorer turns as he should to the compositional design; the location of main focal points in the scene; the distribution or treatment of mass, colours, weight, balance and space in the design; and indication of the topographical or temporal setting of the scene, if any. And what devices may the original artist have used to convey a sense of movement and life in his composition? Analysis of such considerations is beyond this paper* Let it suffice to add that a restorer who appreciates the artistic implications of the date of the painting, and who is familiar with the output of the workshop to which the fresco in hand may reasonably be attributed (if either information is determinable), is in a better position to effect a reliable artistic conception of the original than one who overlooks or is not provided with that information* So far as restoration of missing details by comparative pictorial analogy goes, a particular order of procedure seems right lest chronological or other anomalies spoil the result (notes 17-18): (a) by analogy with known works of the same painter or atelier; (b) comparison with other frescoes of the same style or date and place (site), though not of the same workshop; (c) then with regional frescoes of similar style and date; (d) pictorial or decorative comparanda in other media of the same date and local or regional style; (e) other frescoes or comparative media not of the same date but of the same region and culture; (f) other comparanda from the Aegean Bronze Age world at large; (g) close non-Aegean comparanda.

34

Whether Aegean fresco restorers may sometime be able to take advantage of other kinds of evidence, such as, for example, discovery of a canon of proportion in figural representation, it is too early to say. The illustration in Fig* 2, depicting the Cup-Bearer with legs restored on the basis of those preserved in another part of the same processional composition®^ suggests the possibility of some proportional system of representation based on a head/foot unit like that proposed for Minoan architecture by J. Walter Graham®®* Such a result would not only be of general interest but of particular value to restorers of similar but only partially preserved figures. When a restored "picture" as such has been determined, there remain questions concerning the lighting and architectural setting of the composition which may belong to the province of the restorer: his work can hardly be considered complete if he gives us no idea of the location and effect of what, after all, was once a mural painting inseparably part of the room or area it graced. Even if neither wall nor room survive, the original fragments and the restored design may supply valuable architectural information. By and large, this important aspect of fresco restoration has so far been passed over and many interesting questions remain unanswered®^. Restorations of architectural settings Impressions at the edges and backs of the original fragments often give useful insights into the character or preparation of the wall supporting the fresco, and on the likely location of the composition in the wallscheme: computation of the original height and length of the fresco may further indicate a frieze or series of "panels" (Fig. 1).® If the restorer visually indicates the architectural setting in his design, he gives back to the picture something of its essential nature: "*... a mural quality— a very definite, but somewhat intangible character which includes a certain degree of appropriateness to the architecture and function of the room"®®. Perhaps the absence of such settings in the case of exhibited restorations, or of replica restorations in the surviving or restored structures, has contributed to scholarly indifference to the architectural contexts of Aegean Bronze Age frescoes and to the mutterings of dissatisfaction one sometimes overhears on the part of members of the public in the exhibition galleries or on various sites? By contrast, what immense pleasure and satisfaction have been provided by, for example, the facsimile of the entire decoration of the Throne Room in the palace at Knossos®? (even if it has been shown to err on several significant points®®) and the recreation of the architectural settings of the "Spring," "Boxers and Oryx," "Monkey" and "Ladies" frescoes from Akroteri on Thera to be seen in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens I Such efforts on the part of restorers can only be applauded and emulated, for they encourage us to see the frescoes in their proper situations and as "... viewed from all angles without undue glare or reflections such as one gets from an oil or varnish surface"®® or, we may add, from the beeswax several early restorers applied to a number of original paintings on public display®^ or, for that matter, from their curtains of plexiglass. In addition to considering the relation of his composition to its room, the restorer (or those responsible for a restoration’s primary publication) would add greatly to our knowledge of Aegean Bronze Age mural paintings if some assessment were made of possible links between it and the

35

mural decoration of adjacent rooms on the same or different floor levels. That information might assist in determining different systems of mural decoration in buildings of different architectural and social status or of ^ different regions in the Aegean area, about which we know at present little. ' Enough, at any rate, has been said to suggest the potential use of such architectural and cultural information from fresco restorations. It is sorely needed*, "Good and bad11 restorations Enough has already been said to outline what may constitute a good or poor fresco restoration* If it turns out to be mistaken, this ought not per se to be seen as detracting from the restorerfs good reputation and honest efforts* He may reasonably be said to betray his calling only if he is evidently negligent, careless, or indifferent to his work. If, that is, he cannot intelligibly present and plausibly justify it; if he unnecessarily impedes further scholarly progress in this field; if he grossly underrates or overrates the restorational possibilities of the original material; if he consciously departs from normal modes of Aegean Bronze Age mural representation for no good reason, or from the intended spirit of the original— in short, if his work leaves us more non-plussed than enlightened or considerably less enlightened than we may in the particular circumstances have some right to be* Conclusions; a personal view There already has been a great number of mistakes or errors in our understanding and interpretation, reconstruction and restoration, of this most difficult material to survive from the Aegean Bronze Age. Under its more usual circumstances of survival, this is less surprising than to be expected: and that is my major point* But perhaps because there has been so little art-criticism in this field as compared to many other branches of art-history, some acceptable corpus of ideas to guide us in our work on the paintings is, if not wholly lacking, at least under-developed. The general manner of display of the originals— essentially the same as that of the early 1900fs as there is much evidence to show— ought, for our own good and as a fitting service to the general public, to be up-dated: it is time, as indeed the exhibition of the Akroteri frescoes now shows us, the frescoes were seen to be major works of ancient mural art, to be treated as such accordingly. I do not believe this is or need be so formidable a task as some may think; nor am I wholly unaware of the real difficulties along that way. To correct all the mistakes of the past may now be impossible* But as a start, we could begin by clarifying and sharing our views on the subject in a civilised way, putting the good of the paintings at the top of the list of scholarly or personal considerations. And we could do worse than to give back to restoration some place of respect, if only we knew what we should try to do— I suggest as the French Horn section of the Aegean Bronze Age Orchestra. If this view should cause distress in some circles, perhaps that is a good indication just how far Aegean studies have neglected or by-passed the issues. It can hardly be said that our work thus far has generally communicated widespread understanding of the truth behind Mary Swindlerfs words: that the Aegean peoples, notably the Cretans, were "...perhaps the

36

first people known to us who created works of art for the sheer joy of expressing the beauty which they felt in their restless, active lives.... a reflection of the vigorous and healthy joy which they knew as a result of (their) environment and because of the seafaring blood which ran in their veins" (Ancient Painting, 1929, p.73). To the contrary, we seem to strive hard to prevent itl That neither conservators nor restorers need or do blow wrong notes all of the time was appreciated by the much respected Cretan architect and knowledgeable museum technican and restorer to whom this paper is affectionately dedicated. It is sad that he, with his common-sense understanding of practical matters and untroubled good humour, is no longer here to advise us®®.

37

fleilirur Border stripes

1

Ceiling Border stripes

i X

t | 1

Lintel

1

level

Picture Picture

Stone "J x PlasterVDAD0/JtO” e i BENCH Flat or Relief Wainscot Band

W00d

J

j Floor

A

B

Ceiling

Ceiling

Stripes Plain or Monochrome plaster ^.NWXWVX Wooc.en beam \\W\V\N\W^' Stripes

Picture

Beam or Stripes (occ.relief)

Doorway

I

_£±x £ f i S

Picture

Wainscot band

Picture

Floor

Floor

1

DADO “ (Wood, Plaster, or BENCH Stone)

Calling— -------- Strioee

Fig. 1. The positions of frescoes in the wall-scheme A - Procession, Knossos B - Griffins, Knossos C - Relief Griffins, Knossos (cf. Boxer rhyton) D - Camp Stool, Knossos E - Caravanserai, Knossos

Picture ^Beam or plaster band>$^\\v> - — W DADO (Plaster, Stone or Doorway

Wood )

Floor

38

Fig. 2. Restoration of the Cup Bearer from Knossos 39

FOOTNOTES 1*

2.

3.

4.

5.

These reflections arise from study in the field since 1962, the nucleus of which was first presented as a paper to the College Art Association of America, at its 64th Annual General Meeting in Detroit in January 1974, and to the Department of Classics at Brock University in January 1976. PM I, Col.PI.IV, opp.p.265 (Sir Arthur Evansfs Knossos Fresco Atlas, 1967, PI.I, and Catalogue, p.27). First restored as a monkey by Piet de Jong, in the 1930,s ?, W.Stevenson Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East, 1965, Fig.103 and p.79. First published as a monkey by N.Platon, Kretika Chronika 1 (1947), pp.505ff and 14 (1960), p.504, who has identified an additional monkey in a further restoration on view in the Herakleion Museum, Crete. More recently, as perhaps three panels of a frieze of monkeys, Cameron, unpublished doctoral dissertation (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1974), Slide 57. See also note 33. Cameron in Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Enisraphik der frUhen Aegaeis, Festschrift flir Ernst Grumach (ed. W.C.Brice, Berlin 1967), pp.46-69 with n*8, p.50. In all, some thirty-one restorations could be listed to which new joins or additional fragments previously omitted are known: twenty-six of them exist as gypsum-based display panels. E.g. cf. the lily frieze from Phylakopi, the second chariot fresco from Tiryns (Europa, p.50f, n.8(4))and the "Swallows Frieze" from Akroteri on Thera (S.Marinatos, Excavations at Thera IV (1970 Season), 1971, Col.PI.A), in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens; the Camp Stool Fresco (Platon, K.ChrQ 13 (1959), pp.319ff, Col.PI.opp.p.336), and the "Park Fresco" with animals from Hagia Triada, as restored, both of which have enigmatically unrestored areas in their centres. Only the Theran fresco here is above improvement; all are in "fixed" plaster mounts. E.go the bull and chariot group from Knossos (ArchHologischer Anzeiger, 1967, p.340, Fig.12) fails to restore the pebble motifs in a terrestial connection— viz. upper rockwork fringe (cf.BSA XXV, 1921-23, PI.XXVII)— and omits a more recently identified original piece of the horse’s ear; the horse is, alas, Orohippus not Equus; the spoke fragment joins the front of the chariot-box (AA op.cit., p„344, Fig.13); and was the bull’s tail so droopy? And what of BSA 63 (1968), p.24, Fig.13, with its Late Red-Figure perspective, and square arrangement of four birds to the right which deadens the flow of the composition? And so on. Their saving grace is that they were executed on paper.....

* ?p m TTVanS'// ! ^ eeo"?anelS" fr°m the H °USe of the Frescoes at Knossos (PM II, pp.446ff Col.Pls.X-XI and Fig.264 (v. Europa, pp.46ff and BSA op.cit., pp.14-24). Alternative theoretical designs could be offered to some; twenty-two published frescoes from nine Aegean sites, over and above the thirty-one compositions referred to in footnote 3 above: of this secon group, at least ten are in "fixed" plaster backings. The bull ^ 0t fresco menti°ned in note 5 is another example of insufficient restoration,, ~— ■■— ■1■ - ------7*

?H-fr±efe i®.me“ t a thematically unified composition on two or more adjacent walls of a room or suite; a "broken" frieze is similar but architecturally divided into physically separated panels (e.g. the Z griffin fresco at Knossos, west wall); by "panel" is meant more self contained composition, artistically and architecturally so ( .g. the Boxers fresco from Akroteri: Thera IV, Col.PI.D; the oryx fresco was part of a continuous or broken frieze with further antelopes).

1

40

9. 10.

lie

12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20. 21.

Europa, p.50, n.8(4). A fisherman and the "young priestess" fresco from Akroteri come closest (Thera V, Col. Pl.J and Thera VI, Col.Pls.5 and 6, right). Ibid, Col.PI.3, depicting flower pots above striated dadoes:cf.PI.5, left; or, for example, the "Swallows Frieze" (Thera IV, Col.PI.A). Also Thera VI,Col.PI.4. The southern section on the west wall of the Throne Room at Knossos, depicting a griffin (PM IV, Col.PI.XXXII, opp.p.910); or the very crumbly but fairly extensively preserved "Boxers" and "Oryx" frescoes from Akroteri (Thera j v > Col.Pls.D-F) serve as good examples. This perhaps especially applies to geometrical designs, such as spirals (PM III, Col.PI.XV, opp.p.30, after Theodore Fyfe, JRIBA X, 1903, pp.l07ff, Col.PI.I); but a good pictorial example is the second fisherman from Akroteri (Thera VI, Col.PI.6, left: cf. his mate, opposite). E.go the miniature "Fleet and Battle" fresco from Akroteri (Thera VI, Col.PI.9). E.g. Maria C. Shaw, AA 1972, p.184, Fig.13: the miniature scene from Tylissos— a particularly difficult restorational problem. Similarly, an unpublished restoration by myself of the spiral "Festoon Fresco" from the Royal Road excavations at Knossos, later emended by the work of the late Piet de Jong and M.S.FeHood. Hence the value of such restorations as de Jong's designs for the throne rooms at Knossos and Pylos(respectively PM IV, Part II, Frontispiece, Col.PI.XXXIII, and Carl W. Blegen and Marion Rawson, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, 1966, Vol.I, Frontispiece). E.g. contra Evans's "Captain of the Blacks" (PM II, p.756, Col.PI.XIII); several "panels" of fresco pieces from Phylakopi, exhibited in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens; Shawfs restoration of the miniature Tylissos pieces (note 14); and the "Camp Stool Fresco" from Knossos or "Park Fresco" from Hagia Triada with their enigmatic gaps in restoration (note 4). E.g. the younger Gillieron employs the iconography of the famous "miniatures" from Knossos (PM III, pp.46ff, Col.Pls.XVI-XVIII) to complete the jackets of two life-sized female figures of the Procession Fresco which, however, would certainly have used both a different motival repertory and style to judge from the extant original paintings (PM II, Suppl.Pl.XXV, no.7 and PI.XXVI, no.14). Moreover, Evans assigned these frescoes to different periods: MM IIIB and LM IB (PM, Index, p.52f). E.g. restoration of details of the MM III "Ladies in Blue" by analogy with the LM IB, if not LM II, "Cupbearer": v. Cameron 'The Lady in Red: a complementary figure Co the Ladies in Blue1, Archaeology 24 (1971), pp.36 and 43. E.g. on restorational options to avoid "clashing" background colours, v. Cameron, BSA 63 (1968), p.19: re the birds and monkey frieze from the House of the Frescoes. That is, actual or imitative "minimal," "half-way" or "artist's impression" restorations, as discussed below. See, for example, my lament on Evans's encasement of original frescoes from the House of the Frescoes in gypsum-plaster: Europa, p.46ff and BSA, op.cit., p 018. But he and his assistants do not stand alone. While the problem of raising soggy or crumpled fresco fragments from their deposits is certainly vexing for excavators, it simply isn't good enough just to get the fragmentary frescoes out of their way as fast

41

22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28*

29.

30. 31.

32.

as possible with indifference as to the results as to how they do it. If they have to use gypsum, then they should arrange for a technician and if necessary a team of assistants to remove the gypsum-backing as soon as possible from the originals following their extraction from the ground. In both recording on site and subsequent treatment of frescoes, the efforts of the late Professor Spyridon Marinatos at Akroteri are an exemplary general model: v. Thera IV, p„25 and Pis.112-113, 116 and Thera V, p.14, Fig.3 with Pis.8-12« Financial constraints are hardly an excuse for wrecking the chances of later adequate restoration of the paintings: excavators should not, after all, ape the "saffron gatherers" of the paintings. As a simple illustration of this concept, restoration of the leopard1s head from Knossos should stop with the head (PM I, p.540, Fig.392B), for it is impossible without additional original material to say if it once belonged to an animal itself, to a leopard's~"head rhyton, or to a leopard-skin (S.Marinatos and M.Hirmer, Crete and Mycenae, 1960, Col.PI.XXXVIII, centre; Ibid, PI.99 (lioness or leopard?); PM II, p.740, Fig.473f or Mable Lang, The Palace of Nestor, II, PI.129, 58 H nws restored). Other examples could be cited. See note 35 and p.27 for examples and discussion of "artists’ impressions." The Materials of the Artist, 1935, trans. Eugen Neuhaus, p.304. Tiryns II: Die Fresken des Palastes, 1912, pp. VI-VIII. Greece in the Bronze Age, 1964, p.194. But Mrs. Vermeule’s meaning is obscure. The three examples cited at Europa, p o50f, n.8(4) are prize examples how not to restore frescoes, but are not alone. Thera IV, Col.Pls.A-D; V, Col.Pls.E-F, I-J (there are objections to the monkey and ladies (North wall) restorations: Col.Pis.D and G); and VI, Col.Pis.3-9. The monkey frieze from Akroteri discovered in 1969 in principle corroborates the restoration of the birds and monkeys from the House of the Frescoes offered at BSA 63 (1968), p.24, Fig013 on eleven significant points of design and composition, content and interpretation of motifs, three different postures of monkeys, and architectural location in the wall-scheme and general orientation, as could be discussed in greater detail. See note 21 for references and notes 3 and 6 for the general situation. For a clear statement of "stacco" and "strappo" methods of detaching and mounting frescoes for display, see Ugo Procacci in Frescoes from Florence (Catalogue to the Haywood Gallery exhibition, 1969), p.34ff. These methods have not yet been used for mounting Aegean Bronze Age frescoes, to my knowledge, unless perhaps some of the frescoes from Akroteri qualify. Gypsum has been the preferred backing medium: see notes 3 and 6. Many examples could be cited, including the two "Miniature Temple" and "Sacred Dance" frescoes from Knossos; the lily composition from Phylakopi, of which more pieces turned up in Dr. Colin Renfrew’s excavation on Melos in 1975; nearly 20 new joins or additions have been identified to the ladies fresco from the House of the Idols at Mycenae (1973), now in the Nauplion Museum; in the "Priestess with lilies" fresco from Hagia Triada, on exhibition in HM; on the other hand, the "Processional Youths" from Knossos have been given fragments to which for reconstructional and architectural reasons they are not entitled at that point: PM II, SupploPl.XXVII, top left corner of original behind no.20.

42

33.

34.

35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41. 42.

43.

E.g. Evans1s restoration of the "Saffron Gatherer" of which a replica is still on display, having become a certain tourist attraction— not that it should hog that distinction in the collection of Minoan frescoes on public display! It is placed next to another exhibited restoration incorporating the original fresco pieces of the composition which, though certainly "more correct," may in turn be mistaken (v. note 2). And the correction of the correction seems to be mistaken, too, .... Eago the restorations mentioned in note 16, of which that of the miniature scene from Tylissos— leaving all borders, a vessel, tree, architecture, undulating background zone and crowd "scene" undefined— is particularly difficult to comprehend intelligibly. The fragment, no.l, at AA 1972, p.184, Figal3, which was missing (Ibid, p.172), was identified by me in HM fresco storeroom Tray Rho XI (north lower side) in January 1975. That the pieces of this composition are particularly open to widely varying theoretical designs could be shown by publication of three different restorations of the same composition executed by Visual Arts students of the University of Western Ontario* E.g. the restorations mentioned in note 15; or that at BSA op.cit., Fig.13 which notwithstanding note 29 is still unsatisfactory (v. note 5). E.go the "Captain of the Blacks," the Tylissos miniatures, the leopard's head from Knossos, mentioned earlier, or the bull and chariot fresco from the same site (S. Alexiou, AA, 1964, p.791f, Fig.3, by T.Phanourakis; and to some extent, its further restoration in A A , 1967, p.340, Fig012— at the top)* E.g. PM II, pp.446ff, Col.Pls.X-XI and Figs.264, 266A & C, 268, 270­ 271 (cf* BSA op.cit., pp.24f, Figs.12-13); or Tiryns II, Pls.XII-XIII and related elements at Ibid, Figs.42, 47-49, 57 and more (v. note 26); or Lang, Pylos II, Col.Pls.M-N with three parts of the Battle scene. Helga Reusch, Die zeichnerische Rekonstruktion des Frauenfrieses im bootischen Theben (1956), Pis.14-15; Lang, op.cit., Pis. 119 and 125, and further Pylos example mentioned in note 15 along with the megaron’s and other floor frescoes: e.g. Pylos I, Part 2, Pis.73 and 163; BSA, loc.cit. E.g. the Tiryns and Pylos frescoes cited at note 37 above; or the blue birds frieze from Hagia Irini on Kea (Katherine Coleman, Hesperia XLII, 1973, p.287, Fig.l which leaves out at least fifteen more birds: ibid., pp.291, Addendum 296). E.g. BSA, op.cit., esp. Fig.13. It would have been better to shade the painted masses in light grey pencil, as with the "Lady in Red" from Knossos (Archaeology, 24, No.l, 1971, Front Cover)0 Mabel Lang, "Picture Puzzles from Pylos: First Steps in the Study of Frescoes," Archaeology 13 (1960), pp.55ff. Measurement of the two best preserved fish "panels" from Phylakopi shows one was far greater in original height than the other, by nearly nine cm (22.4, and 31.1), suggesting either two sections of a frieze on different walls or the limitation on one section of the painting by some "protruding" architectural feature e.g. a window frame, unmentioned in the preliminary report of the frescoes (R.C. Bosanquet, Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Soc.Prom.Hell.Studies No.4, 1904), pp.70ff. Other instances from the unpublished frescoes from Knossos could be cited to show that border stripes can tell us much the same information. Contra Evans, PM II, p.450 (BSA, op.cit., p.19). Similarly, the three sections of the continuous frieze of Room 14 in the villa at Hagia Triada, of which— by courtesy of Professor Doro Levi— I have prepared a colour restoration (doctoral dissertation, Slide 54).

43

44.

45. 46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51. 52. 53.

Contra Bosanquet, op.cit,, p.71 (who suggests, improbably, that Knossos may have exported framed pictures: the Phylakopi frescoes are certainly provincial in style and as good as certainly locally manufactured); and Chrysoula Kardera, who extends her restoration of the "Miniature Temple" fresco from Knossos beyond the impressed upper horizontal border where the painting— at least in "buon fresco"— would have come to a stop with its confinement by horizontal architectural members of the wall-construction (Ephemeris, 1966, p,176, Fig.26). E.g. Evans's "fountain" from the House of the Frescoes thus turned into a waterfall (Europa, p.59 with Fig.5). E.g. the horse fragment at Alexiou, AA (1964), p.802, Fig„6 is probably inclined too far to the left, as there is a straight— presumably vertical— beam-impression at the back roughly parallel to the centres of the two horses' manes there: their more vertical orientation, in agreement with brushstrokes on the surface, would thus bring their heads upwards, as though the animals were looking forwards but not downwards— as would be appropriate if the chariot they were presumably leading was in motion. Similarly, Ibid, p.799f, Fig.5. These considerations also helped to rule out Evans's "fountain" (Europa, p.58f,n.23) and the possibility that the piece discussed in note 46 depicted fishes' fins (Cameron, M.A. dissertation, University of Liverpool, 1964, p.64f). As in the case of the new join to "La Parisienne" (Kretika Chronika 18, 1964, p.39); also that to the "Miniature Sacred Grove" fresco (Europa, p.65ff) which has not yet (summer 1975) been added to the exhibited composition. Noel Heaton, JRIBA XVIII (1911), p.709 a propos "intonaco" whose Mediaeval-Renaissance function was precisely to conceal sinopie from view (v.Frescoes from Florence, passim) . Both intonaco and sinopie are much in evidence in paintings from the House of the Frescoes and other structures along the Royal Road, as yet unpublished. Likewise (in red, not ochre as in HOF) in the flying fish and ladies frescoes from Phylakopi, as inspection of the originals clearly shows (Nat. Mus.Arch. Athens). See Kadmos VII (1968), pp.53-58; but I believe Mary Swindler in Ancient Painting (1929)P»74 was the first to emphasise their presence in Minoan frescoes. E.g. Europa, pp.57ff in the case of the waterfall and myrtle compositions (Figs.5-6). PM II, Col.PI.XII, opp.p.725 and Suppl.PI.XXVII, nos.20-22. AJA 64 (1960), pp.335-341 with Pis.92-97; and Proceedings of the Second International Cretological Conference (1967), pp.157-165. The present Fig.2 (doctoral dissertation, Vol.I, p.52f and Fig.7) produces the following interesting ratios— so far as I have had time to take them: 1 Foot = 1 Head = 1 / 8 Total Height; 2 Feet = 1 Cubit (elbow to thumbtip, lower forearm) or 1/4 Total Height; Top of Head to Waist, 3/8 Total Height; Waist = 2/3 of 1 Foot; Right Fist = 1/3 of 1 Foot; Left Fist = 3/8 of 1 Foot; Left Palm (across knuckles) = 1/4 of 1 Foot. The finger unit of the left fist ought to be 1/16 of 1 Foot unit or 1/128 Total Height: but the left fist is not drawn in the original as equal to the right. Other points: each lip seems to be 1/16 of a Foot unit; the central vertical line aligns nose-tip, intersection of thighs, and back big toe; the top of the knee-cap is 2 Foot units (1 Cubit) from the base-line. If the head = unit of 4^

44

(or 16 left palms), intersecting lines occur in the eye’s centre, and near the junction of brow with hair; and horizontal lines pass at or very close to the middle of the lips and the base of the chin at the neck-line. The head as a unit of 3^ (broken lines) shows an interesting intersection at the outer corner of the eye. N B : the drawing corrects the restored hairstyle of the Cupbearer on the evidence of Reusch, op.cit., p.48, Fig.20 (mistakenly considered a seated lady). If some results seem Egyptianising, this could be because this study owes much to Erik Iversen’s Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art (1955). At this stage, even if a canon of proportion were known to the Minoans, it is too soon to say if they consistently worked to it— even if only in the Procession Fresco. Others, hopefully, will pursue these leads if, that is, they are not dead ends. At Pylos Mabel Lang has also been able to work out a foot unit of c.32.0cm (Pylos II, p.225f), somewhat larger than that of Graham’s unit of 30.36cm; the former, however, would agree with the height of the individual zones in the Camp Stool fresco as arranged by Evans rather than by Platon=31.0cm (Cameron, Kretika Chronika 18 (1964), pp.46, 50— and see other rough proportions at Ibid, p.47, n.31). Is it possible that different ratios of proportion were used at Knossos in different periods, such as might be chronologically and ethnically significant e.g. indicating the presence of Mycenaeans or, heaven forbid, Mycenaean wall painters? 54. J.W.Graham, The Palace of Crete (1962; 1969 ed.), p.200. 55. The diagrams in Fig.l are based on the evidence of both frescoes and Minoan architecture, after Cameron, doctoral thesis, Vol.I, p.204, Fig.34. 560 Ralph Mayer, The Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques (1940; 1963 ed.), p.340, who also emphasises the importance of the absence of glare, and the ambulatory condition of the onlooker when viewing murals in situ. 57. Part 2, Frontispiece (by de Jong) and the replica in situ by E.Gillieron, fils (Ibid, p.921, Fig.895), of which the former is more accurate. Professor L.R. Palmer has now brought the curtain down Penultimate Palace of Knossos. 1969, p.37) on his former view that the replica restoration is a "tragi-comedy" (A New Guide to the Palace ■ft Knossos, 1969, p.12): but he is in fact half right, if only because its mechanism got jammed half-way (note 58). 58. Cameron, guiletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 17 (London, 1970), p.l63f, listing principal objections and noting that the entire north wall of the frieze calls for future alteration. Add that the replica also reverses the directions of the wavy bands in the dadoes to left and right of the throne, as the large fragment found next to it shows; and that quite a large and interesting original piece of the dado to the left of the throne or else from the west wall was identified by M.S.F.Hood and J.W.Shaw in the summer of 1973 (from a room behind the Throne Room, Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos) , and there regains little left of the existing replica to recommend it. de Jonc’s restoration is faithful, in that palm-trees appear on each side of the throne and the dado lines run in their right directions-at least on Vnl t t t MiJi/h*

walii

V L Xt errs °n °ther details (Cameron, doctoral thesis ’ ^96_198» with Slides 38-39 and 53). Miss Sieglinde * s inforn,ed me she is completing a doctoral study on the

45

59.

60o 61*

62. 63.

stratigraphy and architecture of the Throne Room at Knossos which she hopes to publish: it will be good to have a detailed study of this sorry area at last. Thera IV, Col.Pl0A-D, and P1.114 (the monkey frieze, still undergoing major reconstruction in the summer of 1975, to judge from a door-shaped cut on the right side of the restoration); Thera V, Col.Pls.D-F; and Thera VI, Col.Pl.3, upper centre. Mayer, op.cit., p o340(2). AE/NB 1900, opp.p.51 (April 26). Definitely among them are the Cupbearer, the Procession Fresco, the West Porch compositions, and the Griffin Frescoes from Knossos, of which the latter was cleaned in 1963/64 by the late Zacharias Kanakis to whose patience and skill we owe a great improvement in the visibility of the exhibited original composition (S. Alexiou, Archaeologikon Deltion 19, 1964, p.436). Some of these issues have been pursued in my doctoral thesis, Vol.I, pP ol60-171 and 202-266. Zacharias Kanakis was trained, as he once told me, at Knossos in the 1920fs by the younger Gillieron under the general direction of Evans. His delicious sense of deference to authoritative opinion may be appreciated from the occasion when Evans, retiring for his luncheon and demanding the meanwhile the reconstruction of "one large snake-tube," was somewhat put out on his return to find that Zacharias (forewarning otherwise) had correctly transformed it into three smaller vessels!

M.A.S. Cameron, Department of Visual Arts, University of Western Ontario

46

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM 2

1977 A sym posium sponsored by the Departm ent of Art H istory, T em ple U niversity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, on March 25, 1977, with the them e "The Aegean Bronze Age: An In terd isci­ plinary Approach. "

Edited by Philip P . Betancourt

AEGEAN SETTLEMENTS AND TRANSHUMANCE by L. Vance Watrous

We live in an age of cities and automobiles. While cars have shortened the time of our journeys, they have had one opposite effect. Unused as we have become to walking cross country, we overestimate distances between points on the countryside. This is especially true in regard to a country like Greece where the terrain is frequently uneven or mountainous. In the same manner, we tend to focus our interest primarily on urban areas and settlements. The attitude which results is one that unconsciously regards the city or town as distinct from the surrounding countryside. The liter­ ature on ancient Greece reflects this modern perception. It is common, for instance, to read a study of a prehistoric archaeological site or a Classical city-state which, while it may mention a war or foreign trade, is silent on the peripheral towns and countryside. Greece is a poor land agriculturally, a combination of mountains, coastline, and small arable valleys. Disasters in the form of droughts, a specific crop failure, and the ravages of social unrest, must be reckoned for. A way of life has developed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by this kind of land, and to reduce the risks of an agricultural existence. The traditional solution is a diversified economy which com­ bines a number of separate ways of procuring food througjh the year. This diversification - in essence, not putting all ones eggs into one basket consists of a combination of farming varied crops in differing areas, shepherding, and fishing. The traditional regimen of the Greek village must preserve much of this ancient practice^. Through the year work can be observed as a cycle of movements. Daily the farmer may make a trip to care for the nearby garden. At least twice a year he makes longer trips to plow and harvest the more distant fields of grain and vines, or olive groves. These trips and the work can take long enough that the farmermay stay away from his village for a week or longer. The shepherd, too,takes his herds every spring to higher grazing land, to return in the fall. At times the cycle of activities combines these movements completely, so that the entire population moves on a seasonal basis. When this happens, the practice is known as transhumance. This custom of a diversified exploitation of the land has implications for our understanding of Aegean and Classical settlements. The character of an archaeological site can only be understood if it is studied in con­ junction with the surrounding country which supported it. Today, for example, we speak of a site called Tiryns. The ancients would have spoken of that state as the Tirynthians. In antiquity, the state consisted of the citizens and the land from which they drew their livelihood. As a result of this kind of modern distinction, a question about Tiryns has become standard in the handbooks - why was it allowed to be fortified when the capital of Mycenae is so nearby?^ Believing in the royal status of Ifycenae as represented in the Homeric tradition, archaeologists have not looked closely at the physical surroundings of Tiryns itself for an answer. But the answer is there: Tiryns was on the coast during the pre­ historic era. 3 Tiryns was an important center in its own right from earliest times, because of its nature as a coastal port.

In a similar fashion, it may be possible to understand how ancient settlements within a region were related if traditional land use is considered. Let me give an example drawn more from my own experience. Above the plain of Lasithi in central Crete, the site of Karphi was settled during the Dark Ages (ca. 1200-800 BC) of Greece. The excavation of Karphi yielded evidence for an economy based on extensive shepherding and the cultivation of grain and olives. When the area surrounding Karphi is examined with this economy in mind, it becomes obvious that it alone could not have supported the settlement. The plain of Lasithi is at an altitude of 850m. above sea level, Karphi at 1100m. Due to winter cold, olives will not grow in altitudes higher than 600—800m.^ Similarly, if traditional custom in Lasithi is a valid indication, the herds of sheep belonging to the settlers at Karphi did not winter in the vicinity of the settlement. Today the shepherds of Lasithi leave the plain late in the fall for the warmer lowlands. IVo reasons are given for this movement by the shepherds. The lambs, newly bora in the fall, are not able to survive the temperatures in Lasithi during the winter. Also, the land is frequently covered with snow during the winter months, and so can not be grazed.8 Hie economic evidence then, implies that a portion, if not all, of the inhabi­ tants of Karphi would have descended to lower altitudes during the winter. If the inhabitants of Karphi did not spend the winter at Karphi?, where did they go? Practice in Lasithi gives an indication. The villagers grow no olives in Lasithi, but own land in the valleys below where they grow olives. In the winter they descend to the villages below, to harvest the olive crop. The village of Analipos, for example, on the north coast of Crete near Chersonisos, is inhabited primarily during the winter, by the villagers of Agios Georgios in Lasithi. If the inhabitants of Karphi did descend to a lower area during the winter, that would explain why there exists another nearby major settlement contemporary with Karphi 1.5 kms. to the northwest and ca.500 m. below it, at the site of Siderokephali.8 I would suggest that the settlement of Karphi was primarily a summer settlement, and that with the onset of winter it was deserted for winter quarters at Siderokephali. If an Aegean site such as Karphi can be interpreted as a summer commun­ ity, it follows that there ought to be lowland settlements which complement the seasonal cycle. In this connection I would like to examine the Minoan site of Ifyrtos.9 The Early Minoan site of Myrtos is located on a hill known as Fouraou Koriphi on the south coast of Crete, about eleven kilometers west of Hierapetra. Inland of Myrtos the countryside rises quickly up to the slopes of the Dictaean mountain range. In the region west of Hierapetra, this higher inland area contains perennial springs, good arable land in plateaus and valleys, and a security which comes from distance from the sea. For these reasons, this area has been especially favored for settlement. The overwhelming majority of Cretan villages in the region are situated there rather than along the coast. The Minoan sites follow the same pattern: of the 30 known sites, 21 are located at an altitude above 400m. On the basis of the archaeological remains, the excavator, Dr. Peter Warren, was able to outline the ecomony of ancient Myrtos.?* Olives, grapes, and cereals were the main agricultural crops. The production of woolen textiles was cited as a main activity in the settlement, which presupposes substantial herds of sheep.?-? Due to the absence of fishbones

50

and the relatively few shells, it appears that the sea was not a major source of livelihood, which is somewhat surprising for a coastal settlement of the Early Bronze Age, a period characterized by an active interest in the sea. I would like to consider the possibility that Myrtos was a seasonally inhabited settlement. Let us look again at the evidence, using traditional agricultural custom to guide us in our interpretation. In the vicinity of Myrtos, the land of high quality for farming and grazing is restricted to the ridgetops and slopes within the thin zone of marl soil along the coast.13 The excavator states that the cultivation of the different crops and the grazing would have taken place in the vicinity of the settlement on a year round basis.16 A priori, traditional agricult­ ural practice suggests that such an arrangement is unlikely. The olive production alone proposed for the settlement would have required an exten­ sive area (12 to 25 acres).1? Likewise, summer cultivation of cereals and grazing would have left them exposed along the coast which, to judge from the defense wall of the settlement, was considered unsafe.1° There are other indications that tfyrtos was occupied primarily during the fall and winter months. No perennial source of water exists at the site of lfyrtos.19 In the wintertime streams in the valley below, or possibly springs to the north, would have supplied the water necessary for the inhabitants, herds, and washing of wool for textile production. Had the settlement been a permanent one, some provision for the storage of water would be expected, as at the nearby Minoan site of Pyrgos where a large cistern was uncovered. The climate today, thought to be similar to the climate during the Early Minoan period, is unpleasant during the sumer: it is hot, dry, and punctuated by the sirocco. Inevitably the extreme nature of the climate would have produced years of disaster,21 if all the crops and food had been localized year round at Myrtos, as suggested in the publication. Surely it makes more sense to assume that the inhabitants of Myrtos practiced a diversified economy which involved their moving in the spring to an upland area where they would have grazed their herds and harvested cereals during the summer. This would also explain the lack of exploitation of the sea, as fishing is normally a summer activity in Greece.22 Where would the settlers have gone in the summer? While it is not certain, it does seem probable that they would have ascended to the upland area to the north, up the Sarakino Valley, or toward Kalamafka, both areas having been settled in Minoan times.2^ In this paper I have concentrated on two Aegean sites. In each case, when considered in the light of tradition agricultural practice, the archaeological evidence from the settlement Implies that the inhabitants occupied the site for a portion of the year. Admittedly, these two examples are exceptional, in that there are good reasons to suspect that trans­ humance was practiced as a way of life by the settlers. But one wonders if evidence for a seasonal movement of population, to varying degrees, doesn't exist at a number of other archaeological sites in Greece.

51

FOOTNOTES

1. The description that follows is agricultural process is complex, and place. Nevertheless, anyone who has time can vouch for the prevalence of 2.

inevitably oversimplified. The seasonal can be counted on to vary with time and observed rural Greece over a period of this custom of seasonal diversification.

As in G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. 1966, 33-35.

3. Pointed out most recently by J. Kraft, S. Aschenbrenner, and G. Rapp Jr., in a paper, "Neolithic to Bronze Age Coastal Geography in the Argolid, Lakonia, and Messenia," delivered in December of 1976 at the annual meetings of the American Institute of Archaeology. 4. J. Pendlebury and M. Money-Coutts, "Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi III," BSA 38 (1937-8) 57-148. 5.

0. Polumin and A. Huxley, Flowers of the Mediterranean, 1965, 3.

6. I am indebted to Allaire Chandor Brumfield for her help in gathering information on shepherding in Lasithi. 7.

As the excavator suspected, cf. Pendlebury, op. cit., 139.

8. Cf. A. Taramelli, "Ricerche archeologiche cretesi," Monument! Antichi 9(1899) 402-405. Upon inspection, a number of Dark Age sites on Crete occur in such pairs: Kavousi(700m.)-Vronda(380m.), Erganos(ca.1000m.)Embaros(ca.400m.), Agios Elias(ca.689m.)-Panagia(ca.400m.). 9. P. Warren, Myrtos, An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete, The British School of Archaeology at Athens, suppl. vol. 7, Oxford, 1972. 10.

Warren, op. cit., 276

11.

Ibid, 262ff.

n.4.

12. Ibid, 318ff. Ninety percent of the animal bones from the site were of sheep, or possibly goat. 13. J. Caskey, "Greece, Crete, and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age," CAH I, xxxvi(a), 32 and 37. 14.

As Dr. Warren has for other aspects of the site, cf. xi

15.

Ibid, 274 and 281.

16.

Ibid. 265.

17.

Ibid. 145f.

andpassim.

18. The summer is a good season for sailing along the south coast of Crete before the winter winds eome up. The hazards of winter seafaring off the south coast are recorded by St. Paul in Acts 27, 7-17. 19.

Nor was is likely in the past. Warren, op. cit., 282.

20. Ibid, 281f. at the site, 2. 21.

The excavator comments on the unpleasant summer conditions

The conclusion of thebiologist Rackham, ibid, 296.

22. However, it is possible that fishbonescould have beenmissed excavation, as no sieving was carried out.

52

in the

23. A small site contemporary with Myrtos Is known to the north of the site, cf, Warren, op. clt., 272 n. 2. Steatite, worked at Myrtos, occurs In outcrops near the village of Khristos in the Sarakino valley to the north. Sites: S. Hood, G. Cadogan, and P. Warren, "Travels in Crete, 1962," BSA 59(1964) 80-96, and J. Pendlebury, The Archaeology of Crete, 1939, 126 and 179.

53

Some Unpublished Mycenaean Pottery From Sarepta by Robert Koehl

Our knowledge of the material culture of the Phoenicians has been vastly augmented by the excavations at Sarafand, ancient Sarepta, on the southern coast of Lebanon. Begun in 1969 under the direction of Prof. James Pritchard for the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, the excavations continued until 1974 whjn they were suspended on account of the civil war then raging in Lebanon. The site of Sarepta is of major importance as it is the only Phoenician city that has been extensively excavated. Six examples of Mycenaean pottery found at Sarepta have been chosen for presentation here. The first is the disk top and fragments of the handles from a stirrup jar (fig. 1). The handles are painted a solid dark color, as is the perimeter of the disk. Within this perimeter is painted a simple single looped spiral (FM 52,8). Deir Alla in Jordan provides the best parallel for the decoration , suggesting a date in Myc. IIIB, possibly late in the period. A body sherd from another stirrup jar (fig. 2) is notable for its unusual painted decoration. From its curvature the sherd probably belongs to a globular (FS 171) or a depressed globular (FS 173) stirrup jar. Many examples of these shapes were found in the Sarepta tomb^. A nearly identical twin was found at Mycenae, in the excavations from the terrace below the House of the Shields^. French dated it to the very end of Muc. IIIA:2 or the beginning of Myc. IIIB, finding this usage of the lozenge chain unique in the deposit; the sherd was possibly a late intrusion. A date in early Myc. IIIB seems most likely for the Sarepta sherd as this period marks the climax of meticulous globular stirrup jars with flowers on the shoulder and neat body zones^. A similarly painted globular stirrup jar was found at Tiryns from the necropolis on Prophitis Elias in grave XVI^. The lozenges, however, were arranged in groups of unlinked units. Several fragments from squat jars with angular profiles (FS 95) or pyxides were among the Mycenaean finds at Sarepta. Illustrated here (fig. 3) is the largest and most easily distinguishable fragment, with one horizontal handle and part of the shoulder and body of the vessel. The best parallels for our example come from Cyprus; a pot in the British Museum, found at Klavdia near L a maca, is nearly a duplicate?. This class of pyxis is dated by Furumark to the Myc. III:B2 late period. The form itself continued into Myc. IIIC:1 but changed noticeably in its proportions. The lentoid flask of the Levanto-Mycenaean variety and the globular flask (FS 191) are more examples of types of vessels found predominantly on Cyprus. Cyprus naturally provides the best comparanda for our example (fig. 4). The fragment is probably from a globular flask as the handles from the lentoid flask usually join the neck in a "V"®, and the neck itself is usually longer, often encircled with narrow stripes. The shape itself was devised by Mycenaean potters in the Myc. IIIA:1 period, most examples including the fragment from Sarepta dating to the later part of the period®.

A large fragment of the upper part of a small piriform jar (FS 45) was found at Sarepta (fig. 5). A similar pithoid jar was found in the Sarepta tomb, decorated with a band of quirks (FM 48.6) on the edge of the shoulder. However, the best parallel for our sherd was found at Hazor in tomb 8065*0. These small piriform jars have a wide distribution. Many have been found on mainland Gxeece, especially at Mycenae, and they occur as imports on Cyprus and the Levantine coast11. They generally date to the Myc. IIIA:2 late-IIIB early phase. The most unique and perhaps the single most important imported sherd from Sarepta is the bowl from a tfycenaean chalice (FS 278) (fig. 6). Only the very beginning of the stem is preserved. This vessel is unparalleled in Greece and rare in Cyprus and the Levant. Four examples were found at Ras Shamra9 thl66 at T d l Abn Hfluam r m o at- W o 7 n r t - W f t a t * TtVilr/vrrW o n /1 nr>0 (in the British Museum) chalices have been dated to cue nyu. x i x d p e n u u • The origin of the chalice is problematical. Handleless stemmed cups occur in Syro-Palestinian pottery from the Middle Bronze II period onward.*4. This might suggest another instance of Mycenaean potters adopting an Oriental form, as was the case with the lentoid flask. But on Fragment G of the Campstool Frescoe from Knossos the base and lower part of the bowl of a chalice are depicted1-*. This chalice is identical with the later ceramic form in its shape and decoration which consists of horizontal bands. The chalice depicted on the frescoe may have a metallic original for its model. In form it is not unlike the "Nestor Cup" from Shaft Grave IV, whose baroque handles are an extraneous embellishment, unnecessary for the stability and function of the chalice . It is therefore conceivable that these ceramic chalices are our first evidence for a Mycenaean vessel made expressly for the eastern export market. None as yet has been found in Italy. As the more normal Myc. IIIB stemmed kylix was fragile and thus unsuitable for travel and trade, the ingenious Mycenaean potter may have revived a shape familiar primarily in its metallic form, which was more capable of traveling well and had a guarenteed market abroad, as Mycenaean pottery in general was desired in the east. One can imagine the delight of a Levantine purchaser in this fine Mycenaean vessel, whose shape was already known to him but in its crude native ceramic form. Candidates for the area of manufacture include mainland Greece and the Aegean islands, particularly Rhodes and Cyprus. A study of the chemical composi­ tion of 500 ^cenaean and Minoan sherds from Crete, Greece, the Aegean islands, Cyprus, Egypt, and the Near East, found that the Ifyc. IIIA-B pottery of Cyprus, the Near East and Egypt had the same proportions of trace elements as the pottery manufactured in the Peloponnese1^. The same results were found for much of the pottery on Rhodes. The writer believes that the results from this study can be supported on archaeological grounds with regard to the Ifycenaean material from Sarepta. The archaeological argument for the mainland origin of the chalice has been discussed above. A mainland origin for the stirrup jars seems reasonable. If we assume that oil, scented or cooking, or resin, or another perishable item originally filled the jars, it would be unnecessary to use an exotic

56

container like the stirrup jar for something manufactured on Cyprus, where there were already local ceramic forms suitable for shipping products to Phoenicia and the Levant. The possibility does exist that the stirrup jar itself was a symbolic inorganic representation of its contents, as yet unidentified^-". If the production of this elusive product was extended to Cyprus, and the stirrup jar was already the trademark for the product, we could expect the stirrup jar to be retained as the container. Nevertheless, on the strength of the above mentioned spectrographlc study, and the strong resemblance between out unusual stirrup jar sherd with unique examples from Mycenae and Tiryns, the Peloponnese again presents itself as the likeliest candidate for the provenance of the Mycenaean pottery at Sarepta. The piriform jar, by virtue of its universal distribution, presents no problem for the possibility of mainland manufacture. That globular and lentoid flasks are rare on the mainland and common on Cyprus and the Levant might suggest a vessel manufactured exclusively for export to the east. They may have contained the same commpdity as the stirrup jar, but because of the familiarity of their shape in the east, they could have attracted customers more conservative in tkeir tastes, who nonetheless appreciated the superior quality of the Mycenaean ceramics. It is also possible that the different shapes contained different commodities which would have been recognized by the customers. The original contents of the pyxis, if there ever were any, are more difficult to imagine. Since it could easily be adapted to a variety of domestic uses, the shape continued to be manufactured locally into the Iron Age. On the other hand, the imitation of stirrup jars in local wares continued only into the tfyc. IIICsl period. Once a stirrup jar had been drained of its contents, its application to other domestic uses was negligible. As a storage jar it is impractical to refill, and storage jars were plentiful in the local ceramic output. Perhaps this explains the finding of so many stirrup jars in tombs. Once emptied they did not continue to serve any useful function in domestic activities. But by nature of their relative uniqueness and value as a finely wrought piece of pottery, they would have made an ideal funereal accoutrement.

57

ABBREVIATIONS FS-Furumark vessel shape in A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm 1972) FM-Furumark motif in A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm 1972) NOTES 1. A report on the 1970-72 seasons has been published: J.B. Pritchard, Sarepta, A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age (Philadelphia 1975). (hereafter: Sarepta I) I should like here to express my appreciation to Dr. Pritchard for allowing me to study the imported pottery of Sarepta and report on the Mycenaean ware to this Symposium. 2. V. Hankey, "Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East: Notes on Finds Since 1951," BSA 62 (1967) 133 (hereafter: "Finds Since 1951"). 3. D. Baramki, "A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Sarafand, Ancient Sarepta," Berytus 12 (1956-1958) 129-142. 4. E. French, "Late Halladic IIIA 2 Pottery from Mycenae," BSA 60 (1965) pi.54.7 (a). 5. E. French, "Pottery from Late Helladic IIIB 1 Destruction Contexts at Mycenae," BSA 62 (1967) 182. 6.

W.

Rudolph, Tiryns VI (Mainz 1973) pi. 44 top center.

7. F. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant (Cambridge 1951) pi. XIII.5 (hereafter: MPL). 8.

"Finds Since

1951," 121.

9. A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm 1972) 32, 33, 616. (hereafter: MP). 10. 11.

Y. Yadin et al., Hazor II (Jerusalem 1960) pi. CXC.16, CXL.4. MP 591.

12. Ras Shamra: C. Schaffer, Ugarltica II (Paris 1949) 227, 293, figs. 95, 31, 127.15, 17, 18; Tell Abu Hawam: R.W. Hamilton (supra n. 16) pi. XVIII.280, XXlI.o,p.; Hazor: Y. Yadin Hazor III-IV (Jerusalem 1961) pi. CCXIII,24; Enkomi: V. Karageorghis, BCH 90 p. 305 fig. 17, P. Dikaios, Enkomi IIIA (Mainz 1969) pi. 67.20; British Museum: V. Karageorghis, "A Mycenaean Chalice and Vase Painter," BSA 52 (1957) 38ff. 13.

MPL,73,79.

14.

MP,64 n.2

15.

A. Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos IV.2(London 1935)

16.

G. Karo, Die

SchachtgrHber von Mykenai (Munich 1930/33)

58

390.

pi. 109.

17. H.W. Catling et al., "Correlations between the composition and provenance of Ifycenaean and Minoan Pottery," BSA 58 (1963) 94-115. 18. See the discussion by R.S. Merrillees, "Opium Trade in the Bronze Age Levant," Antiquity 36, 287ff., on the identity of the contents of the Cypriote Base Ring juglets.

59

The People of Kato Zakro by M.J. Becker

Introduction The people of ancient Kato Zakro appear to have been a relatively tall, robust population. Although the Incidence of disease, dental decay, and tooth loss was high, the nutritional needs of the population were met quite ade­ quately. On the whole these people most resemble the m o d e m population of the area, who may well be their direct descendants. Methodological difficulties In the recovery of material has led to the under-representation of children and adolescents (only 4 out of 74 Indivi­ duals examined). Since the full population spectrum Is not available,, little can be said about life expectancy. The high population of mature and very mature adults (19 of 74 Individuals) Indicates an ability to survive which probably reflects adequate food resources and diet. There Is no reason, however, to doubt that Infant mortality was high* The People of Kato Zakro

Although the archaeological site of Kato Zakro appears to have been occupied over an extended period of time during the Minoan era, the skeletal remains recovered from the nearby Pezoules Kephala tomb enclosures may be from the Middle Minoan I period alone (see Becker 1975a: 273)• The discovery of other tombs may provide a more accurate portrait of this ancient people, but at present only the remains from these tombs are available for study. A complete statement (Becker In press) will be published as an appendix to the Kato Zakro site report. Readers are referred elsewhere (Becker 1975a; In press) for specific details summarized herein. Physically the people from ancient Kato Zakro resemble the native population from the m o d e m town of Epano Zakro to a striking degree. Although no direct measurements were made, photographs of the m o d e m people show a population with medium to rugged facial features, strong musculature, and sturdy build. The ancient skeletons suggest that the same physiques would have been common 4,000 years ago. The stature calculated for males (averaging 167 cm., but with a wide range of variation) and for females (averaging 157.5 cm.) could probably be duplicated in the m o d e m population. One caution must be noted in dealing with the demographic figures presented here. The total number of people represented by this studied sample was only 74, of which 70 were adults. However, this sizeable popu­ lation is known only from the most limited fragments of crania and totally unrelated long bones. Seven additional ,findividuals" were not available for study (see Table 1), and these remains may be in better condition, and have cranial and post-cranial remains in association.

Table 1 Totals

Male Male? ?? Female? Female

18 8 8 6 34 74

Child 6-10

1

1

Adoles­ cent 14-16

1 2 3

Young Adult 18-25 4 1 1 5 11

Adult 26-50 7 5 4 5 15 36

Mature Adult 50+

Very Mature Adult

?

7 2 1 1 8 18

1 1

3 4

With the 7 not located the total possible number of people represented Is 81. Table 1: AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE PEZOULES KEPHALA SKELETAL POPULATION (from Becker 1975a: 274) Since the excavation of these tomb enclosures (probably charnel houseossuaries) was a salvage project conducted without a physical anthropologist, a number of limitations on the potential analysis are evident. The primary requirement for complete analysis concerns the effective recovery of material. Without a physical anthropologist, special funds marked for this work, or the time necessary for executing the project, very limited results should be expected. Despite these handicaps, Professor Platon undertook to recover evidence from this important aspect of the site, thereby providing the only skeletal material recovered since Hogarth (1901) began work at Zakro at the turn of the century. Each cluster of cranial fragments encountered in the excavation was designated as a "cranium," labeled, and dated. Circumstances did not permit close attention to be devoted to the important post-cranial remains. During the 1973 field season I was able to visit the Pezoules Kephala enclosures with Prof. Georgiou, who located the owner of the land, Mr. Iannis Ailamakis. After some discussion Mr. Ailamakis gave his permission for us to examine the tombs and to look for human skeletal remains overlooked during the 1967 salvage work. A vast quantity of post-cranial remains were found, in addition to several teeth and fragments of the skeletons of children. After examination these remains were deposited at Kato Zakro, with the exception of a mandibular fragment and some teeth, which were added to the remains stored at the Archaeological Museum in Herakleion. The author was assisted in studying these remains by Professor H.S. Georgiou, whose aid as translator and recorder made this study possible. With the kind permission of Dr. St. Alexiou, Director of the Archaeolo­ gical Museum in Herakleion, and the generous assistance of Miss K. Lebessi, three boxes containing human skeletal material from the area of Kato Zakro were rapidly located in the storerooms of the museum. As noted above, seven "crania" were not found in these three boxes. The missing individuals are believed to represent the articulated skeletons recovered from the 1967 excavations and should be sought as a possible means by which more complex analytical techniques might be applied to this population.

62

Of the three boxes of skeletal material from Kato Zakro which were located in 1973, two were from excavations prior to 1967. These were examined (Becker field notes, Aug. 1973), but will be discussed in subsequent reports. A large box labeled "Perifragmata Kato Zakrou 1967" contained the remains of interest. Aside from small plastic bags, each containing bits of crania and other fragments, a box of bone fragments was included. This smaller box primarily held long bone shafts. These appear to be of the same deposit as those recovered in 1973. The skeletal material in the enclosures was in considerable disorder, a product of cultural activities involved in ossuary burials and several thousand years of natural disturbances. One may inferfrom the size and shape of the tombs that they served as ossuaries for a large group of people (possibly a family) over a considerable period of time. Quite probably, successive burials were made in each tomb, perhaps stacking the bones of earlier interments in corners or smaller chambers while leaving the last intered body fully articulated. This assumption is supported by Platon's (1968, 1969, 1971) excavation data. Almost half of the time necessary for these studies was spent in cleaning and identifying fragments as well as making tentative comparisons between morphological characteristics of the many individuals. Each frag­ mentary skull and associated material was removed from its bag, and the pieces spread out on a table. The positions of the remains in the chambers demonstrated considerable disarray, which indicates that the post-cranial fragments included in the bags do not necessarily belong with the skull. Numerous cases of two different mandibles being included with a single skull suggest that even the immediate associations within the chambers are question­ able, a feature which is to be expected in an ossuary. More infrequent, but equally problematical, are situations in which pieces of two or more skulls were found bagged with a single label. These clearly reflect the extent of the problems encountered in the excavation of an ossuary. Due to the means by which the remains were recovered and the fact that these bones primarily represent an ossuary assemblage, traditional osteological methods of evaluation were necessary. The extremely fragmentary nature of the sample actually located required that great reliance be placed on the comparative morphology of calotte fragments, which is far from the most reliable method of evaluating age and sex. A further complication resulted from an apparent biological contradiction* Heavy brow ridges are generally believed to be indicative of male cranial architecture, while sharp orbital margins generally indicate the gracile construction of a female frontal bone. However, this population contains numerous individuals with heavy brow ridges, large mastoids and sharp orbital margins. In most cases these people were evaluated as males. Among all the remains there was but one bone recovered intact (a femur 43.9 cm long), and no indication of origin was found. All of the bones in storage at the museum were of adults. No indication of children or even young adults was found among the remains excavated in 1967. Had an examin­ ation of the chambers not been made in 1973 by a trained anthropologist one might have concluded that only adults were buried in these enclosures. This was certainly not true, and also calls into question reports which claim that children were not buried in the same contexts as adults.

63

Detailed descriptions of each group labeled as "cranium" are summarized elsewhere (Becker, in press). The high incidence of disease and injury together with dental loss and dental caries suggest that these people were not in a healthy state. No nutrituional disorders are evident, nor are there indications of short periods of famine. This suggests a relatively adequate diet through time. Indeed, the tooth loss indicates a rather high carbohydrate diet, possibly rich in the luxury foods of antiquity. The limited data salvaged, which is particularly lacking the expected remains of children and infants, does not permit a clear picture to be drawn, but does enable us to state that individuals of all ages were buried in these enclosures. Given the limitations of time, money, and personnel there were numerous difficulties in getting these remains processed in the field. To this problem was added a philosophical limitation which led to the recovery of "skulls" but general disregard for the valuable post-cranial remains. In addition, none of the other skeletal material from the site was examined to determine if it was human or animal, worked or unworked. Thus possible behaviors of great interest, such as religious rituals using human remains, may go undetected. Our own familiarity with relics of saints indicates that the bones of humans may occur in almost any location. Human sacrifice is not the only way that human bones find their way into ritual contexts. Examination of the remaining skeletal material from Kato Zakro may provide added dimension to our knowledge of the Minoans. The supposition that these ancient peoples did not practice behaviors which would scatter human remains is a false assumption. The neglect of studies of this kind of behavior through the limited material available only hinders or delays the ultimate determination of these interesting aspects of the behavior of the ancients.

Becker, Marshall Joseph 1975a Human skeletal remains from Kato Zakro. American Journal of Archaeology 79: 271-76. 1975b Malia: Analyse osteologique de cinq inhumatrons provenant de l'llot du Christ. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique 99: 726-28. In press An osteological analysis of the human skeletal material recovered from the Pezoules Kephala tomb enclosures A and B at Kato Zakro, Crete. Appendix to, The Archaeology of Kato Zakro, Crete by N. Platon. Hogarth, D.G. 1901 Excavations at Zakro, Crete. Annual of the British School at Athens, VII: 121-149. Platon, N. 1968 Zakros. To Ergon tis Archaeologikis Etairias Kata to 1967. Athens. Pp. 103-115. 1969 Anaskaphi Zakrou. Praktika tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etairias tou etos 1967. Athens. Pp. 162-194, Plates 153-173. 1971 Zakros: the discovery of a lost palace of ancient Crete. Scribners: New York.

64

DA and TA as premisses for rational arguments by Emmett L. Bennett, Jr.

There was a great temptation to take advantage of the recent flurry of publications of texts of Linear A which had hitherto been inaccessible, but prudence and the little time I left myself for preparation prescribed that a narrower subject should be chosen. So instead of A, I thought to begin with Aa and Ab, and to review briefly a controversy which hasbeen going on for sometimewithout resolution, in which it seems that neithersideunaided will persuade the other. A simple presentation of their arguments side by side would be a convenience, even if neither would persuade us. If the disagreement between two excellent scholars could then be traced to a stubborn defense of one's misconception, we might well neglect his arguments; but if the fault is a fatal ambiguity in the documents or simply the loss of evi­ dence in tablets destroyed or defaced, we may wish to appreciate equally the ingenuity our scholars have displayed, and to await discovery of new evidence or to look for a new way of interpretation. For the greater part of this discussion, the PY Aa, Ab, andAd tablets, and the KN Ak tablets will be the subject, but a few other texts are involved, when and if the discussion gets as far as the rations, where the controversy is most violent. There may be quite enough complexities in the A tablets to occupy all the time and space we have to work with. The PY Aa, Ab, and Ad texts are most recently published in The Pylos Tablets Transcribed, with an apparatus which records many of thedetails which Olivier and I could agree upon as probably true, and perhaps significant; while it omits many other observations which seemed not pertinent to the establishment of the text, or could be seen by only one of us. There are limits beyond which neither transcription nor apparatus should be relied upon, though they were prepared with care from excellent photographs and from the tablets themselves. Drawings of these tablets were published in The Pylos Tablets II, although the transcriptions there are now to be corrected, and from the drawings something of the documentary character of the tablets can be appreciated, though not as much as from a goodset of photographs. A tabular view of the contents of the PY Aa, Ab, and Ad texts, since one must consider them all if one is to interpret any one of these texts, was first published in Etudes Myc/niennes. from the Colloque at Gif, and a corrected, revised, and rearranged version of that table will accompany this paper. The general form of an Aa text begins with a nominal part, one sign-group or two, followed by a MULIER and a number from 1 to 54, most commonly 7; followed by a ko-wa and a number from 1 to 35, most commonly 3; followed by a ko—wo and a number from 1 to 22, most commonly 4; followed by DA 1 TA 1; nevertheless, ko-wa n, ko-wo n, DA 1, and TA 1 may each be entirely absent. E.g.

Aa 60

e-wi-ri-pi-ja M U L 16 ko-wa 11 ko-wo 7 DA 1 TA 1

Aa 98

no-ri-wo-ko M U L 8 ko-wa 10 ko-wo 5«

The same elements appear In the corresponding Ab texts, nominal part may be longer or more complex, although DA if they are present, without numbers, and with the most that between the ko-wo n and DA or TA there are written quantites of GRA and NI, with fractional parts recorded

AbSSS Ab 338 Ab 745

although the and TA are written, important exception on two lines equal in T. E.g.

GRA 11 T 1 D A T A pu-ro,re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo 37 ko-wa 13 ko-wo 15 NI 11 T 1 GRA T 4 NI T 4

pu-ro a-da-ra-te-ja MUL[ ]1 pa-ke-te-ja,ri-ne-ja M U L 2

ko-wo 1

GRA NI

TA

T 5 T 5

An examination of the tabulation presented at Gif, where it was simply observed that as the number of MULIER increased, so did, but irregularly, the quantity of GRANUM and of NI, allowed the observation that a proportional relationship of GRANUM to the other data could be found if one assumed that MUL 1 corresponds to GRA T 2, ko-wa 1 and ko-wo 1 equally correspond to GRA T 1, TA corresponds to GRA I 2, and DA corresponds to GRA T 5. This agreed well with the majority of texts which included both TA and DA (their supplement therefore being GRA T 7), with the three texts which had neither TA nor DA (and so no supplement at all), with the four texts which had either only DA or TA (and a supplement of T 5 or T 2), except that two of these presented dubious readings which might have thrown the arithmetic off. Serious difficulties appeared in only four cases, where the supplement was not the GRA T 7 which would be expected from the presence of both TA and DA, but T 9 , and in one case where the supplement seemed to be GRA 4 T 5 (assuming that DA and TA could be restored in the missing end of the tablet). But these difficulties could be removed by the further assumption that in the four first cases TA could be understood to signify TA 2 (though there was nothing to justify this in the PY texts except the convenience of the assumption, there was some parallel in the KN Ak tablets), thus deserving the extra T2; and by explaining away the last case, most plausibly, as an interesting arithmetical, or rather graphic, error of the scribe. And at this point the further assumption that GRANUM and NI were rations to be assigned in fixed proportions to MULIER, ko-wa and ko-wo, DA and TA, with DA and TA representing persons, perhaps by abbreviations of the name of an office or function, became reasonable, and all these assumptions were generally adopted. The controversy now in evidence is on the identity and function of the persons represented by DA and TA, and on the sizes of the rations they receive. For the first and simple assumption is that, if the presence of DA increases the quantity of GRA by T 5, the ration of DA is that whole increase, while TA has a ration of T 2. Thus DA and (the 1 or 2) TA are persons to be added to the MULIER, ko-wa, and ko-wo previously recorded. But as far as the arithmetic of the texts goes, it would be equally possible to assume that the TA and DA are actually included among the MULIER, and that some, unnamed, MUL 1 is really also a DA, and another MUL 1 or 2 are really also TA. The fixed rations on the two assumptions may conveniently be shown in this table:

66

First case

Second case

DA (not one of the MUL)

GRA T 5

DA (one of the MUL)

GRA T 7

TA (not one of the MUL)

GRA T 2

TA (one of the MUL)

GRA T 4

any MUL

GRA T 2

an ordinary MUL

GRA T 2

ko-wa, or ko-wo

GRA T 1

ko-wa, or ko-wo

GRA T 1

It would be delightful if a simple inspection of these hierarchies decided the issue. Failing that, it has been pointed out that in the first case there is the possibility - if other texts will support the assumption that the DA is male, and that higher rations are his prerogative: while in the second case the higher rations are accorded to the functions, whatever they may be, of the DA and the TA, who are thereby better fed than the ordinary MUL, but no less MUL. If some resolution of this controversy were possible, the result would not be spectacular, merely one small bit of evidence on a matter of social structure fairly low in the scale of social forms, since these women are likely to be, at least in economic terms, of servile status. It seems to me probable that the evidence is simply ambiguous, and insufficient to resolve the ambiguity which comes from the scribes natural practice of writing only very little more that the particular distinguenda of transactions or data, since they properly let the form of the tablet, the arrangement of the text, and its filing place carry a considerable portion of the information involved, which is consequently for us beyond recovery. Yet it seems worthwhile to reexamine the texts with the best readings now possible, and particularly to look for what can be discovered of the scribes' activity in writing them. There is more evidence to be found than has yet been described about the preparation of the tablets; with the tabulation of the texts before us, and photographs and drawings available, this can be discussed. Speculations starting from this basis may not solve the problem, but to present them will at least leave fewer stones unturned. 31 January 1977

67

Perspective and the Third Dimension in Theran Painting by Philip P. Betancourt

No complete study of three-dimensional illusionism in Aegean painting has ever been made, and it has been generally supposed that the jrtists of Bronze Age Greece made little or no contribution in this regard. The recently discovered Theran paintings, however, Invite a new examination of this problem. They show that some of the Theran painters were able to show spatial relationships in a way that would not be duplicated again in Greece until the Late Archaic period. The same principles were used for painted vases and for the more monumental murals. Three different spatial contexts may be recognized: 1. The Single Plane. This is a two-dimensional system in which everything is arranged on one plane. In its pure form there is no overlapping or other indication of depth. In the painted vase in fig. 1, for example, no third dimension is intended. The bunches of grapes, like the black stripes, are neither close nor far— they simply exist on the surface of the vase. 2. The Shallow Stage. Arranged like the space in front of the curtain on a m o d e m stage, the shallow stage has ample room for activity if the figures are strung out like a procession. It was the most common spatial framework used in ancient times. An example is the "Boxing Boys" from Thera (fig. 2) where the stage is extremely shallow. The overlapping forms, especially the arms, show that a little depth is intended, but the blank background and the strong silhouettes reduce the three-dimensional aspects of the scene. As is usual with Bronze Age paintings, only flat planes are represented, and the figures are made by assembling separate parts: profile heads; full-front eyes; profile or full-front shoulders; and profile legs. There is no three-quarter view. 3. The Deep Stage. A distant vista, with a stage that stretches from the foreground to the horizon, can accommadate complicated spatial actions. The "Miniature Mural" from Thera, with its river, towns, and rocky coastline fronting on a sea filled with ships, is a good example of this type of space. The detail from this mural in fig. 3 shows distant hills, with a lion running between sparse trees; it could easily be miles away from actions that take place in the foreground of the painting. While the Single Plane needs no perspective, the other two compositional systems require an illusion of the third dimension, and the Theran artist had several means at his disposal to accomplish this task. First, he could use overlapping. In the "Boxing Boys," the hair, particularly on the figure at the left, gives a good sense of volume by overlapping the head and shoulders. The details themselves, however, are flat— they consist of simple shapes with no shading or other internal modulation. A second way of achieving depth was to place distant objects higher on the picture plane. In fig. 3, for example, the lion is between two trees. One of

them is shown by overlapping to be behind the beast, while the other grows closer to the viewer— its lower position conveys its closer placement easily. The third way of showing depth was to use foreshortening and the three-quarter view. This method, believed by some to have been invented about a thousand years later by the Archaic Greeks, is illustrated in fig. 4. This detail from the mural usually called "Spring" illustrates two kissing swallows in the midst of flowering lilies. The birds are shown in three-quarter views, poised in mid-air. Their legs and wings clearly show the sense of volume. A more schematized swallow on a vase, fig. 5, is also shown in a foreshortened way; the artist has even drawn the farther wing smaller to show how it juts at an angle away from the viewer. With these three methods, the Theran artists were able to show all the spatial concepts they wished. Their paintings were lively and spirited, filled with action and vibrant energy.

Footnotes ^ See, for example, G.M.A. Richter, Perspective in Greek and Roman Art, London and New York, 1974, p. 9.

70

71

The Ancient Tin Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East by Tamara S. Wheeler

It is now well known that the period designated as the Bronze Age was not in some parts of the eastern Mediterranean and Near East a true "bronze age” until the second millennium B.C. Indeed, in the late fourth and third millennia B.C., the evidence on alloying shows variations in practice throughout the area. Bronze - an alloy of copper and tin - was known in northern and western Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, central Anatolia, the Troad, the Cyclades, Crete and Egypt. Arsenic-copper alloys and more or less pure copper were also used in these areas, although published analyses indicate that the relative proportions of the three materials vary in each area. The most notable blanks on the tin-bronze map fall in Palestine and Greece. The alloying practices of third millennium Palestine may be partially explained by the fact that the area had its own easily worked deposits of copper and thus the impetus to active participation in the inter­ national metals' trade was limited. Lack of tin bronze in the Early Helladic mainland cannot be understood in precisely the same way, but it is possible that trade in copper with Southeast Europe satisfied the needs of Greece in this period. The problem that emerges is clearly one relating to tin - its sources and the nature of its dissemination throughout the ancient Near East and eastern Mediterranean. We know through the work of E.R. Eaton and Hugh McKerrell (World Archaeology 8: 169-191) that tin-bronze gradually gained ascendancy after 2000 B.C. and thereafter remained the most widely used alloy of copper. There are several possible implications of the increase in tin bronze use. The nature of the tin supply might have changed, with new sources becoming available. The trading network by which tin was disseminated in the third millennium might have been expanded. We know that major trading enterprises, such as the Assyrian colonies in Anatolia and the economic organization of the Third Dynasty of Dr, were initiated shortly after 2000 B.C. As basic as the availability of and access to the necessary materials to make tin bronze would have been the desire to obtain these materials, a desire promoted by knowledge of their properties. It might be suggested that political and ethnic disturbances in the late third millennium caused some technological information to become more widely known. Secondly, reaction against these disturbances might have encouraged the centralization of power for defensive purposes, with eventual commercial benefits. The sources of copper and tin available to ancient metalworkers have been the subjects of much speculation, and it is now more or less agreed that the copper deposits of Cyprus, Turkey, Palestine and Iran were all important factors in Bronze Age metallurgy. Tin is more difficult to locate because of the rarity of its occurrence in the areas in question.

The major tin sources of the world - Malaya, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Siberia, Bolivia and the Congo area - are far removed from the Mediterranean area and all except one are not known to have been exploited until after the time when tin bronze was first produced in Southwest Asia.

The exception is Thailand where axcavations at Non Nok Tha and Ban Chiang have shown a bronzeworking tradition which may start around the mid­ fourth millennium B.C. A major tin source is not of course necessary if a number of minor sources are available. It should be reiterated that, although numerous Near Eastern tin sources have been cited, exploration in the Troad, Anatolia and Iran has failed to reveal them. The most promising area now being studied is the Eastern Desert of Egypt, an area visited by J.D. Muhly, George Rapp and Theodore A. Wertime in the winter of 1976. Sumerian AN.NA and Akkadian anaku/annaku mean tin, and the meaning is accepted by most scholars, although there is still some disagreement. Texts relating to the tin trade indicate that the tin came from the east to Mesopotamia and was then shipped on to the north and west. Ancient writers are oddly incurious about the origin of the tin, the use of which in great quantities is recorded. Although there is no textual evidence relating to tin in Mycenaean Greece, there was trade in amber and tin between northern Europe and the British Isles, and there are some indications that this trading pattern extended down the river valleys of Europe into the Mediterranean and Adriatic. Mycenaeans may have been involved in the southern, maritime end of this trade, suggesting that in the Late Bronze Age tin came into the eastern Mediterranean from two directions. The collection of metallic tin artifacts from Bronze Age contexts (bracelet from Thermi V and two Eighteenth Dynasty objects) is now increased by two tin ingots in the Haifa Museum of Ancient Art. The ingots were found by divers off the shore near Haifa and reportedly are only part of a greater number of ingots. The ingots were subjected to study and found to be fairly pure water. Tin is soft and therefore so it is not easy to document the made from pure cassiterite ore.

elemental analysis and metallographic tin with contaminants introduced by sea difficult to polish for microscopic study, structure. The ingots were most likely

The Cypro-Minoan signs engraved on the ingots are the major clue to their date, since they come from an uncontrolled archaeological context. Cypro-Minoan script was used from the end of the sixteenth century B.C. to the end of the eleventh century, so the ingots must date to this period. Emilia Masson is studying the signs to determine if their paleography will permit closer dating. The Cypro-Minoan signs on the Haifa tin ingots have important implications for metalworking and the metals trade in the Late Bronze Age. First, it is now clear that metallic tin was, in at least some cases, being used in bronze manufacture, rather than ores or master alloys with a high percentage of tin. Secondly, it is probable that both metals necessary in the making of bronze were distributed by an administrative complex centered on Cyprus. Although the source of the tin is unknown, it passed through Cyprus where it received the markings similar to those found on some copper ingots of Late Bronze Age date. It is logical that copper and tin would have been shipped together, since they were to be used together. We do not know if tin was already in ingot form when it arrived in Cyprus or if imported ores

74

Haifa no. 8251,

1»2

Haifa no. 8152,

1

were smelted on the Island. Although the former seems more likely, the signs do not clarify the Issue since they were engraved on the Ingots after they were cast. Signs on oxhide Ingots are In some cases part of the casting but on others subsequent engravings. Cypro-Minoan script was also used extensively in Ugarit, which is therefore an alternate possibility for the Immediate transshipment point of the Haifa ingots. It is nonetheless preferable to view Cyprus as the port of origin because the copper must have come from there, implying the existence of effective mechanism of distribution of metals. Although the administrative organization was based on Cyprus, it does not help us to identify the adminis­ trators. Cyprus' location and its role as an international emporium mean that it could have received tin from both the east and the west. The Haifa ingots must have been part of a ship's cargo. The ingots were loaded in Cyprus, or less likely in Ugarit, and shipped down to the Levantine coast, perhaps with a port in southern Palestine like Ashdod or even Egypt as a destination. The ship carrying the ingots finished its voyage near Haifa in an area known today as an ancient ship graveyard. It has always been somewhat curious that oxhide ingots, except for one votive from Tell Beit Mirsim, are unknown from Palestine, since any shipping to Egypt would have passed along its coast and relations with Cyprus were close in the Late Bronze Age. The land has its own sources of copper and probably therefore did not participate in the ancient trade in Cypriot copper. But Palestine has no tin and, after the advantages of tin bronze over pure copper and arsenical copper were learned, would have needed to obtain tin from elsewhere. The Haifa ingots could indicate that the gap in Palestine's natural resources was being filled by a Cypriot intermediary.

76

NEW RADIOCARBON DATES FROM AKROTIRI, THERA by H.N. Michael and G.A. Weinstein

At the Temple University Aegean Symposium held in February 1976, a series of 11 radiocarbon dates from Akrotiri, Thera, was presented.1 Nine of the eleven dates were of samples taken from the destruction level of the site, and showed an internally consistant pattern resulting in the averaged date of 1688 + 57 B.C. This dating, at the time, suggested an earlier time bracket for the Late Minoan IA period, (see Fig. 1) Because this first series of dates was so early, we obtained a second series of samples from Dr. Christos Doumas this past Fall. The second set of eight dates has turned out to be highly inconsis­ tent (see Fig. 2). Two of the "grain dates" (P-2560 and P-2561) are unexplainably early; another two of the "organic" dates (P-2562 and P-2566) are late. The latter, incidentally, are dates of under­ sized samples. The late date of P-2562 may be explained by the presence of insect frass in the sample. The remaining four dates are also, in a sense, a mixed bag. Two full-sized samples (P-2559 and P-2565), both grains, yield dates over 100 years earlier than the "traditional" date of 15501500 B.C. for the Thera explosion. Unfortunately, the last two samples (P-2563 and P-2564) were also undersized and because of the resulting large statistical tolerance (+ 200 years), they cannot, and should not, be used to support either the traditional chronology or an early one. Obviously, the question has not been resolved by the radio­ carbon dates of the second set of samples. Additional samples have to be collected and dated. Also, the results of other labora­ tories which are in the process of dating samples from Akrotiri must be compared and evaluated.

Michael, H.N., Radiocarbon Dates from Akrotiri, Thera. Temple University Aegean Symposium 1976,(Philip P. Betancourt, ed.) pp. 7-9.

FIG. I. AKROTIRI RADIOCARBON SAMPLES /First Series) Lab No.

Description

5730 Half­ Life B.C.

MASCA Correction

P-1601

Charcoal; Trench Arvanitis 3;in erosion soil in pure Middle Cycladic Ill-Late Cycladic I context; Wood Identified as olive; No NaOH.

1509 + 60

1730-1690 + 60 B.C.

P-1602

Charcoal; Trench Arvanitis 3; in erosion soil in pure Middle Cycladic Ill-Late Cycladic 1 context; wood identified as pine; No NaOH.

1548 + 40

1870-1720 + 40 B.C.

P-1885

Seeds (legumes?); Structure D, Room 1, Storage Jar No. 3; No NaOH; /c13=+1.0.

1394+50

1630-1600 + 50 B.C.

P-1888

Charcoal (shrubs); Structure D-2, N.E. of bedstead; NaOH

1273

+ 50

1490 + 50 B.C.

P-1889

Charcoal (shrubs); Structure D-l, next to Storage jar No. 5; NaOH.

1447

+ 50

1680-1660 + 50 B.C.

P-1890

Charcoal; Structure B, Room 5; Wood identified as pine. NaOH.

1494

+ 60

1710-1690 + 60 B.C.

P-1891

Charcoal (shrubs);from pit dug for modern roof pillar no. 11 within Structure B. No NaOH.

1630

+ 70

2000-1960 + 70 B.C.

p-1892

Charcoal (shrubs); Area 6 of Bronos Field; NaOH

1482

+ 50

1690 + 50

P-1894

Charcoal (shrubs); Structure A (delta), Room 3, under paved floor; NaOH.

1457

+ 70

1680 + 70 B.C.

78

B.C.

Lab No.

Description

5730 Half­ Life B.C.

MASCA Correction

P-1895

Charcoal (shrubs); from pit dug for modern pillar no. 2 within StructureY(gamma); No NaOH.

1474 +

50

1690 + 50 B.C.

P-1893

Charcoal; Structure A (delta) Area E, Room 4; two meters below floor level. Wood identified as pine; No NaOH.

2157 +

70

2600 + 70 B.C.

P-1887

Contained no carbon.

P-1599

Sample too small

P-1619

Sample too small

P-1886

Sample too small

79

FIG. 2

AKROTIRI RADIOCARBON SAMPLES (Second Series) Lab No.

Description

5730 Half­ Life B.C.

MASCA Correction

P-2560

Grains; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, Zl 1, Jar M2.

2160 + 80

2600 + 80 B.C.

P-2561

Grains; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 1, Jar M3.

1970 + 60

2300-2190 B.C.

P-2562

Organic matter; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 1, Jar M3.

1030 + 190

1180-1160 B.C.

P-2563

Organic matter; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 3 , Jar M16.

1330 + 200

1550-1510 B.C.

P-2564

Organic matter; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 2, Jar M9.

1190 + 200

1390-1370 B.C.

P-2565

Grains; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 2, Jar M5.

1460 + 70

1680 B.C.

P-2559

Grains; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 2, Jar Ml.

1530 + 70

1750-1710 B.C.

P-2566

Organic matter; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor, A 2, Jar M9.

960 + 190

1100-1030 B.C.

P-2567

Organic matter; West House, Room 5, Ground Floor; A 6, Jar M39.

Too small, discarded

80

AEGEAN LEISURE by Claireve Grandjouan In our hunt for the Aegean past, we often pursue the everted lip of a jar through the years, capturing useful information on the evol­ ution of a shape and its use in sequence dating, but losing sight of the way of life the jar implies. In this paper, I would like to leave aside stylistic and technical questions far a moment and sketch in a new set of questions about Aegean leisure. We are right, it seems to me, in de­ manding that archaeological sites now yield information on daily life, on economics, on techniques and materials. But we should also demand that charts and theories take proper cognizance of playfulness, and superfluities. The importance of, say, pepper or lapis-lazuli, super­ fluous but desperately sought after, begins to be solidly recognized. Playfulness is harder to account for because of its nature and of our training (see, far example, R. Bonnichsen, "Millie's Camp, an experiment in archaeology" World Archaeology IV, 1973). The questions we might ask include what kinds of infcrnation we Jave about Aegean leisure, whether this information is enough to build up a picture, and how Aegean leisure compares with that of other circumediterranean civilizations. These rather simple-minded questions bring occasionally startling answers so that we may have to re-question the evidence at the end. But let us start by restricting Aegean to the second millennium B.C., simply because we have more infcrnation there, and by defining leisure as the time spent neither in sleep nor in the acquistion of food, cloth­ ing, shelter or the tools and utensils thereof. This leaves what we would now call festivals, parties, sports, games and sightseeing and a loose handful of Hungs like strolls, daydreaming, garden­ ing, and pet-keeping, pleasurable but unstructured. Further, if we look at most agricultural societies B.E.E. (Before Electronic Entertainment) we find leisure activities for children a good deal of the time, for the poor at festivals, often either rites of passage or coinciding with the beginning or end of an agricultural task, and for the rich more often and with more opportunities for unstructured leisure. We can now ask our first question: what kinds of information do we have? A good kind is pictures of people engaged in what we recognize as leisure activities. And we have frescoes from palaces in all three main Aegean areas to give us pictures, as well as reliefs on vases, seal­ ings and ivories,and intaglios on seals. Another kind would be struct­ ures and artifacts used in leisure activities, such as a discus in Classical Greece since the Greeks apparently could not think of anything more sensible to do with a discus than we can with a golf ball. Best of all would be texts, but there is little we can extract from the little we have that is contemporary and we have learned to use Hcmer with the greatest caution. Is this information enough to build a picture? Let us attempt it. Festivals: S. Alexiou (Minoan Civilization, 1973) sensibly stresses the import­ ance of festivals in Crete; we should expect these festivals to include visits to shrines perhaps with processions and mystery pageants, dances, special foods and much wine, and the dedication of ex-votos. We may re-

-cognize these activities in ex-votos, on vase reliefs and seal-rings, and perhaps on sane frescoes as well; let this be our first opportunity to notice the extraordinary stress on landscape, and on just those features of a typically Mediterranean landscape noticed with revulsion by the flat-land Egyptian "Lo, the wretched Asiatic-it goes ill with the place where he is, afflicted with water, difficult from many trees, the ways thereof painful because of the mountains" (Instructions for King Meri-ka-re, mid 15th c. B.C.). The most important festival, if we judge by frequency of represen­ tation, was that highlighted by the bull-leaping games, and perhaps in­ cluding other athletic contests as well. Hew often was it celebrated? Several shreds of evidence may point to long intervals between these great events: the tribute of youths and maidens for the Minotaur was collected every ninth year (Plutarch, Theseus XV. 1); Rhadamantys and Minos went and "spoke to Zeus" in a cave every ninth year ( Strabo X, 4.8 ) The kings of Atlantis held their bull-games alternately every fifth and sixth year (Plato, Kritias 119d). In Egypt, the Heb-sed festival which may parallel Minos' talk with Zeus ocurred every several years after its first celebration, and in Classical Greece the great festivals with athletic contests ocurred canmonly every fourth year (Olympic games, Great Panathenaia). I would like to think that part of the Miniature Fresco from Thera shows decorated ships sailing into an island harbor for a summer festival, such as we find later echoed in the Homeric Hymn to Delian Apollo (II. 146­ 155) and which is now held on the island of Tinos. The delightful crocus-gathering scenes from Thera, with their elegant young ladies tinkling with jewelry, also seem part of a festival. Parties: One of the startling omissions in most Aegean representations of leisure is that of people eating and drinking. This may account for the notably slim and elegant figure and posture of most Aegeans, and stands in great contrast to most Near Eastern cultures, where an important per­ son's banquet is a favorite representation. The wine jars in palace nagazines and the abundance of kylikes testify to robust parties, but those have not yet appeared in art. There is also a notable lack of pro­ fessional party entertainers: musicians, singers, dancers, acrobats. When these appear in Aegean art, they seem to be both amateur and in an outdoor setting. Sports:

We have as yet no information on whether sports were practiced in the Aegean Bronze Age as a regular part of education but Thera has young boys boxing and there are other representations of boxers, in athletic contexts connected with the bull-leaping festival. Thera nay also give us our first foot-race, a farm of sport little, if ever, mentioned in the 2nd millennium Near East. Archery is curiously missing in Minoan repres­ entations; Hamer would lead us to expect it, especially since we find it elsewhere: shooting at a copper target appeared to be'one of the rare sports permitted a pharaoh. Hunting in well represented in Mycenaean, less well in Minoan, representations. 82

Games: We have virtually no information on children's games; but then many of the toys would have been of perishable mterials: wooden dolls and tops, wool-stuffed leather balls, unbaked clay animals. It may be that some of the Mycenaean clay figurines were toys. Knucklebones, of course, are known from Neolithic on down, they could be used both in games of skill and of chance. Board games for adults are known at least from Crete. Sightseeing: Egyptian tales and reliefs tell us that world" was a strong inducement then as it is toms, other plants and anirrals are carefully This is much less evident in the Aegean, who perhaps to less exotic lands.

"join the Navy-see the now. Other peoples and cus­ noted by Egyptian artists. probably traveled more but

Unstructured leisure: The sensitive observation of landscape, plants, flowers, animals of land and sea by the Aegeans, those of Crete and the Cyclades in part­ icular, presuppose a good deal of free time spent outdoors, and in the wild rather than in the fields. The emphasis on flower gardening and pot plants in the Aegean is unparalleled elsewhere. Pet-keeping is a more difficult question. Is the Haghia Triada cat wild or domesticated? Are the Blue Monkeys pets or nuisances? Guard-and-hunting-dogs are well-attest­ ed in Crete and Greece but what about lap-dogs? Bird-cages or tame birds one readily imagines among the pots of lilies and crocuses of a Minoan household, but no clear evidence confirms them. Dressing up, grooming, coiffure, make-up, selective shaving, choosing and wearing jewelry were of course important and time-consuming aspects of leisure. The picture-or rather the dabs and flashes of color we try to build into a picture-begins to emerge, but before looking at it, let us remem­ ber that most of our information in Egypt comes from cities and dwellings of the dead, in the Near East overwhelmingly from temples or palaces. We may have more that speaks of the living and the ordinary in the Aegean. Still, same extraordinary differences cannot be explained simply by the choice of artifacts. The emphasis in the Aegean is on outdoor life, wild landscape, plants and animals of land and sea. Participatory sports, dances, rituals out­ doors are more important than indoor parties with professional entertain­ ers. Shrines occur in the wild, and there is a conspicuous lack of the separate urban temple so characteristic of the Near East. The ruler's banquet, the ruler's tribute, the ruler's appearance before the gods, fam­ iliar and repetitive representations in Egypt and the Near East are also conspicuously lacking. The picnic aspect of Aegean leisure nay be modified by further discoveries, but it will surely continue to witness to the Aegean's intelligent and delighted use of their environment.

83

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM

A symposium sponsored by the Department of Art History, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, on March 3, 1978, with the theme "Studies of New and Little Known Mater­ ial from the Aegean Bronze Age."

Edited by Philip P. Betancourt

The Mount Holyoke College Collection of Minoan Pottery by Karen Polinger Foster The Mount Holyoke College Art Museum contains a small but select collection of Minoan pottery. the purpose of this study.^

Its publication is

In 1903 Miss Caroline L. Ransom

presented the College with its first pottery from Knossos. Eight years later the College was fortunate to receive a large amount of Minoan material from Miss Edith H. Hall, Miss Louise Fitz-Randolph, and the Heraklion (then Candia) Museum.

Much of this came from Miss Hall's own excavations

at Sphoungaras, while her other pieces came from Knossos and Chryso-Kamino.

Miss Fitz-Randolph's pottery was obtained at

Knossos in May of 1909.

The gift from the Heraklion Museum

included pieces from Mochlos, Vasilike, and Vrokastro.

The

collection was not expanded again until June of 1942 when the Metropolitan Museum of Art donated a Vasilike ware fragment. This was followed in October of 1943 by the purchase of several pieces from the Caroline M. Galt collection, with the aid of the Nancy E. Dwight Fund. ^■1 am grateful to Wendy M. Watson, Curator of the Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, for permission to publish this collection; to Jochen Twele, who introduced me to the study of Minoan pottery; to Philip P. Betancourt, who has kindly suggested parallels for several pieces; and to Benjamin R. Foster, who photographed the collection.

For each piece information is presented in catalogue forms

new catalogue number, with Mount Holyoke museum

number and provenance in square brackets; Figure and/or Plate number; and a concise description of fabric, decoration, and shape, with references given to other discussions and parallels.^

within ceramic periods, complete pieces are

catalogued first, followed by rim, spout, base, handle, and body fragments.

Concordance A gives new and old catalogue

numbers, name of donor, date of acquisition, and provenance, where known.

Concordance B lists the pieces by provenance

and ceramic period. ^Following

is a list of abbreviations used in the

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

BSA

Annual of The British School at Athens

MycPot

Arne Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm, 1941)

PM

Sir Arthur Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos (4 volumes) (London, 1921-1935)

Bosanquet and Dawkins, Un­ published Palaikastro

R. C. Bosanquet and R. M. Dawkins, The Unpublished Objects from The Palaikastro Excavations (= BSA Supplementary Paper No. 1) (London, 1923)

Forsdyke, Prehis­ E. J. Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery = toric Aegean Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases Pottery in fhe British Museum, volume I part I (London, T92S)------Hall, Sphoungaras

Edith H. Hall, "Excavations in Eastern Crete: Sphoungaras" University Museum Anthro­ pological Publications, volume III no. 2

Ti5iTT”pp':n

88

_._7 3 -----

Hall, Vrokastro

Edith H. Hall, "Excavations in Eastern Crete: Vrokastro" University Museum Anthropological Publications, volume III no! 3 pp.”75-TB5“

Hawes, Gournia

Harriet Boyd Hawes, Blanche E. Williams, Richard B. Seager, and Edith H. Hall, Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the isthmus of Hierapetra (Philadelphia, 190$)

Seager, Mochlos

Richard B. Seager, Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (Boston and New York, T9T2)------

Seager, Vasiliki

Richard B. Seager, "Report of Excavations at Vasiliki, Crete, in 1906" Trans­ actions of The Free Museum of Science and Art, volume II, part 2 (1^67) Til-132

pp.-

Warren, Myrtos

Peter Warren, Myrtos; An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (Oxford, 1972)

89

NEOLITHIC 1

Rim fragment [BAI.3c:

Knossos]

Pis. 1 and 3 Part of an open bowl with rounded profile and rim; hard red-brown fabric, highly burnished on interior and ex­ terior. Pointill£ decoration in a somewhat haphazard checkerboard arrangement. Nearly all of dots retain their white chalky filling. See PM 1 p. 36 for a discussion of filling material. A. Furness, "The Neolithic Pottery of Knossos" BSA 48 (1953) pi. 30a #4 provides a Knossos EN parallel for decoration (occurs on an open bowl with straight profile). Rim D 12.5 cm.

2

Rim fragment [BAI.lOa: Sphoungaras] PI. 3

Part of a shallow open bowl with rounded rim; brownishblack fabric with many large grains of sand. For context see Hall, Sphoungaras pp. 46-48. Rim D 21 cm.

3

Rim fragment [BAI.lOb: Sphoungaras] PI. 3 Part of a straight-sided open bowl with squared rim; brownish-black fabric with many large grains of sand. For shape see A. Furness, "Neolithic Pottery" BSA 48 (1953) fig. 11 #5, 6. Rim D 25 cm.

4

Handle fragment [BAI.3b: Knossos] Pis. 1 and 3

Wishbone handle type; compact red-brown fabric, highly burnished on interior and exterior. A. Furness,

90

"Neolithic Pottery" BSA 48 (1953) fig. 5a #1, 19 provides two Knossos EN examples of handle shape and size.

Handle fragment [BAI.3d: Knossos] Pis. 1 afid 3

Horizontally perforated lug handle from an open bowl with rounded profile; red-brown fabric tempered with sand, blackened on inside and slightly burnished on exterior. A. Furness, "Neolithic Pottery" BSA 48 (1953) fig. 6 #3 supplies a Knossos EN parallel for lug and bowl shape.

Body fragment [BAI.3a:

Knossos]

Pis. 1 and 3

Part of a bowl with carinated profile; light greybrown fabric, burnished on interior and exterior. Incised decoration consisting of two pairs of parallel lines nearly perpendicular to a single incision outlin­ ing the widest part of the bowl. A. Furness, "Neolithic Pottery" BSA 48 (1953) fig. 9a. gives an EN parallel for shape and decoration. D at carination c. 18 cm.

EARLY MINOAN I

Handle fragment [BAI. 3e*> Knossos] Pis. 1 and 3

Vertically perforated lug handle from a bowl with incurving profile; compact grey fabric with exterior burnished black slip. Bottom of lug is deeply scored, perhaps to allow for string knot or wooden piece attached to string to prevent slippage. Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery p. 72, fig. 85, shows an teto I bowl from Palaikastro nearly identical to this piece.

EARLY MINOAN II

8

Rim fragment [BAI.4a:

Chryso-Karaino]

Pis, 1 and It

Part of a deep bowl with rounded profile; hard buff fabric with light grey slip, burnished inside and out. Decoration is a dark grey band, .8 cm. wide, around rim on outside. See PM 1 fig. 40 for EM II cups and bowls from Knossos House-floors with similar rim banding and shape. Rim D 17 cm.

9

Rim fragment [BAI.35:

prov. unknown]

Pis. 1 and It

Part of a deep bowl with straight-sloping sides and everted rim; compact buff fabric with exterior buff slip and burnishing. Vasilike ware with mottling in black, vermilion and orange. For detailed discussions of Vasilike ware clays and techniques, see M. Farnsworth and I. Simmons, "Coloring Agents for Greek Glazes" AJA 67 (1963) pp. 392f. and Warren, Myrtos pp. 129-131 with notes for further investigation. PM 1 fig. 46c (from Palaikastro) and Hawes, Gournia pT. 12 #10 provide good parallels for profile and mottling patterns. See also Warren, Myrtos fig. 55 = P 263 for profile. Rim D 12 cm.

10

Rim fragment [BAl.lOc: FI.

Sphoungaras]

h

Part of an S-profile bowl with folded-over rim; grey fabric with many large grains of sand and traces on outside of red and black mottling. For the effect of Sphoungaras soil on Vasilike ware, see Hall, Sphoungaras p. 48. A similar mottled ware bowl is illustrated in Hall, Sphoungaras fig. 21 B. Rim D 18 cm.

92

11

Rim fragment [BAI.lOm: PI.

Sphoungaras]

h

Part of a bowl with slightly incurving profile; reddish-buff fabric with traces of red and black mottling on outside. Surface pared with a sharp tool. For vessel shape see Warren, Myrtos fig. 48 = P 140. Rim D 17 cm.

12

Rim fragment [BAI.3g:

Chryso-Kamino]

Pis. 1 and 1) Part of a small deep cup with rounded rim and profile; hard red-brown fabric, burnished on interior. For EM II undecorated cups of similar size, profile and fabric, see Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery p. 74 fig. 90 (from the Gulf of Mirabello); Seager, Mochlos fig. 50 #85. Rim D 13 cm.

13

Rim fragment [BAI.lOe:

Sphoungaras]

PI. li

Part of a small S-profile bowl with slightly foldedover rim; reddish-brown fabric with small pieces of grit. For vessel shape see Warren, Myrtos fig. 49 = P.

150.

Rim D

14

12

cm.

Rim fragment [BAI.lOh: PI.

Sphoungaras]

h

Part of a large, straight-sided open bowl; buff fabric with many small pieces of sand and slight exterior burnishing. Rim D 28 cm.

93

Rim fragment [BAI.lOk:

Sphoungaras]

FI. 5

Part of a large straight-sided bowl with squared rim; reddish-buff fabric with some grit.

Rim D 22 cm.

Spout fragment [BAI.34:

prov. unknown]

Pis. 1 and £

Part of a horizontal spout joined by a short tubular piece to a teapot; hard buff fabric with buff exterior slip. Pseudo-Vasilike ware with applied black and orange paint, now scratched and worn. "Eye" at base of spout. For other examples of this spout shape, see Warren, Myrtos fig. 86 * P. 667.

Base fragment [BAI.5a:

Chryso-Kamino]

Pis. 1 and £

Part of a small deep bowl with straight-sloping sides; compact buff fabric with exterior buff slip and interior red-brown slip, both burnished. Vasilike ware with orange and black, mottling. Single groove above base, as in Warren, Myrtos fig. 54 * P. 251 and PM 1 fig. 46c. Base A £ cm. Base fragment [BAI.lOf:

Sphoungaras]

FI. 5 Part of a shallow open plate with plain base; buff fabric with small pieces of grit. Blackened on outside. A group of similar plates is illustrated in Hall, Sphoungaras fig. 20. Base D 12 cm.

19

Body fragment [BAX.12:

Mochlos]

Pis* 1 and 5

Part of a bowl or cup; fine buff fabric with buff exterior slip. Faded brown decoration of diagonal lines probably forming a barred, double-bordered triangle. For a discussion of Mochlos dark on light patterns and buff ware in EM II, see Seager, Mochlos p. 96. Hatched triangles similar to this design were also done on EM III light on dark ware (Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery p. 78 fig. 96} A445.2) and sometimes revived on MM I dark on light ware (Seager, Vasiliki fig. 9c), but apparently not at Mochlos, according to the excavator (Seager, Mochlos, p. 98).

20

Goblet fragment [BAI.4b:

Chryso-Kamino]

Pis* 1 and 5 Part of a low-pedestalled goblet; compact light grey fabric, burnished on the outside. Pedestal has incised horizontal rings, identical to those on an. EM II pedestal from Fournou Korifi, illustrated in Warren, Myrtos fig. 41 and pi. 33 D = P 42.

21

Body fragment [BAI.5b: Chryso-Kamino] Pis. 1 and 5 Part of a deep bowl with straight-sloping sides; compact buff fabric with tiny white grits and exterior buff slip and burnishing. Vasilike ware with strong black, vermilion and orange mottling.

22

Body fragment [BAI.lOd:

Sphoungaras]

Not illustrated Part of a straight-sided bowl; greg fabric with reddish core and many large grains of sand. Blackened on inside and outside, perhaps by fire. For this feature of Sphoungaras pottery, see Hall, Sphoungaras p. 48.

95

23 24

Body fragments tSphoungaras] Not illustrated Two body fragments; probably from open bowls; buff ware with light grey slip and traces of interior black paint and some burnishing on exterior. BAI.lOp (thickness .5cm.; BAI.lOq

25 26

(thickness .8 cm.).

Body fragments [Sphoungaras] Not illustrated Two body fragments; compact buff fabric with slightly burnished buff slip on exterior. BAI.101 (thickness .5 cm.); BAI.lOo (thickness .35 cm.).

27 28 29 30 31

Body fragments [Sphoungaras] Not illustrated Five body fragments; buff fabric with grey core (not fully fired) and small pieces of sand. Interiors all slightly blackened. BAI.lOg BAI.lOj BAI. 3g

(thickness .9 cm.); BAI.lOi (thickness .5 cm.); (thickness .5 cm.); BAI.lOn (thickness .7 cm.); (thickness .7 cm.).

EARLY MINOAN III

32

Cup [BAI.14b:

Vasilike]

Pis, 1 and 5

Partially complete straight-sided cup with rounded rim; hard buff fabric with red-brown slip on outside and in a .5 cm wide band around inside of rim. Creamcolored decoration of running quirks below rim, under­ neath which are three cream-colored bands. Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery pi. 6: A439 and p. 77 (from

96

•the Isthmus of Hierapetra) and Seager, Mochlos fig. 49 #58 provide two nearly identical EM III parallels. R i m D 9 cm.,

33

B a s e D 6 cm.,

Base fragment [BAI.14a:

H 6.3 cm.

Vasilike]

Pis. 1 and $

Part of a deep bowl with straight-sloping sides; hard buff fabric with black slip on outside. Cream-colored decoration of three horizontally-aligned chevrons bordered by two cream-colored bands around base. For EM III near-duplicates of profile and decoration, see Bosanquet and Dawkins, Unpublished Palaikastro pi. 3a and Seager, Vasiliki fig. 6. Base 0 9 erti.

MIDDLE MINOAN I

34

Cup [BAI.7a: Knossos] Pis* 1 and 5

Nearly complete conical cup; compact orange-buff fabric with buff slip inside and out. Polychrome decora­ tion consisting of a brown-black stripe outlining the rim and 1.2 cm. below it a wide band composed of a light orange stripe above a deep orange stripe. The two stripes are separated by a black line applied before the orange paint had dried, thus causing the black to run. The light orange stripe is further decorated by three parallel vermilion lines. Rim D 7.5 cm., Base D 3 cm., H 7.4 cm.

35

Cup [BAI.7b: Knossos] PIs. 1 and 6

Partially buff slip encircles decorated

complete conical cup; fine buff fabric with on outside. Dark red-brown band 2 cm. wide rim. See PM 1 fig. 122 #8 for a similarly MM I cup from house floor beneath West Court.

Rim D 9 cm., Base D 3.5 cm., H 7.4 cm.

97

36

Cup [BAI.7d:

Knossos]

Pis. 1 and 6 Partially complete conical cup with everted rim; fine buff fabric with buff slip inside and out. Controlled dark brown drip decoration. Exterior has dark brown band around rim and widely-spaced dark brown semi­ circles extending below it. Interior decoration is a dark brown semi-circle whose lower left side has been allowed to drip. For vessel shape see PM 1 fig. 118a #16 (MMla cup from Vat Room Deposit). For contemporaneous and later examples of small cups with drip decoration, see L. Pernier, II Palazzo Minoico di Fest&s I (Rome, 1935) fig. 233 (MM); PM 2:2 fig. 353g (MMIIb cup from Mavro Spelio); and Bosanquet and Dawkins, Unpublished Palaikastro fig. 68 #2 (LM H I cup). Rim D 9 cm., Base D 3 cm., H 6 cm.

37

Cup [BAI.7©:

Knossos]

Pis. 2 and 6 Partially complete S-profile cup; fine buff fabric with thick dark red-brown slip on inside and outside, now worn and abraded. PM 1 fig. 122 #15 (one-handled cup from MM I house beneath West Court) and Forsdyke, Pre­ historic Aegean Pottery pi. 7: A 468 (one-handled MM l" cup from Knossos) provide good parallels. Rim D 8 cm., Base D 4 cm., H. 6.7 cm.

38

Rim fragment [BAI.7c: Knossos] Pis. 2 and 6 Part of a conical cup; fine buff fabric with red-orange slip on outside and in a 2 cm. wide band around rim on inside. Exterior polychrome decoration of two bands of black and cream encircling rim. Interior decoration consists of three faded cream-colored stripes at right angles to rim and extending the width of interior band. Also two red-orange stripes immediately below band and parallel to it. For exterior decoration see PM 1 fig. 122 #9 (MM I cup from house floor beneath West Court). Interior decoration was perhaps meant to imitate EM III light on dark design; see Bosanquet and Dawkins, Unpublished Palaikastro pi. 2h. Rim D 9 cm.

98

Spout [BAI.9:

Knossos]

PI. 2 Short upright spout with oval handle from a beaked jug; fine buff fabric with buff slip on outside. Redbrown band around neck and red-brown outline around rim. Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery pi. 7: A463 (MM I jug from Knossos) and Hawes, Gournia pi. 6 #25 illustrate good parallels for spout shape arid decoration. Neck D 2.6 cm., Spout L 4.8 cm.

Spout [BAI.36: prov. unknown] EL. 2

Short upright spout with thick ribbon handle from a beaked jug; buff fabric with light and dark grits and crazed, abraded red-brown slip on exterior and outlining inside of rim. For spout and handle shape, see PM 1 fig. 118a #5 (MMla jug from Vat Room Deposit). Neck D 4.9 cm., Spout L 8.7 cm.

Base fragment [BAI.18: prov. unknown] Pis. 2 and 6

Part of a conical cup; reddish-buff fabric with white and dark pieces of grit and light reddish-brown slip on outside. Dark red-brown band 4 cm. above base. Surface was pared with a sharp tool, resulting in a semi-decorative textural design, as on a MM la cup from Vat Room Deposit, PM I fig. 118a #20. Forsdyke, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery pT. 7: A464 (from Knossos) illustrates a MMI nearly identical parallel to this piece. Base D 4 cm.

MIDDLE MINOAN II

42

Body fragment [BAI.16:

Vasilike]

Pis. 2 and 6

Part of an egg-shell ware deep bowl or goblet; very fine buff fabric (.2 Cm. thick) with semi-lustrous black slip. Polychrome decoration consisting of two patterns separated by a thin crimson groove painted with rudimentary black crescents, as in PM 1 fig. 183a #2 (MM Sa goblet). Above groove are horizontally aligned nesting festoons done in relief and painted olive green. For similar design see PM 1 fig. 183a #4 (MMHa cup). Below groove appear olive green running spirals. For a discussion of this class of egg-shell ware intended to imitate metal vessels' shape, surface luster and relief patterns, see PM 1 pp. 242-247. Seager, Vasiliki provides information on p. 129 about fragment's probable findspot. MIDDLE MINOAN IIB/III 43

Cup [BAI.19: prov. unknown] Pis. 2 and 6 Small cup with rounded profile; buff fabric with dark and light grits and exterior buff slip. Slight ridges on interior. See PM 1 fig. 421 #9 (MM III cup) and fig. 432 middle (MM III cup) for similar monochrome cups. Rim D 7 cm., Base D 3.5 cm., H 6 cm.

44

Cup [BAI.20a: prov. unknown] Pis. 2 and

6

Small cup with rounded profile; buff fabric with light red slip on outside. Very slight interior ridges. PM 1 fig. 421 #6 (MM III cup) illustrates similar monochrome cup. Base shows clear elliptical string mark, as in PM 1 fig. 434 b. Rim D 8 cm., Base D 4 cm., H 5.1 cm.

100

Saucer [BAI.20b: prov. unknown]

Pis, 2 and 6 Saucer with straight-sloping sides; reddish-buff fabric with a few large pieces of grit and buff slip inside and out. Marked interior ridges. For similar shapes see PM 1 fig. 433 (MM III saucer), M. R. Popham, "Trial KV (1969), a Middle Minoan Building at Knossos" BSA 69 (1974) fig. 6 #6 (MMHb saucer from Knossos vicinity) , PM 2:2 fig. 353 top shelf second from left (MMXCb saucer from Mavro Spelio). Rim D 8 cm., Base D 3.5 cm., H 3.8 cm.

Cup [BAI.28a: Knossos] Pis. 2 and 6 Small cup with straight-sloping sides; red-orange fabric with dark and light grit and worn buff slip inside and out. A slightly taller cup of this type is shown in M. R. Popham, "Trial KV" BSA 69 (1974) fig. 6 #10 (MM H b cup from Knossos vicinity). Rim D 8.2 cm., Base D 3.5 cm., H 5 cm.

Cup [BAI.28b: Knossos] Pis. 2 and 6 Small cup with straight-sloping sides; buff fabric with light red slip on exterior. Slight ridges on inside. For shape see M. R. Popham, "Trial KV" BSA 69 (1974) fig. 6 #10 (MMHb cup from Knossos vicinity). Rim D 8.4 cm., Base D 4 cm., H 4.3 cm.

Cup [BAI.28c: Knossos] Pis, 2 and 6 Small cup with straight-sloping sides; buff fabric with many light and dark grits and no slip. Slight interior ridges. For taller unpainted cups of same shape, see M. R. Popham, "Trial KV" BSA 69 (1974) fig. 8 #7, 4 (MM IEb cups from Knossos vicinity). Rim D 8.5 cm., Base D 4 cm., H 4.4 cm.

Cup [BAI.28d:

Knossos]

Pis. 2 and 6 Small cup with straight-sloping sides; buff fabric with many dark and light grits and no slip. Marked interior ridqes. Taller unpainted cups of same shape are illus­ trated in M. R. Popham, "Trial KV" BSA 69 (1974) fig. 8 #7, 4 (MMHb cups from Knossos vicinity). Rim D 8 cm., Base D 4 cm., H 4.1 cm.

MIDDLE MINOAN III

Base fragment [BAI.8b: Knossos] Pis. 2 and 6 Part of an amphora or jar; buff fabric with many dark and light grits and buff exterior slip. Dark brown drip decoration applied when vessel was inverted. For a close MM III parallel for shape and decoration, see A. J. Evans, "Knossos Excavations, 1903" BSA 9 (1902-1903) fig. 73c. Base D 11 cm.

Body fragment [BAI.29a: Knossos] PI, 2 Part of an elongated pithos; buff fabric with many dark and light grits and exterior buff slip. Ropework decoration of ". . . a succession of overlapping tongues of clay . . . " (PM 2:2 p. 418). For examples of MM Illb pithoi with this type of decoration, see PM 2:2 figs. 241a and b; J. Hazzidakis, Tylissos cl l'lpoque Minoenne (Paris, 1921) fig. 4.

Body fragment [BAI.29b: Knossos] PI. 2 Part of an elongated pithos; buff fabric with many dark and light grits and exterior buff slip. Ropework decoration,

as in BAI.29a. For MM Illb pithoi with similar decoration, see PM 2:2 figs. 241a and b; J. Hazzidakis, Tylissos (1921) TTg. 4.

53

Body fragment [BAI.29c: Knossos] PI. 2

Part of an elongated pithos? buff fabric with many large dark and light grits and flaking buff slip on outside. Ropework decoration nearly all abraded. For parallels see PM 2:2 figs. 241a and b.

54

Body fragment [BAI.29d: Knossos] PI. 2

Part of an elongated pithos; buff fabric with dark and light grits and buff slip. Two widely separated bands of ropework decoration, done as in BAI.29a, b, and c. Vermilion line of dripped paint on right side. PM 2:2 fig. 241b illustrates a MM IIIb pithos with similar decoration; see also J. Hazzidakis, Tylissos (1921) fig. 3 b.

LATE MINOAN lb

55

Body fragment [BAI.29e: Knossos] Pis. 2 and 6 Part of a pithos; reddish-brown fabric with large and small pieces of white grit, grey core (not fully fired), and dark grey slip on outside. Ropework decoration in a flat band which is scored by fine vertical lines. For this type of ropework, see PM 4:2 fig. 627 (LMIb pithos from Phaistos).

103

LATE MINOAN Illb 56

Rim fragment [BAI.13a:

Vrokastro]

Pis. 2 and 7 Part of a small bell-shaped cup; compact buff fabric with buff exterior and reddish-orange interior slip. Dark brown decoration of a band around inside and outside of rim. Below band on outside appears part of a well-formed quarter circle with interior concentric lines and scallops around circumference. Design was probably derived from ones often used for papyrus tufts (MycPot mot. 11 and pp. 312f) and was commonly used to render bivalve shells (MycPot mot. 25). Parallels to scallop ornamentation seen here are difficult to find, but compare M. R. Popham, "Late Minoan Pottery" BSA 62 (1967) pi. 81a top left (two LMlb examples) and fig. 6 #11 (LMIIIb motif with small squares instead of scallops); P.-A. Mountjoy, "A Note on The LMIB Marine Style at Knossos" BSA 69 (1974) fig. 1 #5 (rudimentary filled scallops); A. J. Evans, The Pre­ historic Tombs of Knossos (London, 1906) figT 122 (LMIHI I>7c stirrup vase). For vessel shape see Hall, Vrokastro fig. 49B and pp. 89-92 for context; also MycPot fig. 13 #284, 249. Rim D 14 cm.

57

Rim fragment [BAI.13c: Vrokastro] PI. 7

Part of a shallow conical cup; compact buff fabric with buff exterior slip and reddish-orange interior slip. Dark brown decoration of a band around outside of rim, from which hangs a triangular patch of joining semi­ circles, as in Hall, Vrokastro fig. 49 I. Just below on left appears tip of a barred spray (see PM 4:1 fig. 307c, d for complete sprays) and on rigKt part of group of five nesting semi-circles (see MycPot fig. 58 mot. 43 h). Rim D 12 cm.

104

58

Handle fragment [BAI.8a: Knossos] Pis, 2 and 7 Round horizontal handle probably from a hydra or amphora; compact buff fabric with buff slip on outside. Reddish-brbwn decoration along top of handle; above handle in two parallel bands enclosing three stripes; and possibly a large spiral to left of handle, as in Hawes, Gournia pi. 8 #23. For handle and vessel shape, see MycPot fig. 7 #128, fig. 8 #38/58.

59

Body fragment [BAI.13b: Vrokastro] PI. 7

Part of a small closed vessel with rounded profile; compact buff fabric with buff exterior slip. Dark orange decoration of stylized trefoil rock work, as in PM 4:1 fig. 250j ("triple C"). Also an unusual triangular-shaped design with two horizontal bands of small squares and a bisected apex. Closest parallel to design is conical rhyton shown on a Tiryns fresco (PM 2:2 fig. 501) At left edge of fragment, traces olT”a third design.

60

Body fragment [BAI.8c: Knossos] PI. 2 Probably part of a large straight-walled vessel; buff fabric with buff exterior slip. Brown-black decoration of four parallel horizontal rows of shallow wavy lines. For the wave type, see MycPot fig. 65 mot. 53 #22 (LH IIIC: 1 ) and PM 4:1 fig. 294 (fragment from under threshold oT^Atreus tomb). For LM.JE examples with steeper waves, see PM 2:2 fig. 343 (from Little Palace) and PM 4:1 fig. 234 a (from Zapher Papoura).

105

Concordance A MHC Museum No.

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

BAI.3c BAI.10a BAI.10b BAI.3b BAI.3d BAI.3a BAI.3e BAI.4a BAI.35 BAI.10c BAI.10m BAI.3g BAI.lOe BAI.1Oh BAI.10k BAI.34 BAI.5a BAI.lOf BAI.12 BAI.4b BAI.5b BAI.lOd BAI.lOp BAI.lOq BAI.101 BAI.lOo BAI.lOg BAI.lOi BAI.10j BAI.lOn BAI.3g BAI.14b BAI.14a BAI.7a BAI.7b BAI.7d BAI.7e BAI.7c BAI. 9 BAI.36 BAI.18 BAI.16 BAI.19 BAI.20a BAI.20b BAI.28a BAI.28b

Donor Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Metropolitan Museum Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall unknown Hall Hall Heraklion Museum Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Heraklion Museum Heraklion Museum Fitz-Randolph Fitz-Randolph Fitz-Randolph Fitz-Randolph Fitz-Randolph Fitz-Randolph unknown Galt unknown Galt Galt Galt Ransom Ransom

106

Date 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1942 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 unknown 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 unknown 1943 unknown 1943 1943 1943 1903 1903

Provenance Knossos Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Chryso-Kamino unknown Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Chryso-Kamino Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras unknown Chryso-Kamino Sphoungaras Mochlos Chryso-Kamino Chryso-Kamino Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Sphoungaras Vasilike Vasilike Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos unknown unknown Vasilike unknown unknown unknown Knossos Knossos

Catalogue No.

MHC Museum No.

Donor

Date

Provenance

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

BAI.28c BAI.28d BAI.8b BAI.29a BAI.29b BAI.29c BAI.29d BAI.29e BAI.13a BAI.13c BAI.8a BAI.13b BAI.8c

Ransom Ransom Fitz-Randolph Ransom Ransom Ransom Ransom Ransom Heraklion Museum Heraklion Museum Fitz-Randolph Heraklion Museum Fitz-Randolph

1903 1903 1911 1903 1903 1903 1903 1903 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911

Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Vrokastro Vrokastro Knossos Vrokastro Knossos

Concordance B Provenance

Neolithic

1,4,5,6

Vasilike

7

34,35,36,37, 38, 39,46,47,48,49, 55,58, 60 50,51,52,53,54

2,3

10,11, 13, 14,15,18, 22, 23, 24, 25,26,27, 28, 29, 30, 31 32,33

42

Vrokastro unknown

Late Minoan

19

Mochlos Sphoungaras

Middle Minoan

8,12, 17, 20,21

Chryso-Kamino

Knossos

Early Minoan

56,57,59 9,16

107

40,41,43 44,45

Conclusion

The Mount Holyoke College collection of Minoan pottery provides a small but significant addition to the corpus of published Minoan pottery.

Of particular interest are the decorated Neolithic bur­

nished ware pieces from Knossos (nos. 1, 6) and the fine example of a Neolithic wishbone handle from Knossos (no. 4).

Pottery of the

Early Minoan period is especially well represented in the Holyoke collection.

There are three Vasilike ware fragments (nos. 9, 17, 21)

and one pseudo-Vasilike ware spout (no. 16).

The goblet fragment

from Chryso-Kamino (no. 20) is an unusual piece, as is the lug handle from Knossos (no. 7)*

Typical decorative styles of the Early Minoan

period may be seen in nos. 19, 32 and 33*

The large number of diag­

nostic coarse ware vessel fragments from Sphoungaras (nos. 10, 11, 13, Up, 15, 18) adds new material for the study of household and cooking vessels. There is a fine group of polychrome and monochrome Middle Minoan I

cups from Knossos (nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41), of which nos. 36

and

38 are

the most unusual.

The decorated egg-shell fragment from

Vasilike (no. 42) is also of note.

The Middle Minoan Ilb/III house­

hold cups form an interesting group (nos, 43-49).

Finally, two of

the three decorated Late Minoan Illb fragments from Vrokastro (nos. 56, 59) have very unusual and perhaps unique designs.

108

C * "less than" * ■ complete blade TAttT-E

Dimensions In mm.

t

(*)“ complete except for minor chips

Length

Width

Thickness

Angle 1

*

1

48.7

6.5

1.8

33

40

3.61

*

2

53.2

9.6

2.2

38

(37

4.36

(*) 3

50.0

7.7

2.8

(39

35

2.75

4

65.3

7.8

3.1

(36

c.40

2.52

(*) 5

55.0

10.4

2.2

(38

(27

4.73

6

55.3

8.2

2.7

(45

47

3.04

(*) 7

57.6

10.8

3.2

45

39

3.37

8

66.6

10.6

3.3

(42

(31

3.21

9

43.6

8.1

3.5

(56

(39

2.31

* 10

47.3

8.4

3.3

(38

(44

2.55

11

44.4

9.4

2.4

(33

(28

3.92

12

38.7

7.0

2.3

(43

(45

3.04

13

39.7

6.5

1.9

(35

(37

3.42

14

36.4

11.7

3.5

40

37

3.34

(*)15

38.2

9.0

2.5

c. 36

c.33

3.60

* 16

42.2

12.3

4.1

(46

(45

3.00

17

39.6

9.0

3.1

(45

(46

2.90

18

22.1

11.0

2.5

(31

(41

4.40

(*)19

50.0

6.4

2.2

(45

(41

2.91

20

28.4

11.4

3.7

(36

(38

3.08

21

29.6

c.8

2.6

(38'

(36

3.08

22

34.3

7.5

2.0

32

(37

3.75

23

24.0

9.8

2.0

(36

(37

4.90

24

33.3

8.5

2.5

(42

(37

3.40

25

34.5

8.8

3.6

(52

(36

2.44

26

31.2

5.8

1.9

77

(39

3.05

27

38.7

16.9

6.2

(55

(43

2.73

*

*

*

109

Angle 2

Width WcTEhei

No.

PI.

110

1

U p p e r - 48; 47; 43; 45 L o w e r - 4 6 ; 49; 44

111

112

113

114

116

The LM IB Painted Pottery of Eastern Crete by Jean Silverman

The following paper is an attempt to define the characteristic painting styles of east Cretan pottery. Although many fine LM IB vases were imported from Knossos to the eastern towns, the local craftsmen continued to produce both fine and plain wares within their own traditions. Within this local pottery two major stylistic divisions or categories can be distinguished, which may be called the Polychrome Style and the Plain Style. In addition, a few experiments were made with decoration in white on red and a kind of black and white marbilized surface. The Polychrome Style, closer to the LM IA painting styles, was generally reserved for large or important vases, such as pithold jars or rhyta. The decoration is displayed in zones, with the widest zone at the greatest diameter of the vase and the lesser zones above and below. The vase surface is a slightly pink buff and may or may not be burnished, with the main motives executed in red-brown to black paint. Over this dark paint a thin chalky white is used for secondary ornament, and a matt or chalky red fills open spaces within and between the zones. The decorative motives, as in LM IA pot­ tery, consist of floral or vegetal and geometric or abstract designs. Floral motives, which are often confined to the secondary zones, include the reed or grass pattern, alone or in combination with stemmed flowers, lilies, ivy sprays, and foliate bands.^ Geometric motives, usually in the main zone, in­ clude the lobed whorl, a common regional motive, which may be combined with tangent flowers or smaller hatched lobes, the double axe with or without floral embellishments, the filled ivy leaf, conglomerate pattern, and the running spiral in various forms. The solid waves or blots which occur on the edges of such a zone are syntactical equivalents of the rockwork of tri-curved arches in the Knossian style.^ Characteristically, the decorated zones are separated by rows of large dots or by bands with ornament in added white of foliate bands, plain or wavy lines, dots, slashes, cross-hatching, or loops. Another provincial mannerism is the very broad wavy band, which may be accen­ ted with dotted borders and scroll-work in added white in much the same way as the lobed whorl. White lines or dots are also used for emphasis on the running spirals and conglomerate pattern. Red is applied between bands or as fill within a motive, such as rosettes, the centers of lobed whorls, and conglomerate pattern.3 Two large jars from Gournia and Mochlos are painted in an idiosyncratic manner related to but distinct from the Polychrome Style and may be experi­ mental pieces produced by one painter.4 On both jars the main decorative zone is occupied by a row of stylized palms alternating with flowers on long wavy stems. The palm trunks on the jar from Mochlos are edged with pairs of wavy lines, and on the jar from Gournia with vertical foliate bands. The thin, attenuated plants and the extensive use of added white over motives and bands contribute to the delicate lacy effect, more marked on these vases than in the Polychrome Style as a whole. The palm is rarely seen on vases from the eastern sites and is not part of the typical Polychrome repertoire, so that it does not seem farfetched to cite an imported bottle rhyton found

1. Broad wavy band 2

. Plain foliate band

3. Running foliate band Dotted foliate band 5. Lines and dots 6

. Isolated leaf pairs

7. Leaf and bud 8

. Crescents

9. Dotted linked circles 10.

Pinwheel

11. Stylized ivy swag 12.

Interlocking arc and triangle

118

at Fselra as a source of Inspiration for these jars, which reproduce every detail.5 The exaggerated volute curls and central leaves of the palm on the rhyton have become dotted volutes and leaf clumps on the jars, the textured edging of the trunk is copied as wavy lines or foliate bands, the ivy leaves on bending stalks have become long-stemmed flowers, and the tri-curved arch at the upper border is translated into the provincial heavy wavy line.

At both Mochlos and Gournia other, less elaborate jars seem in turn to have been copied from the big jars. Gournia, pi. IX.30 shows a bridgespouted cylindrical jar on which a thick wavy band has become the ground line for double-stemmed volutes with foliate edges, and isolated foliate sprays are used as fill in the field above. The slanting stemmed volute is clearly derived from the palms on the jar from Gournia, even to their foliatetextured trunks. On another jar from Mochlos the palm has been transformed into a long-stemmed lily, also with a follate-edged stalk. The lilies stand on two horizontal bands, and above them, pendent from the rim of the jar, is the heavy wavy band with ornament in added white, just as it occurs on the palm from Mochlos.^ The bulk of the local pottery belongs to the Plain Style. On this ware the surface is usually unslipped, somewhat porous, and matt, although some vases have been burnished, while the paint, varying in color from redbrown through black, is often badly worn or faded. Only one or two decorated zones accent the shoulder or belly, with the rest of the vase left plain or circled by simple bands. Added white, in thin lines or dots, is used spar­ ingly and red not at all. The motives are simplifications of the same motives used in the Polychrome Style. Foliate bands and their derivatives occur in many forms, as plain, running, or dotted bands, or isolated leaf pairs. What might be called the leaf-and-bud or stylized iris pattern is merely an isolated leaf pair with a small central triangle resembling a flower bud. The same brush stroke again may form a small creseent, which was used for both zonal and unity decoration.7 Rows of lines and dots with narrow wavy lines between them are also derived f,rom the foliate band. The conglomerate pattern is simplified into an amorphous zone of dots or slashes bordered by plain bands.® Many of the most commonly used motives are variations of the running spiral as a plain, interlocking, or eyed form.^ The connecting lines between spirals are often dotted or edged with leaf-like strokes. The entire spiral center may be replaced by a central eye or plnwheel design. The character­ istic decorative flourish of edging a pattern with tiny dots is used with the several spiral motives, with foliate bands, and with a type of simplified ivy swag. The style also makes use of floral motives, especially at Gournia. The reed pattern occurs on cups and bowls as well as on larger vases, and the daisy or rosette and the plnwheel occur in zones and as Isolated patterns. Olive leayes and sprays of berries are more unusual. Isolated crocus blossoms scattered over the vase surface reflect a tendency toward unity decoration influenced by both the LM IB Knossian styles and perhaps by Cycladlc floral decoration.il Three tall beaked jugs have unusual shoulder decoration, consisting of three pairs of vertical lines fringed with dots or leaves, and they seem to

119

recall the MM I "plume jugs." Other commonly used geometric designs Include cross-hatching, the multiple zig-zag, and the Interlocking arc and triangle. Secondary motives are limited to bands, which are sometimes the sole painted ornament, to the zone of large dots, and to X's, used as filling orna­ ment .13 The Red and White Style is known from only a small number of vases, the most ambitious of which is a waisted strainer from Mochlos. The surface of this vase is covered with a soft pink wash, over which are three zones in white paint of typical LM IB designs, rosettes at the shoulder, a symmetrical foliate band around the mid-section, and stylized lilies around the base, drawn with a thin controlled line. On the other vases known in this technique the back­ ground is a darker red. Several pieces with floral decoration were found at Gournia, as well as some poorly made cups with narrow white bands over the deep red surface. Similar banded cups were discovered at Mallia where the white on red vases include a jug with running spirals and five tubular stands having various spiral, latticework, aiid red designs.^ Black and white marbl­ ing occurs on relatively few vases and sherds, and its place of manufacture is unclear. The best known pieces are from the south and the east. 13 In summary, east Cretan LM IB vase painting is characterized by conserva­ tism in its choice of motive and syntax, drawing upon and modifying the LM IA repertoire. Influence from the palatial LM IB ware affects the local work piecemeal, as in the case of multiple zig-zags, the palm jars, or the rare examples of unity decoration.1® The jug from Gournia decorated with a nauti­ lus stands alone as a direct imitation of the Marine Style.17 The motives of the Polychrome Style are conventional, but the vase surface is so elaborated by the different combinations and juxtapositions of design and color that the over-all effect is variety. In the Plain Style the motives have disintegrated into their components, as can be seen with the foliate band, for example, but some new variations, like the linked circles and pinwheels, represent a further development of the style. This development was ended by the destruction of the towns; the pottery that appears in the LM III Reoccupation levels belongs to the traditions of Knossos and the Mainland.

Notes lHarriet Boyd Hawes, Gournia. Vasiliki, and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete (Philadelphia 1908) pi. IX.1, 3, 28 and pi. K (hereafter Gournia); Richard Seager, "Excavations on the Island of Mochlos, Crete, 1908," AJA 13 (1909) fig. 20; N. Platon, Zakros; the Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete (New York 1971) 221. ^Gournia, pi. IX.28; Richard Seager, Excavations on the Island of Pseira (Philadelphia 1910) fig. 14, pi. VI.c (hereafter Pseira); Platon (supta n. 1) 117. 3Gournia, pi. IX.18; R.M. Dawkins, "Pottery from Zakro," JHS 23 (1903) fig. 24; J. Deshayes and A. DeSsene, Fouill^s executees a Mallia: Exploration des maisons et quartiers d 1habitation II, Etudes cr^toises 11 (Paris 1959) pi. LXIIIa (hereafter Maisons II); R.C. Bosanquet and R.M. Dawkins, The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations (London 1923) fig. 55.

120

^Gournia, pi. IX.31; Seager (supra n. 1) pi. VI. ^Pseira, fig. 8. ^Seager (supra n. 1) 300, fig. 20. ^Gournia, pis. VII.23, VIII.1, 9, 10, 31; Bosanquet (supra n. 3) figs. 45, 46; L.H. Sachett and M.R. Popham, "Excavations at Palaikastro VII," BSA 65 (1970) fig. 15, pi. 58; Cornelius C. Vermeule, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Art: The Classical Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston 1963) fig. 5; MS 4730 in the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Q

Gournia, pi. IX.8, 9; E.J. Forsdyke, Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum, vol. I, part 1 (London 1925) fig. 135. ^Sackett (supra n. 7) fig. 15; J.N. Coldstream and G.L. Huxley, Kythera: Excavations and Studies (Park Ridge, N.J. 1973) pis. 55, 57; Malsons II, pi. XIV.4; Gournia, pis. VII. 18, IX.4. l^E.g. Gournia, pis. VIII.23, IX.7; Seager (supra n. 1) fig. 4, bottom left. ■^Platon (supra, n. 1) 113: Gournia, pis. VII.11-14, VIII,21; R.M. Dawkins, "Excavations at Palaikastro IV," BSA 11 (1905) fig. 11; Dawkins (supra n. 3) 256-57; Spyrldon Marinatos, Excavations at Thera V (Athens 1972) pi. 59; unpublished vase in the Herakleion Museum, registration no. 6857. 12Gournia, pi. VIII.16; Sackett (supra n. 7) pi. 65a; Malsons II, pi. XVI.4. Cf. Gournia, pi. VII.14, 15, 29. Also see Gournia, pi. VIII.6, 29;

Seager (supra n. 1) figs. 4, 5; unpublished fragments in the University Museum, MS 4607. ^Sackett (supra n. 7) figs. 9, 15; Bosanquet (supra n. 3) fig. 37; Gournia, pi. VIII.23; Herakleion Museum registration no. 5580 from Mochlos. ^Seager (supra n. 1) pi. VII; Gournia, pi. IX, 24, 25; Sackett (supra n. 7) fig. 13.10; F. Chapouthier,and P. Demargne, Fouilles ex^cutees a Mallla: Exploration du palais IV, Etudes cretolses 12 (Paris 1962) pis. XL, XLI; 0. Pelon, Fouilles ex^cut^es a Mallla: Exploration des malsons et quartiers d ’habitation III, fetudes cretolses 16 (Paris 1970) pi. XX,6d. ^Gournia. pi. VII.15; L. Banti, II Palazzo minoico di Festos II(Rome 1951) 532, fig. 293a; P.M. Frazer, "Archaeology in Greece," AR (1970-1971) 30, fig. 57 from Pyrgos. ^ G o u r n i a , pi8 . VII.22, VIII.19, 20 and supra, notes 5 and 6.

^Gournia, pi. J. A small alabastron from Pseira now in the University Museum has two octopods on its shoulder but may be imported (MS 4478).

121

Obsidian from Crete:

Problems in Lithic Analysis *

by Nicholas Hartmann

Richard Seager's excavations on the Island of Pseira in the early years of this century produced, along with a large quantity of other evidence, an unspecified number of obsidian cores and blades.^ A selection of these, num­ bering two cores and 27 blades, is in the collection of the University Museum, University of Philadelphia (Catalog no. MS 4593). The material is without precise context, except for associated Early Minoan I or II pottery: the find-spot is only approximately given, and the original number of pieces found is unknown. A preliminary analysis of the blades and cores, as well as an outline of proposed further research on Bronze Age obsidian, is the subject of this report. Both blades and cores were examined under a low-power stereomicroscope (40X maximum), and their dimensions and edge angles were measured and tabula­ ted (Table I). The use of low-power microscopy to distinguish mlcrowear patterns on lithic materials has been current for a number of years, but has been applied almost exclusively to flint.^ A more recent development is the use of experimentally produced stone tools for a variety of operations: these experimentally produced wear patterns are then compared with those on lithic artifacts. Work of this kind at Harvard has led to the beginnings of an "index" of microwear patterns on certain types of flint implements.^ Since no such index has been compiled for obsidian, the present study also involved some small-scale experimentation, in the hope that comparison with the mlcro­ wear patterns on the Pseiran material would permit the determination of the material on which they were used. The first step was to consider the technique used to produce the blades. Three possible methods exist: direct percussion (hitting the edge of the core with a piece of stone or softer material); indirect percussion (setting a punch at the desired impact point and hitting that); and pressure (leaning on a crutch tipped with a hard material, with sufficient force to remove a blade). The pressure technique produces the most parallel-sided, regular and sharp blades, as confirmed by experiments in reproducing Mesoamerlcan blades by this method, and yields a large amount of usable edge for a given volume of core material.-’ However, the pressure technique requires great skill and care in preparing the core and removing blades. Comparing the Pseiran material with cores and blades experimentally produced by this tech­ nique, it is obvious that the characteristic extreme regularity of both blades and cores is absent. Microscopic examination of the striking ends of the blades, and of the striking platform of Core 1 (Fig. 2; 2a), showed a conscientious preparation of the core, as well as, in many cases, a small (2 mm. or less in diameter) crushed or depressed area on the blade ends, per­ haps produced by a hard punch. The use of a less than perfectly developed pressure technique cannot be excluded without further experiment. Comparison with the tabulated dimensions of flint blades experimentally produced by all three methods was not fruitful:® in general, technological and microwear data on flint cannot be extended to obsidian. The only conclusion that can be made, therefore, is that indirect percus­ sion was probably the method used for blade production at Pseira, and that

reasonable care was exercised to produce fairly regular blades: the perfec­ tion characteristic of Mesoamerican blades was either not attainable or simply not sought.^

Measurement of the edge angles of the Pseiran blades shows some concern for consistency: 49 of the 54 edges fall in the range of 35-45 degrees (cf. Table I for complete measurements). This may indicate a conscious desire to produce a particular angle, perhaps for a particular task,” or it may follow naturally from the technique used: further experimentation is again needed. It should also be remembered that the blades examined are only a portion of the excavated assemblage: without tabulation of the entire assem­ blage, statistical conclusions have very little meaning. Continuing with macroscopic examination of the blades themselves, one striking fact is that with a single small exception, none of the edges were retouched: that is, they were used just as they had come off the core. Re­ touching a chipped stone edge decreases its sharpness slightly but improves its durability: it can also be used to blunt an edge to make a tool safer for handling. Unretouched obsidian edges can be very sharp but are equally fragile. The single occurrence of retouch on the Pseiran blades, as well as on Early Minoan obsidian blades at Mallia,^ shows that the technique was known: its omission on the majority of pieces implies that the blades were intended only for fairly delicate work where sharpness was a primary consideration, and durability, resistance to pressure, and protection of the user were of lesser concern. The present experiments have shown that acute-angle obsidian edges do not last long under heavy pressure, even on soft materials. Hafted blades would have been more versatile and durable, but this alternative has not been experimentally explored. Direct observation of cores and blades can thus produce a certain amount of information on manufacture and Intended use, although based in some measure on intuition and deduction. With the use of even a low-power microscope, however, a great deal more information becomes accessible. Results from microscopic examination of the blades were both interesting and a little disappointing. First and most Important, even at the low magni­ fications used, 22 of the 27 blades show unequivocal traces of wear. The presence of coherent patterns of micro-flaking and striation made it possible to determine the general orientation and direction of the tool during use, and to some extent the nature of the material worked and the duration of use. Specifically, almost all of the blades show micro-wear patterns charac­ teristic of scraping or whittling. Micro-flaking usually appears only in one face of an edge, although a single edge may show several areas of unlfacial wear on each face. This indicates that the tool was held at an angle to the work, so that pressure from the work detached micro-flakes from the opposite face. The orientation of strlations, where present, confirms that the tools were moved In a direction perpendicular to the edge. One puzzling finding was the variation in the amount of wear seen on different blades. Two in particular (nos. 10 and 15, Fig. 1) show moderate to heavy wear on every available edge, together with dense striation. The edges are so heavily used as to be no longer effective. Neither of these blades is remarkable in any of its measurable dimensions or other features:

124

other pieces with very similar characteristics seem hardly to have been used at all. Here again, the incomplete state of the assemblage makes any meaningful statistical evaluation Impossible. In order to refine the microwear analysis, several experiments were undertaken, using flakes of American obsidian to scrape various natural sub­ stances, while the progress of edge damage was followed under the microscope.

It had been hoped that this would lead to a more precise idea of the material on which the Pseira blades had been used. However, this proved to be much more complicated than first thought, and the only worthwhile information gained was very general in nature. It was established that visible striation of the experimental edges occurred only when working hardwood, antler, and to some extent bone. A very thin band of abrasion appeared when tanned leather was shaved, but in archaeological material this could be influenced by the presence of dirt or sand, which would increase abrasion, or of animal fat, which would reduce abrasion by acting as a l u b r i c a n t . I t was also discover­ ed that the angle of blade during scraping influenced the face from which micro-flakes were removed.^ More exact correlations between the type of material and the pattern of edge damage were not arrived at, and cannot, in truth, be expected from a limited and exploratory study.12 If this kind of experimental program is to produce more exact, predictive results, a much more ambitious study is needed, involving the reproduction not just of edges of the appropriate angle, but of entire implements as similar as possible to those being studied. This would also go a long way toward esta­ blishing with certainty the manufacturing technique used. One would also have to take into account which materials and operations were most appropriate for the experiments, given the general cultural and climatic context of the findsite. The most disturbing problem encountered in this study was not a functional or methodological one. Obsidian is a glass, hard but very brittle, and thus very fragile on thin edges. This may make it more sensitive to microscopic damage during use, and hence easier to study, but it also makes it highly susceptible to accidental damage. Recent experiments in Hawaii, and my own tests, show that a large amount of microscopic damage can be produced by even a moderate amount of rough handling.13 The Pseira material has been in the University Museum collection for some 70 years, and was most recently kept loose in a small box, subject to damage every time it was moved or handled. This has produced an unknown but certainly appreciable amount of micro-flaking, obscur­ ing that produced by the original use of the tool. It is imperative, therefore, that obsidian and Indeed any lithic material be kept protected from insult after excavation (i.e. not tossed into a sherd basket), and be handled with great care thereafter. Otherwise a great deal of Information will be needlessly lost or obscured. The ultimate goal of any lithic study involving microvear analysis is, or should be, to determine with reasonable precision the function of a par­ ticular tool or lithic assemblage, within their technological and cultural con­ text. Integrated into other studies of a site and its artifacts, this can provide information on perishable materials which do not themselves survive, and whose demonstrated presence and use may Influence interpretations of economy and technology. The major result of the present study has been to define the methods needed for such a comprehensive lithic analysis. The importance of

125

considerate handling of lithic artifacts has already been stressed. In addi­ tion, it has been recognized that a low-power microscope is really not power­ ful enough for this sort of examination and leaves unseen much valuable infor­ mation.!^ The use of Scanning Electron Microscopy may also prove necessary in some cases. Finally, any lithic assemblage must be considered within the entire archaeological context of a site. Most important is the recovery of as much of the lithic material as possible, including debris from manufacture. Sta­ tistical manipulation is useless if the sample is already biased in a way not related to its original function.

Notes *My sincere thanks go to Prof. Philip P. Betancourt, who suggested this report and gave me an opportunity to present it; to Prof. G. Roger Edwards, Curator, Mediterranean Section, University Museum; to Kaytee Umbreit, who drew the cores in Fig. 2; and to Dr. Elizabeth K. Ralph, Associate Director of the Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, who provided work space, equipment, and encouragement. ^R.B. Seager, "Excavations on the Island of Pselra, Crete", University of Pennsylvania Anthropological Publications 111:1 (1910) 10, 16. ^See the discussion and bibliography in L.H. Keeley, "Technique and methodol­ ogy In microwear studies: a critical review", World Archaeology 5:3 (1974) 323-336. ^R. Tringham et al., "Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis", Journal of Field Archaeology 1(1974) 171-196. -*Don Crabtree, "Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades", American Antiquity 33 (1968) 446-478. *\j.B. Sollberger and L.W. Patterson, "Prismatic Blade Replication", American Antiquity 41 (1976) 517-531, especially Table 3, p. 526. Cf. F. Bordes and D. Crabtree, "The Corbiac Blade Technique and Other Experiments", Teblwa 12:2 (1969) 1-22 for experiments In replicating, by indirect percussion and other methods, obsidian blades of Upper Palaeolithic date. More experiments are needed before this can safely be applied to Bronze Age Mediterranean blades. ^Blade no. 27 Is the obvious anomaly in the group: whatever its manufacture technique (direct percussion seems plausible), it differs radically from the other blades. The sample is too small to justify making a special study of it.

8

J.D. Nance, "Functional Interpretations from Microscopic Analysis", American Antiquity 36 (1971) 331-366 mentions 26-35 degrees as typical angles for light scrapers, 35-40 degrees as typical for whittling knives: this applies only to flint.

126

9H. & M. van Effenterre, "Mallia - Centre Politique (I): L'Agora", Etudes Cretolses XVII (1969) PI. VI, no. C5625, perhaps also PI. V, no. C5595; an entire "obsidian workshop" was found, of "prepalatlal" date, and the material is very similar to that from Pseira. 10Tringham et al., op. cit. 184. l^Cf. C. Runnels, "A Note on Glass Implements from Greece", Newsletter of Lithic Technology IV:3 (Dec. 1975) 30.

12

See especially Keeley op. cit. 332.

13r . Schusboe, "Microscopic Edge Structures and Micro-fractures on Obsidian", Lithic Technology VI:1-2 (Apr.-Aug. 1977) 14-21. This article includes a pictorial index of types of micro-flaking on obsidian edges. ^L.H. Keeley and M.H. Newcomer, "Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: a Test Case", Journal of Archaeological Science 4:1 (Mar. 1977) 29-62. See also L.H. Keeley, **The Functions of Palaeolithic Flint Tools", Scientific American 237:5 (Nq v . 1977) 108-126, with examples of Scanning Electron Microscope photographs.

127

Figure 1:

Blades

128

mhui . '.m

Figure 2:

Cores

129

Thoughts on Prehistoric Potters and Ceramic Change by Karen D. Vitalii

After several years of studying the evolution of the Southern Greek Middle Neolithic Urfirnis Ware from the Franchthi Cave and Lerna I was troubled by the very few developments which I could see in the ware over a period of more than half a millennium. Even with the new radiocarbon dates from Franchthi (Jacobsen 1977:367), which suggest a shorter Middle Neolithic phase, it seems that for several hundred years the potters made the same shapes, in the same manner, with the same basic decorations, seldom deviating from established tradition. I found that difficult to comprehend. Then I reread Balfet's study of the Mahgreb potters and found that she provided a model which explained the slow evolution of my pots (Balfet 1965: 169 and passim). Balfet points out that when the producer of the pot is also the user of the pot the motivation to change procedure and style is different than when the producer is creating a comnerclal product which must compete in the marketplace. Homemade pottery has more subtle variety from piece to piece than its commercial counterparts, but the overall style may continue unchanged indefinitely. This explanation satisfied my discomfort over the slow rate of change in the Greek Neolithic material. If, additionally, I followed Balfet and other ethnographers (Balfet 1965; Bunzel 1929; Foster 1965; Herskovitz 1965:126; and others) and suggested that the Middle Neolithic Urfirnis was being made at home for home consumption by the women in the group, then I had a workable explanation for other observed phenomena as well. If women made pots for their own use, and mothers Instructed daughters In the tricks of the trade, and daugh­ ters then married and moved into other settlement groups and continued to make pota as their mothers had taught them, then we had a mechanism to explain how settlement sites came to share a common ceramic tradition which still was idio­ syncratic from site to site. This model implies that many people— females— coulds and did make pots; that they had experience from youth in recognizing, collecting, preparing, working, and firing clays and pigments; that the raw materials were-cosmonly known and universally available for the taking. If any woman could, and many women did, regularly make pots as part of their social chores, how were they persuaded to give up this activity and "buy" their pots from a specialist? The transition to a system of specialist potters would seem to require major social and/or technological change. That the change did come about may also imply something (negative?) about the attitude toward potting and, thus, the status of the professional potter. The potter's wheel speeds up pottery production markedly. The true kiln with separate chambers for fuel and pots Increases control of firing and successful recovery. These Innovations In ceramic technology appear in the Aegean by EB III or MB I. They are preceded by evidence of social change: The Early Bronze Age, even the Final Neolithic, provides evidence for metal­ lurgy, a craft whose skills and raw materials were not universally available, while the products gave the owner a decided advantage over those who did not

have equal access to the same goods. The extensive use of stamp seals in EB II suggests a new sense of private property and ownership which suggests "haves" and "have-nots" and/or an emerging state with control over some goods. These two factors seem to me the best evidence currently available to suggest the presence of social stratification in the Aegean by EB II. The distribution of ceramic wares around the Aegean by the Middle Bronze Age seems to confirm the commercialization of ceramic production by that period, as does the increased rate of stylistic change. Certainly by the MBA, and possibly somewhat earlier, the production of pottery would seem to have moved to some considerable extent out of the home and into the marketplace. But what happens in between the Middle Neolithic and the Middle Bronze Age? A lot of different ceramic styles. The later Neolithic phases alone present us with a bewildering "sequence" of black burnished ware, matte painted wares, polychrome wares, different black burnished wares, pattern burnished wares of various styles, assorted crusted wares, a profusion of "coarse" wares, and, into the Early Bronze Age, an assortment of brown, black, and red burnished wares. Why do ceramic styles come and go? Can the model of the household potter account for these changes? I think it can, with some further interesting Implications. Following Balfet's comments on traditional home production and my own experiences and observations of others working with found (vs. bought, conmerd a l l y prepared) materials, I would suggest the following reasons for a potter to change her product: 1. Her traditional materials are no longer available. Clay and pigment sources run out, or access to them may be cut off, I have learned not to underestimate the idiosyncrasies of clays. A different clay can demand a com­ plete change in the way it will allow itself to be successfully worked. 2. A happy accident may produce a process or method which is clearly superior to earlier ones. It should be faster or easier or result in a better quality product. Unless the new process has some clear and obvious advantage it is unlikely to be repeated: there is, in potting, a built in reluctance to change (Foster 1965: 49). 3. Secrets of one potting group may be such carefully kept secrets that they "die" when the secret-holder(a) stop potting (Foster 1965: 57). 4. New potters experienced In a different tradition enter an area and take over ceramic production or work alongside the older tradition and potters. Any or all of these reasons for change in pottery style might have con­ tributed to the observed changes In the later Greek Neolithic, but for the moment I would pursue the suggestion that new potters entered the established (MN Urfirnis) tradition— the new potters being new women. Dalton's article in the collection on Exchange Systems in Prehistory is replete with references to exchanges Involving women in stateless societies: Sporadic hunger, sporadic warfare, and external trade were very common in precolonial times. Ceremonial exchange partners, other allies, and primitive valuables were all used in emergency to get

132

food and refuge. Giving women in marriage and giving valuables were ways of contracting alliance, which., once formed, could be used for a variety of purposes (Dalton 1977: 193). It was primitive valuables (and women) that were the necessary means of reciprocal, noncommercial payment in warfare and peace­ making (Dalton 1977: 198). Warfare, trade, and marriage meant external relationships of hostility and alliance, relations of antagonism and dependence, the opposite of isolation and self-sufficiency....War parties went forth to kill, to abduct women, capture weapons....Peaceful expeditions went forth to visit and feast, conduct ceremonial ex­ changes, trade, arrange marriages, and to use the natural resources of external groups with whom peaceful relationship existed, with, of course, their hosts' permission (Dalton 1977: 200). Victory in a raid...did sometimes entail...capturing women and chil­ dren. ...Refugees...acquired land from their hosts in exchange for one or more brides (Dalton 1977: 201). Political alliance for warfare and for ceremonial exchange some­ times also involved transfers of women In marriage. With poly­ gamy, more women were always desireable, especially for those who occupied leadership roles (Dalton 1977: 202). and so on. I think it not inappropriate to imagine that women may have been a similarly important "exchange item" in the stateless prehistoric Aegean world. I would modify my earlier suggestion of disseminating ceramic traditions through the marriage of Middle Neolithic maidens to include the other reasons for which she might have traveled, but would note the limited distance, according to the ceramic evidence, over which she traveled in those times. In the later Neo­ lithic phases, however, the "exchanges" apparently traveled further afield. Oc­ casional women from outside the local pottery tradition were coming to Greece. Women raised in the Rum Tepe lb rolled-rim tradition, for Instance, were being transferred to Greece and continuing to pot (Renfrew 1972:69). They would not arrive in every Greek community, nor would they necessarily arrive at the same point in the local ceramic sequence, nor would they necessarily be received in the same manner. Thus, we have their "influence" showing up at different times, in different ways, at different places, as they and their daughters adjusted to new lives, new clays, and possibly repeated "exchanges". I would then expect, and do suggest, that their impact on Greek Neolithic society was rather greater than simply the addition of rolled-rims or pattern burnished decoration. A "foreign woman" would surely upset the old regime. She would stand out as different— perhaps in appearance, probably in speech, cer­ tainly in a variety of customs with which she had been raised. By her very presence, the foreign woman would create a differentiation of society, whether she herself received greater or lesser esteem than the locals. She, together with the other objects, ideas, and alliances being encountered in the enlarging world, could mark the beginning of the variety of social, economic, and politi­ cal changes that lead to the Aegean Bronze Age states. I claim no proof for the female Neolithic potter, nor did I set out to champion the cause of contemporary feminism. I happened on a model which explained some initial questions and the further I extend it, the more inter-

133

esting it becomes. I suggest that It fits and helpa to explain the evidence as far as I have gone with it, and I suspect that it might profitably be taken still further.

References Balfet, Helene 1965 "Ethnographical Observations in North Africa and Archaeological Interpretation." In Ceramics and Man, 161-177, ed. F.R.Matson, New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc., Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 41. Bunzel, Ruth 1929 The Pueblo Potter, A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. New York: Columbia University Press. Dalton, George 1977 "Aboriginal Economies in Stateless Societies." In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, 191-212, ed. Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Erlcson, New York: Academic Press. Herskovltz, Melville J. 1965 Economic Anthropology, The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples. York: W.W.Norton and Company, Inc. Jacobsen, Thomas W. 1977 "New Radiocarbon Dates from Franchthl Cave, Greece." Renfrew, Colin 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation.

JFA 4: 367-368.

London: Methuen and Co.,Ltd.

134

New

A Bronze Pivot Shoe From the Residential Building of Gla by Sp. Iakovldes

During the 1960 excavation campaign on the Mycenaean fortress of Gla, J. Threpslades brought to light a bronze door-pivot shoe. Be does not mention its discovery in the excavation diary but the label attached to it reads "Room 10, west wall," so it can be safely located. (“ -8* Room 10, which is in the north wing of the residential building, has at its southwest corner two doors, opening at right angles to each other: one leads to the corridor N3 to the south the other to the anteroom 8 to the west. Although the possibility that the pivot shoe belonged to the south door cannot be excluded, it is more likely that it comes from the other, the west door. It is very well preserved.0^-8 • 2) Except for a thin uneven crust of corro­ sion which covers the object without disfiguring it in any way, the metal core is Intact, showing through where the surface has been scratched either by the digging tool at the time of discovery or by a later attempt to remove part of the incrustation. It has the form of a tube open at the top and closed at the bottom the underside of which is flat and indeed somewhat concave and has a slightly curved edge. Half of the upper part of the tube is cut away vertically so that only the lower one third is a complete cylinder. The object is 87 mm high, mea­ sures 63 mm across and has an inner diameter of 56 mm. The cut-away part is 55 mm high. The horizontal edge of the cut slopes slightly down and outwards, so that the lower, cylindrical, part is unevenly deep (18 to 24 mm). The sides are 4 mm thick, the bottom three times as much (12-13 mm). The upper part is trans­ versed by two bronze nails placed diametrically and at right angles to each other one at a point 14 mm below the top, the other 44 mm lower down, at the level of the angle of the cut. A third hole, exactly opposite the top nail, was marked on both sides of the casing but was not pierced through, obviously because it would bring two nails on the same alignment and at the same level. The nails are 46 mm long and 4 mm square. They have no heads but are merely flattened a little at their free ends so as not to slip through the hole. Like all other Mycenaean nails found on Gla, they have no point but end in a tip which is two-sided like a chisel's. They secured the shoe to the foot of the wooden pivot pole which burnt when the building was destroyed and left a little ash inside its bronze sheath. The measurements of the casing show that the pole must have been 52 mm across and that the wooden door leaf, morticed onto the pole and projecting from the cut-away part of the shoe, was some 5 cm thick. Threpslades' find was not the only one of its kind on Gla. De Ridder, the first excavator of the site, mentions four more, all unearthed in the east wing of the building. Their present location is not known.^ They come from the doors of Room 13 to anteroom 11, of Room 20 to the corridor P2, of Room 22 to Room 21 and of Room 24 to the corridor 01. According to his account "all four are alike and of equal size, so it will be enough to give the measurements of the only one which is complete (that from Room 22). They are shaped like tubu­ lar casings, widening a little at the mouth, ending belowin an almost flat cap and having a more or less rectangular opening at the side for the leaf of the door. Three nails at different heights attached the casing to the pivot and a

cement of lime mixed with lead - It Is still sticking to the bronze - kept the whole firmly together."2 No such cement was found in the 1960 specimen and, indeed, the fact that the ashes of the burnt pivot adhere directly to the bronze and are partly discoloured and absorbed by the oxides which cover its surface shows that, here at any rate, no such mixture was used. In fact, accord­ ing to the excavation accounts in which both De Ridder and Threpsiades describe the results of the conflagration which destroyed the building, it seems very likely that De Ridder's mixture of lime and lead is nothing more than the mater­ ials of the door jamb - stone and lead fixtures - calcinated and melted by the fire and stuck to the more heat-resistant bronze. The pivot shoes found by De Ridder were considerably larger than the newly discovered specimen.3 This is in keeping with the dimensions of the pivot soc­ kets in the building. Those on the thresholds of the east wing (where De Ridder's hinge casings were found) have an average diameter of 9-10 cm, as compared to the 7-8 cm of the sockets in the north wing. Although the system of doors hinged on the threshold and the lintel and revolving on the bottom end of their pivot pole is well attested in antiquity, down to Roman times4 very few pivot shoes have actually survived, especially from Bronze Age sites in the Aegean. From the Mainland there is only one complete specimen, found in situ on the threshold of the Little Megaron in Tiryns.3 (Fig.3) It was larger and squatter than the one from Gla and had a rounded bottom with a protruding flange which helped to adjust the shoe in its socket and to keep it correctly balanced. To judge by the holes on its sides, it was fastened to the pivot pole by three nails. Fragments of a similar shoe were discovered by Tsountas in the anteroom to the megaron at Mycenae.® A different type of pivot casing was used in Crete. It was shaped like a shallow bowl with a slightly protruding rim and had the same height all around, equal to about one third of its diameter.(Fig* 4) ^aeginning of the Protogeometrlc period at Athens (ca. 1075-1050 B.C. ?). 21. The "Submycenaean" tombs from the Corinthian forum (supra n.15) could be con­ temporary with the wash deposits in the Demeter Sanctuary, but are perhaps better associated in date with the somewhat later material from Weinberg's house which is not far away from them. 22. The latest finds from the Deiras chamber tombs at Argos cannot be considered fully "Submycenaean" in view of the tomb type in which they were found. Snodgrass' characterization of "Submycenaean" as a "fleeting...phase" at Argos and Tiryns indicates his appreciation of the very brief "Submycenaean" inter­ lude in areas outside of western Attica (Supra n.7). 23. In the Argolid, "Argive" Phase 5 would likewise precede "western Attic" Phase 5 at sites such as Argos and Mycenae. For an earlier view on the super­ fluity of the term "Submycenaean", see n.9 above.

153

CERAMIC PHASE

WESTERN ATTICA

DEPOSITS FROM SELECTED AREAS fEUBOEA CORINTHIA EASTERN LEFKANDI) (CORINTH) ATTICA &

YEARS B.C.

ARGOLID

CYCLADES

Phase ^ (Early)

Athens, cuttings under Klepsydra (Agora XIII 261-2)

(Late)

I

Perati, phase II

•? I. I

Phase 5 (Early)

Xeropolls, phase 2a

Xeropolls, phase 2b

Xeropolls, r Salamis / Perati, phase III phase 3 cemetery; 'Agora wells A. irini, latest BA ,/Athens, ^ material Pompeion from y cemetery / _temple

Mycenae, Granary destruction deposit Demeter Sanctuary, major Myc. building

-1125

!?

v

-

Mycenae & Argos, cist graves and „"SM" settle­ ment depos­ its L. Ankara, 1951. Pi. 26. Al al70. 46

K. Bxttel, Bogazkoy, Die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1 9 0 6-1912. (WDVOG 60), Leipzig, 1937, PI. 32, 26} PI. 40,15} F. Fischer, hethitische K e r a m i k , 70, PI. 121, Nos. 1068-1070. T. (jzguc, Kultepe 536} T. and N. bzguc, 171, PI. 31, 196-198, 7, 1963, 1. XXVII, 1 , 48

Anatolia 10, 1966,

Kazisi Raporu 1 9 4 8 . Ankara, 1950, 186, fig. Kultepe Kazisi Raporu 1 9 4 9 . Ankara, 1953, 202} Belleten 19. 1955. 67. fig. 12} Anatolia Kt g/ic/7 2 . 108-109, Pi. XXXIV,

1,2.

l ~ A J A 6 8 , 1964, 152-153/* P I « 50, fig. 9} S. Alp, Zylinder und Stempel} Siegel aus Karahoyuk bei Konya, Ankara, 1968. No. 31537, height: 18 cm. H. Bossert, A l t a n a t o l i e n . No. 641} Gotze, K l e i n a s i e n , Munich, 1957, PI. 6 , fig. 11} Prof. Kurt Bittel has informed me that the vessel was not found at Tyana near Nigde, as reported earlier, but at Bozkir.

205

^ v o n der Oaten, Aliahar Huyiik. fig. 201, PI. VI, D 2 7 1 5 i Ko§ay, Fouillea d«Alaca H o y u k . 125, PI. LVII, fig. 1, A1 d 182, and H. Kofay, Ausgrabungen v o n Alaca Hoyuk. Vorberloht uber die Forachungen und Entdeckungen von 19^-0— Ankara, 1966, 138, PI. 15, H103, A1 b 1 0 3 J A J A 51. 19^7, Pl» 37, ct Ozguc, Kultepe 19^9, PI. 31, figa. 199-201. 3^K. Emre, "The Pottery of the A8syrian Colony Period," Anatolia 7, 1963, 87-99, esp. figa. 10-llf. 5 3 Ibid.,

9h.

3**K. Emre, "The Pottery from Acemhoyuk, " Anatolia 10, 108-109* Fischer, hethitische K e r a m i k , 70.

1966,

^ Anatolia 7, 1963, and M. Mellink in R. Ehrich, e., Chronologies in Old World A r c h a eology, Chicago and London, 1965# 118-127* ^ T . ttzguc, "Excavations at Kultepe 1954, Finds on Level lb," Bell e t e n 19, 1955, 64-72, figs. 12 and 14. ^ Ana t olian Studies 5, 1955*

fig*

12, 3-4 and 6, 1956,

fig. 3,1*

58

J* Mellaart, "Second Millenium Pottery from the Konya Plain, 11 Belleten 22, 1958, 311-313* M. Mellink, in AJA 68, 1964, 152-153* 59 ^ Alp, Zylinder und S t e m p e l i D. Levi, "Sulle origini m i n o i c h e , 11 Parola del Passat% 127# 19697 241-264* F. Matz, "Bemerkungen zum Stand der Forschung uber die fruhen anatolischen Siegel," in Die kretisch-mykenische Glyptik und ihre gegenvartigen P r o b l e m s , B o p p a r d , 1974, 58-95* «— — — 60Lev±, Featos, 1,1, 531, 533, PI. 129, No. 5023aj Anatolia 10, 1966, 50, PI. X I I , 1. ^ E . Kunze, Die Keramik der fruhen Bronzezeit, Munich, 193^, 31-33, Pis. X, 1-2, XI, 3,b.

Orchomenos III,

62 J.

Muhly, Copper and Tin (Tranaaction.-of the Connecticut A ca d e m y of Arts and Sciences} New Haven, 1973, 199-208. Athens, National Museum 8743* Persson, New Tombs at D e n d r a , figs. 88 and 118:5* PI* IV, 1-2* Buchholz and K a r a g e o r g h i s , Prehistoric Greece and C y p r u s , figs. 1117, a-c. 64

Warren, Minoan Stone V a ses. 103* Marinatos, Crete and Mycenae, PI. 213* Karo, Schachtg^abern, Pis. CXXXVIII-CXXXIX, No. 389. Height with h a n d l e s : 2**.3 cm.

206

GROUND STONE IMPLEMENTS AT GOURNIA:

COMMENTS AND QUERIES

by Harriet Blitzer Watrous

The catalogue of ground stone Implements in Harriet Boyd Hawes1 publica­ tion of excavations at Gournia is substantial,^- although compiled in a phase of Aegean archaeology where the Bronze Age date of such objects was still questioned, and where scholars were more likely to attribute them to the Neo­ lithic period. Mrs. Hawes realized the significance of stone tool manufacture at Gournia, and accordingly provided the reader with a description of materials types, functions, and ethnographic parallels. Hef constant attention to modern-day practices in the use of ground stone implements emphasized one ele­ ment of the work at Gournia, that is, her interest in " . . . the everyday cir­ cumstances, occupations, and ideals of the Aegean folk . . ."2. She and her co-workers are still to be praised for their humanistic efforts in analyzing the artifactual remains of daily activities at Gournia. A 1979 review of the ground stone objects from Gournia serves two pur­ poses: (1) it permits us to reassess the collection (such of it as exists) in the light of technological and cultural information which has accumulated since 1908, and (2) it emphasizes those gaps which still exist in our under­ standing of ground stone implements and their cultural role in the Bronze Age. The comments in this paper are based on an examination of twenty-seven stone objects (admittedly a very small sample) located in the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.** Additional data are drawn from visits to the site of Gournia, from a brief study of these objects located in the cases of the Herakleion Museum, and from my own knowledge of ground stone tool manu­ facture at other sites in Crete. Mrs. Hawes defined the ground stone objects at Gournia by means of their presumed functions. Thus, the types which she noted in the collection in­ cluded celts, sling missiles, whetstones (for sharpening), mace-heads, spindle whorls (for spinning), weights (for various purposes), hammerstones, mullers, mortars and pestles (for crushiiig various materials), querns, rubbers, a stone table, and flat slabs (all for grinding), moulds for casting bronze, polishers (for pottery), basins (for water), a crucible, and a so-called plas­ terer’s float.5 The raw materials used for these implements included, accord­ ing to Mrs. Hawes, limestone (of various hardnesses and colours), trachyte (a material of volcanic origin), and akonopetra (an abrading stone quarried in the vicinity of Gournia). Obvious use was made of the shapes of the objects in determining their functions, and Mrs. Hawes was also generally aware of the patterns of use which might be visible on the surfaces of tools. Thus, we find in her des­ criptions such comments as "much worn,” or "worn smooth."*’ She observed that some of the objects had been purposefully fashioned, and knew also that in some cases the objects had not been worked at all.^ Intensive study of ground stone implements has recently revealed this category of artifact to be more yielding of information than one might imagine. In addition, experimental archaeological efforts have helped to clarify the technology of ground stone tool manufacture.^ Ground stone implements, as they appear at Bronze Age sites in Crete,

may be classed In two general categories: (1) naturally occurring pebbles, cobbles, and boulders whose original shape has been modified or altered in a limited way by use, and (2) implements whose shape has been created by the intentional alteration of the original stone, in many cases to the point where the original shape is completely lost. Implements in the second cate­ gory are much easier to distinguish, during the process of excavation, than are those modified only by use. This is because the evidence for the use of an implement may exist simply as a small ground or abraded area on one face of the implement, and may not be immediately visible. Modification of the surface of a stone implement may result from the actions of scraping, abrading, grinding, polishing, pecking, crushing, flak­ ing, severing or fracturing, and pounding. These actions are both elements of the use of a tool as well as techniques which may be applied to a stone fragment in order to alter its shape. All combinations of these actions will result in distinctly different physical effects on the surface of an implement, depending on the hardness, texture, and flexibility of the raw material of which the implement is made. Thus, untangling the difference between the intentional modification of a stone implement and the ways in which it was used is difficult. The preceding comments might seem to deny the archaeologist1s ability to correctly assign functions to ground stone implements. This is not, however, the case, as additional information from the environment and natur­ al resources of a particular site, from the context of the implements at the site, from wear pattern studies, and from a study of the implements in rela­ tion to other artifact categories found in the same context does help to limit the number of suggested uses of ground stone tools. How then may we apply these understandings to the ground stone artifacts from Gournia? A visit to the site of Gournia reveals that a variety of rock types are available in the locale. In addition to the limestone of various types already noted by Mrs. Hawes, a well-cemented form of sandstone is available. The akonopetra described by Mrs. Hawe s ^ is evident in some of the large querns remaining at the site. The environs of Gournia yield many forms of limestone nodules, irregularly shaped cobbles, and boulders which would be easily adaptable to use as implements. The collection of ground stone objects in the University Museum contains all of the above-mentioned materials, as well as implements made of lightcolored igneous rocks, usually in cobble form. Dark-colored igneous cobbles of great hardness are also present. A number of the objects in the collec­ tion consist of differentially weathered chert-and-limestone cobbles (MS 5796) whose irregular shape (produced by nature) resembles what one might think of as an ideal tool. Few of these weathered cobbles show signs of use. Hand^sized implements in the collection, cobble-shaped and made of hard rock types, some of them igneous in origin, show various forms of alteration on the surface, including grinding and polishing, and pecking (or roughening) along the margins of the implement (MS 5790). These hand-sized objects, judging from the alterations on their surfaces, would have been ideal pounding or crushing implements, They are accompanied

208

in the collection by irregular limestone cobbles which bear signs, in one or more areas, of heavy pounding and crushing actions (MS 5791)* Sandy limestone or fine sandstone occurs in the collection in an oblong slab (MS 4683) which has been completely smoothed on one face. It is easy to see a knife drawn across the surface of this natural abrading stone. Various "mortars," as they are described in the publication, occur in the collection. These are large slabs or boulders of shelly limestone (MS 4682-A), or sandylimestone (MS 4712), with rounded indentations on one sur­ face, created by pecking and grinding. These objects are usually interpreted as basins for the crushing of various materials. The smoothed surfaces on some of these may also be the result of grinding actions. One curious limestone nodule, tripartite in form, shows signs of grinding and polishing at three points on one face (MS 4691). The high polish of these three areas appears to indicate that the implement was used in a grinding action, although to the modern eye this seems not so efficient. An oval-shaped cobble (MS 4685>, neatly hand-size, is worn smooth at its base by grinding, and at the opposite end shows signs of pecking, as if it had been used for pounding. This object might be interpreted as a pestle. A single quern is preserved in Philadelphia, created from a natural flat boulder of hard black stone whose working surface has been pecked, or roughened (MS 4554). This practice of re-preparing the surface of a quern whose working area has been completely ground smooth is not uncommon throughout the Aegean.1-1- As such grinding implements as querns are generally large, heavy, and as a result, non-portable, the re-working of their surfaces would be a natural part of the cycle of use. A series of perforated stone cobbles, all made of heavy, hard igneous rocks, may have served as weights in a variety of activities (MS 4706-1 to 19). The techniques employed in their manufacture included pecking and grind­ ing of the central part of the cobble until the desired thickness was achieved, at which point the perforation was created by tapping the thinned area. The margin of the perforation was then ground smooth, perhaps to ease any strain for suspension of the object or for a better fit on a wooden haft. These ob­ jects would have served well as weights for various kinds of agricultural tools, as elements of weaving, or as implements needed in fishing activities. The list, in this case, is endless. Another element of the Gournia collection in Philadelphia, a stone basin or gourna (MS 4682-8), as it is presently called, occurs at the site of Gournia in almost every building complex. These basins or troughs, made usu­ ally of limestone, were roughly hewn from large boulders or fragments of stone, and appear to have been placed intentionally to one side of the en­ trance (just on the inside) of many of the Gournia buildings. Mrs. Hawes remarked on their positions in the buildings, and noted also that pestles had not been found with them, thus indicating that they may have served for other activities than grinding. Indeed, the interior surfaces of many of these ob­ jects are rough, smooth, or alternately pecked and ground smooth. It is tempting to compare these basins with the gourna which is located very often in the courtyard of modern Cretan homes. A review of the various uses to which these modern basins have been put includes grinding (of salt, grain, and coffee). Others, according to their sizes, have been employed as basins

209

for water Can animal trough), for animal feed, and as wash-basins (for rough clothes). One might suggest as wide a variety of uses for the Bronze Age examples. Several questions remain after this review of ground stone objects from Gournia. It is important to ask who was making these implements, and how did their production relate to the manufacture of the more elaborate stone basins, vases, and lamps of other than commonly available materials? I would suggest that the manufacture of these everyday ground stone implements was the domain of all in the Gournia settlement and in other Bronze Age Cretan settlements. As distinct from stone vase production, a more detailed activity requiring obvious aesthetic awareness as well as much time and manual skill, the ability to work with commonly available rock types, such as limestone and sandstone, is an acquired behaviour pattern with fewer l i m i t a t i o n s . ^ It is an industry of necessity which demands a basic knowledge of the properties of locally available, familiar rock types. It would have had an immediate place in one’s repertory of daily activities, which, on the analogy of modern peasantry, may have revolved around food production. The ground stone implements from Gournia do not differ drastically from such objects as have been found at other Bronze Age sites in Crete. Missing, however, from the published ground stone at Gournia, and from the Pennsylvania collection, are the scores of hand-size tools, modified only by use, which I have come to expect from Bronze Age sites in Crete. Their absence from these exemplary excavations at the beginning of this century is to be expected. One hopes that the excavations of our time will devote as much and more effort to the collection of evidence of this most basic and durable of industries - the production of ground stone tools.

FOOTNOTES

1. Harriet Boyd Hawes, Blanche E, Williams, Richard B. Seager, and Edith H. Hall. Gournia, Vasiliki, and other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete. Excavations of the Wells-Houston^-Cramp Expeditions. 1901, 1903, 1904. American Exploration Society, Free Museum of Science and Art,Philadelphia, 1908, (Hereafter, Gournia.) 2. Gournia, p. 27 3. I wish to thank G. Roger Edwards forpermission to refer to theobjects in the UniversityMuseum, and P.Betancourt forarranging my study time there. 4.

The writer has studied ground stone implements at the sites of ChaniaKastelli (with the permission of E. Hallagher), and at Kommos (with the permission of J. W, Shaw). In addition, such objects as are on display in museums throughout Crete have been examined, Gournia, pp. 31-32.

6.

Gournia, p. 32.

7.

Gournia, p. 32.

210

FOOTNOTES (Cont.)

8.

For example, see Nancy Kraybill, "Pre-Agricultural Tools for the Prepara­ tion of Foods in the Old World," in Origins of Agriculture, Charles A. Reed, editor, The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1977, pp. 485-522. This is not to say, however, that earlier contributions were not as compre­ hensive. For an excellent example of earlier work see Alfred Kidder, The Artifacts of Pecos, Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, Papers, No. 6, 1932.

9.

The writer was taught how to manufacture chipped and ground stone imple­ ments in 1974 by Don E. Crabtree, at a stone technology school at Idaho State University.

10.

Present-daylocals refer to this stone as smirigdopetra.

11.

Collections studied by the writer both on the mainland of Greece and in Crete have contained re-worked querns.

12.

The ability to work stone is common to the older peasants in Greece today. It is not unusual to find farmers working stone slabs for wall construc­ tion in an efficient and knowledgeable fashion. The production of gournas in Crete was, until World War II, an activity in which most people (males) were able to participate.

211

T W O S E A L S O F T H E " H I E R O G L Y P H I C D E P O S I T G R O U P " F R O M G OURNIA* b y P a u l Yul e

for H e i n r i c h O t t e n

T h e 1908 G o u r n i a e x c a v a t i o n report p r e s e n t s a rich se­ l e c t i o n of seals and seal impressions. Of the M i d d l e B r o n z e A g e seals found in Gournia, the w r i t e r w o u l d like to d i s c u s s two e x a m p l e s (Fig. la, lb). T h e first is a squat P e t s c h a f t in j a s ­ p e r showing a s t y lized plant motif. Thi s seal is not w h o l l y typi c a l of the s t y l e - g r o u p to b e d i s c u s s e d and is c l a s s i f i e d as "near". T h e second seal, in hard stone and e n g r a v e d wit h a c a t m a s k motif, w a s ^ a l s o a P e t s c h a f t , to jud g e from exta n t a n a l a g o u s examples. T h r e e a spects are t ouched on here: the d e f i n i t i o n , d a t i n g and the d e c o r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r of the styleg r o u p to w h i c h these two seals belong; since Evans p r e l i m i n a r ­ i l y o u t l i n e d the M i d d l e M i n o a n seal chron o l o g y , li t t l e w ork h a s b e e n d o n e in this s p e c i f i c area. D E F I N I T I O N O F T HE H I E R O G L Y P H I C D E P O S I T G R O U P (H D G ) The H DG d e r i v e s its nam e from a s c a t t e r e d c o l l e c t i o n of s e a l i n g s in K n o s s o s in w h i c h a large nu m b e r of i m p r e s s i o n s from h i e r o g l y p h i c p r i s m - s e a l s in hard stone cam e to light. At the b e g i n n i n g of the c e n t u r y Evans p r e l i m i n a r i l y i d e n t i f i e d the H D G and a s s o c i a t e d the seals of this g r o u p wit h his H i e r o g l y p h i c B Script. T h e r e l a t i v e l y h o m o g e n e o u s c a r v i n g technique, i c o n o g ­ raphy, m a t e r i a l s and seal shapes s u ggests that these " H i e r o g l y p h i c B" se a l s b e l o n g t o gether as a style-group. T he c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of this g r o u p m a y b e treated singly below: First, a l i mited num b e r of shapes c o n s i s t e n t l y show the m o t i f s of the HDG w h i c h in c l u d e P e t s c h a f t e . three- and f o u r - s i d ­ ed prisms, " f o r e p a r t s of animals" as well as f o l i a t e b a c k s (Figs. 2-6). T h r e e - f i f t h s of the f o l i a t e b a c k s and P e t s c h a f t e of the H DG a re f a s h i o n e d w i t h seal faces w h i c h at first g l a n c e a p p e a r to b e p e r f e c t l y flat, b u t w h i c h a c t u a l l y are sl i g h t l y c o n v e x , e v i d e n t l y a s t y l i s t i c refinement. Second, n i n e t y - e i g h t pe r c e n t of the seals of the H DG are f a s h i o n e d in h a r d stones, the mos t f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g of w h i c h a r e jasper, b a n d e d or ^potted agate as well as t r a n s ­ l u c e n t or o p a q u e chalcedony. P e t s c h a f t e . prisms and f o l i a t e b a c k s in h a r d sto n e are d i a g n o s t i c of the HDG. Third, the m o t i f s are g e n e r a l l y formed b y d e e p l y carv e d li n e s and cuts from stationary, r o t a r y — not hand held tools. In s e c t ion the cuts are dee p and semicircular. A l imited r e p e r ­ t o i r e of tool m a r k s r e s u l t s in a uniform, even c a n o n i c a l c o n ­ s i s t e n c y of form. T h e m a j o r i t y of the m o t i f s e n g r a v e d on the seals of the HDG a p p e a r in f o r m u l a i c H i e r o g l y p h i c B i n s c r i p t i o n s b u t a b o u t o ne fifth a p p e a r to b e e s s e n t i a l l y o r n a m e n t a l in i n s p i r a t i o n and con s i s t l a r g e l y of r o t a t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s of g e o m e t r i c a n d 7 p l a n t - d e r i v e d e l e m e n t s fo u n d in c e r a m i c d e c o r a t i o n (cf. Fig. 22). Representations of a n i m a l s (Fig. 15), but onl y ra r e l y of humans appear. T h e m o t i f s of the HDG^ are of t e n stylized or even m a n n e r e d as in the cas e of the c a l l i g r p h i c e l a b o r a t i o n of script signs (cf. the " t r o w e l " in Figs. 16 and 17). Typical of this g r o u p is the

a b s t r a c t i n g t r e a t m e n t of some motifs. For example, Fig. 18, a d e s i g n c a r v e d on a p r i sm-se al, shows f e a t h e r e d - o u t f o r m s whi c h h a r d l y r e s e m b l e the H i e r o g l y p h i c B signs from w h i c h they are d e r i v e d . A n o p p o s i t e process, c alled " p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n " by F u r u ­ mark, is a l s o in e v i d e n c e in wh i c h a b s t r a c t or plant forms coge t o g e t h e r to form an o bject to which they show some s i m i l a r i t y ; in Fig. 19 a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a cat head is j u x t a p o s e d on a p e t a l o i d loop to form a cat. The p h e n o m e n o n of p i c t o r i a l i z a t i o n is p a r t i c u l a r l y g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of bo t h the HDG and C l a ssical K a m a r e s c e r a m i c , a l t h o u g h it o c c u r s e a r l i e r and later in A e g e a n art. It is f i t t i n g to a c k n o w l e d g e the s o m e w h a t f o r g o t t e n c o n t r i ­ b u t i o n of Edith Hall, a p i o n e e r at Gournia, w h o first noted the e x i s t e n c e of this p h e n o m e n o n w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of A e g e a n a r c h a e ­ ology. In h er words, "Natural d e s i g n s do not n e c e s s a r i l y be g i n as a r e a l i s t i c r e p r o d u c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t b ut r a t h e r as an arrangetjgnt of lines w h i c h suggest r a t h e r than p i c t u r e natural forms." H a r mony, c l a r i t y of e x p r e s s i o n and s y m m e t r y are all a d j e c ­ t ives w h i c h characterize the style of the HDG, r e l a t i v e to o t her A e g e a n seal styles. " H a r m o n y " r efers to a c o m b i n a t i o n of ele m e n t s to for m a c o n s i s t e n t and o r d e r l y whole. Th i s h a r m o n y is w i t n e s s e d in the p r e d o m i n a n c e of g e o m e t r i c a l l y pure, c u r v i l i n e a r forms. A f u r t h e r m a n i f e s t a t i o n of h a r m o n y is the a g r e e m e n t in the q u a l i t y of the m a t e r i a l s , t e c h n i q u e and a r t i s t i c expression, all of w h ic h are e x c e l l e n t . A final c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of style is the lack of in­ t e r i o r d r a w i n g in the m o t i f s and the stiff and g e o m e t r i c i z i n g s t y l i z a t i o n of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of animals. No s i n g l e s y n t a c t i c s cheme or p r i n c i p l e d o m i n a t e s the HDG and o n e can p o i n t to r o t a t i o n a l (Figs. 13 and 14), b i l a t e r a l l y and t r i l a t e r a l l y segme n t e d c o m p o s i t i o n s (Fig. 20) and those w ith m o t i f s o u t l i n i n g the b o r d e r s (Fig. 21). F o r m u l a i c ^inscriptions o f t e n m a y b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as f r i e z e - c o m p o s i t i o n s . DATING T w o c r i t e r i a w h i c h aid in d ating the HDG are s t r a t i f i e d seals or seal i m p r e s s i o n s and a c o m p a r i s o n of the seal d e c o r a t i o n w i t h that of the c o n t e m p o r a r y K a m a r e s ceramic. Th e HD G is not d a t e d by, b^i; r a t h e r d a t e s the so-c a l l e d H i e r o g l y p h i c Dep o s i t in K n o s s o s . Seal i m p r e s s i o n s of the HDG h a v e co m e to light in M M IIB c o n t e x t s in M a l i a (cf. Figs. 10 and 11) and in P h a i s t o s (cf. Figs. 7 and 8 ). T h e HDG and K a m a r e s w a r e share not o n l y m o t i f s b u t al s o syntax (Fig. 22). A m o n g the m o t i f s c o m m o n to b o t h m e d i a are the d e n t a t e Ij^nd, p e t a l o i d and m u l t i p l e loop, c r o i x p o m m e t t e e and J-hook. Th e s e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s speak for a t h e o r e t i c a l b e g i n n i n g for the HDG in MM IIA. Fur t h e r m o r e , both C l a s s i c a l K a m a r e s and the HDG show a d r a m a t i c d e v e l o p m e n t in t ec h ­ n o l o g y o v e r the p r o d u c t s of the p r e c e d i n g periods; the c ommon use of har d s tones and f a s t - t urning, r o t a r y tools, e v i d e n t l y first in M M I l ^ c o n s t i t u t e s a r e v o l u t i o n u n p a r a l l e l e d in M i n o a n g l y p ­ tic art. T h e sudden d e v e l o p m e n t of technique, s p e c i f i c m o t i f c o m p a r i s o n s as well as s t y l i s t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s i n d i c a t e s a c l ose r e l a t i o n s h i p or even i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n the two m e d i a which, if a c c e p t e d , s u g g e s t s that the fading out of the C l a s s i c a l K a m a r e s style, p e r h a p s in M M IIB, co u l d p o s s i b l y c o r r e l a t e with that of the HDG. A d a t i n g in "MM (— ?)" for the HDG r e f l e c t s a f l o r i a t e for the g r o u p in M M _ I I and a p o s s i b l e final w a n i n g in the s u b s e q u e n t c e r a m i c phase.

214

Hieroglyphic Deposit Group

215

MM II (-? )

Hieroglyphic

CM 106c

Deposit

Group

Knossos

MM II (-? )

P 55

CM 112d

CM 112c

CM 1 0 9 a

CMS X II 110a

Early and Classical

5 ii4 CK

Kamares motifs

C M S X II 114a

(after Walberg, Kamares)

11 H I

CK

8.16 EK

8.12 EK 8 .25 EK

Fig. 22

216

7.4 CK

* The c o n t e n t s of this note are extra c t e d from m y Ph.D. thesis " E a r l y C r e t a n Seals: A Study of Typology, Sty l e and C h r o n o l o g y " . The p r e s e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s u p p l e m e n t s my t h e sis and the note "On the Date of the ' H i e roglyphic D eposit' in K n o s s o s " K admos 17 (1978) 1-7. Dr. H a r t m u t M a t t h a u s k i n d l y c r i t i c i z e d a v e r s i o n of this paper. The seal shown in Fig. lb has d i s a p p e a r e d and is n e i t h e r in H e r a k l i o n nor P h i l a d e l p h i a . T he H i e r o g l y p h i c D e p o s i t G r o u p is on e of sixteen s t y l e - g r o u p s w h i c h in m y thesis a r e in large pa r t the b a s i s for d a t i n g e a r l y C r e t a n seals. T h e f o l l o w i n g special a b b r e v i a t i o n s are used: C M = A g n e s X e n a k i - S a k e l l a r i o u , Les c a c h e t s m i n o e n s de la c o l l e c t i o n G i a m a l a k i s in fctudes c r e t o i s e s 10 (1958). C S = V.E.G. Kenna, C r e t a n Seals (Oxford 1960). HM= H e r a k l i o n M u s e u m i n v e n t o r y number. K n o s s o s = S e a l i n g types listed in M.A.V. Gill, "The K n o s ­ sos Sealings: P r o v e n a n c e and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 1' B SA 60 (1960) 58-98. S M = A r t h u r Evans, S c r i p t a M i n o a I (Oxford 1909). 1 C M 182; 2 SM pp.

CM S 112 138-144;

3, 282;

VIII

P M I 275 fig.

34;

X 279.

204.

3 I n c l u d e d are: AG P II 6-9; B o n n Akad. K u n s t Mus. B 178; C M 106-109, 111, 112, 138, 151, 160, 161, 163, 166, 167, 181, 182; CMS I 425, 428-430; III 122; 112 3, 227, 249, 256, 2 8 2-284, 286, 296, 316, 321; 115 204, 299, 300, 311; IV 132, 135-137, 141, 156, 27D, 29D, 31D; VII 33-, 34, 40, 41, 255; VIII 34, 102, 103; IX 29-31, 46; X 52, 53, 279, 311; XII 89, 91, 100-103, 105-107, 109-115, 117, 10D; XI I I 37, 81; CS 112, 117-122, 129, 131-133, 135, 138­ 142, 148, 150, 151, 165-174, 201; HM 1052, 1075, 1079, 2184, 4815; K n o s s o s HI, H3, P50a, P51a, P54al, P54a2, P55, P 5 6 a , P 5 8 a , P59a2, P60a, P61a, P63al, P63a2, P 6 6 a, P 6 8 a, P69al, P 6 9 a 2 , P71al, P73a3, P74al, P74a2, P75al, P75a2; SM p. 187 fig. 98a. near: A G P II 10, 11; CM,S 112 248; 115 25; IV 28D; X 54; XII 95. 4 P e t s c h a f t e in h a r d stone (27 e x a m p l e s extant), t h r e e - s i d e d p r i s m s in ha r d s t o n e (24), f o u r - s i d e d p r i s m s in hard stone (21), " f o r e p a r t s of anima l s " in hard stone (15) and f o l i a t e b a c k s (10). Cf. Figs. 2-6. 5 J a s p e r (36 e x a m p l e s extant), agate (27), c h a l c e d o n y (20), rock c r y s t a l (10), carnelian, "ser p e n t i n e " (4). The seals in soft stone ar e C M 163; CMS I V 135; X 52 and HM 2184. T h e s e s eals are in s hapes typical of this s t y l e - g r o u p and show t y p i c a l motifs. 6

S t a t i o n a r y , r o t a r y tools are a p r e r e q u i s i t e for fine e n g raving in s t ones the h a r d n e s s of quartz. The tool m a r k s on the seals b e a r out the n o t i o n that r o t a r y tools w e r e in use at this e a r l y date.

7 P a r t i c u l a r l y p e t a l o i d loops (Fig. 12), S - s p i r a l s (Fig. 13) and v a r i o u s w h i r l i n g m o t i f s (Figs. 13-14). Cf. J.P. Olivier, "Les s c e a u x avec des signes h i e r o g l y p h i q u e s . Qu e "lire" ? Un q u e s t i o n d e d e f i n i t i o n " in Die m i n o i s c h e und h e l l a d i s c h e G l y p t i k - P r o b le m e d e r C h r o n o l o g i e , der Typologie, des St i l s and der Echtheit. I n t e r n a t i o n a l e s S y m p o s i u m (Marburg 1978) 7-8 in resumee.

217

8

A.

F u r um a r k ,

T he M y c e n a e a n P o t t e r y

(Stoc k h o l m

9 G. W a lberg, K a m a r e s B o r e a s 8 (Uppsala 1976) a d e f i n i t i o n of the term Class i c a l Kamares.

1939)

133.

1 2 3 - 1 2 4 for

10 T h e D e c o r a t i v e A r t s of C r e t e in the B r o n z e A q e 1^07) lO'.

(Philadelphia

11 T h e s e c o m p o s i t i o n a l schemes as well as o t h e r s are treated f u l l y in m y thesis. T h e y are not n e c e s s a r i l y o p p o s i t e to nor m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e of each other. 12 K a d m o s

17 (1978)

1-7.

13 M a l i a Q u a r t i e r Mu, dating: Poursat, BCH 95 (1971) 796-799. P h a i s t o s v a n o 25, dating: G. Walberg, "The Date of 'l'archivio di cretule' at P h a i s t o s " M a r b u r g Seal Symposium, 1978. Cf. CMS 115 25, 204, 299, 300, 311. C MS 115 204 (Fig. 8 ) is not w h o l l y typical of the HDG b u t its a t t r i b u t i o n b e c o m e s certain w h e n it is c o m p a r e d to CM 106c (Fig. 22) and CM 160 (Fig. 9), the l a t t e r w h i c h is a f o l i a t e b a c k in ha r d stone. Cf. a l s o CS 117, said to co m e from a MM II c o n t e x t in Kno s s o s (S M p. 141). 14 T h e l e t t e r s and n u m bers a p p e a r i n g next to each p o t t e r y m o tif in Fig. 22 r e f e r to the c a t a l o g u e in Walberg, K a m a r e s ISO195. EK and CK r e f e r to Early and C l a s s i c a l Kamares. 15 It m u s t b e kept in mi n d that seals ar e p r a c t i c a l l y n o n - e x i s ­ tent from c l o s e d M M IB and M M IIA contexts. On the o t h e r hand, la r g e n u m b e r s of seals and s e a l i n g s stem from c o n t e x t s d a t e d M M II, M M I I -III and M M IIB. F r o m M M II m o r e seals and s e a l i n g s are k n o w n (c. 440, m o s t l y f r o m . M a l i a and P h a i s ­ tos) than from any o t h e r M i n o a n c e r a m i c period. Thus, strat­ ified m a t e r i a l does support, if o n l y indirectly, the notion that hard stones are in c o m m o n us e in M M IIA. 16 For a d i s c u s s i o n of the seals of this s t y l e - g r o u p from c o ntex t s d a t i n g later than M M II cf. K a d m o s 17 (1978) 1-7.

R e p r o d u c t i o n s : Fig. l a = CMS 112 248. lb lost. 2 - CMS XII 102. 3 = CMS XII 105. 4 = CMS XII 109. 5=CMS IX 46. 6 = CMS VII 41. 7= CMS 115 299. 8 = CMS 115 204. 9 = C M 160. 10 = H M 1075. 11 = H M 1079. 12=CS 131. 1 3 = S M p. 187 fig. 98a (lost). 1 4=CMS 112 327. 15= Bo n n Akad. K u n s t Mus. B178. 16=CMS XII 105a. 17=CMS XII 109d. 1 8 = C M S XII 115b. 19=CS 129. 2 0 ^ M S 112 286b. 2 1 ^ K n o s s o s HI.

S o u r c e s of Re p r o d u c t i o n s : Fig. 1 (Boy d - H a w e s et al., Gournia... [ P h i l a d e l p h i a 1908] 54 fig. 28,1 and 28,2). Figs. 13, 16, 21 (S M pp. 159, 161, 187). Th e r e m a i n i n g d r a w i n g s are the authors'.

T h e d r a w i n g s are not to scale.

218

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM 5 1980 Friday, Feb. 29,1980

A symposium sponsored by the Art History Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with the theme "Minoan Foreign Relations at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age."

ADDRESSES OF SPEAKERS Philip P. Betancourt Department of Art History Temple University Philadelphia, Pa. 19122, U.S.A. Hans-Gilnter Buchholz Archaologisches Institut der Justus Liebig-UniversitMt 6300 Giessen Otto Behaghelstrasse 10/D Federal Republic of Germany W. Willson Cummer Department of Architecture 143 East Sibley Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853, U.S.A. Hartmut Matthaus Archaologisches Seminar der Justus Philipps-Universitat Biegenstrasse 11 355 Marburg/Lahn Federal Republic of Germany James Muhly Department of Ancient History University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa. 19174, U.S.A. Susan Petrakis Classical Archaeology University Museum University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa. 19174, U.S.A. Reed Phythion Classical Archaeology University Museum University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa. 19174, U.S.A. Emily Vermeule Department of Classics 319 Boylston Hall Harvard University Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A.

ITINERANT AEGEAN BUILDERS

by W. Willson Cummer

The following is a summary of my conclusions on the associations between regional architectural traditions in the Aegean world at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, based on the study of buildings at Ayia Irini in Keos and on my travels, research and discussions with scholars, students and local Greek people during the past ten years.1 This paper represents work in progress and a study shared by many people; any criticism, additions or corrections are welcomed. The question raised in this paper is to what extent did traveling craftsmen influence the development of architecture in the Aegean area? How and where can we claim to recognize Minoan or Helladic elements abroad, and how were these concepts in design and building technology transferred? For a great building could not be packed up and traded like pottery or bronze vessels, and its foundations and inner structure remained hidden, even to the most perceptive visitor. With scholarly hindsight, the dissection of archaeo­ logists, and through scientific analysis, we may eventually find the answer, or end up by restating the question. In order to recognize the influences, or the sources, of an architectural style - Minoan or Mycenaean in this case, We must bd fairly agreed on its characteristics. Scholars such as Graham, Shaw, Myionas and Shear have laid the groundwork. Sites such as Mallia, Tylissos and Gournia give us the Minoan range of building designs, types and uses of building materials common in Crete. Tiryns, Mycenae, Pylos and Gla may best represent Mainland Greece. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, Minoan architecture seems potentially to have been the most influential in theAegean - omitting here the very real possibility of cultural and architectural influences from Syria and Anatolia (ex Oriente lux). Mycenaean architecture is hardly known, except for fortification walls, terraces and tombs, until the houses and palaces of LH III. The citadel at Mycenae may offer the best and onlyevidence for an early palace of the Late Bronze Age.2 Before examining the Kean buildings, we should remind ourselves of a few characteristics of Minoan architecture: open unfortified sites, often with broad paved streets; spreading flat—roofed buildings, sometimes terraced, with light—wells or large central courts, all well-planned, comfortable houses made with ashlar limestone, half—timber or mudbrick walls. By contrast, the later Mycenaean palaces, usually built on fortified hills, were rigidly divided into functional zones and were dominated by the unique megaron buildings with columned entrance courts and vestibules. The sequence of buildings at Ayia Irini on Keos exhibits an unbroken development in the local masons* tradition from the Early Bronze Age to the violent destruction of the town in LM IB/LH II. Some of these buildings were

reoccupied, and scraps of walls were built during LH IIIA, but we have nothing substantial to identify as Mycenaean architecture (an absence not satisfactorily explained by surface erosion). The strength of a local building tradition and the ingenious use of local materials - stone most conspicuously - can also be seen on Melos. It will be characteristic of nearly all island architecture or coastal Aegean building in isolated, independent places.(Fig. 1 & 2). At Ayia Irini, some of the largest rooms and certainly the finest masonry appear in the Early Bronze Age buildings. The roofs must have been made of timber, reeds and mud, with unsupported interior spans of 4.30 to 4.50 meters. The walls are relatively thin, but very straight and plumb, and were meticulously built of thin, small slabs of a local grey-green schist. The Middle Bronze Age house walls are less carefully built; larger stones were used, but the rooms seem smaller. Cyclopean masonry, in hard blue limestone,was introduced in the great fortification wall of MM ITT, and huge rectatigular stones were laid in courses for the terrace wall of House A, begun in LM IA. The Late Bronze Age town was filled with close-set houses, built almost entirely of stone (no mudbrick walls were found). Roofs were most likely flat and made as they had been from the Early Bronze Age. The uneven but solid construction of the Late Bronze Age walls shows the skill of masons who long ago mastered and passed down the craft of building in split schist slabs, customarily used for paving,steps, thresholds, lintels, shelves, drains and the roofs of small rooms. But other details of Kean masonry reveal the local ingenuity, and may also reflect things learned from abroad: such as the stone door jambs and stacks of wedges beside wooden door frames (Minoan?), storm sills, overlapping (watertight) roof slabs, andthe cap stones on pillars or stair walls. Details in the design of houses also may reveal local building character­ istics, or the presence of "foreign" influences. The close-packed houses are separated by a few narrow alleys, which served principally as sewers. Some houses and rooms must have been entered through the roof. Full-sized basements were introducedin the Late Bronze Age houses, and stairways indicate there were upper storeys. Often a street entrance opens into a vestibule or lobby from which stone-built stairs lead up and down, sometimes using trap-doors to save space. Many features, such as the terraced stone houses, twisted streets and protected entrances are common to all exposed, Aegean coastal settlements. But some unusual features, such as those found in the large, central House A, can be more closely identified as Minoan, and some of them as what would come to be called Mycenaean (Fig. 3). House A was built slowly, in distinct units, over a long part of LM IA and into LM IB. Construction began on a solid terrace set parallel to the venerable Temple and at the head of the broad street leading up from the main gate. The major spaces in the original house were the large courtyard with a central hearth (36), the long room or hall to the south with twin doorways and pillars (37/39), and the vestibule and staircase on the west (35), leading

222

to apartments over a double rank of basement rooms (25-27, 19-21). There was a stone-paved bath above Room 19, and the kitchen may have been in Room 25. Two earlier and separate LM IA houses were acquired in ex­ panding the central store rooms (12-18) (Fig. 4). Somewhat later, in LM IB, a large domestic suite was added in the southeastern corner. Above the basement store room (31), there was built a spacious parlor decorated with frescoes and filled with precious objects. On the east side was a bath, and on the west a light-well and toilet. This relatively lavish suite was entered from a private courtyard, set above a basement kitchen (30) and reached only from the pillared hall of the original house. This modern addition to an already prominent house, taken with the hoards of imported pottery and finely-made stone vessels, smacks of prosperity and a princely family able to afford foreign luxuries. Surely this patron would have employed the best builders available, but would he or she have looked abroad? The setting of House A, by far the largest distinct building at Ayia Irini, suggests a noble family, as the mainland Greek, royal clans were described in Homeric epic. The broad, straight entrance way leads from the fortified gate to an inner gate, past the Temple in the Plateia and directly to the massive stairs of House A. Is this "proto-Mycenaean" military/political planning? If there was a king or prince at Ayia Irini, this should have been his home (Fig. 5). The interior plan of House A, especially with the new suite, is remarkably different from any other house at Ayia Irini. The large courtyard and central hearth are unique. The pair of doors, framing a huge stone bench and opening into a twin-columned hall, might suggest a Mycenaean portico. But the succession of courts and vestibules leading to a secluded, brightly painted parlor could describe almost any Aegean or Near Eastern palace. The parlor, lit by a pair of narrow windows (modeled after a pier-and-door partition?), the toilet and bath all suggest the comforts of a Cretan home; and the patterned wall frescoes were certainly inspired - if not painted - by Minoan artists.3 Since we have no contemporary, or comparable, mainland Greek palaces or villas, we could interpret House A as an ingenious local creation, like the development of the megaron at Melos. Close, comparative examination of details in the design and the masonry may reveal the truth. The island of Keos is nearest in the Cyclades to Attica. Yet, the same flat schist was used by masons at nearby Thorikos to build tholoi, a tombtype unknown on Keos, where rectangular tombs were the rule (excepting the encircling slabs which border the tumulus above the chamber of Tomb 40 a prominent and early burial located just outside the main gate.)^ Some features of the town at Ayia Irini are not found on Minoan sites and may have been developed in common with mainland Greece - especially the need for a fortification wall and the craft of Cyclopean masonry. Some luxurious features certainly were adapted from Minoan houses, but disassociated

223

from Minoan architectural theory - marked by the distinct ordering of rectilinear units around a central court. Many obvious Minoan features are missing or indistinct at Ayia Irini: notably pier-anddoor partitions, large windows, columns, a canonical "pillar crypt" or a "lustral basin." The sectional, jagged construction of the northern wall of House A and the offsets in the fortification wall are not comparable to the indented facade of a Minoan building. Finally, there is no imported building stone, and the only block of local limestone with a deep saw cut was cut just half way through - when the workmen quit experimenting or broke their saw. Students of Minoan and Mycenaean architecture seem compelled to find the prototype for mature villas and palace buildings, whether at home or far away. Certainly, Greek people, especially the islanders, were capable sailors and acquisitive traders, who keenly observed one another's property. But the craft of building had tb be developed gradually, adapted to locally available materials, and suited to a particular climate and social condition. Lacking commercial or historic documents, we can only make educated guesses. Yet I would guess that Cycladic architecture developed from deep, local Helladic traditions, was inspired by Minoan refinements at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and that a prosperous island settlement, such as Ayia Irini, had influenced the development of mainland Greek architecture, even before it was destroyed in LM IB/LH II. And as for the itinerant Aegean builders, like Daedalus, they remain for me as elusive as the running sea.

224

FOOTNOTES

I am especially indebted to Professors Rodney S. Young and John L. Caskey for their instruction in the principles of "prehistoric" architecture and for the opportunity to have worked for many seasons with them, drawing and studying the buildings at Gordion and on Keos. This paper is taken from the chapters on reconstruction and architectural comparisons in Ayia Irini in Keos: House A, by W.W. Cummer and E.M. Schofield, soon to be published by the American School of Classical Studies. The excavation at Ayia Irini has been conducted by the University of Cincinnati, under the direction of Professor Caskey, since 1960. Here I must credit the deductions of K.W. Schaar, among other perceptive field architects who have recorded or studied the scrappy walls near the summit of the acropolis at Mycenae. The study of wall painting at Ayia Irini is being completed by Katherine Abramovitz (Coleman). Caskey, Investigations, I, 378-379. The original survey of Ayia Irini and the 1:50 scale recorcT drawings of House A, as it was being excavated by Elizabeth G. Caskey, were prepared by Lloyd E. Cotsen, and his patience, skills and sensible advice have made this study possible.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Alison Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (Cornell University Press, 1972). J.L. Caskey. "Investigations in Keos, Part I," Hesperia 40 (1971) 358-396. K.A. Coleman, "Frescoes from Ayia Irini, I," Hesperia 42 (1973) 284-300. J.W. Graham, The Palaces of Crete (Princeton 1962). Machteld J. Mellink, "Archaeology in Asia Minor" (cf. Ma|at-Zile, excavated by Professor Tahsin Ozgtic) AJA 80 (1976) 265; 81 (1977) 299; 82 (1978) 322. George E. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton 1966). R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfangen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit (Tubingen 1971). J.J. Pollitt, The Art of.Greece, 1400-31 B.C. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NtJ., 1965). J.J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (Yale University Press, 1974). Carl Roebuck, ed., The Muses at Work (The MIT Press, 1969). K.W. Schaar, "An Interpretation of the Palace Plans at Mycenae," thesis, Cornell University, May 1979. J.W. Shaw, "Akrotiri as a Minoan Settlement", Thera and the Aegean World, I, Papers presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978 (London 1978) 429-436. J.W. Shaw, "Minoan Architecture:

Materials and Techniques", ASAtene 33 (1971).

I.M. Shear, "Mycenaean Domestic Architecture", thesis, Bryn Mawr College, 1968. T.L. Shear, Jr., "Minoan Influence on the Mainland: Variations of Opinion since 1900", A Land Called Crete, A Symposium in Memory of Harriet Boyd Hawes (Northampton 1968) 47-65. S. Sinos, Die vorklassischen Hausformen in der Xgais (Mainz 1971). Emily Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (The University of Chicago Press, 1964).

226

1.

Maps of the central Aegean and Keos, drawn by Roger L. Holzen.

227

2.

Map of part of northwestern coast of Keos, drawn by R.L. Holzen.

228

3.

Plan of the Town showing Walls of the Main Period (MM III to LM IB/LH II), drawn by R.L. Holzen.

229

a. Walls of Middle Bronze Age (Period V)

c. House A in LM IB/LH II (Period VII)

Reused house walls (13-16) and new features of LH IIIA (Period VIII)

4.

b. House A in LM IA (Period VI)

d. House A after mid-Period VII earthquake

f. Graves and rubbish pit of Late Roman Period

Phase Plan of House A, from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Roman Period, drawn by W. W. Cummer.

230

5.

Key Plan of House A, retraced by W.W. Cutnmer from a drawing by R.L. Holzen.

231

Madonna Lilies in Aegean Wall Paintings by Susan Petrakis

The flowers depicted in the form of pairs of opposing volutes growing on long stalks are a favorite subject of Minoan painters. Mobiusl and Evans^ have identified the living model which the paintings represent as the 1 ilium candidum or madonna lily, a plant native to the Aegean. Its trumpet-shaped blossoms, formed of six petals, are white although Minoan painters sometimes show them as red— and its anthers bright yellow. In nature it grows to a height of c. 1-2 m. from a ro­ sette of pointed leaves at the base of its stalk. Along the stalk grow short alternating leaves and, about two-thirds of the way up, the flow­ ers. Its natural habitat is the dry and stony hillsides of the Peloponnese and Aegean islands where it blooms in early summer. The earliest extant examples of this flower in Minoan wall paint­ ing are those from the villa at Amnissos3 of MM III date and those from the South-East House at Rnossos of the same period.^ Their flowers are very alike in form; mature blossoms are shown in fleur-de-lis form, their six petals reduced to two volutes. Blossoms not quite opened are shown trumpet-shaped with three petals, the center one pointed, the other two flaring outward slightly to either side. Mature blossoms have three stamens rising from the indentation at the point where the two volutes meet. Less mature ones have only two stamens, since the central petal hides the third. Buds are long ovals and grow, as in na­ ture, in groups of three to five members at the tips of stalks. Flow­ ers may be erect, horizontal or nodding. These characteristics are the conventional ones for madonna lilies in all the examples known from wall paintings. A difference in the treatment of the stalks and stems in the two paintings is worth noting. In the example from the South-East House each of the short alternating leaves of the stalk and the piece of stalk to which each is attached are rendered as one piece. The stalk is thus composed of a line of adjacent segments to which nearly stemless blossoms are joined. In the Amnissos painting, on the other hand, the stalk is painted in one line with pointed leaves attached along either side. The blossoms are joined to it by true stems. The lilies painted on jars of MM III date from Knossos^ have this sort of stem. Stems and stalks of the South-East House type are not found in other paintings of madonna lilies, and it appears that formula for the de­ piction of lily stalks became set in the Amnissos tradition at this time. In the succeeding LM IA period in Crete we have fragments of white li:*4es belonging to a painting from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos and white and dark (probably originally red) lilies from preserved sections of a burnt fresco from room 14 of the Royal Villa at Ayia Triada • The form of the blossoms in both paintings is the same as that of the earlier examples: opposing volutes form the fully-open blossoms which have three stamens. Less mature blossoms have the three

flaring petals and two stamens. Buds are erect. The anthers of the House of the Frescoes examples have tiny dots, apparently pollen dust. A. peculiarity of the Ayia Triada blossoms is the way in which their pairs of volutes meet. In the House of Frescoes blossoms and in the earlier two examples the volutes forming the dalyx are placed close to­ gether so as to form a slight Indentation. In the case of the Ayia Triada blossoms the volutes separate lower, and have a much deeper inden­ tation. Little can be said about the st&lks of the House of Frescoes lilies because the fragments are few. At Ayia Triada the stalks are painted as one piece from which sprout slender nearly upright leaves. The blossoms grow from long stems attached near the bases of the leaves. In the LM IA period the madonna lily as formalized in Cretan paint­ ing is found in wall paintings at many sites outside of Crete. Famous examples are those in the fresco from Akrotlri named the "Spring Fresco" by Marinatos^. In this painting clumps of red lilies are set in a ter­ rain composed of formations of variegated rocks. Marinatos has commented on the marked difference between the "Spring Fresco" and the Cretan lily paintings^; the stalks curve in S-bends, the number of blossoms varies from stalk to stalk without symmetry. Nonetheless, the form of the blos­ soms and stems is very close to that of the Cretan examples and, in par­ ticular, to the Amnissos lilies. The volutes of the flowers are tightly curved and closely set, forming a nearly horizontal top. The stalks have the same alternating short leaves. Lilies even closer to the lilies from Amnissos come from the West House at Akrotlri, painted on the two jambs of a doorway • These red lilies grow in jars on tall, symmetrically arranged stalks which have the short, thorn-like alternating leaves we saw at Amnissos and in the "Spring Fresco". Again, the flowers have tightly formed volutes set close together and yellow rounded anthers on straight stamens. From the old excavations at Thera^ come two pieces of painted plas­ ter with the remains of red madonna lilies on them. No section of a stalk or stem is preserved, but the two petals of different blossoms set closely together on one of the pieces suggest that they were originally part of a composition of lily stalks. The blossoms look very like the other Theran examples with close-set volutes and three yellow anthers on vertical stamens. Fragments of plaster found at Phylakopi, Melos have white lilies on a red ground. They are reconstructed as floating free in space on the border of a fresco", apparently no stalks or stems were found among the fragments. The form of these lilies differs from that of the lilies con­ sidered so far, for their volutes do not touch at all, and their calyxes are thus open in a U-form. From this cleft sprout the stamens which are nearly vertical and which carry rounded anthers like our Amnissos and Thera examples. The flowers are attached to long stems laid diagonally. It is tempting to hypothesize stalks for these flowers, but there are analogies for the free-floating lilies as well (for example the lily

234

dagger from Mycenae^), and this may even be the original composition of the fragmentary lilies found by Fouque on Thera1^, Some fresco fragments from House 1 at Trianda on R h o d e s i S complete the list of madonna lilies on walls. The earlier fragments come from Stratum I (LM IA) and preserve pieces of at least four red lilies1® and a long section of stalk. The stalk is gray-green, and the leaves grow­ ing from it are blue—gray. The leaves are painted in a naturalistic manner; no two are alike, and their placement is not symmetrical• The flowers are convincingly held to the stalk by the leaves which support the flowers' long red stems. The flowers are painted with broadly curv­ ing volutes and open calyxes like the white flowers from Phylakopi. In the case of the Trianda flowers, however, the stamens rise not from the space reserved between the two halves of the flower, but from the inner side of one volute. The stamens are red, like the flowers, and have red anthers which are flat and set off from the axis of the stamens so as to oppose the diagonal tilt of the blossom in a sort of pin-wheel effect. In one case the stamens and anthers are at right angles, placed vertical­ ly in relation to the flower t It may be that this flower was placed ver­ tically on the stalk, near the tip. The flower growing from the side of the stalk is placed diagonally. Another fragment with red lilies on a stalk was found in the same house in an upper stratum!®. Monaco calls it a 'lotus' and Furumark a 'honeysuckle', but it looks like the lilies of open calyx form just dis­ cussed^. The stalk is green with wavy leaves. The two red blossoms are attached in precisely the same way as the blossoms from Stratum I, i.e., on long stems held between leaf and stalk. The one entirely pre­ served blossom has green stamens which grow from the reserved area be­ tween the two volutes in a manner comparable to the stamens of the Phylakopi lilies. We have evidence for ten fredcoes of madonna lilies from different sites in the Aegean and can make several observations concerning them. First of all, we have seen that their stems are mainly of one sort— i.e., long and straight, with short alternating leaves and stems that link them to their flowers— but that another sort without stems, and painted as one piece with the leaves, occurs once, in Crete, at an early period (MM III). Since it is not found anywhere else, we may suppose that, if it were part of a tradition, this tradition died out fairly early and was replaced by the more usual formula of stalk, separate leaves and stem. At the same time we have evidence for two slightly differing calyx forms, 'open' and 'closed'. Both forms appear on the MM III lily jars from Knossosl9 where they do not mix, i.e., open calyxes are found only with other open calyxes and closed with closed. In paintings the open form has only been found outside Crete at Phylakopi, Melos and Trianda, Rhodes. An interesting version of it was found on a jar from Toumba tou Skourou, C y p r u s 2 0 as well. The color of the lilies does not seem to vary according to area; white lilies occur both in Cretan frescoes and in Cycladic frescoes and so do red. Red lilies do seem to predominate in LM I, and this seems to

235

reflect the fashion of the light on dark tery In the LM I period^l, and It may be bility that the widespread export of the influenced the taste for this subject as the LM I Aegean.

1-a

scheme which Is current on pot­ worthwhile to consider the possi­ madonna lilies on jars may have well as for its color scheme in

\ ; */ V Lily in full flower, Knossos, House of the Frescoes (PM II,fig. 266c)

2-a Lily about to bloom, Ag. Triada. (After Gilli5ron in Smith, fig.109)

3-a Lily buds, Knossos. (S-E House, P.M.I, Col.PI.VI)

1-b Lily in full flower, Trianda. House No. 1, area 8 . (after Monaco, Plate VII)

2-b Lily about to bloom, Thera. (Room of the Lilies)

3-b Lily buds, Thera. (West House)

Drawings not to scale.

236

Footnotes 1.

Mobius, M., "Pflanzenbilder der minoischen Kunst in botanischer Betrachtung," JDAI 48 a933) 1-39.

2. Evans, A., The Palace of Minos at Knossos (London, 1935) II,455. 3. Marinatos, S., PAE 1932, 76-94; cf. BCH 57 (1933) 292-295. 4. Evans, op. cit. II, 426, 537; Cameron, M. and S. Hood, Knossos Atlas (London, 1969) pi. VIII, 1.

Fresco

5. Evans, op. Cit,, p. 603, fig. 443. 6.

Ibid., II, 455, fig. 266c.

7.

Smith, W. S., Interconnections in the Ancient Near East. A Study of the Relationships between the Arts of Egypt, the Aegean, and Western Asia (New Haven, 1965) 77 ff., figs. 107, 109; Pemier, L., and Banti, L., MA 8 (1903) 55-60, plates vii-x.

8.

Marinatos, S., Excavations at Thera I-VII (Athens, 1968-76) II, 53; Marinatos, S., and M. Hirmer, Kreta, Thera und das mykenische Hellas (Munich, 1973) plates 34, 36-39.

9. Marinatos, Thera II, 50. 10. Ibid., VII, plate 3. 11. Fouque, Santorin et ses Eruptions (Paris, 1866); Perrot, G., and C. Chipiez, Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquite 6 (Paris, 1894) p. 537, fig. 211, p. 538, fig. 212. 12. Bosanquet et al.. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper no. 4) (London, 1904) fig. 64; Evans, Palace of Minos II, fig. 87. 13. Bosanquet, op. cit. 14. Fouque, op. cit. 15. Monaco, G., "Scavi nella zona micenea di Jaliso (1935-6)," Clara Rhodos 10 (1941) 68-72, plate 7; Furumark, A., Op.Arch. 6 (1950) 177. From Stratum I (LM IA) and Stratum IIA. 16. Ibid. From Stratum IlA (end of

LM IA to LM IB).

17. Monaco, o£. cit.; Furumark, o£. cit., p. 177. 18. Evans, supra, n. 4. 19. Evans, Palace of Minos I, 603,fig. 443.

237

Footnotes CCont.) 20. Vermeule, E., and F. Wolsky, "New Aegean Relations with Cyprus: The Minoan and Mycenaean Pottery from Toumba tou Skourou, Morphou," Proc.Am.Phil.Soc. vol. 122,5 (1978) 302, 21. H&ckman, 0., "Theran Floral Style in Relation to that of Crete," Thera and the Aegean World (London, 1978) p. 614; Vermeule and Wolsky, op. clt., p. 302.

238

Minoan Relations with Cyprus: The Late Minoan I Pottery from Toumba tou Skourou, Morphou by Emily Vermeule During the Bronze Age, important sites on the south and east coasts of Cyprus, such as Enkomi, Hala Sultan Tekke and Kition, were in active mercantile contact with trading centers of the Near East and Egypt, yet the form of writing which developed in Cyprus was related to the linear scripts of the Aegean world, particularly the Linear A script of Minoan Crete. Not much of the Cypriote linear script is known yet, nor has it been deciphered. It appears on five tablets and a large clay cylinder from Enkomi, and on four tablets from Ugarit (Ras Shamra) which lies about sixty miles across the water from Enkomi, in Syria. Signs in the script appear on a variety of clay balls, ingots, copper tools, vases and other simple artifacts, indicating that its use was widespread and familiar to many in Cyprus. In the earliest text, a three-line tablet from Enkomi found in a context close to 1500 B.C., the form of the script is closest to that of the Cretan script. Later texts show influences of the scribal habits of the Near East, in the shapes of the tablets and forms of the syl­ labary. Private writings on vases and other objects remained closer to the Aegean styles. Until recently, the early text was hard to account for, in the apparent absence of any visible Minoan activity in Cyprus at the start of the Late Cypriote IA - Late Minoan IA period. After 1400 B.C. the great amount of Mycenaean pottery, whether imported from the Argolid or made in Cyprus by Mycenaean potters, paints to greatly increasing contacts between the Cypriotes and the Mycenaeans, who had themselves adapted the Cretan script to the Greek language. No doubt the mutual use of the Cretan script was greatly convenient for commercial and social interchange and facilitated the implanting of the Greek lan­ guage in Cyprus, where it persisted from the end of the Bronze Age until the 4th century B.C., written in a classical form of the old Cypriote syllabary. In contrast to the terse lists and records of the Aegean world, the Cypriote texts appear continuous and comparatively long, seeming literary in form rather than sets of data. Perhaps this is because, unlike Aegean society, Cypriote society was apparently not organized around centralized palaces which needed to keep official archives. Undoubtedly Cyprus was the homeland of a literate people. The context of the earliest Enkomi tablet, around 1500 B.C., was too early for the script to have been affected by Mycenaean contacts of the 14th and 13th centuries, and withthe form of the writing so close to Linear A, there can hardly be any doubt of its derivation. At some point before 1500 B.C., Minoans must have been in Cyprus, or Cypriotes in Crete. Yet aside from two Middle Minoan vases, indicating a contact too early to have affected the script as we know it, and Late

Minoan IIIA material of just after 1400 B.C. when the palace system collapsed in Cret^, there was no evidence of a relationship with the Minoans. Material evidence of such a relationship has now been found at a Bronze Age mound in northwest Cyprus near Morphou, called Toumba tou Skourou, excavated by Harvard University and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, from 1971 to 1973. The site is all that is left of the industrial quarter of a town: a piece of an artificial mudbrick platform, some major retaining walls, parts of three houses along the south flank of the mound and twelve chambers belonging to six tombs which lie partly under the houses.

Founded at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, in the early 16th century B.C., Toumba tou Skourou flourished in Late Cypriote IA. It was inhabited without obvious breaks until close to 1200 B.C. After a hietus during the Dark Ages, there are again signs of habitation in the form of a great deal of pottery of the early Iron Age, and it continued until about 700 B.C. Toumba tou Skourou seems to have been one of the great pottery centers of Cyprus, and its location on an estuary of the Ovghos river, favorable for maritime trade, was not unlike that of Enkomi on the east coast on the Pediaeus river. Almost from the beginning, Eastern goods came into the town— Syrian ostrich eggs and ivory, and the so-called Tell el-Yahudiyeh and HPalestinian Bichrome,f wares, which were also imitated in local fabrics. At both Toumba tou Skourou and Ayia Irini, Its neighbor eight miles to the north, discoveries indicated that trade with the Aegean began to develop early. Dr. Paolo Pecorella demonstrated that three Aegean cups from tombs at Ayia Irini belonged to the period of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae and the Argolid tombs of the 16th and early 15th centuries B.C. But although their double axe design was taken from a Minoan model, Dr. Pecorella was certain that they were made in mainland Greece. Two Aegean sherds of the Late Cypriote IA period found in Enkomi were also thought to be Mycenaean rather than Minoan. By contrast, a small quantity of broken vases from the major tomb at Toumba tou Skourou, Tomb I, seem to be clearly Minoan, imported from Crete mostly before 1500 B.C. The Cypriote pottery in the tomb runs from.the late Middle Bronze Age to fully developed Late Cypriote I with the emphasis on the early side. The Minoan pottery seems to be all Late Minoan IA, lasting perhaps to somewhere between 1500 and 1475 B.C., with some of the pieces having good parallels in the Cycladic town buried in Thera/Santorini in the volcanic eruption of about 1500 B.C. The Minoan pottery includes a relatively complete jug and a frag­ ment of a similar vase in a shape which would develop into that of the famous ewers of the Marine Style of Late Minoan IB, and which resemble vases at Mycenae and Thera. Fragments of a large flower vase painted

240

with lilies, a favorite motif in Crete for vase painting and wall frescoes from the Middle Minoan period onward, finds parallels also in lily scenes on vases and in frescoes from Melos, Thera and Trianda on Rhodes. Two cups with double axes whose profile and design differ from those of Ayia Irini resemble most closely a cup from Thera — so similar that they might come from the same workshop, a Minoan one, exporting to Thera before 1500 B.C. Other fragments include those from a tall footed cup with double axes, perhaps like a type of pedestaled cup from Palaikastro in Crete, parts of three small "teacups'1 decorated with spirals, of a standard Late Minoan IA type which comes from almost every Cretan site, and fragments of a cup with a flower and spirals. This evidence would suggest that although Minoan contact with Mouphou Bay was not yet intense before 1500 B.C., there can be no doubt of a Minoan presence in Cyprus at the moment when Cyprus began to write a linear script. In contrast to other Cypriote sites which began to receive a good deal of Mycenaean pottery after 1400 B.C., Toumba tou Skourou has in all more Minoan than Mycenaean ware, with a number of assorted fragments belonging to the Late Minoan IIIA:1 period, around 1400 B.C. and shortly after. Among this group are pieces of a tall beaked jug painted with disconnected spirals and leaves which were a development of the papyrus plant of Late Minoan I and II and two fragments of an early Aegean stippled cup of a type found in both Crete and Greece around 1400 B.C. Of the 13th century B.C. were parts of two stirrup jars decorated with octopuses, a familiar type known from a number of sites in Cyprus. Such jars may have been storage containers for a trade in liquids between Crete and Cyprus in Late Minoan IIIB. The house in which they were stored was some kind of factory or showroom for large pithos storage jars. The Mycenaean pottery at Toumba tou Skourou is quite standard and of types exported everywhere. A group of small vases found with a Mycenaean burial which displaces an earlier one in Tomb II belongs to the so-called Amarna period — the middle of the 14th century B.C. From the site came several other pieces of the same period as well as other assorted small fragments. Although very little was left to us of Toumba tou Skourou, the finds that were made there seem to indicate that it was a regular port of call for Minoan ships between about 1520 and 1370 B.C. Perhaps they came by way of the Cyclades and Rhodes before attempting the long . stretch of open water to Cyprus, and perhaps their cargoes represented several stopping points. Because it is unusual to see more Minoan than Mycenaean pottery at a Cypriote site, and there is so much of it from early periods at Toumba tou Skourou, this situation may have some bearing on the devel­ opment of the Aegean-looking script of Cyprus. The complete publication of this material can by found in The Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 122 no. 5 (Oct. 1978).

241

Metals and Metallurgy in Crete and the Aegean at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age by J. D. Muhly

The question of Minoan metal sources is closely related to the gener­ al problem of Minoan foreign relations. The unfortunate fact is that we have very little independent evidence for metal sources. We still have virtually no geological information about the mineral deposits of the eastern Mediterranean so that we cannot even speak of a geological ’fin­ gerprint' for the known mineral deposits. Practically no analytical work has been done on the metal artifacts themselves and what has been done is of questionable value. Compared to what has been done in Europe, and what is now being done in the Near East, the study of early metallurgical technology in the Aegean, tracing the various stages from ore to artifact, is still in its infancy. Given the present attitude of the Greek and Turkish authorities towards such work it is unlikely that much progress will be made in the years ahead. Under these circumstances the best that can be done is to speculate about the date and degree of exploitation of the known mineral deposits, operating largely on the basis of archaeological evidence and upon what­ ever textual evidence there is that can be shown to be relevant. We can­ not prove that the Minoans did or did not use Cypriot copper, Egyptian gold or Anatolian silver. We can only assess the historical probability that these resources were known to the Minoans and that, directly or in­ directly, they served as sources for the various metals used by the Min­ oans at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. It is difficult even to judge the quality and quantity of Minoan metalwork itself because much of what is regarded as Minoan has been found outside Crete and is therefore held to be Minoan only by virtue of stylistic and typological features. This is especially true of work in the precious metals. From the silver cups in the Tod Treasure and the silver teapots from Byblos to the gold and silver vessels from the two grave circles at Mycenae, various claims have been made for objects made under Minoan influence or even for direct imports from Crete. In fact the study of Minoan vessels in gold, silver and electrum must be based almost entirely upon objects found outside Crete (for the few examples from Crete see Hood 1978: 155, 167). The explanation usually given for this situation is that no contemnorary royal burials have been excavated in Crete and that Minoan Sites were emptied of all valu­ ables before destruction at the end of LM lb. If the Cretan provenience for many of these vessels is not accepted, then it is possible to argue that the Minoans had no tradition in such work and were not in the habit of making metal vessels (Branigan 1968b: 221). This is an extreme posi­ tion, probably not valid even for the Early Bronze Age, but it must be recognized that objects such as the silver cups from the Tod Treasure have been identified as Minoan only because they are decorated with spirals. The fact that elements like running spirals and the flying gallop are still being used to identify works of art as being Minoan only

highlights the real poverty of our knowledge regarding craft traditions in the Aegean Bronze Age. For the sixteenth century B.C. the most important distinction in sorting out the material from the two grave circles at Mycenae is that between Minoan and Mycenaean. The position one takes on this problem determines, to a very large extent, one's evaluation of the significance of Minoan metalwork, especially work in the precious metals. This also influences the position one takes on the sources of metal being exploited by the Minoans or by the Mycenaeans since, as explained above, that pro­ blem can only be studied indirectly. Again very little technical evidence is available, and judgements are usually made on the basis of preconceived ideas as to what is Minoan, what Mycenaean. Quite often these become value judgements with all good quality work being considered Minoan, leaving only those pieces demon­ strating provincial design or bad workmanship or both for the Mycenaeans. In 1968 Keith Branigan pointed out that: "There is not a great deal that can be said about Early Minoan metallurgical techniques simply because the necessary labora­ tory investigations have not been made, and the concentration of the relevant material in the museum at Heraklion makes such investigations very difficult to undertake" (Branigan 1968a: 43). Twelve years later that statement is, alas, still true and it holds for all periods of Minoan civilization. What can be done, even under present circumstances, is to carry out a detailed visual examination of the relevant objects in the museums of Athens and Herakleion in order to determine methods of manufacture, when­ ever possible, and to record those technical details that can be observed by surface investigation. In this way Ellen Davis has been able to make a number of very important observations (Davis 1977). She has made more progress than anyone else in establishing concrete criteria for distin­ guishing between Minoan and Mycenaean working techniques and I regard her book (Davis 1977) as the most important contribution to the study of the material from the Shaft Graves since the publication of Karo's SchachtgrHber. That Reynold Higgins could remark, in 1979, that no recent work has been done on Mycenaean gold and silver plate (Higgins 1979) only indicates how provincial scholarship has become. What emerges from the various studies undertaken in recent years is, first of all, that the Minoans had a long tradition in the manufacture of bronze weapons. The long swords from Grave Circles A and B are surely of Minoan origin and have their ancestry in the two long swords from Middle Minoan Mallia (Sandars 1961). The inlaid bronze daggers are more pro­ blematic and Ellen Davis has made a good case for the Mycenaean develop­ ment of work in niello (Davis 1977: 213-220). This strong tradition of work in bronze is certainly in keeping with the finds from Crete itself. One need think only of the axes and swords from the Arkalochori Cave, the two-man saws from Knossos, Mallia and Zakro, the giant cauldrons from Tylissos and the copper ox-hide ingots from Haghia Triada and Zakro.

244

Thus it is reasonable to assume that the Minoans must have had access to abundant sources of copper and tin. In the precious metals the most significant general observation by Ellen Davis is that most of the Shaft Grave gold work is Mycenaean, in­ cluding the face masks and the lion's head rhyton. Minoan work, either carried out in Crete or by Minoan craftsmen at Mycenae, is best seen in a series of silver vessels, including the bull's head rhyton from Grave IV (Davis 1977: no. 64) and the siege rhyton also from Grave IV (Davis 1977: no. 87). The combination of Minoan and Mycenaean elements, the product of Minoan craftsmen working at Mycenae, can be seen in the onehandled gold goblet with repouss^ lions (Davis 1977: no. 52), made by the same artist who made the type A sword with running horses (Davis 1977: 167), both objects coming from Shaft Grave V. What this seems to indicate is that the Mycenaeans have access to abundant sources of gold, beginning in the late seventeenth century B.C., whereas the Minoan tradition was one of work in silver. It is true, of course, that there is earlier evidence for Minoan work in gold, such as the Early Minoan jewellery from Mochlos, where silver is also represented (Davaras 1975), and the Middle Minoan bee/wasp pendant from Mallia (Hood 1976; LaFleur, Matthews & McCorkle 1979). The so-called Aegina Treasure may also represent Middle Minoan work ih gold, though it now seems that this hoard of jewellery actually was found in Aegina (Higgins 1978). There is also evidence for tentative Mycenaean work in silver, as in the cup from Grave Nu (Davis 1977: no. 25). Minoan work in silver must be related to the generally more advanced level of Minoan technology, especially pyrotechnology, best seen in the highly developed Minoan faience industry (Foster 1979). Whereas work in gold involved only the hammering and engraving of native, alluvial gold, work in silver required the smelting of argentiferous lead ores and the extraction of silver by cupellation. It also involved an alloying tech­ nology, as in the case of bronze, since silver is almost always alloyed with copper (sterling silver today contains 9% copper). This practice can be traced back to the Early Minoan silver daggers from Koumasa, at least one of which contained 71.04% silver and 27.47% copper (Branigan 1974: 90). I accept the argument that these daggers are Minoan (Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974: 368-370, 375), not Italian as claimed by Branigan (1966, 1968b: 221). Of special interest is work in electrum, seen already in the face mask from Grave Gamma, fashioned by the same artist who made two of the gold face masks from Grave IV (Davis 1977: 128). Electrum is usually described as a natural alloy of gold and silver having, according to Pliny the Elder (N.H. XXXIII:23), one part silver to four parts of gold (for electrum see Deroy & Halleix 1974). The problem is that natural electrum is quite rare whereas what is called electrum has a long and extensive use in the ancient world going back at least to the electrum wolf's head from Tepe Gawra (Mallowan 1965: 79, 111. 85), dating to the latter part of the fourth millennium B.C. Electrum was very popular at the Royal Cemetery of Ur, in the jewellery and vessels from Troy II and from both grave circles at Mycenae, as well as in Archaic Greek jewel­ lery (especially that from Kameiros) and coinage (Bodenstedt 1976). Electrum was also popular throughout all periods of Egyptian history (Aldred 1971: 31-33).

245

Far too much electrum is attested from Bronze Age contexts, even in the surviving objects, for all of it to have been natural. We must have here the production of an artificial alloy of gold and silver, and it would be nice to know more about the early history of this deliberate alloy. Recent research on early Egyptian silyer suggests the production of an artificial alloy of silver, gold and copper going back into Predynastic times (St O d 0

"B" p. 41 pi. 2, 98, 101, 177

4J

m

4J

*rf

&

H

Transitional MYC II/III

MYC II

Trans. MYC I/H

CO

"D" p. 134 (Alabastron, end of 15th cent. B.C.

Chart 1. For references see n. 20

275

LIPARI

MH

Mattpainted:

m h /myc

I

"A" p. 16 no. 1 (?)

LH I

LM I

"A" p. 18 nos. 6 , 7, 8 no. 9 pi. 2, 11 and 12 and P1* 3> 7 p. 19 no. 10 and no. 11 and no. 12 (="D" pi. 30b) p. 20 no. 13 and no. 14 p. 21 nos. 15, 16, 17, 18

M

a — M

CJ

g

"A" p. 16 no. 2, no. 3 P. 17 no. 4, no. 5

"A" pp. 21f. nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, pp. 23ff. nos. 26, 27, 28 pi. 3, 12(= "D" pi. 30a = "F" fig. 10b) 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

d M O g CO £ ctf M H

"A" pp. 26f nos. 41, 42 (Vapheio cup), 43, 44, 45

M M

U

fC-Ti M J m CM o\

"A" 49, and 59, 63,

*H M 4J M CO o

§g M H

pp. 50, 14, 60; 64,

27ff nos. 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53 pi. 4, 13 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, pp. 32f. nos. 61, 62, 65, 66 , 67

Chart 1♦

276

FILICUDI

SALINA

Mattpainted:

I

"A" p. 13 no. 1

MH/MYC

Mattpainted: "A" p. 14 no. 2

"E" pp. 142, 188, pi. 84, 1 = "F" 337 fig. 10a

"A" p. 14 no. 4

"A" p. 14 no. 5 (Squat Alabastron), p. 15 no. 6 (Alabastron), no. 7 (Cup with Double Axe Decoration), no. 8 (Cup), no. 9, p. 16 no. 10 (?)

^

Trans. MYC I/ll

MYC I/MM

I

and no. 3

Trans. MYC II/III

"E" p. 166, pi. 84 nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17

"E" p. p. 142 142f., (?), 3 (?)» 8 (?)

Chart 1

277

142, pi. 84, 7, pi. 84, 5, pp. pi. 84 nos. 2 (?), 4 (?), 6 (?), 9 (?), io

PANAREA

ISCHIA

Trans. MYC

I/II

MYC I, LM I

MH/MYC

I

VIVARA

"A" pi. 7,1 - "E" pi. 31,1

"A" p. 8 no. 2

Trans.

MYC II/III

MYC II

"C" - 1 sherd

Chart 1 278

Considerations in Minoan Contacts at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age by Reed Phythyon The existence and nature of a MinoanThalassocracy has been discussed since Thucydides 1.4 and 8 . We still, however, do not know why Minoan Crete made substantial contact with several sites in the Aegean and pos­ sibly on the Anatolian coast as well in the Middle and early Late Bronze Age. That is, why particular bays, hillsides, or peninsulas may have served as staging or settling points in preference to other sites on the same islands or in neighboring areas. Recent excavations, including those at Kythera, Kea, lasos, and Thera, have added to the debate. Since the evidence is scattered and of an uneven quality, it should be stressed that the conclusions reached here are more cautious than many have allowed. Some initial assumptions should be mentioned because they have influenced the way the Materials have been viewed. (1) The term "colony” has been avoided throughout the discussion (2) Sites selected for consideration in this study have been those with varied types of Minoan contact and remains. Pottery alone is not sufficient to indicate a substantial presence or influence. (3) The economy of Bronze Age communities is taken to be a mixed one of farming, fishing, and stock raising. Trade as a basis of existence or contact will be dis­ cussed later after local resources and industries are considered. The great period of Minoan expansion in the Cyclades comes in LM IA-B. The preceding Middle Cycladic period is not well defined, unfor­ tunately, since there seems to be no sudden influx of Cretan products or peoples, but rather a gradual Minoanization which is rarely complete. The view of the Middle Cycladic period as one of decline and depop­ ulation has been challenged recently, and the Cyclades are no longer seen as a single cultural unit.-*- A closer look at the evidence suggests that the picture of decline may be exaggerated, and that settlement pat­ terns reveal few consistent traits. The EC III (Phylakopi I) period has 15 known sites while the MC has 20. 2 Although based largely on surface surveys, this shows that the MC era may have been one of cautious growth rather than sudden decline. The types of settlements vary in Middle Cycladic. Though agricul­ tural concerns can be demonstrated, nearness to the sea is not a decid­ ing factor. There are coastal sites (Aghia Irini; Phylakopi) which may be fortified. Others, such as Rizokastelia on Naxos, are more remote from the sea, and may be stationed on an Akropolis. Most of the islands had only one center to which the population could withdraw. The over­ riding issue seems to be one of defensibility, reflecting perhaps sev-

eral misgivings: the unsettled conditions of the mainland in EH II-III; the growth of piracy; fear of expanding neighbors; or even fear of Cre­ tan expansion. This is a summary picture of conditions at the beginning of LM I. Five sites with a substantial Minoan presence are chosen for review: Akrotiri (Thera); Aghia Irini (Kea); Trianda (Rhodes); Phylakopi (Melos); and Kastri (Kythera). A second category of sites, generally those with only pottery as evidence of contact, will also be discussed. This group includes sites on Kos, Samos, Karpathos, Paros, Rhodes, Delos, Tenos, Aghios Stephanos, and in Anatolia at Miletos, lasos, and Knidos. Site Location The Minoan presence at all five of the above named primary sites is confirmed by several categories of finds. These sites are all located near the water: Kea, Phylakopi, and Kastri are almost directly on the sea, while Trianda is presently .5 km away and Thera is possibly 800 m away.^ Sheltered harbors (i.e. beaches) can be proven or postulated for all of these sites. Aghia Irini and Kastri lie on peninsulas jut­ ting out with beaches on either side, Phylakopi had sheltered Bronze Age beaches^, and Trianda is presently near an alluvial coastal plain. The situation of Thera, of course, is unknown but hardly doubtful. Consideration is also given to adverse weather, including seasonal winds and heayy rainfall. For example, drains at Aghia Irini , Thera**, and Phylakopi' indicate that heavy downpours could be expected, so that a hillside location may have been a problem if selected. A freshwater source within the towns themselves was not a factor, although Aghia Irini® had a well. Perhaps cisterns accounted for some of the supply, but at any rate later Bronze Age cities were often removed from sources of water.’ Local Resources Without exception, the towns are near good agricultural land. Bronze Age Cycladic farming is an unknown subject, but there is no rea­ son why the vine, olive, and grain "triad" could not have been practiced in the Cyclades as it was in Crete. Aside from the land, few other re­ sources stand out. The amount of timber (and the deforestation of it) on any of the Cyclades is disputed at the present.1® Beyond local con­ struction (and shipbuilding?) there is no evidence of a trade surplus. Local stone is used for construction11, and types suitable for native stone bowl industries are present on Kea and Thera. Apart from this, there is no indication the islands could furnish raw materials or finished products which could have formed a trade monopoly. Obsidian and murex shells will be considered shortly. Other factors, including previous settlements or fortifications, show no pattern. Aghia Irini, Phylakopi, and probably Thera12 were continuations of older Cycladic towns. Kastri and Trianda appear to be new foundations in EM II and LM IA respectively. Nor were all sites fortified. Aghia Irini was fortified in the Middle Bronze Age, but Phylakopi was not until later.13 Thera, Kastri, and Trianda show no sign of ever having had defensive walls.

280

The sites with less visible Minoan influence confirm this picture, although space does not permit a detailed examination. They are gen­ erally near the sea with adjacent agricultural land. Owing to inade­ quate excavation, in most cases little more can be said, but there is no suggestion of finished or unfinished commodities that cannot be had elsewhere. After this brief introduction, more general motivations proposed for Minoanized settlements must be considered. Trade has been variously argued as a reason for the Minoan pre­ sence, but as we have seen there are few visible resources besides ade­ quate harbors. Melian obsidian at first seems like an exception to this, but Phylakipi, situated some 5 km. from the Adhamas deposits, never appears to have monopolized the supply.^ Concentrations of murex shells have been found at Kastri, ^ but there is not enough to suggest an export trade. In any case, Ctete had home sources of supply. "Invisible" exports, such as textiles, hides, or craft techniques, are also doubtful since neither the Cycladic capacity nor the Minoan need has been demonstrated. Seasonal fish runs, especially of tuna, have recently been put for­ ward to explain Cycladic settlements and the observable relations be­ tween t h e m . F i s h i n g has too often been neglected as a motive for site locations, but there are serious objections to founding trade routes on such evidence. Modern tuna runs need not follow Bronze Age ones so ex­ actly, especially since sea levels have fluctuated since the Bronze Age.l" Secondly, seasonal fishing does not account for the original foundation of several sites (Kea; Kastri) nor Minoan interest in t h e m . 19 Buffer zones^O and "maritime republics"21 have also been suggested as explanations for the Cycladic sites, but there is little direct ev­ idence for these views. They must be regarded as unproved. Perhaps the Minoanized sites of the Cyclades are best seen as staging towns or "points along the line" in Crete's trade with other areas. Thera with its fresco evidence best suggests an open inter­ national port, but all the sites mentioned show a solid if not overly wealthy way of life which included sea contact. Given the nature of seafaring in the Bronze Age and in the later Classical period, stopovers were needed along any trade route. The Minoans may have found the inhabitants of some islands partic­ ularly amenable to the coming of a few resident traders and ship cap­ tains who would move supplies through their ports. The relationship between Minoan and Cycladic crews and ships is likely to have been close or blurred, especially since suitable timber for ships may not have ex­ isted in the Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Thera, rather than ah outstan­ ding maritime republic, may be only the first stop in a wider Minoan trading circle. There is obviously more work to be done in the Cyclades and on the Anatolian coast, and Bronze Age studies must be careful not to fall un­ der the spell of Thera as earlier under Knossos and then Mycenae. It is to be hoped that the Cyclades will come into their own, and not be regarded as mere extensions of Crete or the mainland so that a balanced

281

picture of Bronze Age foreign relations will finally emerge.

Footnotes 1. Cf. C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilisation (1972) 230-255, with R. Barber, "The Cyclades in the Middle Bronze Age," Thera and the Aegean World (1978) 367-79. Hereafter TAW. 2. Barber, 374 and fig. 2. 3.

Rapp, G., and J. Kraft, "Aegean Sea Level Changes in the Bronze Age," TAW (1978) 190.

4. Davidson, D. and others, "Erosion aiid Prehistory in Melos: liminary Note," JAS 3 (1976) 220-221.

a Pre­

5. Caskey, J., "Investigations at Keos I," Hesperia 40 (1971) 389-91. 6.

Caskey, M., "Newsletter from Greece," AJA 81 (1977) 519.

7. Phylakopi, 269. 8.

Keos I, 365-367.

9. Cf., for example, Mycenae or the Athenian Akropolis. Also J. Bintliff, Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (1977) 115. 10. Greig, J., and J. Turner, "Some Pollen Diagrams from Greece and their Archaeological Significance," JAS 1(1974) 177-194; Bintliff, 59-86. 11. For imported gypsum at Kythera see Kythera, 32. 12. MC finds on Thera. See Barber, 379 and Caskey, M. "Newsletter from Greece," AJA 81 (1977) 519. 13. Renfrew, C., "Phylakopi and the Late Bronze I Period in the Cyclades," TAW (1978) 403, 407-08, and Table II. 14. Renfrew, C., and others. 241-42.

"Obsidian in the Aegean,"

BSA 60 (1965)

15. Kythera, 36-37. 16. Pelon, 0., "Architecture Domestique a Mallia," and fig. 32.

BCH 90 (1966) 584

17. Bintliff, 117-125. 18. Flemming, N., "Changes of Land and Sea Level in the Aegean Area," BICS 21 (1974) 155-157.

282

19.

Neither Bintliff (see above, note 17) nor the author's own inquiries suggest that Kea is visited by any seasonal fish run.

20.

Doumas, C., Public Lecture, Bryn Mawr College, October, 1979.

21.

Schachermeyr, F., "Akrotiri— First Maritime Rebpublic?" (1978) 423-428

283

TAW

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM 6 1981

SHAFT GRAVES IN BRONZE AGE GREECE Friday, Feb. 27, 1981 Department of Art History at Temple University Philadelphia, PA.

In t r o d u c tio n by P h ilip

P.

B e ta n c o u rt

I n 1 8 7 6 , H e i n r i c h S c h lie t n a n n u n c o v e r e d a s e r i e s o f e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y r i c h g ra v e s s e t ju s t w it h in th e c it a d e l a t M ycenae. H is d is c o v e r y fo c u s e d a t t e n t i o n o n th e w o rld o f th e M ycenaean G re e k s , s t im u la t in g th e a r c h a e o lo ­ g i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l s t u d ie s t h a t h a ve g r a d u a lly r e v e a le d t h i s c i v i l i z a t i o n . Y e t , i r o n i c a l l y , m any o f t h e q u e s t i o n s p o s e d b y S c h lie m a n n 's d i s c o v e r i e s r e m a in a lm o s t a s v e x i n g t o d a y a s t h e y w e re a c e n t u r y a g o . The g ra v e s y i e l d e d a v a s t t r e a s u r e , s i l v e r a n d g o l d v e s s e l s , o r n a m e n t s , an d o t h e r o b ­ je c t s in g re a t q u a n tit y . How d i d t h i s r i c h m a t e r i a l come t o b e a t M y ce n a e ? Who w e r e t h e w a r r i o r s who c o v e r e d t h e i r f a c e s w i t h g o ld e n m asks? D id t h e p o o r M i d d le H e l l a d i c f o l k who p r e c e d e d them s u d d e n ly g a i n t h e w i l l t o t r a d e b y sea? D id t h e y p e r h a p s r e a p a b o u n t i f u l h a r v e s t a s m id d le m e n o n a n am ber a n d t i n r o u t e c o n n e c t i n g E u r o p e w i t h t h e e a s t e r n M e d it e r r a n e a n ? C o u ld t h e y e v e n h a v e jo u r n e y e d t o E g y p t a s m e r c e n a r ie s ? W hat r o l e d i d C r e t e p l a y i n t h i s e c o n o m ic a n d a r t i s t i c s u r g e ? W ere t h e M y c e n a e a n s d e s c e n d a n t s o f p e o ­ p l e who h a d l i v e d i n t h e G re e k p e n i n s u l a f o r c e n t u r i e s , o r h a d t h e y r e c e n t l y a r r i v e d fr o m t h e n o r t h ? W hat i s t h e r e l a t i o n , i f a n y , b e tw e e n t h e g r a v e c i r c l e s o f s o u t h e r n G r e e c e a n d t h e c i r c u l a r K u rg a n s o f A l b a n i a a n d t h e n o rth ? T h e s e q u e s t i o n s and m any o t h e r s c o n t in u e t o b e a s k e d o f t h e s h a f t g ra v e s and t h e ir o b je c t s . A f t e r m o re t h a n a c e n t u r y o f s c h o l a r s h i p , M y c e n a e a n s t u d i e s a r e s t i l l in t h e i r v ig o r o u s y o u th . T h e o r i e s o f g r e a t im p a c t c a n s t i l l b e la u n c h e d , d i s c u s s e d , a n d p e r h a p s s h o t dow n n e v e r t o r i s e a g a i n . We a r e s t i l l i n a p e r i o d o f s c h o l a r l y g r o w t h , w hen e x c i t i n g new d e v e lo p m e n ts c a n b e d i s c o ­ v e r e d a n d a d d e d t o o u r s t o r e o f k n o w le d g e . T h e w e a lt h o f t h e s h a f t g r a v e s and w h a t i t r e p r e s e n t s s t i l l i n t r i g u e s us no w , as i t d id a c e n t u r y a g o .

The Seal from Shaft Grave Gamma A "Mycenaean Chieftain"? by John H. Betts

A minute amethyst discoid seal (CMS I 5) bearing the profile head of a man was first published by Papadimitriou in 1952.1 For Mylonas, the "long hair, reminiscent of the long-haired Archaeans" and the "almost Grecian nose" suggested that, if not a portrait of one of the tomb’s occupants, the head at least gives us "the appearance of Mycenaean r u l e r s . H i s assess­ ment has, for the most part, remained unchallenged. Blegen, for example, insists that "the portrait is certainly a Mycenaean and consequently a Greek," pointing out that bearded figures are rare in Crete and "when they do occur it is probably in representations of oddities or of alien types, African, or of other origin."^ More recently the head has been compared by Iakovidis to that of the captain of the fleet on the Akrotiri fresco and he deduces that "a number of Mycenaeans had already established themselves on Thera and were so well integrated that they assumed a leading role in the life of the t o w n . E v e n those who have adduced Cretan parallels for the head still claim that we have a Mycenaean chieftain or a portrait with dis­ tinct Indo-European traits.^ More cautiously Bifesantz leaves open the question of whether the artist was a Minoan or a Mycenaean trained in Cre­ tan glyptic,^ but so far there have only been two dissenting voices: Boardman, who states unequivocally that the seal is Cretan, and Hood.^ The received dogma implies three possible scenarios: a Mycenaean, perhaps trained in Crete, cut the seal to portray a Mycenaean chieftain; a Cretan artist migrated to Mycenae and produced it for the chieftain; or the chieftain himself traveled to Crete and had it made for him there. All these assume the head to be a portrait in the modern sense, a point very much open to question. This paper aims to discourage perpetuation of the fanciful dogma; for on almost every ground the seal should be regarded as Minoan, as made by a Minoan artist at Knossos and imported to the Mainland, and as depicting a Minoan.

1.

The Seals from Circle B

Of the graves in Circle B, Gamma is relatively rich. Apart from the seal it contained the conspicuously unbearded electrum mask, which both Mylonas and Biesantz (supra n. 2 and 6) imply could represent the same man as the seal. The pottery was Matt-Painted, giving a context date at the end of MH or very early in LH I, a terminus post quem non of about 1540 B.C. It is therefore the earliest known seal from the Mainland after the glyptic dark age which follows the Lerna sealings. Of the three other seals from Circle B, CMS I 8 has a context in the second half of the fifteenth century8 and need not therefore concern us here; the other two (CMS I 6 and 7. from Graves Mu and Omicron respectively) have context dates early in LH Iy and are carnelian amygdaloids of the Talismanic type made exclusively in Crete. There would, therefore, be a prima facie case for regarding our seal also as

an import from Crete.

2.

Shape

With the advent of hard materials and new techniques for engraving them during the latter part of the MM period, artists apparently found con­ vex surfaces easier to engrave than flat ones. While the rectangular plate assumed convex faces and developed gradually into the mature 'cushion' shape or flattened cylinder, the flat-faced disc was replaced by the convex-faced discoid which in turn developed into the mature LM lentoid. The discoid represents a purely Cretan intermediate stage and ours is the sole example of it found on the Mainland. 3.

Material

Though mauve amethyst is used for seals found on the Mainland and is one of the earliest semi-precious materials for seals found there (e.g., CMS I 13 from Shaft Grave III or 290 and 291 from Grave Delta at Pylos), and though Vermeule speaks of "Peloponnesian amethyst,statistics do not suggest that it was more commonly used there than other semi-precious stones (carnellan and agate being more common) or that it was more commonly found there than in Crete. In Crete it was certainly used earlier than MM III and (with rock crystal and carnelian) was among the earliest hard stones used for beads found in the Messara Tholoi and for at least one seal (CMS I 118 from the Ayios Onouphrios Tholos). The comparative rarity of amethyst both on the Mainland and in Crete suggests that it may have been imported: the Ayios Onouphrios seal is an Egyptianizing scarab, and Pliny speaks of Indian a m e t h y s t . 1 2

4.

Size

With a diameter between 9.4 and 9.8 mm., our seal is much smaller than average and qualifies for the term miniature. Such miniature pieces were a virtuoso specialty of Cretan artists from MM III - LM 1 . ^ Indeed, the later Mainland preference is for seals larger than those commonly found in Crete; the largest seals come from Mainland contexts or from the Mainlandinfluenced Warrior Graves near Knossos. Ours is certainly the only minia­ ture seal from the Mainland earlier than LH III A 2 when some seals from a predominantly Island workshop find their way there.

5.

Motif and Style

Apart from this example, all seals bearing similar human heads, whose provenience is known, have been found in Crete. ^ Examples have been pre­ viously collected by Biesantz (supra n. 6), but others can be added here. They include heads with noses every bit as "Grecian", with hair every bit as long, and with beards every bit as full as those of our "Mycenaean chief­ tain" (to whom a razor was after all not unknown; for he lacks the mous­ tache and sideburns of, for instance, the "Agamemnon" mask from Shaft Grave V). The examples are as follows (references are given to the clearest il­ lustrations available):

290

A.

HMs 179a, sealing from the early MM III Hieroglyph Deposit at Knossos head of a mature clean-shaven man with wavy hair above horizontal striatlons; the ear, dotted eye beneath long eye-brow and prominent lips are all engraved in a manner similar to that of the Mycenae piece (Boardman, supra n, 7, pi, 14).

B.

HMs 180a, sealing from the same Deposit; head of a young boy with beaded hair (Boardman, supra n. 7, pi. 15).

C.

HMs 180b, second partial impression on the same sealing as B but impressed by a different seal; head of a mature man (chin missing) with smooth hair (no beading or striatlons), perhaps wearing an ear-ring, and in profile; style of engraving is very similar to A (unpublished).

D.

HM 1419 (side a), black steatite discoid from a MM III - LM IA context in the Little Palace at Knossos;^ head of a mature man with goatee beard and hair rendered in a very similar manner to that of the Mycenae head, vertical striatlons across the top and a back-piece hanging to the nape of the neck. The head is thrown back and the prominent lips parted in a manner that suggested song to Evans, who called this head "the chanting priest" and rightly compared it to the heads of the singing harvesters on the Ayia Triada Harvester Vase, the sistrum-player in particular having the same smooth hair as C and being close enough to suggest that the vase may be by the same artist (G. A. Christopoulos and J. C. BastiaB, Prehistory and Protohistory, Athens 1974, 203).

E.

CMS VIII 110 (side b), haematite three-sided prism with long amyg­ daloid-shaped faces, without known provenience but formerly in the R. M. Dawkins collection mainly amassed in Crete; head of a man with long beard and hair rendered in a manner very close to D and the Mycenae piece; he wears a large circular ear-ring and a bow and arrow are shown below.^

F.

CMS X 278, unfinished carnelian amygdaloid recently purchased from a Cretan dealer in Paris, head of a bearded man, in most respects similar to E, facing a second head, that of a young boy with beaded hair reminiscent of B; both wear large circular ear-rings.

G.

HM, brown steatite discoid from the Stratigraphical Museum Exten­ sion excavations of P. M. Warren; frontal head of a man with hair rendered as vertical striatlons very similar to those on D and probably by the same hand (unpublished but referred to in prelimin­ ary reports).

H.

AGDS II (Berlin) 13, black steatite discoid said to be "from Athens", head of a mature clean-shaven man with beaded hair and the prominent nose and chin of D.

J.

HM, black steatite lentoid; head of a bearded man amongst a number of animal heads (illustrated by Blesantz, supra n. 6, but otherwise unpublished),

291

K.

CMS IX 6D (sides a, b, and c) agate/carnelian three-sided prism with circular faces, purchased in 1908; three men’s heads, two clean shayen and one (side b) bearded with hair executed in dif­ ferent fashions, using a tubular drill to create tight curls like those of some heads on the Ayia Triada Boxer Vase.

L.

Met. Mus. New York 26.31.318 (side a), carnelian three-sided prism with circular faces, from the R. Seager collection, mostly amassed in Crete; head of a clean-shaven man with tubular-drilled hair, perhaps by the same hand as K . ^

The Grave Gamma seal and A to G (and probably H) above share suffi­ cient traits of size, shape, technique and overall style to constitute the products of a single workshop or hand. If we call the artist, with K e n h a , 2 0 "the Master of the Chanting Priest," we may look for other exam­ ples of his work. Side b of D, the name piece, bears the profile head of a calf and, on the reasonable assumption that both sides are by the same artist, several other profile animal heads may be added, the first (M) a calf and the other bulls, all on small black or green steatite discoids of similar size, all but one from the Knossos area, and, where they have dated contexts, all consistent with a MM III date for the artist's work: M.

Ashmolean Mus. 1938.970 (= Kenna, Cretan Seals, Oxford 1960, no. 206) black steatite "discish" lentoid from Mirabello.

N.

HM 1329 (= CMS 112 36), black steatite discoid from chamber B of Grave XVII in the Mavrospilio cemetery (MM IIB or probably MM III context).

P.

HM 1579 (= CMS 112 211), black steatite discoid from the Hellenika ravine near Knossos.

Q.

HM 1716 (= CMS 112 57), black steatite discoid from Grave VII of the Prophitis Ilias cemetery (context unpublished but apparently MM III); side b is clearly a bull's head in profile, though worn and not previously so identified.

R.

HM, dark green steatite discoid with similar bull's head from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (context unpublished but apparently from LM I levels in the mainly LM II building).

N to R are certainly by the same hand, and it may be possible to add CMS IV 168 from Knossos and two profile lion heads, CMS 112 48 from Prophitis Ilias Grave V (apparently an MM III context) and HMs 61, a sealing from Zakro^1 (context date LM IB). The hair and facial features of the robed priest on HM 85, a long haematite amygdaloid (cf. E) from Vathy Pediados are engraved in a manner so similar to the profile heads that our artist, with his unique repertoire of human and animal heads in profile, or a pupil (whom we may call "the Robed Priest Master") may have been responsible for another unique group of seals, all long amygdaloids bearing standing figures and all. with a single exception found at Vapheio (CMS I 225), from Central Crete.2*

292

That this Knosslan workshop (or pair of masters) was producing seals with unique motifs outside the repertoire of other artists suggests that it may also have specialized in other art forms. Perhaps the hlack stea­ tite Harvester and Boxer Vases from Ayia Triada, the Chieftain Cup (with its very long-haired non-Achaean priest) and the steatite fragment from Knossos depicting a smooth-haired archer» whom Mylonas also claimed was a Mycenaean,23 all derive from the workshop. Perhaps, too, these artists were concerned with specialized seals bearing ritual subjects like the robed priests and, if so, the unique series of heads may represent priests and the animals their sacrificial victims. This last point is no more than speculation, but it would certainly be safer to call the head on the Grave Gamma seal a Minoan priest than a Mycenaean chieftain. It was made by an imaginative Knosslan artist whose workshop alone produced a unique range of motifs and produced them exclu­ sively in Crete and normally for Minoan patrons. In general terms, seals found on the Mainland should not automatically be regarded as Mainland products or even as specifically designed for Mainland patrons. Even when they bear scenes of battle and hunting, often thought characteristic of the Mainland, they may well have been imported from Crete^ or made by Cretan artists who were not until the end of LH I or early LH II setting up workshops on the Mainland and creating the ear­ liest truely Mycenaean glyptic style.^

293

Footnotes

1 Praktika (1952) 442, fig. 16. 2 G.E. Mylonas, Ancient Mycenae (Princeton, N. J. 1957) 139, pi. 49;. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, N. J. 1966) 102, pi. 98. 3 AJA 66 (1962) 247. 4 AJA 83 (1979) 101-102. 3 F. Schachermeyer, Die Minoische Kultur und das alten Kreta (Stuttgart 1964) 206-207, figs. 119 and 120; A. Sakellariou, Das Mykenische Siegelglyptik, SIMA 9 (1964) 4, pi. 1. 6 Marburger Winklemann-Programm (1958) 9-25, pis. 10-16. ^ J. Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings (London 1970) The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (Harmondsworth 1978) n. 105.

54, pi. 44; S. Hood, 224-225 and 273,

® Mylonas (supra n. 2) 163. 9 Praktika (1953) 223 and 232. 10CMS X p. 22. 11E.T. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago 1964) 89. 12NH 40, 121-124; ArchNews 8, 2/3 (1979) 40-43, n. 4. 13E.g. CMCG 324, 331, and 345; CS 229; CMS X 77, 280, 294, and 295; also other examples from Cretan proveniences in HM; a high proportion of the examples are Cretan Talismanic seals. ^Discounted here is CMS V 431 from the Nichoria Tholos, whose frontal mask-like head is radically different in style and iconography from all other examples. 15Evans' dating wavered between MM IIB (PM I 271-276) and MM III (SM I 19—20); the modern tendency is to bring the date down to some time in MM III: Boardman (supra n. 7) 34; H. Biesantz, Kretisch-mykenische Siegelbllder (Marburg 1954) 125-126; 0. Pelon, BCH 89 (1956) 9; J. Reich, AJA 74 (1970) 406-408; P. Yule, Kadmos 17 (1978) 1-7. It should, however, be noted that only four sealings can be firmly assigned to the Deposit: M.A.V. Gill, BSA 60 (1965) 66-67.

294

16PM IV 216-218, fig. 167. 17The seal's authenticity has been unjustly suspected; It is certainly unique but the running agrimi on side c is in a good style character­ istic of MM III and neither the unique and enigmatic motif on side a nor the bow and arrow with the portrait could have been suggested to a would-be forger by any known parallels. 18

This seal has also been suspected but the present author believes it to be genuine. It came onto the market directly from Crete with other genuine pieces. and L have both, perhaps rightly, been suspected.

^^V.E.G. Kenna, Cretan Seals (Oxford 1960) 45-46; "Some Eminent Cretan Gem Engravers," Festschrift fUr Friedrich Matz (Mainz 1962) 4-13; "A Cult Scene from Crete,*' Farrago (Journal of Cambridge Univ. Classical Society) June 1966, 9-12. 21JHS (1902) 76-93, no. 133. 22PM IV 412-414 gives several examples, and add CMS VII 88, Ashmolean Mus. 1938, 1050 (- CS no. 293) from Knossos, and HM 1456 from an MM III LM I context at Mallia. 22Supra n. 2; his grounds were the similarity of the archer's head to that on the Grave Gamma seal and his "shorts", similar to those worn by the hunters on the inlaid dagger from Shaft Grave V but the head and the cutting of the ribs are also closely paralleled by the sistrumplayer on the Harvester Vase and the "shorts" are worn by Cretans as on CMS VII 88 from our workshop. 2^Even "the Battle in the Glen" ring from Shaft Grave IV has close thema­ tic and compositional parallels among the sealings from both Ayia Triada and Knossos: Kadmos 6 (1967) 19, fig. 9. 2^J.G. Younger, "The Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Workshop III," in the present volume.

295

Faience from the Shaft Graves by Karen Polinger Foster Three graves in Grave Circle B and five graves in Grave Circle A at Mycenae contained faience objects among their other treasures. As may be seen in Figure 1, the inventory of faience pieces includes at least seventeen miniature vessel fragments, two dozen beads and ornaments, fit­ tings and appliques for at least two ostrich egg rhyta, gameboard and other inlays, four knots, a ring-shaped piece, and a large triton shell. This is the earliest faience known from the Peloponnese, and so we are faced with some of the perennial questions about the Shaft Grave riches.1 Was the faience made on Crete where it attracted the interest of Shaft Grave princes traveling on business?^ Was it specially commis­ sioned in Cretan workshops for inclusion among the grave goods? Or was it made in a Mycenaean workshop under the direction of a Minoan master, assisted by his local apprentices and responsive to the wishes of his Mycenaean patrons? A few answers to these questions may be suggested by a close look at Minoan and Mycenaean faience and by the necessarily sub­ jective guides of ”eye, intuition, and aesthetic reaction.” As for the faience from Grave Circle B, this consists of half a dozen spacer beads from Graves Xi and Upsilon and a cup from Grave Alpha. The beads are all blue green rectangular pieces, each with a relief de­ sign of two intersecting triangles forming a lozenge that frames a raised dot.^ Both of the beads9 short ends are perforated, and they are set off from the rest of the relief pattern by ribbed borders. Since there are no Minoan counterparts for this sort of faience bead design, 1 wonder if these beads might not be among the earliest products of a Mycenaean faience industry. The cup from Shaft Grave Alpha is a blue green incurved vessel with one flat handle.** It is decorated with dark blue bands around the base and rim, as well as a roughly painted spray of dark blue leaves below the rim. Another spray of leaves is carefully modeled in relief and appears inside the rim where the handle joins. Two light and dark brown faience cups and a small flask from the Temple Repository at Knossos pro­ vide parallels for the Mycenaean cupfs shape and relief decoration, but not for its color combination and carelessly painted foliate pattern.^ Since the Mycenaean cup does not really make a fourth, I suggest that it was a specially done copy, made by someone who had seen the Temple Repo­ sitory pieces, but who might well have been working on the mainland. Shaft Grave I contained at least four white miniature faience ves­ sels. One of these is a globular alabastron,^ while a second is a baggy flat-bottomed alabastron.° There were also fragments belonging to at least two vessels decorated with wavy bands in relief,9 recalling the Temple Repository vessels with relief bands in continuous and running spirals. From Shaft Grave II, there is only one faience piece, a yellowish miniature ovoid pithoid jar with four lugs and traces of black stripes on its rolled lip.^ Many miniature vessels were found in Shaft Grave III, including

fragments of tubular spouts, beaked jugs, a double-mouthed vessel, semiglobular cups, and narrow-necked jars, as well as several body sherds with worn curvilinear patterns and one with an unidentifiable appllqued piece. In addition, there is a white semlglobular cup with a rolled rim from Shaft Grave IV.13 Of all of these miniature vessels, the most Interesting is a brown green fragment of a beaked jug with part of a body shield-carrying warrior on either side of the s p o u t . E a c h warrior wears a type of helmet not paralleled elsewhere, with a thick chin strap, a padded or leather head­ piece, and four horn-shaped protuberances. It seems to me that this is a good example of a piece made in response to a particular Mycenaean client's request. In the first place, there is the martial subject, much favored among the Mycenaeans, but Infrequently depicted by the Minoans. In the second place, there is the jug's purpose to consider. On the one hand, if the warrior's face, which as far as one can tell is the same on both sides, was intended as a portrait, then the jug must have belonged to a specific Shaft Grave prince, possibly a relative of one of the women burled in Grave III.15 Though the artist carefully modeled rounded cheeks, straight noses, and firm mouths for each face, the small scale and the fluidity of the faience no doubt prevented him from rendering any quirks of his subject's profile.16 If, on the other hand, one proceeds on the analogy of the Chieftain Cup from Haghia Triada, the Shaft Grave juglet might be seen as a commemorative or religious piece, with two armed war­ riors confronting each other. The question remains of where this jug and the other Shaft Grave miniature vessels were made. Small faience vessels from the Temple Reposi­ tory^ and from Zakros, 9 for instance, attest to their popularity on Crete, but the seventeen pieces from the Shaft Graves certainly suggest a vogue at Mycenae. Only the warrior juglet's decoration provides real stylistic help; most of the other pieces, as far as can be seen from the fragments, find Minoan and Mycenaean parallels in several media for their shapes. At present, I tend to think that a Minoan faience master pro­ duced the vessels on the mainland, either as personal possessions or as luxury goods for the afterlife.2® Some of the simpler shapes may have been made by apprentice Mycenaean craftsmen. All of the rest of the faience objects from Shaft Graves III, IV, and V, except for the beads from Shaft Grave III, appear to have been imported from Crete. There are some plain spherical and amygdaloid beads, as well as two white rectangular spacer beads, much like the ones from Graves Xi and Upsilon, but with a stylized ivy leaf for their relief design.2- A small button found by Schliemann in an unspecified spot was probably also made at Mycenae, to judge from its spiralform relief decoration.22 Many faience pieces were certainly imported from Crete: the finely modeled triton shell from Shaft Grave III;23 the fittings for the os­ trich egg rhyta from Shaft Graves IV and V, the models of "sacral knots" from Shaft Grave IV;25 and the gameboard and other inlays from Shaft Grave I V . 26 Finally, from Shaft Grave V there is a tiny fragment of the hind?_ part of a wild feline, "a griffin perhaps, or a lion" as Hood suggests.z/

298

The traditional theory about faience manufacture on the Greek main­ land is that it did not begin as early as the Shaft Grave p e r i o d . Sever­ al recent studies, however, have contributed to a slowly accumulating body of evidence attesting to the existence of a variety of early Mycenaean industries. Mainland workshops appear to have been established for such Shaft Grave goods as "niello" and gold work^ and armor and electrum pieces.3*3 Close study of the way lions are rendered has suggested that a Mycenae-Vapheio lion workshop produced daggers, seals, inlays, and other objects decorated with a certain type of lion. ^ The Shaft Grave princes seem to have encouraged what Dickinson calls "something of a flood of Aegean craftsmen, many probably from Crete itself, to the mainland..."3^ I would like to suggest that among these craftsmen was a faience master from Crete. Once the faience master was settled at Mycenae, he would have been able to establish his workshop without difficulty. The material require­ ments for faience — mostly silicates and natron and a good kiln — would have been readily obtainable. Craftsmen with the expertise needed for faience making — experience in kiln operation, skill in other pyrotechnical industries, and ability to work on a small scale — would have been available. There need only have been one or two faience specialists, since most of the Shaft Grave craftsmen probably worked in several media, perhaps with their "basic responsibility as armorers and general smiths • • •

For a sounder archaeological argument, one would like some physical remains of a faience workshop, such as a mold or an unfinished piece or a pan with glazes datable to the Shaft Grave period. For a sounder tech­ nological argument, one would like some analyses of Shaft Grave faience for comparison with the analyses that Kaczmarczyk and I have compiled for Minoan faience.3^ Nevertheless, I believe that we have a few products of this nascent industry in the beads, ornaments, and miniature vessels of the Shaft Graves.

299

Shaft Grave

Made on Crete

Possibly made at Mycenae

UpsiIon

Made at Mycenae

?«- beiads — ►? ?«- beads —♦ ?

Xi Alpha

?

cup -v ?

1

miniature vessels

II

miniature vessel

III

triton shell

many miniature vessel frags, warrior head jug frag.

IV

inlay frags, ostrich egg fittings knots large ring gameboard pieces

miniature -vessel

V

frag* with animal relief ostrich egg fittings

?*- be ads -t?

VI

?

...... .....

Figure l

.....................

.

.

? button? .1.

Possible Origins of Shaft Grave Faience

300

-

MM IIIB Crete

Shaft graves ,

Temple Repository

...........

beads button

LM I

Crete

Knossos

(Upsilon, Xi, V, III)

Zakros

inlays (IV) other Knossos

Pyrgos knots (IV) miniature vessels (Alpha* I* II* III, IV)

Phaistos/Haghia Triada Akrotiri

triton shell (III) Vj ostrich egg fittings (IV, V)

some stylistic ties — — — good stylistic ties -

— strong stylistic ties

Figure 2

Stylistic Ties of Shaft Grave Faience

301

Notes

1 The contents of Grave Circle A are fully published by G. Karo, Die SchachtgrHber von Mykenai (Munich, 1930) (hereafter cited as Schgr); the final publication of Grave Circle B is G. E. Mylonas, 0 Taphlkos Kyklos B* t5n Mykenon (Athens, 1973). Among the many studies of the Shaft Graves, the following have been of particular help in focusing my ideas about Shaft Grave faience: E. T. Vermeule, The Art of the Shaft Graves of Mycenae (Norman, Oklahoma, 1975); 0. T. P. K. Dickinson, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation (“SIMA 49) (GBteborg, 1977); and E. N. Davis, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (New York, 1977). On the Aegean faience industry, see K. P. Foster, Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age (New Haven, 1979); pp. 118-48 deal with faience from the Greek mainland. ^ Though it now seems that commercial enterprises brought Mycenaeans to Crete, the precise nature of the metals trade, if that Indeed furnished most of the business, remains obscure. For the plausible theory whereby Minoan finished products were exchanged for Mycenaean-conveyed raw mater­ ials, see G. Cadogan, "Was There a Minoan Landed Gentry?" Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 18 (1971): 145-48 and Dickinson, Origins, esp. pp. 54-56. What is presently known about the sixteenth/ fifteenth century B.C. Aegean metals trade is set forth by J. D. Muhly in his "Metals and Metallurgy in Crete and the Aegean at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age," Temple University Aegean Symposium 5 (1980): 25-36. 3 Vermeule, Art of the Shaft Graves, p. 28; my Figure 2 provides a schematic guide to the Shaft Grave faience stylistic interconnections. ^ Mylonas, Kyklos B*, pis. 159 a center and 209 b center; one of these beads is shown in Mylonas, Ancient Mycenae: The Capital City of Agamemnon (Princeton, 1957), fig. 63. 3 Foster, Aegean Faience, p. 123 and pi. 32. 8 A. J. after cited

Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos (London, 1921—36) (here­ as PM) I, p. 499 and fig. 357 a-c.

7 Karo, Schgr. p. 68 and pi. CLXVIII #202. 8 Karo,

Schgr,p. 68 and

pi. CLXVIII #201.

^ Karo,

Schgr,p. 68 and

pi. CL #203.

10 Foster, Aegean Faience, pp. 61—62 and pis. 3 and 4; Evans, PM I, p. 498 and fig. 356. 3-3- Karo, Schgr, p. 71 and pi. CLXX #223.

302

^

Karo, Schgr, pp. 64-65 and pi. CXLVIII #153 and 166.

13 Karo, Schgr, p. 116 and pi. CXLVIII #566. ^4 Karo, Schgr, pp. 60-61, fig. 16, and pi. XXIII #123/124. For the probable male/female identification of the Shaft Grave occu­ pants, see Dickinson, Origins, pp. 48-49 and Vermeule, Art of the Shaft Graves, pp. 7-9. On Aegean Bronze Age portraiture, see C. W. Blegen, "Early Greek Portraits," AJA 66 (1962): 245-47; for a selection of Minoan and Mycenaean faces in paintings, see S. Hood, The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (Penguin Books, 1978), fig. 52, p. 69; some of the women in the fresco from Xest6 3 at Akrotiri show remarkable portraits, especially the one in pi. 66 of S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera VII (Athens, 1976). On early Mesopota­ mian portraiture, see B. L. Schlossman, "Portraiture in Mesopotamia in the Late Third and Early Second Millennium B.C.," Archly f(ir Orlentforschung 26 (1978/79): 56-77. 17 Among many illustrations and discussions of the Chieftain Cup, see Evans, PM 11:2, pp. 742 and 790-92 and figs. 476 and 516; P. Warren, Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge, 1969), p. 176 and pi. 197. 1® Evans, PM I, figs. 356 and 357, pp. 498-99; Foster, Aegean Faience, pp. 61-64 and pi. 3. 19 N. Platon, Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete (New York, 1971), p. 147. 2® Dickinson, Origins, p. 53. Such small items as the faience vessels may have been used and then included among the grave goods; see J. D. Muhly on the nomadic practice in which the "wealth of the culture /was/ invested in small portable objects, usually gold, transported with the warrior dur­ ing life and buried with him at death"_("0n the Shaft Graves at Mycenae," Alter Orient Und Altes Testament 203 /1979J: 317). ^1 Karo, Schgr,p. 54 and pis. XX and XXIII #71 (spacers); pp. 58-59 and pi. XXV #111, 114, and 115. 22 Karo,

Schgr,p.

271 n. 1 #2831/2.

2^ Karo, Schgr,p. 64 and pi. CXLVIII #166; see Foster, Aegean Faience, pp. 137-38.

for the Minoan parallels,

24 Karo, Schgr. pp. 116 and 146 and pis. CXLI and CXLII #522, 567, 573, 828, and 774; for the joining of eggs and faience fittings, see Foster, Aegean Faience, pp. 130-34.

303

Karo, Schgr, p. 115, fig. 42, and pis. CLI #558, 559, 560, and 565 and CL1I #553 and 554; for the Minoan parallels, see Foster, Aegean Faience, pp. 140-41. 26 Karo, Schgr. p. 116 and pi. CLII #572, 556; p. 115 and pi. CLI #556. 22 Karo, Schgr, p. 155 and fig. 73 #899; Hood, Arts in Prehistoric Greece, p. 135. ° For a lucid presentation of this opinion, see Hood, Arts in Prehis­ toric Greece, pp. 134-35. 2® Davis, Vapheio Cups, esp. pp. 213-20 and 249-51. 80 Vermeule,

Art of the Shaft Graves, pp. 10-11 and 50.

31 J. G. Younger, "The Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Group," AJA 82 (1978): 285-99. 32 Dickinson, Origins, p. 67. 33 Vermeule, Art of the Shaft Graves, p. 10; Younger's study of the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion group confirms the idea of a multi-mediaworkshop at the time of the Shaft Graves (see above, n. 31). 3^ K. P. Foster and A. Kaczmarczyk, "X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Some Minoan Faience," Archaeometry (forthcoming); summary in AJA 84 (1980): 207.

304

Royal Shaft Graves Outside Mycenae by Spyros Iakovldls The royal shaft graves excavated by Schlleaann and Stamatakes at Mycenae were assumed to mark the beginning of the brilliant, rich in gold last phase of the Aegean civilization. They are also considered to repre­ sent an abrupt historical and cultural shift for which several explanations were advanced. In the main it was believed to be due to strong external in­ fluence, suddenly, exerted on the rulers of Mycenae by Minoan Crete and by other countries abroad. The MH cemetery outside the walls of the citadel, explored in 1939,^ of which the grave circle clearly was a part, strongly suggested that the large but architecturally characterless shafts were no more than lordly versions of the small MH rock-cut graves extending to the NW of the royal enclosure. This was confirmed by the discovery and excava­ tion of grave circle B,2 the counterpart and pendant of Schllemann's circle outside the walls, at the western end of the prehistoric cemetery. In fact, if circle B had come to light first, its contents would have been defined as ushering in the new LH era.3 As it is, however, and for purely metho­ dological reasons, circle B is still partly assigned to the preceding MH period. Even so, the variety and the splendor of the grave furnishings of both circles continued to be without contemporary parallels. The discus­ sion as to how and from where the kings buried in the shaft graves had acquired their sudden wealth and had enlarged their cultural horizon re­ mained in essence the same. It had simply been transposed in time as far back as circle B antedated circle A, that is to say for a generation or so, and it was still focusedon Mycenae. Mycenae was seen as the leader, and the rest of mainland Greece was supposed to have followed suit. It was known, of course, that the shaft graves at Mycenae were not the only royal sepulchres oftheir time. In fact, the tholos tomb at Koryphasion in Messenia^ wasearlier and architecturally much more kingly than the simple rockcut shafts. But it had been plundered and its sur­ viving and published furnishings,3 a few plain pots, were nothing to com­ pare with the display of wealth and the pretentious taste of the Mycenaean graves. On the other hand, tholos tomb IV at Engllanos, excavated in 1953, . contained plenty of gold ornaments together with obsidian and flint arrowheads, and its pottery suggested that it had been built in the shaft grave period, but it had been thoroughly looted, its stratigraphy was hopelessly mixed up, and it was impossible to attribute the finds to any specific phase of its use. Moreover, it belonged to a different kind of tomb, and this made comparisons less convincing. The discovery of the shaft grave at Peristeria8 put an end to specu­ lation. Here was a plain shaft grave, simpler, less well-shaped, and shallower than its counterparts at Mycenae, but equally rich and furnished with the same kind of objects. Was it really contemporary with the Mycenaean grave circles? And, if so, could it be an Isolated instance, an imitation of the Mycenaean graves, perhaps, or was it part of a local tradition, a link in a series of earlier prototypes and later developments,

Map o f t h e p e n i n s u l a o f G r e e c e s h o w in g B r o n z e A g e s i t e s .

306

as indigenous to Messenia as the royal shaft graves were in the Argolid? The grave was enclosed by the partly preserved wall of a later tholos tomb which runs across the west end of the shaft. Another, still later, strong curved wall, probably an enclosure, runs parallel to the tholos wall along its west side. The rock slopes gently from NE to SW, but the soil within the circle had been levelled in post MH times,^ so that the fill accumulated in the west part was considerably deeper than in the east. The shaft had been dug into the natural conglomerate rock. It was 2.70-2.80 m. long and 0.90 m. wide. Its bottom follows the slope of the rock and rises eastwards so that the east narrow side had hardly indented the rock while the west part reached a depth of ca. 0.80 m. The sides of the cutting are neither straight nor very regular, and the east end of the pit is curved. But two or three small flat stones were found in a straight line running across the east side. If they are in situ, they are probably what is left of the walling of this side. Such an ar­ rangement would explain the amount of similar stones recovered from the fill of the pit. No burial was found in the grave, but the well preserved bones of a human skeleton, together with some gold foil and fragments of two clay v a s e s , h a d been packed in a niche reserved among the stones which block the west side of the shaft and which are part of the wall of the tholos or of the blocking of its entrance.^ Also, fragments of gold leaf and other small finds appeared among the loose stones in the fill immediately below the floor level of the tholos. The grave had obviously been disturbed. Its burial or burials had been removed, and its contents had been thrown into disarray and most probably pilfered. Enough remained, however, to date it and to provide material for comparison with Mycenae. The vases found with the bones were locally made and belong to the early years of LH I . ^ The east, shallow end of the pit yielded some amethyst sard, rock crystal and amber beads and 30 obsidian and flint arrowheads of the miter type, familiar from shaft graves IV,A and A .. In the deeper part a silver cup and an impressive array of gold objects come to light, similar and equivalent to the contents of the Mycenaean royal graves. The silver cup was thoroughly corroded and could not be saved. The gold objects were crushed and a little torn at places but otherwise well preserved. There was a great amount of crumpled thin gold foil cut into various shapes or folded into cylindrical spacer bead coverings and, also, the following vessels and ornaments: 1. A pointed-oval gold diadem, embossed with round discs, surrounded by double concentric circles and tapering in size towards the ends, with smaller circles filling the spaces between the discs. ^ It is practically Identical to diadems from shaft graves I, III, IV, and very similar to others from shaft graves A and 0 ^ and has the same decoration as a Gamaschenhalter from shaft grave A.^-® 2. A one—handled gold shallow bowl decorated in repousse with a run­ ning spiral around thebody and concentric circles on the b o t t o m . ^ The shape occurs in shaft grave A. ® 3. A gold Keftiu cup embossed above and below the double middle band with a close surface spiral design. The bottom is decorated with concen­ tric circles. 1 It is the counterpart of a less ornate cup from shaft grave V.**

307

4. A n e l e c t r u m c u p , d e c o r a t e d a b o v e an d b e lo w t h e t r i p l e n o t c h e d m id ­ d l e b a n d w i t h ro w s o f r u n n in g s p i r a l s and c o n c e n t r i c c i r c l e s o n t h e b o t t o m . ^3 S i m i l a r , b u t l e s s e l a b o r a t e t h a n b o t h t h e f o r m e r an d t h e M y c e n ­ a e a n e x a m p le . 5. F i v e d e l i c a t e l y o u t l i n e d and em bossed g o l d p e n d a n t s i n t h e fo rm o f tw o s t y l i z e d a n d ,s y m m e t r i c a l b u t t e r f l i e s f a c i n g e a c h o t h e r a n d c ro w n e d w it h a w a z -f lo w e r . No r e a l p a r a l l e l t o t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r l y e l e g a n t p i e c e s o f je w e l l e r y h a s been d is c o v e r e d y e t . 6 .^ p e t a ls .

S e v e r a l g o ld

f o i l r o s e t t e s w i t h a c i r c u l a r c e n t e r an d f i v e

7. F l y i n g b i r d s c u t o u t o f g o ld f o i l i n r a t h e r c r u d e s i l h o u e t t e , m o s t p r o b a b l y c l o t h i n g o r n a m e n t s . 26 T h e m o t i f , e a s i l y r e c o g n i s a b l e a s f l y i n g s w a llo w s o f t h e T h e r a n v a r i e t y , o c c u r s i n r e p o u s s e o n a s h e e t o f g o l d f o i l fro m s h a f t g r a v e I I I . 27 8. G o ld f o i l c u t - o u t s em bossed i n t h e fo rm o f a s e a t e d o w l.^ ® T h e re a r e n o p a r a l l e l s fro m M y c e n a e , b u t p r a c t i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l o rn a m e n ts w e re f o u n d i n t h o l o s I V a t E n g l i a n o s ^ a n d i n t h e l a t e r (L H I I ) t h o l o s A a t K a k o v a to s . 9. S e v e r a l g o ld f o i l r o s e t t e s w i t h r o u n d c e n t e r s an d t w e lv e a n g u l a r d o u b le p e t a l s e a c h . 3^ T h e m o t i f o c c u r s i n r e p o u s s e o n a m uch l a r g e r g o ld d i s c fro m s h a f t g r a v e I V 3^ an d i n a f r e s c o fro m T h e r a . 3 1 0 . A n u m b e r o f g o l d f o i l l e a f - s h a p e d p e n d a n t s , s u s p e n d e d fro m a w i r e . 3^ T h e y a r e p a r a l l e l e d e x a c t l y i n s h a f t g r a v e I I I . 33 1 1 . G o ld an d i n t h o l o s

l e a f t a s s e l s , 3 *> s i m i l a r t o IV a t E n g lia h o s .3°

t h e s e fo u n d i n

s h a ft g ra v e V 3?

1 2 . G o ld l e a f em b ossed i n t h e s h a p e o f a s p i r a l c o n c h Th e m o t if o c c u rs in fa ie n c e in s h a ft g ra v e I I I . ™

(D o liu m

trito).3^

13. C ru m p le d a n d t o r n l e a f - s h a p e d f r a g m e n t s o f g o l d l e a f . T h e y w e re f o u n d s c a t t e r e d o v e r t h e f l o o r o f t h e g r a v e an d i n t h e f i l l . M ost p ro ­ b a b l y c l o t h o r n a m e n t s .41 14. S m a ll c o n e s o f g o l d l e a f , m o s t p r o b a b l y t h e s h e a t h in g s o f c o n i ­ c a l w o o d e n b e a d s o r b u t t o n -s h a p e d o r n a m e n t s . ^ T h e y a re s im p le r , u n d eco­ r a t e d a n d dam aged v e r s i o n s o f t h e c o n i c a l " b u t t o n s '* fro m s h a f t g r a v e s V and 0 .4 3 B

So, the grave gifts of the Peristeria prince or princes are as rich, var­ ied and technically advanced as those from the graves at Mycenae, indicating a conformity of taste and of cultural background. In their majority they have their counterparts in shaft graves III, IV, V and A hut a few parallels were also found in graves I,A , N and 0. The similarity of the Peristeria diadem to the Gamaschenhalter of shaft grave A isa less direct one, con­ sisting in a common design decorating two different objects. Thus, accord­ ing to the succession of the Mycenaean tombs as established by Mylonas, ^ the grave at Peristeria is contemporary with the last two groups of circle

308

B and with the late tombs of circle A and should be dated to the middle of the 16th cent. B.C. The furnishings of the Peristeria grave, small and partly rifled though it was, show how prosperous the rulers of this part of Messenia must have been. But the grave as such is by no means the only one of its kind. It belongs to a series of MH-IH I shaft graves which were foundin the western Peloponnese and are essentially the same as the Mycenaean ones, the difference being that they are smaller, shallower and not very regu­ larly shaped. Very few had their sides lined with stone walls, and none had ledges cut back to receive the beams supporting the roof, as at My­ cenae. They are usually found in groups, surrounded by low circular enclo­ sure walls, and those that have been located and excavated range from Makryssia hear Olympia in the north to Englianos in the south.^5 (Fig. 1) The grave circle at Makryssia,^® 4.70 m. wide, contained several burials of which only one was left intact and was properly excavated. It was as at Peristeria a shallow, roughly rectangular pit, occupied by a skeleton in situ. The finds include a miter shaped flint arrowhead, simi­ lar to those from Peristeria and Mycenae, ^ four clay and one stone whorls, two plain bronze pins, four bronze knives with riveted hafts and no flanges to them^® and early LH I pottery (several matt-painted juglets, a cup decorated with spirals, a Keftiu cup and a kylix decorated with double axes) showing MH features. The grave circle at Klidhi, near Kato S a m i k o n , ^ had a diameter of 5.50 m. It was surrounded by a 0.50 m. thick wall. The excavator be­ lieves that the wall had been built to retain a tumulus covering the grave8< If so, its rather loose sandy fill must have been eroded and blown away down to the original surface, because nothing remained of such an accumulation. The circle contained ca. 15 burials, both of children and of adults, interred in small shafts covered with stone slabs. Construction of the later shafts had damaged and defaced the earlier ones, the contents of which had been broken and scattered around within the circle. Only two graves had been left entirely undisturbed. The vases are MH-LH I and have much in common with the pottery from the shaft graves at Mycenae.50 There are some Keftiu cups, decorated in the brush-painted ripple pattern applied on late MM III vases and on Thera p o t t e r y . A pot-bellied, matt painted amphora has its counterpart in shaft grave V at Mycenae.52 But the most striking parallel is that between the beaked jug #3,53 decorated with the abstract linear figure of a bird, and the similar jug from T h e r a . B o t h vases are beyond doubt the work of the same potter and belong to the cate­ gory named Lederware by Schachermeyr,55 several specimens of which were found in shaft graves VI and K at Mycenae and on Thera. No circle was found around the two tombs at Kephalovrysso,5® of which the smaller one contained a contracted burial and was originally covered with flat stones resting on wooden beams. The larger tomb, Kephalovrysso 1, is 3.60 m. long and 1.25 m. wide. Originally a natural, irregularly trapezoid pit, it had been fashioned into a shaft grave by stone walls built along the sides to support the roof. This construction caved in, leaving a few slabs leaning inwards along the sides. The grave contained one slightly contracted skeleton in situ and the bones of two or three earlier burials pushed aside. The dead were accompanied by ca. 20 vases5^ and some small finds. The in situ burial was furnished with five vases,50 42 flint

309

arrowheads of the type found at Makryssia, Peristeria, Englianos and Mycenae and a large bronze dagger of a well known late MH type found in shaft graves II, IV,p and A' at Mycenae6^- and elsewhere, and produced till LH II. The other objects,pushed mainly to the west side of the tomb, included 14 vases,6® one more dagger like the former, a whetting stone, also with parallels in shaft graves IV and A ,6^ three clay and one steatite whorls, a fragment of a boar's tusk with two perforations, probably from a helmet and, finally, two one-edged knives with a small projection on the back near the tip. Three more such knives are known from Dodona, Leukas and the town of Ithaka6-* but without clear chronological contexts. The vases date the tomb to the last years of MH rather than to the beginning of LH I, as we understand it. They are mostly undecorated, made locally of coarse clay, imperfectly fired and crumbly. There is also some black and yellow Minyan ware and a few vases with a reddish-buff surface, decorated with matt-painted bands. There are two sizeable spouted craters, a jug, a juglet, a one handled cup, two skyphoi and a stemless cantharos of the type found in shaft graves IV and T 66 and in the area of grave circle B at Mycenae.67 The other vessels have unusual shapes. They are a flaring bowl with four small handleless cups symmetrically attached to the interior,6® six twin bowls connected by a solid or hollow cylindrical strut and a high vertical handle,6® a bowl with a strap handle attached in­ side, which is perforated at the top and has a flaring lip around the hole7® and a deep spouted vessel with inverted lip and a basket handle.7^ The three last shapes were also found in the MH tholos tomb at Koryphassion7^ and the twin bowls have several parallels in Messenia as well as Mavro Spelio.73 The bowl with the interior strap handle, of which the bigger one with the four cups is perhaps a more elaborate version, was explained by Marinatos as being used for spinning two threads into one, the two balls of thread being kept from tangling by the handle which separated them.7^ The grave circle near the palace at Englianos is the perfect analogue of the circles at Makryssia, Klidhi and perhaps Peristeria. The wall, preserved only in part, is 0.60 m. thick and was built around an area of ca. 5.50 m. in diameter. It enclosed some pits occupied by pithos burials or by the bones of disturbed interments, a bone pit and a skeleton in situ, laid in a shallow cavity in the center. This, evidently the last burial in the circle, was covered with a small mound of earth. In all, 20 male and 7 female adults had been buried in these pits. The circle was in use till well into LH IIB, but the pottery which dates its beginnings is typical of the transition from MH. to LH I.7^ Also, among the grave furnishings of the earlier burials, are flint and obsidian mitered arrowheads, similar to those from Makryssia, Klidhi, Peristeria, Kephalovrysso76 and Mycenae, a whetstone of the type found in shaft graves IV, V, VI and A , 77 eight type A r a p i e r s , 78 two bronze cauldrons7® with counterparts in the shaft graves at Mycenae,®® a slashing knife of the Schlachtmesser type, known from shaft graves IV and V^l and a gold dia­ dem similar in shape and decoration to that of Peristeria and its ana­ logues. 83 Thus, all these small grave circles and shaft graves in the western Peloponnese belong to one and the same tradition, reflected also in the contemporary tholos tombs. They have the same shape, the same burial cus­ toms and the same kind of furnishings. None, save Peristeria, contained

310

any really rich finds but, except for the quality of their grave gifts, there is no difference between them all and Mycenae. Kephalovrysso and Koryphassion prove that this tradition is rooted in the MH period, and Englianos shows that it continues well into LH II. The prehistoric ceme­ tery at Mycenae provides the background for the royal shaft graves as does Kephalovrysso for Peristeria. Mycenae in the east and Peristeria in the west are no isolated phenomena. Whichever the factors that produced it, the impulse which brought about the civilization now called Mycenaean was not felt by Mycenae alone. Its simultaneous effects are clearly discern­ ible in the western part of the Achaean world and, for all we know at pre­ sent, they may have spread with the same speed and the same intensity to other centers too, yet to be discovered.

311

Footnotes

1

Wace, BSA XXV, 1921-23, 103 ff.; Mycenae, 51; BSA XLV, 19.50, 203-228, esp. 220.

2

Papademetriou, Praktika 1951, 197-203; 1952. 427-4,72; 1953, 205-237; 1 9 5 4 , 2 4 2 - 2 6 9 ; 1 9 5 5 , 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 ; Mylonas,*0 TotcpiHOQ K u k \ o Q B t u v M u h t )v o o v , Athens 1973.

^

Cf. Mylonas supra, 358.

^

Kourounlotis, Praktika 1925-26, 140 f .

-* Blegen, Hesperia 1954, 158-162, pi. 37-38. 6

PN III, 35 ff.

7

PN III, 107; Schachermeyr, Die Agalsche Fruhzelt 2, 1976, 55.

8

Marinatos, Praktika 1965, 114-119, pis. 130-144.

9

Praktika

1965, 114.

10 Praktika

1965, pi. 133.

11 Praktika

1965, 116.

12 c f . Marinatos, Praktika 1965, 117, pi. 133. 1974 (Forschungsbericht 1961-1965) 12. 13 Praktika 1965, pi.

Also Schachermeyr., AA 1,

143 (3.

1^ Karo, Sch Gr. pi. Cl, #536-540; Mylonas, Grave Circle B,pis. 15 Praktika 1965, pi.

134.

16 Karo, Sch Gr, pis. XXXV, #184, 185, 187, XIV, Mylonas, Grave Circle B , pi. 153a. 17 Mylonas,

GraveCircle B,pis.

124

a3,

1® Mylonas, Gra^TeCircle B,pi. 20 y . 19 Praktika

72a, 1236

1965, pi. 137.

20 Mylonas, Grave Circle B, pi. 70 a-b.

312

177

al, 0.

#3,

5, XXXVI#232;

23 Praktika 1965, pi. 138. 22 Karo, Sch Gr., pi. CXXV #629. 23 Praktika 1965, pi. 139. 24 Praktika 1965, pi. 140 a. 25 Praktika 1965, pi. 140 0. 2® Praktika 1965, pi. 140 y , left and right. 27 Karo, Sch Gr pi. XXI, #24. 28 Praktika 1965, pi. 140 y , middle. 29 PN III, 117, fig. 192, 1-4

b.

30 Marinatos-Hirmer, Kreta, Thera und das Mykenische Hellas, pi. 225, below left. 33 Praktika 1965, pi. 141 a. 32 Karo Sch Gr, pi. XL # 264. 33 Thera III, pis. 59:2, 60. 34 Praktika 1965, pi. 143 a, center. 35 Karo Sch Gr. pi. XXV #121. 36 Praktika 1965, pi. 141 3>-y. 37 Karo Sch Gr. pi. LVI #639. 38 PN III 120, fig. 190, g. 39 Praktika 1965, pi. 1416. 40

Karo, Sch Gr. pi. CXLVIII, #166.

41 Praktika 1965, pis. 141 6, 142 3. Praktika 1965, pi. 142 a. 43 Karo

Gr,» Pi* LXH, Mylonas Grave Circle B . pi. 182 y •

313

uu

Mylonas, Grave Circle B, 354-358, 425-426. Die Xgalsche Fruhzeit 2, 228 ff.

Cf. also Schachermeyr,

45 Makryssia is across the Alpheios river from Olympia. Some 10 km. to the SW, on the coast, lies Klidhi (Samikon)- Peristeria is ca. 35 km. further south. The distance between Peristeria and Kephalovrysso is ca. 25 km. and that between Kephalovrysso and Englianos 6 km. The distances are given as the crow flies, not taking into account the terrain, which sometimes is difficult, or the routes most likely to be followed. A two or two and a half days march, however, would cover the whole distance comfortably. 46 Themelis, Deltion 23, 1968, A, 284-292. 4^ Supra, note 14. 48 Sandars, P.P.S. XXI, 1955, class 1 a, p. 175, fig. 1. 49 Yalouris, Deltion 20, 1965, A, 6-40. Schachermeyr, AA 1971, 409. 51 Marinatos, Thera II, pi. E 6, III, fig. 33, IV pi. 77 b, and VII pi. 48 a. 52 Karo, Sch Gr, pi. CLXXII #858. Yalouris, Deltion 20, 1965, A, p. 11, pi. 6 a. -*4 Marinatos, Thera VII, p. 28, pi. 43 a. Die Agaische Fruhzelt, 2, 218-220.

Also Andreou AAA 1974, 416 ff.

56 Karo, Sch Gr, pi. CLXXIII #941, 943, p. 164, fig. 80-81, pi. CLXXIV #948, 950, Mylonas Grave Circle B , grave K, pi. 103 b, 150 a. Also vol. A, color plate. 57 Thera IV, 33-34, pi. 63. ^8 Marinatos, Praktika 1964, 86-89, Plan fig.. 1, pis. 82, 88-91. -*9 The preliminary report (supra, note 58) refers to "more than 20" vases of which 14 ate enumerated and briefly described (pp. 86-87). Those illustrated in pis. 89-90 are 13. The plan shows 17, numbered 1-16 and 19, to which the small skyphos and the cup found inside sky­ phos #5 (pi. 8 9C ) should be added, giving a total of 19. 88 Skyphos #5, containing a smaller one end a cup (pi. 89 £ , a kantharos (#13, pi. 89 3),.and a spouted basket-handled bowl (#14, pi. 89 y).

314

61 Karo, Sch Gr, pi. LXXII #217, XCVIII #422; Mylonas, Grave Circle B, pi. 56 p , 61 3 2. ^

Mylonas, Grave Circle B , 323 f.

88 Supra, note 59. Karo, Sch Gr, pi. CII #512; Mylonas, Grave Circle B, pi. 72 a. 65 Sandars, P.P.S. XXI, 1955, fig. 4, p. 183 and list IX, p. 196. Also S. Benton, BSA XXXV, pp. 71-72, fig. 20, 14; Evangelidis, Praktika 1952, 293, fig. 21. Sandars places them together with two more spe­ cimens from Elatela and Stavros (Ithaka) in her class 6 b because of the arrangement of their hafts and the number of the rivets, not be­ cause of the shape of their blades. For the snout-like projections on the blades she refers to certain knives of the Peschiera type (supra, p. 184) which, however, have an entirely different shape and do not appear before the beginning of the 15th cent. B.C. (MullerKarpe, BeitrHge zur Chronologle der Urnenfelderzelt sttdlich und nBrdlich der Alpen, 1959, fig. 21:26, pi. 105, 3-4, 8-11, also Pallottino, Studl Etruschi 28, 1960, 19020). 88 Karo, Sch Gr, pi. CLXXI #611; Mylonas, Grave Circle B , pi. 52 (3. 67 Mylonas,

Grave Circle B, pi. 212 3>*

88 Praktika

1964, pi. 90 a.

89 Praktika 1964, pi. 90 b-6. Marinatos (p. 88) thought thatthis shape would most probably be the prototype for the Homeric depas amphikypellon. 70 Praktika

1964, pi. 9 0 e .

7^ Praktika 1964, pi. 89 y . A bronze vessel of this shape was found off the coast of Euboea and has been published by Buchholz (Jahr. • FI

II

•• it

II

V

723

fl

132

II

II

V

II

V

729 752 253 266 267 278 296 303 39l* 396 736 71*6 71*7 753

If

II

131* 136

dagger P

standard ff II

II It II

variant standard IIII

II

II

II

II

ff If

variant standard

ff

II

ff ff

ff

ff

ff fl

II

variant »f

standard

alpha gamma gamma delta lamda nu IV IV V V V V V VI VI VI

76h 90a 905 906

II II It

it

ffylonas 1972 If

II

fl It

fl

Karo 1930 II

ff fl

ft ft ff ff ff f!

71 71 87 139 170 95 97 13U 135 135 137 137 160 161 161

PLATE 51*1 lxhii lxxiii

LXXIII LXXIII LXXIII Lxxnn, LXXXIV LXXXI, LXXXIV LXXXI LXXX 18 55*, 5501 55r 61*0 122 11*8 XCIII, XCIV LXXXIX, XC LXXXI XCI XCI, XCII XCI XCI, XCII xcv xcv XCV

STATE OF PRES 5RVATICN OTJiSER TSHOTOTr PAfef OF AND TANG ONLI SHOULDER ONLT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X .i

.

S h a ft G ra v e s a t N ic h o r ia by N ancy C . W ilk ie

T h e a n c i e n t h a b i t a t i o n s i t e k now n b y i t s m o d e rn to p o n y m N i c h o r i a i s s i t u a t e d a t t h e n o r t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e G u l f o f M e s s e n ia , a p p r o x i ­ m a t e ly tw o k i l o m e t e r s i n l a n d a n d a t a n e l e v a t i o n o f 95 m e t e r s a b o v e s e a le v e l (F ig . 1 ). I t l i e s on th e e a s t e r n edge o f th e r o c k y p la t e a u c o u n t r y t h a t m akes up t h e c e n t r a l M e s s e n ia n p e n i n s u l a , o c c u p y i n g an im p o r t a n t s t r a t e g i c p o s i t i o n s i n c e i t c o n t r o l s t h e m a in la n d r o u t e b e tw e e n e a s t e r n a n d w e s t e r n M e s s e n ia . H e re a n o r t h - s o u t h r a n g e o f h i l l s fo rm s a c o n s i d e r a b l e b a r r i e r t o t r a f f i c , b u t a p a s s d i r e c t l y n o r t h o f t h e s i t e p r o v i d e s f a i r l y e a s y a c c e s s fr o m t h e u p la n d p l a t e a u o n t h e w e s t t o t h e lo w e r P a m ls s o s v a l l e y o n t h e e a s t . D u r in g t h e y e a r s 1969 t o 1 9 7 3 , t h e M in n e s o t a M e s s e n ia E x p e d i t i o n , u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f W i l l i a m A . M c D o n a ld , c o n d u c t e d e x t e n s i v e e x c a v a t i o n s a t t h e s i t e a n d i n 1972 a n d 1973 c o o p e r a t e d w i t h t h e s e v e n t h ( Z f ) E p h o r a t e o f t h e G re e k ^ A r c h a e o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e i n t h e e x c a v a t i o n o f a t h o l o s tom b l o c a t e d t h e r e . T h e a u t h o r , r e p r e s e n t i n g MME, t o g e t h e r w i t h M r s . T h e o d o r a K a r a g i o r g a S t a t h a c o p o u lo u a n d M is s S t y l i a n a P a rla m a r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e e p h o r a t e i n t h e 1972 a n d 1973 s e a s o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y , s u p e r v i s e d t h e e x c a v a t i o n o f t h e to m b . A t N i c h o r i a , a s a t m any M y c e n a e a n s i t e s , t h e c e m e t e r y a r e a i s lo c a t e d t o th e w e s t o f th e s i t e . S c a t t e r e d d e p o s i t s o f M id d le H e l l a d i c s h e rd s in th e v i c i n i t y o f th e th o lo s in d ic a t e th e e a r l i e s t a c t i v i t y in th e a re a . S u b s e q u e n t l y , p r o b a b l y l a t e i n LH I , a s m a ll c i r c u l a r s t r u c t u r e (2 m. i n d ia m e t e r ) w as b u i l t o f lim e s t o n e b l o c k s a n d u s e d a s a com m unal tom b a t l e a s t i n t o e a r l y LH I I t im e s ( F i g . 2 ) . Som ew hat l a t e r , p r o b a b l y i n LH I I I A : 2 , t h e t h o l o s w a s e r e c t e d d i r e c t l y to th e w e st o f t h is e a r li e r s t r u c t u r e . A g ro u p o f fra g m e n ta ry v a s e s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e LH I I I A : 2 p e r i o d c o m p r is e s t h e e a r l i e s t c e r a m ic m a t e r ia l t h a t d e f i n i t e l y ca n be a t t r i b u t e d t o th e u s e o f th e t h o lo s and t h u s s h o u ld p r o v i d e a term inus ante quem f o r i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n . 2 A s m a ll n u m b e r o f e a r l i e r s h e r d s , m a in ly LH I I i n d a t e , a l s o w e re r e c o v e r e d fr o m t h e to m b , b u t t h e s e p r o b a b l y s h o u ld b e s e e n a s s t r a y s fro m t h e h a b i t a ­ t i o n a r e a d i r e c t l y a b o v e a n d t o t h e e a s t o f t h e to m b . H o w e v e r, th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d a t e p r i o r t o LH I I I A : 2 f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d i n i t i a l u s e o f t h e tom b c a n n o t b e r u l e d o u t , s i n c e a s h a l l o w c i s t ( P i t 4 ) a t t h e n o r t h e n d o f t h e tom b ch a m b e r ( F i g . 2 ) c o n t a in e d f o u r s e c o n d a ry b u r ia ls . A lt h o u g h t h e r e w a s n o a s s o c i a t e d c e r a m ic m a t e r i a l b y w h ic h t o d a t e t h e s e b u r i a l s , t h e y n e v e r t h e l e s s i n d i c a t e t h a t o n a t l e a s t o n e o c c a s i o n t h e tom b w as c l e a r e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a new b u r i a l .

A l s o c u t i n t o t h e f l o o r o f t h e tom b cha m be r a r e g r a v e s a n d a s m a ll c i r c u l a r p i t ( F i g . 2 ) . The s h a ft a n d 2 ) a r e l a i d o u t i n a V -s h a p e p o i n t i n g to w a r d t h e B e tw e e n th e m , a t t h e i r n o r t h e n d s , i s a s m a ll c i r c u l a c o n t a in e d a n u n d i s t u r b e d h o a r d o f b r o n z e s .

tw o d e e p s h a f t g ra ve s ( P it s 1 d o o rw a y o r s t o m io n . r p i t ( P i t 3 ) w h ic h

Th e f i r s t o f th e s h a f t g ra v e s ( P i t 1 ) i s lo c a t e d i n th e s o u th w e s t q u a d r a n t o f t h e tom b o n t h e l e f t a s o n e e n t e r s . I t i s o r ie n t e d w it h i t s l o n g a x i s i n a N W -SE d i r e c t i o n . A t th e to p o f th e p i t , o r f l o o r l e v e l , i t s d im e n s io n s a r e 2 .5 0 m. l o n g x 1 .1 8 m. w i d e . T h e b o tto m o f t h e p i t a t i t s d e e p e s t p o i n t n e a r t h e c e n t e r i s c . 1 .7 0 m. b e lo w f l o o r le v e l. T h e b a s e o f t h e p i t i s fo rm e d b y t h e c o a r s e r e d s a n d w h ic h com­ p r is e s th e h i l l a t t h is e le v a t io n . W a lls c o n s t r u c t e d o f s m a ll lim e s t o n e b l o c k s l i n e i t s lo w e r p o r t i o n o n a l l f o u r s i d e s ( F i g . 3 ) b u t do n o t e x te n d t o th e b o tto m o f th e p i t . R a th e r , a la y e r o f c o a rs e y e llo w sand i s e x p o s e d b e n e a th them f o r c . 0 .1 5 m. The w a lls a re c . 0 .8 5 m. h i g h w i t h t h e i r t o p s c . 0 .6 0 m. b e lo w t h e f l o o r o f t h e to m b . Th e y a re n o t q u it e p e r p e n d ic u la r on th e lo n g s id e s o f th e p i t b u t i n c l i n e s l i g h t l y o u t w a r d fr o m b o t t o m t o t o p , s o t h a t a t t h e b o tto m t h e p i t i s 0 .7 0 m. w i d e , w h i l e a t t h e t o p o f t h e l i n i n g w a l l s i t s w i d t h i s 0 .8 0 m. The s id e s o f th e u p p e r p o r t io n o f th e p i t a re c u t p e r p e n d ic u la r ly o u t o f t h e n a t u r a l s a n d a n d s i l t an d e x t e n d c . 0 .6 0 -0 .6 5 m. b e n e a t h t h e f l o o r o f t h e tom b c h a m b e r. R e s t i n g o n t h e l i n i n g w a l l s an d r o o f i n g t h e lo w e r p o r t i o n o f t h e g r a v e w e re f o u r l a r g e l im e s t o n e s l a b s , 0 .1 0 -0 .1 5 m. t h i c k , a s w e l l a s m any s m a l l e r s t o n e s t h a t h a d b e e n u s e d t o c o v e r t h e g a p s b e tw e e n th e m , a l l a p p a r e n t ly in t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s it io n s ( F ig . 3 ) . D e s p it e t h i s c a r e f u l s e a l i n g o f t h e lo w e r b u r i a l c h a m b e r, c . 0 .3 0 m. o f f i n e y e l l o w s a n d h a d f i l t e r e d dow n i n t o i t fro m t h e f i l l i n t h e u p p e r p o r t i o n o f th e g r a v e . W it h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h i s f i n e y e llo w sa n d , t h e lo w e r b u r i a l c h a m b e r, a s we e n c o u n t e r e d i t a n d a s i t m u st h a v e beenl e f t b y t h o s e who l a s t s e a l e d t h e g r a v e , w as c o m p le t e ly e m p ty . T h u s , th e re i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t P i t 1 s h o u ld b e s e e n a s a c e n o t a p h . S u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c a n n o t b e d is c o u n t e d s i n c e c e n o t a p h s a r e t h o u g h t t o h a v e b e e n c o n s t r u c t e d d u r i n g t h e M y c e n a e a n period.3 F o r e x a m p le , P e r s s o n b e l i e v e d t h a t C ham ber Tomb 2 a t D e n d ra w as a c e n o ta p h b e c a u s e i t c o n t a i n e d n o t r a c e o f human s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l an d i t s c o n t e n t s w e re o f a u n iq u e n a t u r e , m a in ly a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s a c r i f i c i a l offerings.^ M o re c l o s e l y a l l i e d t o t h e N i c h o r i a e x a m p le , h o w e v e r , i s Cham ber Tomb 528 I n t h e K a l k a n i c e m e t e r y a t M y c e n a e , w h o s e d o o r w a y h a d b e e n c l o s e d w i t h a r o u g h s t o n e w a l l d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t c o n t a in e d n o t r a c e o f a b u r i a l . 5 A lt h o u g h n o s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n c o u l d b e f o u n d b y t h e e x c a v a t o r o f t h e to m b , M y lo n a s l a t e r s u g g e s t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e tom b h a d s e r v e d a s a c e n o t a p h . b T h e s e e x a m p le s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , t h e l a c k o f s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l o r g r a v e g o o d s i n a n o t h e r w i s e i n t a c t tom b o f t e n c a n b e e x p l a i n e d i n m ore c o n v e n t io n a l te rm s . F o r e x a m p le , t h e g r a v e may h a v e c o n t a in e d an i n f a n t b u r i a l w h o s e b o n e s h a d c o m p le t e ly d i s i n t e g r a t e d , a s w as s u g g e s t e d

346

b y B le g e n i n t h e c a s e o f Tomb X L V I I a t P ro s y m n a . O r e l s e , t h e tom b may h a v e b e e n t h o r o u g h l y c le a n e d a n d r e - s e a l e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a new b u r i a l , w h ic h f o r r e a s o n s u n k n o w n t o u s n e v e r o c c u r r e d . T h i s may h a v e b e e n t h e c a s e i n Tom bs 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 , a n d 530 a t M y c e n a e . ® T h e l a t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n a l s o seem s t o a p p l y t o G r a v e BC 3 a t L e r n a , a c i s t g r a v e w i t h m a s s iv e w a l l s o f l a r g e s t o n e s a n d tw o h u g e lim e s t o n e c o v e r s la b s . I t w as f o u n d u n d i s t u r b e d , t h e c o v e r s l a b s i n t a c t , w i t h s m a l l e r s t o n e s s t i l l m a s k in g t h e j o i n t s b e tw e e n th e m . The e n t ir e c e n t r a l p a r t o f t h e g r a v e h a d b e e n c a r e f u l l y c le a n e d o u t , s o t h a t o n l y a fe w s m a l l b o n e s an d f r a g m e n t s o f t h e o r i g i n a l g r a v e g o o d s r e m a in e d . T h e r e f o r e t h e e x c a v a t o r o f t h e s i t e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e g r a v e may h a v e b e e n e m p t ie d b y t h e d e s c e n d a n t s o f t h e d e a d who d e l i b e r a t e l y g a t h e r e d t h e b o n e s i n o r d e r t o b u r y th em e l s e w h e r e . ^ T h u s i t i s p o s s ib le t h a t r a t h e r b e in g a c e n o ta p h , P i t 1 i n th e N i c h o r i a t h o l o s o r i g i n a l l y c o n t a in e d o n e o r m o re b u r i a l s o f w h ic h n o t r a c e re m a in e d a s a r e s u l t o f a t h o r o u g h c l e a r i n g a n d r e s e a l i n g o f th e g ra v e in a n t iq u it y . Such an i n t e r p r e t a t io n i s s u p p o rte d b y th e f a c t t h a t t h e s t o n e w a l l s l i n i n g t h e lo w e r p o r t i o n o f t h e g r a v e d o n o t e x t e n d t o t h e b o t t o m o f t h e p i t b u t t e r m in a t e c . 0 .1 5 m. a b o v e i t . For i n o r d e r t o c o n s t r u c t t h e g r a v e i n t h i s w a y , i t w o u ld h a v e b e e n n e c e s s a r y t o c u t a n a r r o w l e d g e a r o u n d t h e b o tto m o f t h e e n t i r e p i t o n w h ic h t o l a y th e lo w e s t c o u rs e o f th e l i n i n g w a l l s . A m ore l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s t h a t w h en t h e g r a v e w a s c l e a r e d , t h e b o tt o m o f t h e p i t w a s t h o r o u g h l y s c r a p e d a s s u r i n g t h e r e m o v a l o f a l l o f t h e g r a v e g o o d s an d s k e l e t a l m a t e r ia l. T h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t w o u ld h a v e b e e n t h e d e e p e n in g o f t h e p i t , s i n c e i t w o u ld h a v e b e e n d i f f i c u l t t o a v o i d c u t t i n g i n t o t h e s i l t w h ic h m akes u p t h e h i l l i n t o w h ic h t h e t h o l o s i s b u i l t a n d w h ic h fo rm s th e b o tto m o f th e p i t . I t i s p o s s ib le to e s t a b lis h a d a te f o r th e p ro p o se d c le a r in g o f P i t 1 b y e x a m in in g t h e c e r a m ic m a t e r i a l c o n t a in e d i n t h e f i l l a b o v e t h e c o v e r i n g s l a b s , s i n c e t h e c o a r s e y e l l o w s a n d c o m p r is in g t h e p i t f i l l w as s t r a t i g r a p h i c a l l y d i s t i n c t fr o m t h e m a t e r i a l a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e f l o o r d e p o s it s d i r e c t l y a b o v e . F ra g m e n ts o f f o u r v a s e s came fr o m t h e p i t f i l l . T h e y a r e am ong t h e e a r l i e s t d e p o s i t e d i n t h e to m b , an d s h o u ld a l l p r o b a b l y b e lo n g t o LH I I I A : 2 o n s t y l i s t i c g r o u n d s • T h e y i n c l u d e a l a r g e s h o u ld e r f r a g m e n t o f a T a l l J u g (F S 1 1 8 ) d e c o r a t e d i n a p o o r l y d ra w n v e r s i o n o f C u r v e d S t r i p e s (FM 6 7 ) . T h i s v a s e i s a b o u t t w o - t h i r d s c o m p le t e , w i t h la r g e p o r t io n s o f th e b o d y m is s in g . T h e in c o m p le t e s t a t e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h i s v a s e , c o m b in e d w i t h i t s e a r l y d a t e , s h o u ld i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m i s s i n g f r a g m e n t s w e re d i s c a r d e d a t some p o i n t d u r i n g t h e M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l w a l l i n g u p o f t h e d o o r w a y , p e r h a p s w h en t h e tom b u n d e r w e n t a c l e a r i n g i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a new b u r i a l . T h e same h o l d s t r u e f o r t h e f r a g m e n t s o f tw o d e c o r a t e d p i t h o i d j a r s a n d a h i g h h a n d le d k y l i x w h ic h w e re a l s o fo u n d i n t h e f i l l a b o v e t h e s l a b s i n P i t 1 . A s id e fr o m t h e c e r a m ic m a t e r i a l , t h e f i l l i n P i t 1 c o n t a in e d fe w o b je c t s t h a t ca n be d a te d c l o s e l y enough to a id i n e s t a b l i s h i n g th e t im e w h en t h e p i t w as l a s t s e a l e d . An a g a te s e a ls t o n e , l e n t o i d i n s h a p e ,

347

d e p i c t i n g a g r i f f i n w i t h a s i n g l e o u t s t r e t c h e d w in g h a s p a r a l l e l s r a n g i n g fro m LH I I t o LH I I I B : 2 / C : l , an d t h u s c a n n o t a i d i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a m ore p r e c i s e d a t e .^ 0 A s t e a t i t e w h o r l o r b u t t o n H w i t h a r u d im e n t a r y s h a n k s h o u ld d a t e t o LH I I I A : 2 , b u t c o u ld b e l a t e r . ^ T h re e b ro n z e a rr o w h e a d s and f r a g m e n t s o f t e n o t h e r s b e lo n g t o a l a r g e c l a s s o f s u c h a r r o w h e a d s fro m b o t h C r e t e an d t h e m a in la n d t h a t o c c u r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e M yc e n a e a n p e r i o d . 13 Two b r o n z e t w e e z e r b l a d e s , a b r o n z e n e e d le and t w e n t y -t w o c o n s i d e r a b l y d e c a y e d p i e c e s o f le a d w i r e h a v e p a r a l l e l s th ro u g h o u t th e M ycenaean p e r io d . F i n a l l y , a p o r t i o n o f an am ber r i n g b e a d , a g o ld f e r r u l e b a n d and n u m e ro u s p i e c e s o f b r o n z e , some o f w h ic h may h a v e come fro m v e s s e l s , w e re a l s o r e c o v e r e d . Among t h e s k e l e t a l m a t e r i a l , t h e r e m a in s o f tw o i n d i v i d u a l s c o u ld b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , an a d u l t m a le o f a p p r o x i m a t e ly 2 0 -2 5 y e a r s an d a n i n d i v i d u a l o f u n d e t e r ­ m in e d s e x , c . 5 0 -5 5 y e a r s . A fe w a n im a l b o n e s , p o s s i b l y t h o s e o f a p i g , may r e p r e s e n t s a c r i f i c i a l o f f e r i n g s made a t t h e tim e o f o n e o f t h e e a r l i e r b u r i a l s i n t h e to m b . On t h e b a s i s o f t h e p o t t e r y an d o t h e r s m a ll f i n d s fro m t h e f i l l o f P i t 1 , a d a t e i n LH I I I A : 2 seem s t o b e i n d i c a t e d f o r t h e f i n a l a c t i v i t y c o n n e c te d w it h th e p i t , i . e . th e f i l l i n g o f i t s u p p e r p o r t io n w it h e a r t h a f t e r i t s lo w e r cha m b e r h a d b e e n s e a l e d . A c c o r d in g t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r o p o s e d a b o v e , t h i s w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n t h e f i r s t t im e t h a t t h e p i t w as f i l l e d , u n l e s s o f c o u r s e i t w as c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h i s tim e a s a c e n o t a p h . I n s t e a d , t h e f i l l i n g o f P i t 1 a t some tim e d u r i n g t h e LH I I I A : 2 p e r i o d p r o b a b l y f o l l o w e d t h e t h o r o u g h c l e a n s i n g an d r e s e a l i n g o f t h e lo w e r b u r i a l c h a m b e r. T h e r e m a in s o f t h e b u r i a l s c o n t a in e d i n t h e p i t may t h e n h a v e b e e n r e i n t e r r e d i n P i t 4 , a s h a l l o w c i s t a t t h e n o r t h en d o f t h e tom b w h ic h c o n t a in e d f o u r s e c o n d a r y b u r i a l s an d a fe w a s s o c i a t e d g r a v e g o o d s , m a in ly s e a l s t o n e s and j e w e l r y . A lt h o u g h m o st o f t h e o b j e c t s fro m P i t 4 h a v e t h e i r c l o s e s t p a r a l l e l s i n t h e LH I I p e r i o d , t h i s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e t h e d a t e w h en t h e b u r i a l s w e re o r i g i n a l l y made s i n c e m any o f t h e s e it e m s may h a v e b e e n h e ir lo o m s a t t h e t im e t h a t t h e y w e re p la c e d i n t h e t o m b . M o re o v e r, th e la t e s t d a t e a b le o b j e c t fro m P i t 4 i s a t e r r a c o t t a w h o r l o f c a m p a n ifo rm s h a p e w h ic h s h o u ld b e lo n g t o LH I I I A :1 a t t h e e a r l i e s t . 16 D e s p it e t h e f a c t t h a t t e r r a c o t t a w h o r ls a r e m o st common i n t h e LH I an d LH I I p e r i o d s , t h e y a r e f o u n d o c c a s i o n a l l y i n LH I I I w hen s t e a t i t e h a d becom e t h e m ore p o p u l a r m a t e r i a l . F u rth e rm o re , th e w h o rl u n d e r d is c u s s io n has been c o v e r e d w i t h b l a c k s l i p , p e r h a p s i n an a t t e m p t t o make i t m ore c l o s e l y re s e m b le s t e a t i t e . I f P i t 1 w as t h e o r i g i n a l p l a c e o f in t e r m e n t o f o n e o r m ore o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s l a t e r r e i n t e r r e d i n P i t 4 , i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n m u st h a v e t a k e n p la c e im m e d ia t e ly a f t e r t h e c o m p le t io n o f t h e tom b i t s e l f . I f , on th e o t h e r h a n d , P i t 1 w a s c o n s t r u c t e d a s a c e n o t a p h , i t m u st h a v e b e e n b u i l t f o l l o w i n g t h e b u r i a l o f a nu m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e tom b d u r i n g t h e LH I I I A : 2 p e r i o d . I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , t h e i n i t i a l b u r i a l s i n t h e tom b w o u ld h a v e b e e n made o n t h e f l o o r o f t h e tom b ch a m b e r and l a t e r t r a n s ­ f e r r e d t o P i t 4 i n o r d e r t o make w a y f o r t h e e x c a v a t i o n o f P i t 1 . I n t h e s o u t h e a s t q u a d r a n t o f t h e tom b a s e c o n d s h a f t g r a v e ( P i t 2 ) , s i m i l a r i n s i z e an d s h a p e t o P i t 1 , i s o r i e n t e d w i t h i t s lo n g a x i s i n a

348

N-S direction s o that i t c o n v e r g e s w i t h P i t 1 i n a V -s h a p e i n f r o n t o f the s t o m io n ( F i g . 2). T h e s y m m e t r ic a l l a y o u t o f t h e s e g r a v e s c o u l d b e an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y w e re p la n n e d a n d e v e n c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h e same t im e ; b u t a c o m p a r is o n o f t h e w a y i n w h ic h t h e y a r e b u i l t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ily s u p p o rt su ch a c o n c lu s io n .

The dimensions of Pit 2 are 2.00 m. long x 1.35 m. wide x 1.90 m. deep. The upper part of the pit has sides that are cut vertically out of the natural sand and silt to a depth of c. 0.80 m., at which point the width of the pit narrows to c. 0.80 m., with ledges of the natural soil remaining along the two long sides of the pit (Fig. 3). The average width of these ledges is 0.25 m., but because they are cut somewhat unevenly, their widths vary from 0.20-0.30 m. Large limestone slabs once rested on these ledges and roofed the lower 1.10 m. of the grave; but only the northernmost slab was found in situ since the grave had been plundered, probably late in the Mycena-ean period. Three other slabs, whose combined lengths are sufficient to roof the remainder of the pit, were also recovered. One was still resting on the ledges but at a slight angle to the long axis of the pit. Another which had fallen into the pit through the space between the two slabs that remained on the ledges was found in an upright position, resting on one of its short edges. The fourth slab was lying lengthwise at the south end of the pit on c. 0.30 m. of fill. It evidently had been dropped into the pit at the time of the plundering. Furthermore, a few small pieces of limestone were found in the pit fill, indicating that, as in Pit 1, the Interstices between the slabs must have been covered with smaller stones in order to completely seal the lower burial chamber. Because Pit 2 was plundered in antiquity, it is now impossible to determine either the original use to which the grave was put or the time at which it was constructed. It may have been intended as a ceno­ taph, or it may have received one or more burials at any time between LH III A:2 when the tomb was erected and LH III B:2 when the final burial was made on the floor of the tomb. Any burials made in the pit could have been transferred to Pit 4, or they could have been plundered when the tomb was broken into near the end of the Mycenaean period. The evidence from Nichoria tholos can be used to support the contention that shaft graves or pits were often part of the original conception of a tholos tomb rather than later additions when declining wealth did not allow the construction of a new tomb.l® The earlier method of burial may have continued to appeal to many Mycenaeans either as a desire to retain an older native form or because burial within a pit was thought to lessen the likelihood of later disturbance of the dead. However, this method of burial may not necessarily have been meant to protect the precious grave goods that were often placed with the dead since many of the pits in Mycenaean tombs contained no valuable items. Rather, they may have been designed "to secure an inviolable repose to individuals of peculiar distinction in the family."

34 9

Because these persons of "peculiar distinction" would certainly have included those for whom the tomb was initially constructed, it is logical to conclude that these individuals would have been buried in pits with their less illustrious descendants laid out on the floor above.

Footnotes

1.

P r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t s o n t h e e x c a v a t i o n s c a n b e f o u n d i n W. A . M c D o n a ld , " E x c a v a t i o n s a t N i c h o r i a i n M e s s e n ia : 1 9 6 9 -1 9 7 1 ," H e s p e r ia 41 (1 9 7 2 ) 2 1 8 -2 7 3 a n d W. A . M c D o n a ld , " E x c a v a t i o n s a t N i c h o r i a i n M e s s e n ia ; 1 9 7 2 -1 9 7 3 ," H e s p e r i a 44 (1 9 7 5 ) 6 0 -1 4 1 . T h e f i r s t v o lu m e o f t h e f i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n c o v e r i n g t h e s i t e , e n v i r o n s , an d t e c h n i q u e s , h a s b e e n p u b lis h e d ; G e o rg e R a p p , J r . , and S . E . A s c h e n b re n n e r ( e d s . ) , E x c a v a t i o n s a t N i c h o r i a i n S o u th w e s t G r e e c e , V o l . I ( M in n e a p o lis 1 9 7 8 ). T h r e e a d d i t i o n a l v o lu m e s c o v e r i n g t h e e x c a v a t i o n s t h e m s e lv e s a re c u r r e n t ly in p r e p a r a t io n .

2.

D r . O . T . P . K . D i c k i n s o n w i l l p u b l i s h t h e M y c e n a e a n p o t t e r y fr o m t h e to m b , an d I am g r a t e f u l t o h im f o r h e lp i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e d a t e s f o r t h e p o t t e r y r e f e r r e d t o h e r e a n d e ls e w h e r e i n t h e t e x t .

3.

Cf. M a n o lis A n d r o n i k o s , " T o t e n k u l t , " A r c h a e o l o g i a H o m e ric a Band I I I , K a p . W. ( G o t t i n g e n 1 9 6 8 ) 1 0 4 -1 0 5 , f o r t h e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e .

4.

A . W. P e r s s o n , T h e R o y a l Tom bs a t D e n d ra N e a r M id e a

5.

A. J.

B . W ace,

"C h a m b e r Tom bs a t M y c e n a e ," A r c h a e o l o g i a 82 (1 9 3 2 ) 9 8 .

6.

G. E .

M y lo n a s ,

M yc e n a e an d t h e M y c e n a e a n A g e

7.

C .W . B l e g e n , P ro s y m n a , t h e H e l l a d i c H e ra e u m (C a m b r id g e 1 9 3 7 ) 2 2 4 .

8.

W ace, o p . c i t . 5 0 , 8 8 , 108.

9.

(L u n d 1 93 1) 1 0 8 -1 1 7 .

( P r in c e t o n 1966) 118.

S e t t le m e n t P r e c e d in g t h e A r g i v e

J . L . C a s k e y , " E x c a v a t i o n s a t L e r n a , 1 9 5 5 ," H e s p e r ia 25 (1 9 5 6 ) an d " R o y a l S h a f t G r a v e s a t L e r n a , " A r c h a e o lo g y 13 (1 9 6 0 ) 1 3 3 .

1 5 7 -1 5 8

10.

J . G . Y o u n g e r , T o w a r d s t h e C h r o n o lo g y o f A e g e a n G l y p t i c i n t h e B r o n z e A g e , U n p u b lis h e d P h .D . D i s s e r t a t i o n ( U . o f C i n c i n n a t i , 3 7 3 , " G r i f f i n P o s e T y p e 9 b ."

11.

C f . S. I a k o v i d i s , "O n t h e U s e o f M y c e n a e a n *B u t t o n s , 1" BSA 72 (1 9 7 7 ) 1 1 3 -1 1 9 , f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f a p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n f o r t h e s e o b j e c t s .

12.

A.

13.

H .G . B u c h h o l z , " D i e P f e i l g l a t t e r a u s dem V I . S c h a c t g r a b v o n M yke ne u n d d i e h e l l a d i s c h e n P f e i l s p i t z e , " J d I 77 (1 9 6 2 ) 2 5 f f . , A b b . 11a T y p e V .

F u r u m a r k , T h e C h r o n o lo g y o f M y c e n a e a n P o t t e r y

350

L a te 1973)

(S t o c k h o lm 1 9 4 1 ) 8 9 -9 1 .

14.

I am g r a t e f u l t o D r . W. Wade f o r h i s m a t e r i a l fr o m t h e t h o l o s .

15.

C f . B le g e n , d e p o s it s i s

s t u d y o f t h e human s k e l e t a l

o £ . c i t . 2 6 1 , w h e re t h e p r o b le m o f h e ir lo o m s i n a l s o m e n t io n e d .

s e p u lc h ra l

16.

F u ru m a r k , o p . c i t .

91

17.

I b i d . 8 9 ; W a c e , o p . c i t . 2 1 9 ; B le g e n , o p . c i t . 3 1 3 ; an d A . J . B . W ace, " E x c a v a t io n s a t M yc e n a e : T h e T h o lo s T o m b ," BSA 25 (1 9 2 1 -2 2 ; 1 9 2 2 -2 3 ) 3 0 4 .

18.

T h i s w as t h e v i e w o r i g i n a l l y h e l d b y W a c e , BSA 2 5 , p . 3 7 9 . A fte r th e e x c a v a t io n o f th e t h o lo s a t D e n d ra , h o w e v e r, he r e v e r s e d h i s p o s it io n . C f . A . J . B . W a ce , " T h e T h o lo s Tomb a t M y c e n a e : S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s , " i n A . W. P e r s s o n , o p . c i t . p . 1 4 1 .

19.

W. D o r p f e l d , " A l t - P y l o s : I . 33 (1 9 0 8 ) 3 0 6 .

20.

C h . T s o u n ta s and J . C h ic a g o 1 9 6 9 ) 1 37 .

I.

D ie K u p p e lg r a b e r v o n

M a n a tt, The M ycenaean Age

Fig. 1

351

K a k o v a t o s , " AM

(R e p r in te d ,

z -6|J

*re|_5rT|_|o UB|d 3U 0 B9Je

CM LT )

00

:'.

>Sw .

pit opening

major cover stones

pit one plans oruin

compiele cover

h

r \

I

pit opening

i

U major cower

pit two plans ofirin Pig. 3

353

compieta cover

jt

THE MYCENAE-VAPHEIO LION WORKSHOP, III* by John G. Younger

In attempting an estimate of how many artists were actually respon­ sible for the metal objects from the Shaft Graves, I shall first omit from discussion Shaft Grave I. Second, I must also omit from discussion those objects which reveal no artistic or decorative personality. Thus, I pass over the bits and pieces, the bronze cauldrons, pans, and cups; the plain gold cups (IV), sheets (V), sequins (V), flowers (III), ivy leaves (III), and pomegranate bud necklace; the plain silver vases and figure-eight shield rhyton; the wood box 890/891 (V) and casket legs (III); the crystal pommels and inlays; and the arrowheads and helmet, and miscellaneous daggers, knives, and swords (IV an VI). Third, I identify as imported: the alabaster vases; the faience objects; the ostrich eggs (but not necessarily the caps); the hair­ pins from IV; the seal 117 (CMS I 13), a member of the Cretan Popular Group; and the gold spindle 274 (IV), which is by the Jasper Lion Mas­ ter. The considerable remainder may now be treated in two large divi­ sions of artistic endeavor: the minor objects and the major ones. The minor objects fall into two main groups: cut-out foils, the diadems, bands, sequins, buttons, and 'buckles'. The cut-out foils^ reveal a remarkable homogeneity of style and subject. The animals, monsters, shrines, etc., are rendered in broad rounded forms with repouss^ dots or rows of impressed gouges for the articulations. The motifs and the rough style both seem related closely to the Cretan Popular Group.of sealstopes. Most of the diadems, bands, sequins, buttons, and 'buckles' form another homogeneous group distinguished by rich combinations of a few simple decorative motifs: various kinds of rosettes, bosses with various kinds of borders; spirals, including the simple, C-, V-, and elongated types; concentric circles; Kerbschnitt; the foliate band; and two types of loops— stirrup and horseshoe. Though the loops appear predominately on the 'buckles' and buttons, all the major decorative devices are found in the three Shaft Graves (III-V), and several in combination on the same object (e.g., 346, 696, 701,705, etc.). This second large group of minor objects is not as dependent on Cretan models as is the first. This division of the minor objects into one group heavily depen­ dent on Crete and another that seems to have few direct antecedents para­ llels the career of the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Master. His early career (Mycenae-Vapheio Lion paper II) is influenced by the Line-Jawed Lions Masters, a subgroup of the Cretan Popular Group. His later career, apparently centered around Mycenae (Mycenae-Vapheio Lion paper I) is more formal and powerful.

We may presume therefore that the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Master's workshop also went through two main, major stages. To the earlier we may assign: the cut-out foils (including 119/120 which have already been assigned to the Master himself) and other objects iconographically and stylistically related: on iconographic grounds— certain sequins^ and the Cup of Nestor 412 (IV) whose birds perched on the handles are just three-dimensional varieties of those on the cut-out foils 26/242­ 244 and 27 (III and IV); on the stylistic grounds of rounded forms and rows of gouges— the arcade cups 220 (LL), and 627 and 628 (V) the silver nail and goddess 75 (III) whose canopy is also formed by foliate bands, the electrum mask from Grave 0 in Grave Circle B, and gold masks 253 and 254 (IV)6 to which, because of the similar ears, is related the child's gold shroud 219 (II). To the later stage of the workshop we may assign most of the objects with spirals, rosettes, loops, foliate bands, etc.: the sequins, diadems, 'buckles', and buttons;^ gold pin 69 (III); armband 257 (IV); earrings 53-55 and 61 (III); rosettes 21, 76 (III).and 264 (IV); ivory object 824/5 (V); swords 402, 404, 407 (IV), 634, 635, 724 and 726 (V); pommels 276, 277 (IV), 690, and 763 (V); crystal lentoid 118 (Ill/CMS I 14); foliate cups 313 (IV), 786 and 787 (V) and stamnos 391 (IV); arcade cup 442 (IV); ewers 74 (III), 827 and 855 (V); breastplate 625 (V); and stelai 1430, 1431 and various fragments. In a few of the late objects we may cjearly discern the hand of the Master: the Mask of Agamemnon 424 (V); the Silver Siege Rhyton 477/481/504 ( I V ) t h e silver krater 6 0 5 - 6 0 7 the niello cup 390 (IV); the stelai 1428 and 1429; and the bull-head rhyton 384 (IV) with the pointed rosette. The Master was apparently assisted by only two pupils, who seem to have been associated with him from early in his career. The Master of the Gold Cup 656 (V).This gold cup carries a snubnose lion with a thick drooping lower jaw. This same lion appears on CMS I 228 and 245 from Vapheio (the latter from the cist, LH IIA context), and 280 from Rutsi (LH II-III A context); a boar with the same head appears on I 294 from the Vagena Grave at Pylos (LH II-III A context). The hunter on the Vagena seal appears dueling on the amygdaloid 116 (III)/CMS I 12. Perhaps this slightly clumsy artist also produced the awkward rosettes on the sequin 710 (V), shieldband 261 (IV), and dia­ dems 233 and 255 (IV). If this master had a later style we might detect it in the seals I 68 from Mycenae T. 27 and 112 from Mycenae T. 79. The Master of the Gold Box 808-811 (V).Perhaps the most intriguing piece to come out of the Shaft Graves is the hexagonal wood box with three pairs of gold plaques 808-811 (V). Each pair is ingenious. The spirals are double and outlined, as are most of the spirals on the metal objects, but they interlock to form triskelia; compare the sword 744 (V) and the gold cup 74 (III). The figured plaques are even more interesting. On each, a lion

35 6

attacks in flying gallop a stag leaping regardant. On one, a bucranium and palm fronds (compare those on I 410 the ivory ring from Phylakopi, LH I context) fill the space above the lion; on the other, palm fronds and tops fill all the available spaces. Each scene is crowded, but all the motifs interlock neatly like a jig-saw puzzle. The lions obviously show again the influence of the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Master's early style, and resemble their cousin on the gold cup 656, though he is statelier and more balanced. The stags are distinctive with their flatly modeled, raindrop heads, plierslike jaws, and pellet eyes in a sunken rim. The same heads also serve the bulls on I 88 from Mycenae T. 55, I 130 from Mycenae T. 91, and CM 227 from Chersonisos. If this Master was primarily responsible for other objects found in the Shaft Graves we might recognize his style in the rounded heads of the dogs on the wood box 812 (V), the pellet eyes of the circular gold masks 259 (IV) and 623 (V), and the plaque 109 (III) with the con­ torted animals. In profile, the stag 388 (IV), usually called an Anatolian import, could be a three-dimensional version of those on the gold box.

357

Footnotes

*Mycenae-Vapheio Lion papers I and II have appeared as: "The Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Group," AJA 82 (1978) 285-299, and "Origins of the Mycenae-Vapheio Lion Master," BICS 1979. In this summary, Arabic numerals followed by Roman in brackets, like 234 (IV), mean an object designated by its Karo number (Die SchachtgrHber von Mykenai) and the Shaft Grave in which it was found.

* Vermeule, "The Art of the Shaft Graves," lectures in honor of Louise Taft Semple, presented 30 April and 1 May 1973 at the University of Cincinnati (University of Oklahoma Press, 1975) p. 11: "no more than six or eight people..." ^ J.G. Younger and J. Betts, "Eight Sealstones and a Sealing from the Stratigraphical Museum at Knossos," BSA 74 (1979) 271-278, esp. 274-278. The gold spindle carries on its bottom two griffins and on its top two lions, both pairs running counterclockwise in flying gallop, addorsed in axial symmetry. The lions, with their bouncy expressions, exaggerated claws, and tails curling over their backs can be found also on CS^ 244 and the lentoid in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Betts already has demonstrated that this master probably worked at Knossos late in the XVIth or early in the XVth century B.C. Our Shaft Grave piece certainly would favor the earlier date. 3 23,24,26-32,36,39-52,60,79,119,120 (III); 242-244,275,385,386 (IV); 689 (V); and 915 and 916 (VI). ^ The Simple Rosette appears on 76, 122, 263,361,373, 384,712,713 (Ill-V)f the Pointed Rosette— 21,122,263,264,351,361,and 384 (III and IV); the Compass Rosette— 20,81,640, and 712 (III and V). Bosses with Foliate Rims— 3,5,697, and 698 (III and V); with Spiral Rims— 231,232, 286 center, 315, and 352 (IV); with Rosette Rims— the crowns from III and IV and diadem 7 (III); with Broad Foliate Rims— 219 (II), 233,234, 268,649, and 650 (IV and V); with Dotted Rims— 230, 233-235, 250,260, and 710 (IV and V); the Kernel Rosette— 61,69, and 294 (III and IV). The Simple Spiral occurs on 10, 11, 625, 629, 706 (IV and V), 1428; the Elongated Spiral— 3, 271, 272, 634, 635, 692, 694, 696, 698, 702 (III-V), and 1427; C-Spirals— 219 (II), 233, 234, 701, 706 (IV), and 1429; V-Spirals— 649 and 650 (V); Indented Double C-Spirals— 270, 277, 407, 723, and 763 (IV and V). Concentric Circles— 10, 11, 319, 323, 334, and 336-338 (IV and V). Kerbschnitt— 282-284, 300, 301, 707, and 716 (V). Foliate Band— see Bosses with Foliate Rims, 75, 313, 391 (III and IV). The Stirrup Loop-277, 647, 693, 705, and 763 (IV and V); the Horseshoe Loop— 37, 701 (III and V), and 1430; and on most of the

358

'buckles' and buttons— 12-14, 16, 324, 333-338, 340-346, 348, 349, 668-675, 678-684, 699, 708, 709, 711, 715, 717, 719, 720 and 722 (III-V). 5 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18, 20 (III); 81, 82, 328, 412

(IV); and 697 (V).

^ Vermeule, p. 11, rightly has one artist make all three masks. 7 Sequins 10-14, 16, 316, 319, 320, 322-324, 326-332, 334-338, 533-535, 667, 675, 676, 678-685, 696, 700, 704, 706, 707, 708, 711­ 717, 719, 720, 722; diadems 219, 231, and 234 (IV); 'buckles' 340­ 349 and 668-674; buttons 314, 316, 319, 324 (IV). ® Vermeule, p. 36. 9 Vermeule, p. 38. Note the resemblance between Kernel rosettes on the earrings 53-55.

the waves and the

I® A. Sakellariou, "Un Cratere d'Argent...", Antike Runst 17 (1974) 3-20. The helmet plumes are the same as on the sealing KZ 130.

35 9

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM 7 1982

A symposium sponsored by the Department of Art History, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. 19122, U.S.A., with the theme "Trade and Travel in the Cyclades during the Bronze Age," Friday, March 5, 1982.

BRONZE AGE CYCLADIC SHIPSI AN OVERVIEW

Paul P. Johnston Curator of Maritime History Peabody Museum of Salem

The Cycladic island of Melos has provided the earliest evidence to date for seafaring in the Old World. This evidence is in the form of Melian obsidian, which has been found in Upper Paleolithic levels at the mainland Greek site of Francthi Cave.* At least as early as 10,200 BC (and probably earlier), therefore, men were crossing the Aegean Sea to get to and from the Cyclades. What sorts of water­ craft these early voyagers used for their travels is not known, how­ ever; the earliest representational evidence for watercraft in the area of the Cyclades postdates the archaeological evidence for sea­ faring by around 7>000 years. The intent of this paper is to re­ view the representational evidence for Cycladic watercraft from the Early through the Late Bronze A g e . 2

The earliest evidence, dating from the Early Cycladic period, is in two forms. The best known of these comprises a series of around a dozen ships engraved on the so-called Early Cycladic "fry­ ing pans," first published by Tsountas in 1899*^ The hulls of these vessels have slender, attenuated proportions, with one high end and one low end. Where preserved, the high end, which is usually as thick as the hull is deep, meets the hull proper at a steep angle; the low end is normally at a much shallower angle. The lower end fre­ quently has a straight or slightly curved horizontal protrusion pro­ jecting from its basal surface, while the higher end is usually top­ ped by a squared terminal, which is itself surmounted by a thin line with one or more tassels at its lower end and a fish at its upper end. The fish invariably points away from the hull of the vessel. The hulls of these longboats may be either plain or embellished with zig­ zag or vertical lines. The only other major characteristics of these craft are series of between 12-26 diagonal incisions outboard of ei­ ther side of the hull. From their length and placement these incis­ ions would appear to represent oars or paddles; if so, then they pro­ vide a clue to the length of these vessels. The minimum length for a craft with 12 men per side would be around 15 meters, allowing one meter of space for each man and some additional space at bow and stern. Correspondingly, a longboat with 26 men per side would have a minimum length of 30 meters, and probably more. This would approach in size the longest primitive wooden watercraft ever recorded* a Tahitian war canoe of 108 feet (LOAt 32*92 meters) reported by Cap­ tain Cook in his travels in the Pacific.4

The other representational evidence fcr watercraft in the Cyc­ lades during tbis period is a group of four models said to come from a cist grave on Naxos. Three of these models, all of which are fash­ ioned of three flat strips of Siphnian lead, were first published by Renfrew in 1967.5 Only one of the group is intact. Its bottom is flat, comprising slightly more than half the boat•s length. Both ends rise at a low angle from the bottom; one end terminates in a flat tran­ som-like fashion, while the other is formed into a point. The lengthto-beam ratio for this model is 12.2*1, and was probably similar for the others. This extreme ratio, combined with the manifestly low sides of all four examples, would seem to indicate that they represent vessels in the dngout tradition. Moreover, the sharp angle between the sides and bottom may further indicate that they- are dugouts of the advanced extended type, on which strakes.are added to the sides of the hull to increase (extend) the freeboard. The extended dugout, an intermediary evolutionary step between the monopygous dugout and the planked boat, would be far more seaworthy than the monozygous var­ iety in the Aegean Sea, where the seas are high and rough throughout the year. The lead models resemble the "frying pan" craft in the angular­ ity of hull profile, the raised ends, and the low freeboard. How­ ever, there are significant differences between the boats in the two media, which maty indicate that they represent boats of disparate sizes, if not types as well. The chief difference is in the size and angles of the extremities of the boats* on the "frying pan" boats, one end (always to the right) is invariably much thicker, higher, and at a steeper angle to the bottom, than the other. This angle averages ap­ proximately 70 degrees.' By contrast, on the intact Naxian lead mo­ del, both ends are of equal height and thickness, and are at an approx­ imately equal angle (varying between 21-35 degrees for the four exam­ ples) to the flat bottom.® In addition, the "frying pan" craft hulls are embellished with zig-zag and straight lines and oars or paddles to either side, whereas the lead models sire undecorated.9 Lastly, where preserved, the lower (left) ends of the "frying pan" vessels have a projection emerging from and continuing the lower line of the hull. This projection, of uncertain purpose, may indicate the pres­ ence of a keel on the engraved longboats. This feature is clearly lacking on the flat-bottomed lead models. The closest chronological and architectural analogy for the engraved Cycladic "frying psm" ves­ sels comes not from the Cyclades, but from Palaikastro, Crete. It comprises a clay boat model, which, like the engraved longboats, has a low profile, one high and one low end, and a projection from the low end in the form of a spur. However, unlike the "frying pan" boats, the Palaikastro model appears to depict a smallcraft rather than a large vessel, since its length-to-beam ratio is limited to 4*5*1* Moreover, the presence of two thwarts or benches in the interior of the Palaikastro model indicates that a maximum of two rowers or paddlers could have been deployed along each side, as opposed to the

364

12-26 men pep side for the engraved longboats. The rounded lower end and low freeboard further indicate that the Palaikastro model is of the expanded dugout tradition. Similarities between the Naxian lead models and the Palaikastro clay model are limited to only the flat bottom and one pointed aiid one blunt end. The engraved longboats on the Early Cycladic "frying pans" and the Palaikastro clay model are at the center of a modern controversy as to which end of these craft is the bow and which is the stern. Needless to say, what little evidence does exist for watercraft dur­ ing this period is used by advocates of both sides of the controversy to support their views. For example, those advocating the. "high bowlow stern" theory cite as evidence supporting their hypothesis the projection at the low end of these vessels, which they consider to be a "fixed rudder" at the stern to facilitate navigation in open water.10 Adherents to the opposite "low bow-high stern" hypothesis interpret this projection either as a ram, a debarkation point for the crew, a cutwater, or as an unexplained keel projection.11 Advocates of the "high bow" theory note that the high end of the Palaikastro model is pointed and must therefore be the bow to cut the waves, while op­ ponents point out that primitive watercraft builders frequently de­ signed their vessels with beamier bows than sterns, knowing empir­ ically that the speed of a vessel through the water is more affected hy turbulence at the s t e m than by the shape of the bow.1** The fish atop the high end of the engraved longboats is another point of con­ tention for proponents of both theories. "High bow" theorists con­ sider the fish to be an ensign, which, by analogy with the fish en­ sign on the Late Bronze Age "Pylos pyxis," points in the direction in which the ship travels.*3 Opponents note that (a) recent recon­ struction of the "Pylos pyxis" indicates the animal at the bow is a bird, not a fish, (b) the "Pylos pyxis" is much later than the Early Cycladic longboat, (c) the "Pylos pyxis" depicts a large decked sail­ ing vessel from the Greek mainland, as opposed to undecked man-pro­ pelled vessels in the dugout tradition from the Aegean islands, (d) in the Late Bronze Age, ensigns could appear at either end of a ves— sel, (e) the bird might be a tell-tale (wind indicator), and (f) it might have pointed in either direction when upon the actual boat, but was engraved facing away from the hull as an artistic conven­ tion.1" Depictions of watercraft from Egypt approximately contemporary with the engraved longboats and the Palaikastro model offer further comparative m a t e r i a l . A s in the Aegean during this period, the majority of the contemporary Egyptian watercraft representations are crude and ambiguous. However, a large group of Nubian rock cuttings, variously dated from the Predynastic to later periods, show craft which are similar in profile to the Aegean vessels. With few excep­ tions, the rock cuttings which show steering oars on the vessels show

365

them projecting from the higher, thickened end, indicating that it mast be the stern.^ Similarly, two other Predynastic ship repre­ sentations clearly have steering oars at the higher end, proving that it is the stern. Watercraft from other primitive seafaring cultures tend to sup­ port the "low bow" theory for the analogous Early Cycladic long­ boat. The seacraft of Polynesia, where navigation over open seas is commonplace, are particularly apposite. They are normally in the form of expanded and extended dugouts, and usually incorporate a low bow and high stern.^ Many of these vessels also incorporate horizon­ tal spurs at the bow, similar to those upon the Cycladic ships. On the Polynesian craft, these spurs serve either as bowsprits to which forestays are attached (on sail boats), as additional space for pas­ sengers or cargo, as gunwale extensions for more deck space, as plat­ forms for tutelary deities, or as decoration. There is little uni­ formity in the points of attachment of these spurs; they may either extend directly from the keel or gunwale, or from a point midway be­ tween.' It is perhaps significant in light of the analogy with the Early Cycladic longboats that all primitive Polynesian watercraft are without exception paddled, and not rowed. Primitive watercraft from India, Oceania, and other locations tend to support the popularity of a iow bow and high stern for early wooden seagoing vessels. Until recently, the four Naxian lead models and the dozen or so "frying pan" longboats formed the bulk of the evidence for Bronze Age Cycladic watercraft. However, Marinatos* recent publications of the Miniature Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri (Thera) have added 17 new depictions of ships and boats to the corpus of represen­ tations.^ The breadth of watercraft types portrayed in the fresco is remarkable, ranging from smallcraft with one- or two-man crews, through medium sized vessels with crews of around ten men, to full­ sized ships manned by more than 50 crewmen. The various craft are propelled by a variety of means, including oars, paddles, and sails. It almost appears that the artist's intent in painting this mural was to illustrate, among other things, the broad range of watercraft in use at the time of its execution. Despite the millenium or so which separates the Miniature Fresco vessels from their Early Cycladic count­ erparts, certain similarities are readily visible. The resemblances are most evident between the smallcraft of the Miniature Fresco and the Early Cycladic vessels. On the smallest of the fresco vessels, the hulls are crescent­ shaped, with the bow and stern clearly differentiated. The stern, indicated by the presence of the helmsman and the position of the lone paddler, is slightly higher, thicker, and at a steeper angle to the hull's basal line than the bow. As has been argued above, this is similar to the Early Cycladic "frying pan" longboat, on which the higher end is also thicker and at a steeper angle to the bottom than the lower end.

36 6

Three middle-sized craft are among the best preserved of all of the Kiniature Fresco boats. Here again, the hulls are crescent­ shaped) however, the bow and s t e m are of approximately equal height, like the Naxian lead models. The stems, which are clearly thicker than the bows, are at a steeper angle to the hulls than the bows, mach like the smallcraft on the fresco and the earlier "frying pan" craft. Two of the middle-sized craft are manned by a single indiv­ idual in the s t e m , who is probably to be identified as the captain rather than the helmsman, judging from the other fresco vessels. The third middle-sized craft is fully manned, with the captain seated in the stern, a standing helmsman plying a single steering oar, and five rowers whose oars reach over the gunwale into the water. All three of tiiese middle-sized craft have a framework of poles over the central portion of the hull, which may represent either a sun canopy, a framework to hold the sail when not in use, or a combination of the two. The only decoration upon these craft is a darkened brown line along the upper edge of the hull proper, which presumably delineates the gunwale. Seven large ships are also present in the Miniature Fresco. Unfortunately these ships, which are clearly the central elements and most important vessels in the entire composition, are also the least well preserved. However, one of the vessels is nearly complete, at least in the most significant details. It appears for the most part to be a larger version of the smallcraft and middle-sized vessels which round out the fresco fleet. Like the others, it has a long, attenuated crescent-shaped hull. The heavy s t e m rises at a steep angle to the bottom, while the slender bow rises at a more gradual an­ gle. A horizontal zone of blue spirals, probably representing styl­ ized waves, delineates the gunwale above the white hull. At the s t e m of this and the other large fresco vessels, a rampant feline faces aft. This creature presumably represents the ensign, although the floral and butterfly combination at the bows of the large ships may also serve this function. The flower and butterfly decorations, where preserved, are affixed to the upper surface of a long, slender pole which is bound to the ships' stemposts. These poles at the tips of the prows make the bows of these ships appear to be considerably higher than the stems; in combination with the curious projections lashed to the sterns of the fresco ships, the high poles have led some scholars to conclude by extrapolation that the high ends of the engraved "frying pan" longboats must have been the bows, and the low ends with the projections the stems.*° In opposition to this pro­ posal, it may be observed that (a) on the fresco ships these elements do not appear to be structural as they do upon their predecessors, (b) these elements appear on sailing vessels a full millennium later than their man-propelled ancestors, and (c) other craft within the same composition have higher, thicker sterns than stems. A remark­ ably similar floral device on a pole off the bow of a primitive

367

Pacific watercraft represents decoration for a fishing rod. Like the accompanying middle-sized craft on the Miniature Fresco, the large ships have covered areas in the center of the hulls, ostensibly formed by the lowered sail supported on a series of vertical supports. Three of the large ships, however, have thick masts at their midpoints, bound by wooldings at regular intervals and topped hy elaborate mast trucks. Topping lifts for raising and low­ ering the sail, and sheets for handling the sail once raised,, show considerable sophistication matched only by contemporary Egyptian

Aside from certain decorative elements and the presence of a raised sail on one of the craft, the large fresco vessels are essentially identical, insofar as they are preserved. They appear to have crews of around 50 men, and approximately ten passengers seated beneath the covered areas, whom Marinatos identified as mar­ ines.^ Despite Marinatos' thesis, there is no internal evidence that these vessels represent warships, for which the earliest posi­ tive evidence presently known dates to the Archaic period.^ Nor do these ships appear to be merchant vessels, as shown by their slender, attenuated proportions and shallow hulls. Perhaps they were all-pur­ pose craft, used both for trade and transportation, constructed in an era prior to the divergence of warships and merchant vessels. On the other hand, an equally strong case may be made for the ships representing specialized or ritual vessels, or even racing yachts participating in a regatta. * While the Theran Miniature Fresco has considerably enlarged the corpus of Bronze Age Cycladic ship repre­ sentations, and provided new evidence for Bronze Age ships in general, it also poses an entirely new series of questions, which as yet can­ not be satisfactorily answered.

FOOTNOTES 1. See Diamant, JFA 6 (1979) 217, n. 24 . 2. The discussion is limited to the representational evidence, since there are neither shipwrecks nor literary evidence for ships in the Cycladic Bronze Age. 3* See Tsountas, ArchEph (1899) 90-91* 4* Dodd, E. Polynesian Seafaring (N.Y., Dodd, Mead A Co., 1972) 140­ 42.

368

5. Renfrew, AJA 71 (1967) 1-20. 6. Greenhill, B. Archaeology of the Boat (Middletown, Wesleyan Univ­ ersity Press, 1976) 134 , and fig. 83 . Monozygous dugouts are normally rounded in section, reflecting the original form of the tree trunk from which they are fashioned.

7* Johnstone, P., International Journal of Nautical Archaeology^ IJNA 2 (1973) 9» notes that for the Naxian lead models the angle of bow and s t e m to the bottom varies from between 21-35 degrees, while on the "frying pan" longboats the angle between the bottom and the high end is 70 degrees. 8. Thus, the angles on the engraved longboats are from two to three times greater than on the lead models.

9* Doumas, C., Valcamonica Symposium (1968 ) 285 , suggests that there may have been added details in other materials on the lead' mo­ dels which have since disappeared. 10. Evans, Palace of Minos II. p. 240; Bosanquet A Dawkins.BSA Sup­ plementary Paper No. 1 (1923) 7* 11. Herbig, JDAI 55 (1940) 62) Marinatos, BCH 57 (1933) 212; Gray, ArchHom I.G (1974) 34) Koster, Das Antike Seewdsen (1923) 59) LandstrSm, Ships of the Pharaohs (1970) 27) Betts, in Blackman, Marine Archaeology (1973) 32. 12. Marinatos, BCH 57 (1933) 183, n. 1. 13• See Morrison & Williams, Greek Oared Ships (1968 ) pi. lb.

14* See Casson, Ships and Seamanship 344* Convention and Stylization

in the Ancient World (1972) are among the strongest im­

pulses in Early Cycladic art.

15* See LandstrSm , ibid, pp. 12-16. 16. Landstrom, ibid, figs. 35» 39* and 42.

17.

Dodd, Polynesian Seafaring (1972) figs.

18. See Homell, J. Water Transport (1946) figs. 20-27 , 46-47 , 60-64, 80-105, and pis. V-VII, XXVI, XXXII-XXXVII, XLI.

19.

Marinatos, in Gray, ArchHom 1.0 (1974) 141-51I Marinatos, Ex­ cavations at Thera VI (1974).

36 9

20. See CAsson, IJNA 4*1 (1975) 3-10, and Wachsmaim, IJNA 9*4 (1980 ) 287 - 95 » for recent syntheses and bibliography of this problem. 21. See Dodd, ibid, figs. 22. Details of the masts and rigging on the large fresco craft are especially similar to contemporary Egyptian depictions. See LandstrBm, ibid, figs. 97-148. 23. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera VI (1974) 46-49. 24. P. Johnston, Ship and Boat Models in Ancient Greece (19 8 1 ) 28-29* 25. See note 20, above, for discussions of the Miniature Fresco ships as ritual and racing vessels.

370

Plus and. Minus Thera;

Trade In the Western Aegean In Late Cycladic I - II Elizabeth Schofield

Akrotiri, It Is generally agreed, played an Important, perhaps even a vital, part In overseas trading ventures.

Scholars have variously described It as an

International open port, as a tradixg-post of the Thalassocracy perhaps especially developed by the Cretans for that purpose, or even as a maritime republic. Emphasis Is commonly laid on the convenience of Its geographical location, making it an Ideal first night's stop for Minoan ships heading for more distant parts.^ Thera's Importance as a trading partner could hardly have been based on its own productive capacity.

Saffron is almost the only commodity so far suggested

as possibly having been produced for export on the island, based on an interpre­ tation of the wall-painting from Xeste 3 showing women gathering crocuses, 2 although the identification of the plant as a crocus has been questioned. Rather, it is the island's role as a staging point which largely accounts for its remarkable prosperity.

Minoan ships which called at Cypriot towns such as

Toumba tou Skourou or Ayia Irini may have come by way of the Cyclades.

Though

Theran artefacts have yet to be identified in the Eastern Mediterranean, it has 4 been suggested that Theran trade was closely connected with that area. In the Western Aegean, the Cycladic towns may possibly have acted as central redistribution points,"* such a hypothesis.

although there is little evidence to support

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to show that

the islands of the Western String (Thera, Melos and Kea) formed part of a regular exchange network, receiving preferential treatment from the Minoans, and that this was a major route by which Cretan goods and ideas were transmitted to the mainland of Greece.

Much of the prosperity of these Islands depended

on their position as ports of call in a highly organized network, enabling them to derive a substantial revenue from duties, transit dues, etc.^ Granted the importance of the Western String network, and the likelihood of its having been carefully regulated, it is natural to suppose that the catastrophe which befell Akrotiri in LM IA seriously affected the rhythm of exchatge, at least for a time.

In fact, neither within LM IA nor in LM IB is

there any sign of a significant decrease in Minoan trading contacts with Melos 7 and Kea.' This is not surprising, for the interval during which alternative

arrangements had to be made may well have been a matter only of months (if not weeks), and such a gap is not detectable archaeologically.

The alternative

arrangements may, however, be detectable. With Thera no longer functioning as a port of call, the other islands of the Western String must

have

assumed

a

still greater

of contacts between Crete and the Mainland)

importance

in the network

and so too may Kythera, which is a

natural stoppirg place for Minoan ships heading for the Southern Peloponnese, There is evidence suggesting a considerable increase in trade between these islands and Crete in LM IB. Kythera's overseas contacts were not limited to Crete.

Probable Kytherian

imports have been reported from Middle Helladic contexts at Nichoria, and Coldstream believes that a pair of Keftiu cups from Akrotlri might have come from Kastri.

In fact, Minoan imports on Kytherk were very scarce in MM IIIB

and LM IA, although the locally produced LM IA pottery followed Minoan proto­ types closely.

In contrast, the majority of the painted wares in LM IB are

said to be Cretan imports, and these form a remarkably high proportion (10^) of the total pottery of this period.

Mycenaean wares also figure more

prominently than in earlier periods, although they do not match the flood of 3 Minoan imports. For the Cyclades, few statistics are yet available.

But it is probably

significant that the imported vessels (Minoan and Mycenaean together) from House A at Ayia Irini in Kea constitute approximately 8 - % of the total pottery in LC II, which is slightly mare than twice the proportion calculated g for the LC I deposits from the new excavations at Phylakopi, Of course, House A, as a wealthy mansion, might be expected to produce more luxury goods, but further study of the smaller contemporary houses at Ayia Irini will demonstrate whether (as I think likely) such a percentage holds true for the site at large in LC II, There are other possible explanations for what appears to be a considerable growth in the number of Minoan imports in these islands.

Renfrew, arguing from

Catastrophe Theory, claims that a systems collapse is likely to be preceded by an increasing intensity in the pace of the sub-systems such as trade, and that

372

such a model is applicable to Crete in the last years before the LM IB destructions.^

But this does not explain why the number of Mycenaean imports

appears to rise at the same time*

The hypothesis that these islands began to

play a yet more active role in the exchange networks extending from Crete to the Mainland (and back), to fill the gap left by Thera, could explain the concentration of imports there. We might better understand how large the gap was, and what steps needed to be taken to cope with it, if we could analyze more rigorously the ways in which the network operated.

One question worth pursuing is whether Thera had

a particularly close tie with East Crete.

Marinatos* feeling that pottery and

implements from Akrotiri are similar to those from Gournia is echoed by Coldstream's suggestion that Theran pottery decoration, with its lush plant motifs, resembles that of East Crete rather than the Knossian repertoire. This certainly does not mean that contacts with Knossos were excluded, for clay analysis of Minoan imports found on Thera has so far identified several as Knossian, but none as East Cretan.^

A far wider rarge of samples needs to be

tested, and this information should be combined with that derived from stylistic analysis, such as the attribution of three or four imported vessels on Thera to 12 a particular workshop in Gournia, That Thera should have had a special tie with East Crete makes geographical sense, as does the connection between Kythera and West Crete (as well as Knossos) for which there is evidence right from the founding of Kastri in 13 EM II. It is interesting that in LM IA the range of pottery motifs at Kastri corresponds to the rather limited repertoire of Knossos, and includes few of the plant ornaments characteristic of East C r e t e . T h e same is true of the large IC l/LM IA deposit from Room 18 of House A on Kea.

All this suggests

the (hardly surprising) conclusion that in the relations between the islands and the various Cretan centers there were certain spheres of interest corresponding to the natural sailing routes.

But there is no reason to suppose that these

spheres were exclusive, and we should expect to find a few East Cretan LM IA pots in Kea, for example. If Akrotiri was of special interest to Gournia and other East Cretan centers,

373

it is these which would have been particularly affected by its loss. any evidence for alternative arrangements?

Is there

Certainly the LM IB destruction

deposits at Ayia Irini, Kea, include a considerable number of East Cretan imports, which may reflect the change in routes.

We do not yet, however,

have sufficient data to reach any firm conclusions on this point, since we cannot confidently identify the provenance of much of the pottery that we have. Spectrographic and petrological analysis of selected samples may ultimately help us in this respect)

and another potentially fruitful area of investigation

is the identification of particular potter's workshops.

The widely scattered

products of the Reed Painter, it is suggested, reflect "an economic sphere IS radiating from one point", most probably Knossos. The Minoan Marine Style vases remain the subject of doubts t were most of them made by the Polyp Workshop, or are they the product of several workshops?

And were these located

at Knossos, or Zakros, or were their members more or less peripatetic?^ Equally problematic is the home (or homes) of the Alternating Style, the relatively wide distribution of which has been carefully tracked by Coldstream. Kastri on Kythera and Ayia Irini on Kea are two of the sites at which it figures most prominently, and at both it is considered by the excavators to be an import.

17

The suggestion that it may have originated in West Crete

receives some backing from the finding of considerable quantities at Khania, where the excavators regard it as a local product)

and prolongation into LM IB

of the ancient link between Kythera and West Crete would occasion no surprise. But clay analysis of a few samples from Khania and Kastri reveals that while their compositions are similar, they apparently match the known Kythera composition.

If further tests confirm these admittedly provisional results, IQ we shall have to swallow our astonishment and recast some of our ideas. Clearly, I have more questions than solutions.

The questions are worth

posing, for there is a real expectation of securing some answers in the near future.

Programs of clay analysis continue, as do attempts to identify

individual workshops and hands.

Both techniques offer prospects of attributing

wares to their particular sources, and from such information patterns of exchange will gradually emerge.

While it is undoubtedly true that pottery played a minor

part within systems of exchazge in the Western Aegean, it remains for the present our best hope of unravelling the complexities of overseas contacts in the Bronze Age.

374

FOOTNOTES •The following special abbreviations axe used In this papert POP: Papers in Cycladic Prehistory, eds. J.L. Davis and J.F. Cherry (Los Angeles 1979). TAW I, IIs Thera and the Aegean World I, II, ed* C. Doumas (London 1978, I960). 1.

R. Phythyon, "Considerations in Minoan Contacts at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age", TUAS 5 (1980)J K. Thorp-Scholes, "Akrotiri: Genesis, Life and Death", in TAW I, 437-44?;

F. Schachermeyr, "Akrotiri - First Maritime

Republic?", in TAW I, 423ff. 2.

For the export of saffron, see I. Douskos, "The Crocuses of Santorini", in TAW II, 141-145.

Doubts are expressed by

0,

Rackham in TAW II, 315#

3.

Cf. E. Vermeule, "Minoan Relations with Cyprus", TUAS 5 (1980).

4.

H.-G. Buchholz, "Some Observations Concerning Thera's Contacts Overseas during the Bronze Age", in TAW II, 227-240.

5.

K.M. Petruso, "Reflections on Cycladic and Minoan Metrology and Trade", in PCP 135-142.

6

. For the Western String network, see J.L. Davis, "Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age", in PCP 143-157;

E. Schofield, "The

Western Cyclades and Crete: A 'Special Relationship'", Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7. 8

1

, forthcoming 1982.

Cf. J.L. Davis in TAW II,

3 8 O.

. For probable Kytherian imports at Nichoria, see O.T.P.K. Dickinson, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization (GOteboig 1977) chap. J.N. Coldstream in TAW II, 387#

2

; at Akrotiri, see

Cretan imports of MM IIIB - LM IB on

Kythera are analyzed in Kythera: Excavations and Studies, eds. J.N. Coldstream and G.L. Huxley (London 1972) 280-302; pp. 284, 292. 9.

W.W. Cummer and E. Schofield, Keos III, press) chap.

7

for quantities, see especially

Ayia Irini: House A (Princeton, In

. For Phylakopi, see J.F. Cherry and J.L. Davis, "The

Cyclades and the Greek Mainland in LC I: The Evidence of the Pottery", AJA forthcoming 1982, Illustration 2*

375

10.

TAW II, 337.

11,

Sp. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera III (Athens 1970) 66-67)

J.N. Coldstream,

"Kythera and the Southern Peloponnese in the LM I Period", in TAW I, 389-400. For the results of clay analysis, see TAW II, 298. 12. W.-D. Nlemeier, "The Master of the Gournia Octopus Stirrup Jar and a late Minoan IA Pottery Workshop at Gournia Exporting to Thera", TUAS 4 (1979) 18-26, 13* Coldstream and Huxley (above, f.n. 8) 275* 14. Coldstream (above, f.n. 11) 389-390* 15. P.P. Betancourt, "Economic Implications of the Reed Painter's Vases", TUAS 1 (1976) 15. 16. On the Marine Style, see especially P.P. Betancourt, "The Polyp Workshop: A Stylistic Group from LM IB", AJA 77 (1973) 333-334) "Further Observations on the Marine Style", AJA 81 (1977) 561) "Marine-Life Pottery from the Aegean", Archaeology30 (1977) 38-43. LM IB Marine Style at Knossos", BSA

And P.-A, Mount joy, "A Note on the (1974) 173-175)

69

"Attributions in

the LM IB Marine Style", AJA 81 (1977) 557-560. 17.

Coldstream (above, f.n. 11) fig, 10) 302-303l

18.

Coldstream and Huxley (above, f.n. 8)

Cummer and Schofield (above, f.n. 9) chaps. 7, 8.

On the Alternating Style in Vest Crete, see M.R. Fopham's Review of Kythera in The Antiquaries Journal 54 (1974) 320-321) 388.

For results of

§

808

376

J.N. Coldstream in TAW II,

RiHt Jones in TAJf XX^ 3^7"*3®®*

Linear A in the Cyclades:

The Trade and Travel of a Script by Dr. Thomas G, Palairoa

Significant advances have been made in the study of the Linear A writ­ ing system during the last twenty years. In a concise survey of finds, L. Godart mentions over 250 inscriptions (on tablets, roundels, nodules, murals, clay and stone vases, larnakes and metallic objects) from 19 Cretan sites and three Cycladic Islands.^ More important than the finds them­ selves have been the careful study and publication of the documents. Sepa­ rate publication of the major new finds from ARKHanes, KHania and ZAkro has given us better understanding of the chronological development of the script and of the relationship of the inscriptions to their find contexts. Three of the five projected corpus volumes have been published, presenting each clay tablet, nodule, roundel and sealing discovered up to 1976 in a photograph, a facsimile drawing, a normalized copy, and a tabular copy. Equal care has been taken to determine the general repertory of phonetic, ideographic, and fractional signs and their individual variants. These advances have resulted in a radical revision of views on the use of Linear A and on the genetic relationship of the main stages of Minoan-Mycenaean writing (Hieroglyphic, LA, LB). For example, in 1960 Sterling Dow could write, with some justification, that the Minoans bad made little use of literacy because the tablets then known (essentially the 190 listed in Gorlla 1, xviii, excluding the single finds from Pyrgos and KEos) were "so poor clerically as to suggest negli­ gence if not actual incompetence.' But study of the finds from ZA, HT (Hagia Triada), KMossos, ARKH, and KH now Indicates a lively and complex bureaucratic use of the Minoan script of such uniformity that Godart has been able to analyze "la koine administrative."® In fact LA is now seen to have broader applications than LB not only in the long-established di­ chotomy between religious (e.g. the Inscribed votive tables, ladles, minia­ ture double axes, etc., often with recurring formulae, that were recognized by Evans, PM JL, 623-636, as a distinctive class) and secular inscriptions, but also in the diversity of administrative uses from workroom records at smaller sites (TTlissos House A, Platon-Brice, p. 21; ARKH, LembessiGodart-Olivier, 114-116) to the records on ephemeral materials to which, for example, the 862 nodules at HT were undoubtedly attached (Gorlla 2_, xvii). The discovery of an archives of 30 tablets in a proto-LA from the first period at PHaestos^ and of a linear A tablet, written on a clay bar of hieroglyphic type, from MAllia dating MM 111° have made necessary a recon­ sideration of the development of the Minoan scripts. Both chronological and graphic factors have led to the conclusion that Cretan Hieroglyphic writing and LA are parallel developments, not father and son. ^ The ex­ panded body of LA inscriptions has also enabled the chief epigraphers to study the relationship between LA and LB. The similarity of LB characters to characters of earlier stages of LA and the remarkable uniformity of LB at all four mainland sites have persuaded Godart and Olivier to place the creation of LB in LM I, suggesting respectively Shaft-Grave Mycenae and pre-Mycenaean Knossos as the place of origin.^-® Within the framework just sketched, the traces of LA outside of Crete

assume a clear importance. These inscriptions have never been studied as a group, and only Hooker gives them slightly more than passing notice in try­ ing to understand the cultural contacts between the Minoans and Mycenaeans that produced LB from L A . H Since we have no definite examples of LA pro­ duced on the m a i n l a n d , i t is imperative to assess exactly the extent to which LA was used in the Aegean islands. The corpus volumes have not yet reached the inscriptions on other objects; and, since most of the island examples fall into this category, one encounters, as we shall see, refer­ ences to "purported" LA finds that are improbable.^ I shall be concerned then with establishing a "corpus" Of Island inscriptions, analysing the nature of the verifiable LA inscriptions, and determining how these in­ scriptions may fit into the trade relations between Crete, the Cyclades and the mainland that led to the creation of a separate mainland script.

Analysis of inscriptions1^ Sites with reported LA inscriptions: Keos, Melos, Naxos, Thera, Kythera. Sites with definite LA inscriptions: Keos, Melos, Thera, Tablets (both fragmentary): (A) Keos (3): IPM Keos, 108-109, fig. 2, 1; (B) Melos (6 ): LA Melos, 113-116, pi. 2 and fig. 1. Roundel: (C) Keos (3 and seal impression): IPM Keos, 108-109, fig. 2, 3. Vase Inscriptions: Thera: (D) ewer (4 signs incised at neck): AAA 4 (1971) 72, fig. 22; Thera IV, 43-45, pi. 109 a, b; (E) rim of pot (3): PM 1, 637-638 note 2; Raison, Kadmos 1 (1962) 56-57, fig. 2 . Keos: (F) straight sided cup (1 sign incised on side: IPM Keos, 109-110, fig. 2, 4; (G) broad jar or jug (1 ligatured sign on body): IPM Keos, 109-111, fig. 2, 6 ; (H) lamp (3 signs with possible punctuation): IPM Keos, 109-111, fig. 2, 5. Melos: (I) straight sided cup (2 signs incised on base; 1 nearly identical, including orientation, to sign on Keos cup): Melos, 183, fig. 155; CVA Musee National Copenhague, fasc. 1 , p. 28, pi. 34, 4; PM 1, 561, 637; SMI, 35, fig. 16. Site with probable LA inscription: Kythera. Clay Weight: (J) Kythera (1): Kythera, 205-206, fig. 59, pi. 60; Nestor (1 Oct. 65) 407. Sites with inscriptions reported,, but unlikely: Thera, Naxos. Vases: Naxos: 2 sherds (one with an incised mark, another with partially preserved painted lines): Naxos, 84-85, figs. 1-4. Thera: 2 sherds (both with a single incised mark): Thera II, 44, pi. 38; other pottery with incised marks poorly photographed without accompanying drawings or commentary: Thera IV, pi. 110­ 111. ' Other Objects: Thera': 2 supposed slate writing tablets: (1 ) found in room Al, a pithoi storeroom, where later found a "whetstone" and handleless cup: Thera II, 47, pi. 37, 2; Thera III, 10, pi. 5, 2; slate has small drawing of a butterfly (?): Kadmos 9 (1970) 96, pi. I, b; (2) found in r o o m ^ 16, Thera V, 22, pi. 36a, with "whetstone"; slate unmarked.1^ Besides these objects there are frustrating oblique references to in­ scribed marks on pottery that may be related to LA. For example,

378

Hogarth, in describing the 1898 excavations at Melos, remarks, "The yield of potsherds had come to average about forty baskets a day, spe­ cimens inscribed with 'Aegean* signs, scratched while the clay was wet, being frequent."16 The marks are later analyzed in some detail,^ and Evans lists a few of the marks on Melian ewers from the Temple Reposi­ tories. 18 These should all be classed as potters' marks even if they do resemble LA signs. At least the appearance of the same marks on similar pottery from different sites offers solid proof of active trade.

Commentary If we focus our attention on only those sites with definite inscriptions, we still have substantial evidence for the use of LA at those Cycladic sites that maintained close trade contacts with Crete in MM III-LM I. Most signi­ ficant are the tablets from Keos (MM III) and Phylakopi (LB I). As with other LA and LB inscriptions, neither tablet gives the impression of inten­ tional firing. They are then proof of the use of LA locally for bureaucra­ tic reasons. The Keos tablet (A) was found together with the roundel (C) and in­ scribed lamp (H) in area N (all with MM III pottery). Roundels could be used in archives to label records on ephemeral materials or in workroom con­ texts with storage vessels and other containers.20 The context and finds here are not decisive, but the nature of the other inscribed objects at Keos suggests practical commercial use of writing. These other objects are the straight sided cup (F) (LM IB/LH II) with the cup-shaped phonogram, sign 103, and the jug (G) (LM IB/LH II) with the ligatured sign. The reversed shape of sign 103 is found elsewhere, notably on the Melos straight sided cup (I) and on tablets from different sites (ZA 21b, PH 7a, HT 93a.2, 93b.1). Its use on the Keos cup would be questionable as writing without these comparanda. The ligatured sign is extremely Interesting. This par­ ticular ligature of sign 82 (used independently as an ideogram for "wine") and sign 53 is found only on ZA 15b.3 and ZA 6b.2. In both cases the liga­ tured sign is contrasted with different "wine" ideograms (on 15b.2 the plain wine ideogram in a separate total; in 6b.2 "wine" + sign 29). So the Keos jug is inscribed with the symbol for a specific type of commodity shown at Zakro. The cup was of characteristic local fabric. The jug came from House A, "the largest and probably the most important single establishment in the town of the Late Bronze Age."21 ' The Melos tablet (B) is a much fuller fragment. It was found in the important central building that preceded the Mycenaean m e g a r o n . 22 The tablet is ruled Into neat sections, a technique of organization of which we are finding more examples. The tablet gives us confirmation of the con­ tinued use of LA into the latest stages of Minoan influence in the Cyclades. Of the two Theran inscribed vases, the ewer (D) with four signs incised at the neck is most significant. We may dismiss Marinatos' fanciful trans­ literation (this cannot yet be done) and identification of the word with the goddess Ariadne. His explanation of the vase as a type for the trans­ port of liquids, however, is sound.2^ The shape of the ewer is comparable to an LM IA-B example from Melos that has parallels at K e o s . 25 \fe have

37 9

already noted the presence of earlier Melian vases of this kind (late MM III) with incised signs in the palace pottery stores at Knossos, This gives us a nexus of LA used on pottery for commercial transactions between Crete and the important Minoanized island sites. The Kythera inscribed weight (J) contributes to this pattern. An ear­ lier trace of Minoan writing at Kythera is a yellow agate sealstone with hieroglyphic inscription regarded by Kenna as a f,local copy of fine Middle Minoan work. 6 The weight has sign 100 in a form paralleled on some nodules from HT (Wt 1171*1172). It comes from a sailed MM III deposit (epsilon) in an area of a dense Minoan colony.^7 The weight suggests that the Minoans took at least simple use of writing with them.

General Conclusions The Cycladic finds of Linear A point to an active use of the script, definitely for commercial reasons (D, G) and perhaps for administrative purposes (A, C, B). This use of writing comes at a time when Melos, Thera, and Keos were not only actively trading with Cretan centers and each other, but when both Cretan and island pottery was reaching the mainland. In LM IB/LH II there is a marked increase in Mycenaean trade with the is­ lands , as trade with Crete continues.^ Caskey, noting pottery Minoan in form but Peloponnesian in fabric, even suggests the possibility of Minoan potters working at mainland s i t e s . I n such a period of intense cultural and commercial interchange, it is very possible that the mainland Greeks acquired the knowledge and need for writing through the Cycladic Islands.

Dr, Thomas G, Palaima Department of Classics Fordham University Bronx, N, Y. 10458

380

Notes 1 Godart, Colloquium Mycenaeum 0-979) 353—360. A careful bibliographi­ cally thorough analysis of Minoan-Mycenaean systems: Heubeck, Schrift, Archaeologia Homerica III, X, 1-54. 2 Arkhanes: Lembessi, Godart, Olivier, AE (1974) 113-67; Khania: Papapostolou, Godart, O l i v i e r , f l 2J2 M w w i k o -r#0v K "Minoikon Megaron Nirou", AE (1922), p p . 1-25. , The Vaulted Tombs of Mesara, (london,1924) Zervos, C., L ’Art de la Crete Neolithique et Minoenne, (Paris, 1956) Addenda Branigan, K . , Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford, 1975. Sakellarakis, J.,"Tholos C at Archanes"(in greek), Praktika, 1972, pp.327-351.

422

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM 8 1983

A symposium sponsored by the department of Art History, Temple University, 1912 Park Mall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, U.S.A., with the theme "Gold in the Aegean Bronze Age," on March 25, 1983,

Gold Analysis and the Sources of Gold In the Aegean by James Muhly

For at least the past 6000 years gold has been a source of endless fascination, a material that everybody wanted and was willing to go great lengths in order to obtain. This is as true In the twentieth century AD as it was in the twentieth century BC. The lust for gold and the corruption of noble men through that lust are themes that run through the art and literature of practically all civilizations, but never, in my opinion, in a more dramatic way than in Wagner's Das Rheingold, recently shown for the first time on American television. Gold is truly the noble metal; its brilliance and resistance to corro­ sion combine with its malleability to make possible the production of thin sheets of gold, even gold leaf, from which an endless variety of immutable ornaments could be produced. Unlike objects of silver, bronze or iron, the gold jewellery of the Early Bronze Age looks today just as it did when it was first made. This is wonderful for the archaeologist and the art histor­ ian, hut not always so desirable for the collector and museum curator. Nobody really knows how many "ancient" gold objects have been produced in the twentieth century AD. It takes a Brave, or perhaps foolhardy scholar, to guarantee the authenticity of a piece of Hellenistic gold jewel­ lery these days, and anything of gold said to be from Iran is automatically suspect. Less than one year ago the Metropolitan Museum removed from dis­ play a group of 17 gold vessels from the Treasure of the Three Princesses (time of Tuthmosis III). Long thought of as being the prize pieces in the treasure, the gold vessels were declared modern following detailed scienti­ fic examination using the scanning electron microscope. The vessels were made of real gold, but details such as having inscriptions that were engraved rather than traced, betrayed their recent date of manufacture (cf. article by Michael Brenson in the International Herald Tribune for 16 June 1982). Although many studies have appeared dealing with gold jewellery as well as gold and silver plate, combining archaeological and stylistic evi­ dence with even some attention paid to methods of fabrication, very little serious work has been done on the subject of ancient sources of gold, especially the sources being utilized during the Bronze Age. There are a few well known and justly famous sources that are cited almost as a matter of course. For Western Asia all gold has been seen as coming from Egypt, from the Eastern Desert and the Sudan (Vercoutter, 1959), where, according to the letters from El Amarna, gold was "as (common) as dust" (EA 26). For Western Anatolia it was the gold of the Pactolus river (Young 1972) while, for the Aegean, the most famous sources of gold were the islands of Slphnos and Thasos, The famous passage in Herodotus (VI;46-47), describing the gold mines of Thasos, where an entire mountain was turned upside down in the search for gold, has been challenged by modern scholars but these mines have finally been located (Wagner e £ a l . 1981), exactly where Herodotus said they should be.

For Europe the most famous source of gold has long been Romania, ancient Dacia, especially the ancient gold mining center at Brad in SiebenbUrgen (Schumacher 1912). In Western Europe the gold mines of Spain are documented in great detail during Roman times and also have been examined in elaborate detail by modern scholars (Domergue and Herail 1978, Harris 1980). In Northern Europe the gold mines of the Wicklow mountains have long been seen as the source of material for the great lunulae of the Irish Bronze Age. Studies of these deposits go back at least to 1850 (Mallet 1948-50). For those of you who believe that Der Ring des Nibelurigen is just legend I would point out that there is indeed gold in the Rhine, deposits that played no small role in the development of the European Bronze Age (Ramdohr 1965). All of the deposits mentioned above were, during various periods, ex­ ploited in ancient times. But what scholars want to know is what deposits were being utilized by whom and when. Such questions are difficult to answer with any degree of certainty, at least for the Bronze Age. Occasion­ ally one is fortunate to come across direct evidence, such as the famous Egyptian gold mine map, on a papyrus now in the Turin Museum (Hume 1937: 691-97). In most cases, unfortunately, it has been possible to argue only from grounds of inference and probability and to say, for example, that it is reasonable to assume that the gold found in the Shaft Graves of Mycenae came from Egypt. Obviously what seems reasonable to one scholar might not so appear to another. In the 1960's, as part of the great research program known as SAM (for Studien zu den AnfMngen der Metallurgie) based in Stuttgart, the chemist Axel Hartmann analyzed 3,300 objects of gold. Most of his material came from the museums of Europe, but he did study a few pieces from Mediterran­ ean lands, including 31 objects from Bronze Age Greece. A preliminary report on this project, containing a partial publication of the analytical results, appeared in 1970, as SAM III (Hartmann 1970). This volume, unfor­ tunately, does not include any of the material from the Aegean. I assume that the Aegean results are to appear in SAM V, due to be published in 1982 but, tomy knowledge, not yet available, at least not in America. Hartmann's goal, in undertaking this analytical program, was to esta­ blish the sources of gold being used in Bronze Age and Iron Age Europe. Should it prove to be impossible to locate the actual source Hartmann was confident that it would still be possible to isolate bodies of material making up what he called a material group: "A material group comprises all those objects made of material whose content of accompanying elements is the same with regard to quality and quantity (within cer­ tain limits of variation). It is assumed that the gold occurring in all finds belonging to the same material group come from the same natural deposit, even if it has yet to be located" (Hartmann and Sangmeister 1972:626). Unfortunately Hartmann thought that it would be possible to do this by testing for only a few elements. In the analyses published in SAM III he reports only the elements silver, copper, tin and nickel. In his graphic presentation of the results Hartmann also deals with zinc and pla­ tinum. It is more unfortunate that the analytical results were reported in such an abbreviated fashion and at least one critic has already con­ cluded that "...the whole analytical programme must be repeated, this time

426

making sure that the analyses are as complete and accurate as possible" CScott 1976:23). Hartmann placed great emphasis upon the presence/absence of tin and platinum for he felt that these elements— tin in particular— provided a key not only to provenience but even to the type of gold deposit being exploited. He argued that tin, present as cassiterite (SnC^), and platinum were contained in the gold not as trace elements within the grain structure of the metal but as impurities that became part of the gold regulus. If I understand him correctly, this means that the cassiterite and platinum were picked up along with the gold during the panning opera­ tion and, upon melting in a crucible, became part of the resulting metal. This means that the presence of tin and platinum mark the use of alluvial or placer gold and this conclusion is crucial to Hartmann's entire reconstruction. Hartmann argues that most of the gold used in Bronze Age Europe was alluvial gold with mining of gold being gradually introduced only in Roman times (Hartmann and Sangmelster 1972:627). This theory does imply the Bronze Age melting and casting of gold involving the use of crucibles, and such a technology is supported by the gold-working crucibles excavated by Schliemann at Troy (Schliemann 1881:409) and by the numerous steatite moulds for the casting of gold jewellery (Canby 1965). I say most of the gold from Bronze Age Europe was alluvial gold for it is a curious fact that the earliest objects sampled by Hartsmann, from Neolithic and Early Bronze Age contexts, were not made of alluvial gold. That is, they contained no tin or platinum and no appreciable amount of silver or of copper. These objects are made of what Hartmann call B-type, a gold he is confident must have been imported from the eastern Mediter­ ranean, an area with a tradition of mining ore that went back into the third millennium BC (Hartmann and Sangmeister 1972:627). It is difficult to accept the hypothesis that the earliest gold used in prehistoric Europe was a mined gold (Berggold) imported from the eastern Mediterranean. This would make sense only if we see the technology of gold working as something imported into Europe from the Near East where the art of gold working had undergone a development far ahead of anything known from contemporary sites in Europe. The new discoveries at the site of Varna, on the Bulgarian coast of the Black Sea, create serious problems for such an interpretation. Although there might still be some reasonable grounds for uncertainty regarding the date of the material from Varna, a consensus of opinion does seem to be forming that would put the material, belonging to the European Late Neo­ lithic period, in the second half of the fifth millennium BC (Todorovd 1978; Renfrew 1978). Nor is the appearance of gold at this time an isolated phenomenon known only from Varna. The gold pendant from Sesklo (Branigan 1974:no. 2901) and the gold bead from phase III at Sitagroi (Branigan 1974: no. 3112) should be contemporary with the rich gold finds from Varna. Fur­ thermore, the developments seen at Varna are continued in the gold hoards from the following Proto-Aneolithic period (Patay 1958), traditionally known as the Bodrogkeresztur culture and now dated to ca. 4300-3650 BC (Neustupny

427

To deny this dating is to reject all the evidence for radiocarbon dat­ ing that has been developed over the past thirty years. While some scholars are prepared to do just that (cf. Makkay 1976) such a position becomes more extreme with every passing year. A recent attempt simply to ignore radio­ carbon dates and to develop archaeological/typological parallels between Varna and the Aegean Early Bronze Age (Weisshaar 1982) is also not convinc­ ing. The problem is of critical importance, for Hartmann has now analyzed 137 gold objects from Varna (Hartmann 1978a) and has discussed his results within the terms of his reconstruction of relevant gold sources and the development of gold working in Prehistoric Europe (Hartmann 1978b). All the Varna artifacts studied turn out to be made of tin-free gold which Hartmann still insists must have been imported from the East. In fact Hartmann distinguished two different types of gold in use at Varna, both tin-free but one with platinum and the other platinum-free. The two gold types he designates BP and B gold, the former coming from some area south or east of the Black Sea, the latter, from the eastern Mediter­ ranean (Hartmann 1978a:45}, BP gold, apart from Varna, seems to have been quite rare in Europe. From the following Proto-Aeneolithic period only one analyzed object, a Noppenrlng from the graves excavated at Mokrin in Yugoslavia, was made of platinum-bearing gold (Hartmann 1978b:187). Such gold, however, was quite common in the Near East where it was used in early gold artifacts from Ur and Nippur and continued in use right through to Byzantine times (Hartmann 1978b:187). The surprising thing is that this platinum-bearing gold was also used in the Aegean, both in the jewellery from the 'yellow* period at Poliochni on Lesbos, contemporary with the jewellery from Troy Ilg, and in the later jewellery from the Shaft Graves of Mycenae (Hartmann 1978b:187). Hartmann assumes that both B and BP types of gold were also used at Troy (Hartmann 1978a:45). Platinum-free B-type gold was, however, much more common in the Aegean as was the case in Europe. It was used in analyzed objects from "Euboea" (two gold vessels in the Benaki Museum), from Mycenae (Shaft Graves III, IV, V), Lemnos (Poliochni), Rhodes, the "Peloponnese" (the Thyreatis Treasure in the Berlin Museum) and the Argolid (Vaphio tholos) (Hartmann 1978a:43-44 and Fig. 2), Hartmann found that about 20% of the analyzed Mycenaean gold was made of tin-free B-type gold. This gold, as known from Mycenae, was from the same source as that used at Varna in a much earlier period (Hartmann 1978a: 41). In fact, different parts of the world made use of this tin-free Btype gold over the course of what must have been an extended period of time. In what is roughly a chronological sequence it was used at Tibava (Czecho­ slovakia), Mokrin (Yugoslavia) and O^ihov (Czechoslovakia), at various sites along the Danube and finally in Ireland and Brittany. In each case this imported mined gold was quickly replaced by gold from a local (alluvial?) source (Hartmann 1978b:186). It is difficult to accept such a reconstruction and I am reluctant to admit that it can represent any serious attempt to identify ancient sources of gold or to recreate ancient patterns of trade in gold. It is not sur­ prising that Hartmann's theories came under heavy attack almost as soon as

428

they were published. There was bound to be trouble when Hartmann claimed that virtually all of the Bronze Age gold objects of Ireland were made of Rhenish gold, not of gold from Co. Wicklow, and that: "It must, therefore, be assumed that this great body of Irish gold was imported either as raw material or in the manufactured state" (Hartmann 1970:31). The reaction from Irish archaeologists was not long in coming (Briggs et aJ. 1973; Scott 1976), resulting in a reply from Hartmann, and a lively discus­ sion ensued (Hartmann and Scott 1977; Briggs 1973, 1976; Scott 1974). In addition to defending the use of Irish gold, a good argument was presented for the existence of a Welsh source as well (Savory 1977),

This was a predictable reaction, one that has occurred whenever a pro­ gram of scientific analysis resulted in conclusions that were at variance with accepted archaeological opinion. The important thing to appreciate is that experience has taught us that the scientists are not always right. In fact, the scientists have proved to be almost always wrong. The laboratory results were not wrong, rather the research program turned out to be flawed and basic assumptions proved to be unfounded. Things have almost always turned out to be far more complicated than ever imagined by those who set up the first analytical programs. Examples of this are far too numerous to be discussed here. I would like to cite only radiocarbon dating and the archaeological protests over low dates that led to important scientific dis­ coveries concerning the variability of 14^ over time and the need for cali­ bration, and the dismay shwon by archaeologists over conclusions regarding provenience of pottery on the basis of clay analysis that has resulted in the abandonment of optical emission spectroscopy as an analytical technique suitable for clay analysis. In the case of Hartmann's program of gold analysis it is, I believe, fair to say that the analytical program failed to report in a sufficiently detailed fashion the chemical composition of the gold and that the methodo­ logical assumptions made failed to take sufficient account of problems involving heterogeneity, inclusions in gold, the smelting and reuse of gold resulting in the mixing of gold from many different sources, and the addi­ tions of silver and copper in order to produce deliberate alloys of gold. There has been no satisfactory discussion of all these problems in the literature to date. The recent corpus of Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles by Joan Taylor, with its chapter on "Science in the Study of Gold" (Taylor 1980:4-21) is most disappointing in this regard (cf. Kinnes 1981). Here I would like to deal only with the problems connected with inclusions in gold, especially those of the platinum-group or what have come to be known as PGE inclusions. To my knowledge Hartmann has not discussed the question of inclusions in gold and the relationship between his explanation for the presence of trace element platinum (and tin) and the existence of PGE inclusions must remain uncertain. It is interesting that Hartmann saw the Near East as an important source of platinum-bearing gold, for that is exactly where recent research on PGE inclusions began. In 1972, following up on an observation

429

by Cyril S. Smith, William J. Young published a paper on "The Fabulous Gold of the Pactolua Valley" (Young 1972). Smith had recognized, in a gold beaker from the Royal Cemetery of Ur on display in the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, what he took to be white inclusions of platinirdium. Microscopic examination confirmed this identification and further research on some 125 gold objects concluded that the presence of such inclu­ sions was confined to the gold of the Pactolus river in western Anatolia, the gold that made Croesus, last king of the ancient Lydians, the wealthiest man in the world (Young 1972). A more technical report, containing some of the analytical results of this work, was published in 1973 (Whitmore and Young 1973). From these results it was concluded that the beaker excavated at Ur, in southern Mesopotamia, was made of gold from the Pactolus river in western Anatolia. Again we had a situation where analytical results had encouraged an historical conclusion at variance with general archaeological opinion regarding the foreign relations of Sumer in the ED Ilia period. The sug­ gestion was, however, plausible enough to gain limited acceptance (Kohl 1978:465) with a hoard of gold jewellery purchased by the University Museum as being from a tomb in the Troad but having stylistic connections with jewellery from Ur as well as from Troy (Bass 1966, 1970), seen as supporting the existence of such a trade route even though the purchased jewellery lacked the platiniridium inclusions. Moreover, as a collection of gold jewellery purchased on the antiquities market, the acquisition by the University Museum was of doubtful provenience and/or authenticity (MaxwellHyslo.p 1971:60-61). More important were the serious doubts regarding the validity of the use of platiniridium inclusions for provenience study. Such inclusions were found in jewellery from many different sites, making it very unlikely that the gold in use could all have come from the Pactolus river (MaxwellHyslop 1977). This stimulated a reinvestigation of gold sources revealing that PGE inclusions were quite common in gold from sources spread over an enormous area, from Ireland to India (Ogden 1977). A detailed scientific investigation of these PGE inclusions revealed that they actually contained very little platinum, being composed more of the elements iridium, osmium and ruthenium (Meeks and Tite 1980). The scientific study mentioned above was carried out on gold jewellery in the British Museum. It concluded that PGE inclusions were to be found in jewellery from Egypt (though not in gold from Egyptian mines; Ogden 1977: 65, no. 34), Ur, Brak and the Oxus Treasure but not in jewellery from Tell el— ’Ajjul (8 pieces analyzed), Alalakh (5 pieces analyzed ), Enkomi (12 pieces analyzed), Ialysos (3 pieces analyzed), or from Minoan Crete (3 pieces analyzed) (Meeks and Tite 1980:269). From this the authors concluded that: "It is possible that, following considerably more work on PGE inclusions in gold from placer deposits of known location, some limited source characterization of the gold used in antiquity might, in favourable circumstances, be possible on the basis of the compositions of the inclusions" (Meeks and Tite 1980:273). Certainly a conclusion cautious enough to forestall any critic!

430

The authors are more positiye about their conclusion that the presence of PGE inclusions indicates the use of alluvial or placer gold (Meeks and Tite 1980:273), a conclusion supported by others working on the same pro­ blems (Ogden 1977:65, 70). Yet these inclusions are not to be found in the Bronze Age gold jewellery from sites in the eastern Mediterranean, This, it will be remembered, is the very area from which Axel Hartmann derived his tin-free B-type gold, assumed by him to be a mined gold (BerggOld), one not derived from placer deposits. It would appear that two different lines of argument have converged in a way that must be significant but which, at present, defies proper explanation. The conclusions of Axel Hartmann only make sense if one is prepared to accept that the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East were far in advance of Europe in all matters connected with the mining of gold ore and the utilization of metallic gold. It is difficult to support such a re­ construction. Very little is known about the history of gold mining and no general study of the subject has appeared since the survey by Heinrich Quiring, published in 1948 (Quiring 1948). Our best evidence comes from Egypt, but even that is very sparse before the XlXth Dynasty. Modern scholarship on the subject has also, in my opinion, been unduly influenced by the famous account of Agatharchides (as known from passages quoted by Diodorus Siculus). Egyptian texts refer to the crushing and washing of gold and this must pertain to the extraction of gold from quartz veins running through granite rock (Giveon 1977a). It is often suggested that this practice began in the Predynastic period, but there really is no evidence to support such a sug­ gestion. On the other hand there is very little evidence for the presence of alluvial gold in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. The most famous Egyptian gold mine was certainly that at Barramiya (Giveon 1977b:740,741), worked into modern times until closed by Gamal Nasser, but there is no reason to take the history of the mine back any earlier than the New Kingdom (Eggebrecht 1975). For Europe and the Aegean there is virtually no archaeological evidence for gold mining before Roman times. The earliest textual evidence for gold mining must come with Herodotus and the mines on Siphnos and Thasos men­ tioned above. The gold of the Pactolus river was all alluvial gold (Foss 1979). Strabo does refer to gold mines near the ruined city of Astyra in the Troad, but no geological evidence for the existence of these mines has ever been forthcoming. It could be argued that the mines were exhausted in antiquity, but Strabo's comment on Astyra is instructive in this regard: "...formerly the city was independent and had gold mines ( X p o i ^ o v v «< ), which are now poor and exhausted, like those in Mount Tmolus around the Pactolus" (Strabo xlll:591, as quoted in Schliemann 1881:253). Yet flakes of gold can still be collected in the bed of the Pactolus river (Foss 1979:37-39; Hanfmann and Waldbaum 1970:310-15) whereas we have yet to

431

identify the mines mentioned by Strabo. Turkish geologists have identified several gold-producing areas in the northwest (de Jesus 1978:101-102; de Jesus 1980:82-83) but no further investigation has ever been made. Various claims have been made for the antiquity of gold mining in Europe, often said to be connected with the activities of Minoan-Mycenaean prospectors (Quiring 1948:74; Heinrich 1982:211), but such claims have never been substantiated. Nor does C. Eluere (1977:407) present any real evidence in support of her theory that the earliest gold used in France came from the Aegean. What can be demonstrated is that European evidence for other types of mining activity, especially flint (Schild 1976) and copper (Javanovic 1980; C e m y c h 1978) mining, now goes back into the fifth millennium. In addition to the numerous radiocarbon dates from several Neolithic flint mines, especially Grime's Graves in Norfolk, England, there is now one radiocarbon date from a contemporary copper mine, that of Rudna Glava in NE Serbia (Yugoslavia). Taken from a small piece of an antler mining tool the date (BM-1589, 5160+1000 be on basis of high half­ life) is not very satisfactory but does support the high dating suggested by the presence of Vinca pottery in the mine shafts (Burleigh et al.1982:255). There are now also radiocarbon dates from the early copper mines at Chinflon in Spain, Huelva Province, excavated by Beno Rothenberg and Antonio Blanco-Freijeiro (Rothenberg and Blanco-Freijeiro 1981) which, if not corroborating the suggested Chalcolithic date, do at least support the existence of Late Bronze Age mining activity. There are also extensive remains of underground galleries from the ^.extraction of cinnabarite (red mercuric sulphide) at the site of Suplja Stena, near Belgrade, dated to the third millennium BC (Milojcic 1943) if not earlier (depending upon the dates assigned to the Baden period in southeastern Europe). This brief survey has attempted to present some of the evidence sup­ porting the argument that, in the development of mining technology, Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe was far in advance of anything presently known from Western Asia. From Anatolia the existence of Bronze Age mining activity is based upon one radiocarbon date from Kozlu, near Horoztepe (de Jesus 1980a:110) which, when calibrated according to the MASCA (1973) curve gives ^ date of 3580-3600 + 30 BC (Su-295, 4750 + 30BP; Heikkinen and Xikaa 1977). The only other region having radiocarbon dates associated with Mining activity is Timn in the Wadi Arabah of southern Palestine, Though claims have been made for the discovery of Chalcolithic copper smelting installations at Timna, the radiocarbon dates are no earlier than the Late Bronze Age (Burleigh and Hewson 1979:349; Burleigh and Matthews 1982:165) and that is probably the main period of mining activity as well. If we look to the evidence for the use of gold we find the same pattern as that for mining activity. Before the period represented by the EB II period in Western Asia, there is far more evidence for the use of gold from prehistoric Europe than from Western Asia. This is especially true of the material from the Bodrogkeresztur Culture of Proto-Aeneolithic Europe (Patsy 1974:15-17). It is not possible to give here any detailed account of the early use of gold in Western Asia. The examples from Mesopotamia that can be dated before ca. 3000 BC have been summarized recently (in Renfrew 1978:200) and, although my remark that "...thereis very little gold before 3000 BC, just as

432

there is little or no tin" (Muhly 1977:76) has recently been described as being "...typical of many a careless assessment prevalent in the archaeolo­ gical literature" (de Jesus 1980b:215) it still stands within the context in which it was made. We may one day have access to material that will totally change our conception of the prehistory of Western Asia, and we may one day operate within a chronological framework entirely different from that used at present, but I can only work with what is at hand and, putting the Royal Cemetery of Ur (ED Ilia) in the twenty-sixth century BC, there is still very little gold or tin bronze before that date. Tomb 109 from Tepe Gawra provides one of the few exceptions, with its collection of ob­ jects made of gold and electrum (Maxwell-Hyslop 1971:1). From Palestine the earliest use of gold consists of several gold beads from the Chalcolithic site of Azor. Made of gold leaf, they come from the excavations of A. Ben-Tor (Ben-Tor 1975:148) and can be dated to the latter part of the fourth millennium BC (Altman 1979:75). Gold is not at all com­ mon in Palestinian contexts before the Late Bronze Age, one of the most interesting earlier pieces being a gold plaque, from an EB II/III burial cave at the southern end of the Kinneret, having obvious stylistic parallels with the gold jewellery from Alaca Hliyttk (Mazzr 1977:718). The known use of gold in Anatolia, prior to the hoards or treasures from Troy and Alaca HUyUk, is not very impressive. The account of this material by P. S. de Jesus (1980a:88-89) deals only with Schliemann*s finds which are, in almost all cases of doubtful date and context. The fact that the University of Cincinnati expedition, under the direction of Carl Blegen, found no evidence for the use of gold or silver in Troy Icontexts, suggests that precious metals were not known in the Troad before the EB II period. Silver is, however, known from several Late Chalcolithic sites in Antolia, including Beycesultan and Korucutepe (Prag 1978:39) and, most recently, from a hoard of 22 arsenical bronzes from Period VI at Arslantepe (Malatypa), including nine swords, three of which were decorated with silver inlay Palmier! 1981:109). The first real use of gold must, therefore, come somewhat later in Anatolia than in Mesopotamia. Even later was the first use of gold in Cyprus. The Earliest example is a gold clasp or hair ornament from Tomb 164B at Vounous, dating to the late EC I period in the late third millennium (Karageorghis 1965:142, 150-151). Throughout Western Asia there is very little evidence for the use of gold before the period represented by the finds from the Royal Cemetery of Ur. While the relative sequence of the numerous gold hoards or treasures, known from many finds distributed over a wide area, has yet to be worked out, it is appropriate to refer to the mid-third millennium BC as "The Age of Gold". What remains to be explained is why gold should appear so sudden­ ly over such a wide area. Even more surprising, the jewellery from these hoards reveals a full mastery of all the techniques known to the modern goldsmith (Smith 1970:499; Foltz 1981). We really cannot say anything regarding the development of these tech­ niques. Nor can we relate the gold work from Varna with anything known from the Black Sea or Anatolia in later periods. Questions of provenience still remain unanswered. That applies as much to the sources of the gold being used as it does to the origins of the methods of fabrication used in making the jewellery known from throughout the Bronze Age world.

433

REFERENCES

Altman, J. 1979. Gold In Ancient Palestine. Gold Bulletin. 12: 75-82. Bass, G. F. 1966. Troy and Ur: Gold Links between two ancient capitals. Expedition. 8/4: 26-39. Bass, G. F. 1970. A Hoard of Trojan and Sumerian Jewelry. AJA. 74: 335-41. Ben-Tor, A. 1975. Azor - Burial Caves in Industrial Center. In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Vol. I. London (Oxford U. P.): 147-48. Branigan, K. 1968. Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete. Lund (Paul AstrBms FBrlag). Branigan, K. 1974. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford (Clarendon Press). Briggs, C. S. 1976. The Indigenous Minerals and Metallurgy of the Earliest Irish Bronze Age. Irish Archaeological Research Forum. III/l: 9-15. Briggs, C. S. et al. 1973. Irish Prehistoric Gold-Working: some Geological and Metallurgical Considerations. BHMG. 7: 18-26. Burleigh, R. and Hewson, A. 1979. British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements. Radiocarbon. 21: 339-52. Burleigh, R. and Matthews, K. 1982. British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements, XIII. Radiocarbon. 24: 151-70. Burleigh, R. et al. 1982. British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements, XIV. Radiocarbon. 24: 229-90. Canby, J. V. 1965. Early Bronze 1Trinket’ Moulds. Iraq. 27: 42-61. V

Cernykh, E. N. 1978. Aibunar - a Balkan copper mine of the fourth millennium B.C. PPS. 44:203-18. De Jesus, P. 1978. Metal Resources in Ancient Anatolia. Anat. St. 28: 97-102. De Jesus, P. S. 1980a. The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia. Oxford (BAR, Intern. Series, 74). De Jesus, P. S. 1980b. Varna and early metallurgy. Antiquity. 54: 216-16.

434

Domergue, C. and Herail, G. 1978. Roman gold-mines in Spain: Valduerna District. Geomorphological and Archaeological study. Toulouse (Univ. de Toulouse - Le Mirail, Serie B, Tome 4).

I have not seen this work which, presumably is in French.

Reference from abstract in JHMS. 14: 117. Eggebrecht, A. 1975. Barramije. In Lex ikon der Agyptologie, eds. W. Helck und E. Otto. Vol. I. Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz): 627. Eluere, C. 1977. Les premiers Ors en France. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique / Frangaise, Etudes et Travaux. 74/1: 390-419. Foltz, E. 1981. Antike Goldschmiedetechniken und ihre Erkennung. ArbeitsblHtter filr Restaurat or en. 14: 50-63. Foss, C. 1979. Exploration in Mount Tmolus. Calif. St. in Classical Antiquity. 11: 21-60. Giveon, R. 1977a. Goldgewinnung. In Lexikon der Agyptologie, eds. W. Helck und E. Otto. Vol. II. Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz): 734-38. Giveon, R. 1977b. Goldminen. In Lexikon der Agyptologie, eds. W. Helck und E. Otto. Vol. II. Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz): 740-51. Hanfmann, G. F. A. and Waldbaum, J. C. 1970. New Excavations at Sardis and Some Problems of Western Anatolian Archaeology. In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Festschrift Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. New York (Doubleday): 307-26. Hartmann, A. 1970. Prihistorische Goldfunde aus Europa. Berlin (SAM, III). Hartmann, A. 1978a. Ergebnisse der spektralanalytischen Untersuchung Mneolithischer Goldfunde aus Bulgarien. Studia Praehistorica. 1-2: 27-45. Hartmann, A. 1978b. Die Goldsorten des Aneolithikums und der Frlihbronzezeit im Donauraum. Studia Praehistorica. 1-2: 182-91. Hartmann, A. 1982. Pr&historische Goldfunde aus Europa, Teil II: Spektralanalytische Untersuchungen und deren Auswertung. Berlin (SAM, V). Hartmann, A. and Sangmeister, E. 1972. The Study of Prehistoric Metallurgy. Angewandte Chemie. 11: 620-29. Hartmann, A. and Scott, B. G. 1977. Reply by Hartmann to Scott, 1976, with answer by Scott. In Irish Archaeological Research Forum. IV/4: 35-38.

435

Harris, M. 1980. Hydrothermal alteration at Salave gold prospect,

northwest Spain.

Trans. Instn. Mining and Metallurgy. B89: 5-15. Hawkes, C. 1961. Gold Ear-rings of the Bronze Age, East and West.

Folklore.72:

438-74. Heikkinen, A. and AikiH, 0. 1977. Geological Survey of Finland Radiocarbon Measure­ ments, VII. Radiocarbon. 19: 263-79. Heinrich, G. 1982. Zur Geschichte des Goldbergbaus in Schlesien. Der Anschnitt. 34: 211-15. Hume, W. F. 1937. Geology of Egypt. Vol. II, Part III: The Minerals of Economic Value. Cairo (Ministry of Finance, Survey of Egypt). Jovanovic, B. 1980. The Origins of Copper Mining in Europe. Scientific American. 242/5: 152-67. Karageorghis, V. 1965. Sur quelques ornaments de chevelure du bronze ancien de Chypre. Syria. 42: 141-54. Kinnes, I. 1981. Review of Taylor, 1980. In Archaeological Journal. 138: 272-73. Kohl, P. L. 1978. The Balance of Trade in Southwestern Asia in the Mid-ThirdMillennium B*c * Current Anthropology. 19: 463-92 (with CA comment). Makkay, J. 1976. Problems concerning Copper Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin. AAH. 28: 251-300. Mallet, W. 1848-50. On the minerals of the auriferous districts of Wicklow. J^. Geol. Soc. Dublin. 4: 269-77. Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1971. Western Asiatic Jewellery, £. 3000-612 B.C. London (Methuen). Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1977. Sources of Sumerian Gold. Iraq. 39: 83-86. Mazar, B. 1977. Kinneret. In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the

Holy

Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Vol. III. London (Oxford U.P.): 717-18. Meeks, N. D. and Tite, M. S. 1980. The Analysis of Platinum-group Element Inclusions in Gold Antiquities. JAS. 7: 267-75. Milojcic, V. 1943. Das vorgeschichtliche Bergwerk ’Suplja Stena* am Avalaberg bei Belgrad (Serbien). Weiner PrHhistorische Zeitschrift. 30: 41-54. Muhly, J. D. 1977. The Copper Ox-hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade. Iraq. 39: 73-82. Muhly, J. D. 1982. Review of Branigan, 1968. In Bibliotheca Orientalis. 39: 408-18.

436

Neustupny, E. 1969. Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic Periods in Central and South-East Europe, II. Archeologicke rozhledy. 21: 783-810,. Ogden, J. M. 1977. Platinum Group metal inclusions in Ancient Gold Artifacts. JHMS. 11:53-72. Palmieri, A. 1981. Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya). Anat. St. 31: 101-19. Patay, P. 1958. Rezkori aranyleletek. Archaeologiai ErtesftB. 85: 37-46. Patay, P. 1974. Die hochkupferzeitliche Bodrogkeresztur-Kultur. Bericht der RBmischGermanischen Kommission. 55: 1-71. Prag, K. 1978. Silver in the Levant in the Fourth Millennium B.C. In Archaeology in the Levant: Festschrift Kathleen Kenyon, eds. P. R. S. Moorey and P. J. Parr. Warminster (Aris and Phillips): 36-45. Quiring, H.

1948. Geschichte des Goldes.Stuttgart.

Ramdohr, P.

1965. Rheingold als Seifenmineral. Jhr. Geol.Landesamt Bad.Wurttemberg.

7: 87-95. Renfrew, C. 1978. Varna and the social context of early metallurgy. Antiquity. 52: 199-203. Rothenberg, B. and Blanco-Freijeiro, A. 1981. Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in South­ West Spain. London (Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies; Metal in History,

1) . Savory, H. 1977. A New Hoard of Bronze Age Gold Ornaments from Wales. Archaeologia Atlantica. 2: 37-53. Schild, R. 1976. Flint Mining and Trade in Polish Prehistory as seen from the Perspective of the Chocolate Flint of Central Poland. A Second Approach. Acta Archaeologia Carpathica. 16: 147-76. Schliemann,

H. 1881• Ilios, the city and country of the Trojans(Reprinted

New York

(Arno Press) 1976). Schumacher, F. 1912. Die GolderzlagerstHtten und der Goldbergbau der Rudaer ZwBlfApostel-Gewerkschaft zu Brad in Siebenbtirgen. Berlin (Verlag M. Krahmann). Scott, B. G. 1974. The application of techniques of physical examination to archaeological research. In Perspectives in Irish Archaeology, ed. B. G. Scott. RpJJLasUv. 1/17,-7-L. Scott, B. G. 1976. The Occurrence of Platinum as a Trace Element in Irish Gold: Comments on Hartmann1s Gold Analyses• Irish Archaeological Research Forum. III/2: 21-24. Smith, C. S. 1970. Art, Technology and Science: Notes on their historical interaction.

437

Technology and Culture. 11: 493-549. Taylor, J. J. 1980. Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles. Cambridge (Cambridge U. P.). Todorova, H. 1978. Die Nekropole bei Varna und die sozialBkopomischen Probleme am Ende des Aneolithikums Bulgariens. Zeitschrift filr ArchHologie. 12: 87-97. Vercoutter, J. 1959. The Gold of Kush. Two Gold-washing Stations at Faras East. Kush. 7: 120-53. Wagner, G. A. et al. 1981. Discovery of Ancient Gold Mining on Thasos (Greece). Revue d*Archeometrie. 3: 313-20. Weisshaar, H.-J. 1982. Varna und die AgRische Bronzezeit. ArchHologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 12: 321-29. Whitmore, F. E. and Yound, W. J. 1973. Application of the Laser Microprobe and Electron Microprobe in the Analysis of Platiniridium Inclusions in Gold. In Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art, ed. W. J. Young. Boston (Museum of Fine Arts): 88-95. Young, W. J . 1972. The Fabulous Gold of the Pactolus Valley. Bulletin, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. LXX/359: 4-13.

438

Gold and Goldworking in Early Bronze Age Crete Keith Branigan. The goldwork of Early Minoan Crete is best known from the material found in the cemetery of Mochlos^ and to a lesser degree that from tholos A at Platanos.2) Discoveries of goldwork in EBA deposits in Crete are more wide­ spread than is generally appreciated, however; altogether sixteen sites in Crete have yielded gold objects in EBA levels (by which we include here those deposits which continue from EM.II or III into MM.I) . The Goldsmiths' repertoire The goldsmiths' products were all items of display, mostly jewellery but also including embellishments for clothing. Most spectacular, and best known, are the diadems - broad bands of thin sheet gold, usually decorated with chased or repousse patterns and motifs. Nearly forty such diadems survive, half of them from Mochlos. Additionally there are over forty narrower bands which often appear in pairs and which I have previously called 'diadem ties'. They may have been attached to each end of a diadem and then joined together at the back of the head, although they might also have projected from the upper edge of a diadem, in the manner seen on the diadem found and published by Davaras.3) other items which may have been affixed to diadems include over forty flowers from Mochlos, and a number of single—leaf pendants. Four types of ring are found amongst Early Minoan goldwork, in addition to four types of bangles. The latter include the distinctive broad 'armlets' from Mochlos which were probably mounted on a leather backing.4) Necklaces, which to judge from examples at Arkhanes were sometimes comprised both of gold and stone beads, were relatively wide­ spread, gold beads, in nine or ten varieties, being found on ten sites in various parts of the island. Pendants, in seven varieties, were almost as widespread with examples known from eight sites. The exact usage of gold discs and conical bosses (often covering a core material) is uncertain but they seem most likely to have been used to decorate articles of clothing. Finally, from Mochlos we get two pieces of sheet goldwork which appear to have been decoration on a dagger sheath. What the assemblage presently lacks are gold vessels and gold pins. The former are of course very scarce finds except under the most favourable circumstances, although apart from Schliemann's material from Troy, there are five gold vessels in existence reputedly of Early Helladic date and provenance .5) it is possible that gold vessels were in use in Early Minoan Crete, for two silver, one lead and one possible copper vessel survive from EM deposits. Pins, on the other hand, are notably scarce in any material in the Minoan EBA. ^5 The Goldsmiths' techniques The range of techniques mastered by the Minoan goldsmith by the beginning of the palatial era is an impressive one. Most of their work was executed in sheet gold, although a few pendants and beads may have been cast. The sheet was probably produced by beating and hammering small gold bars, and some sheet was cut into strips and then twisted and rotated to form wire, useful

for manufacturing some of the bangles and rings, but also for the very fine chains found attached to some of the pendants. Decoration of sheet gold jewellery took five forms. The rarest is ■openwork', in which small pieces of sheet were cut from the main piece to leave an openwork pattern. The only unambiguous example is the fragmentary diadem from Kalathiana,^) although a similar cutting technique was used to make some of the multipetalled flowers from Mochlos and an unusually elaborate gold disc from Mallia. The commonest decorative technique was repousse, the motifs and patterns being pushed out from the back of the sheet with the aid of a broad punch or a tracer. By skilful and imaginative use, this technique was used to decorate articles with both geometric and representational motifs. The armlets from Mochlos are also decorated in repousse but their designs are so regular that they may have been hammered over carved wooden formers to produce the raised patterns. Some beads from Arkhanes and Mochlos may have been made in the same way. Those sheet gold products which were decorated by punch or tracer from the rear were probably set into a soft resin or at least spread on leather to lower the risk of the sheet splitting under the impact of the punch. Examination of some of the Arkhanes beads and Mochlos armlets®) suggests that these were not decorated by repousse but that the metal was lightly traced from the front; the results are a sharper line and crisper decoration than that obtained by repouss^. The fourth decorative technique was filigree - the addition of motifs in fine gold wire which was soldered to the surface of the article. This is used for beads, notably at Platanos, where running spirals decorate the surface of the bead in this way.®) Finally, there is the technique of granulation, in which tiny droplets of gold are soldered onto the surface of a piece of jewellery. Two EBA examples from Crete are found at Koumasa; a small disc and a pendant in the form of a toad are decorated in this manner3-°)No other examples are known from the pre-palatial era, although the famous wasp or bee pendant from Mallia, which reveals the technique at its very best, may be only a little later in date than the Koumasa toad. It is arguable whether these various skills revealed by the Early Minoan goldsmiths point to specialist craftsmen who devoted at least a substantial part of their time during the year to goldworking. Certainly there is no evidence from any EBA settlement in Crete of a goldsmiths work­ shop, but that is hardly surprising and there are only fragmentary traces of such workshops even in the palace period. The Mochlos goldwork probably offers the best hope of identifying specialist craftsmen and might repay detailed study. A preliminary examination of Davaras' new material revealed that on any single item, the degree of standardisation and control in the decoration of the article was very high. For example, repousse dots decorating the centre and edges of leaves were spaced with precision and regularity.I D Such regularity certainly suggests a very practised hand, but the regularity did not usually cover several objects, even in an apparently homogeneous group. 12) The evidence of this very cursory study of the detailed working of small items is therefore inconclusive. Despite similarities between many of the items it could not be shown that a similar hand was involved in the production of many of them.

440

Development of Goldworking in Crete The development of Early Minoan goldworking cannot be traced in detail due to the mixed nature of most of the deposits from which the goldwork comes. The majority of the deposits can only be dated within the brackets EM.IMM.I or EM.II—MM.I • There are no certain examples of EM.I goldwork in Crete at present; the earliest gold items are probably those from the Pyrgos deposit dating EM.I-IIa. Other EM.II goldwork is mainly from tombs XIX and VI on Mochlos, plus a few items from the lower level of tholos A at Platanos and a single bead from an EM.II deposit at Maronia. Material found in EM.III-MM.I contexts includes goldwork from the small tholos at Arkhanes, from the upper level of Platanos tholos A, and from further tombs at Mochlos. From this small assemblage of material from date able contexts we can make some attempt to trace the development of both the repertoire and the techniques of goldwork in EBA Crete. From the first (i.e. from the Pyrgos deposit) we find diadems and 1ties', wire bangles and sheet-gold beads. The other EM.II deposits also contain these items, and in addition decorat­ ive discs, pendants, and diadem attachments (usually flowers) • The only items which appear in EM.III-MM.I deposits but which are not known earlier are rings, but this is likely to be due to the vagaries of discovery. The EM.II-III deposit at Sphoungaras contained a gold ring, and a bronze and two silver rings were found in another mixed EM.II-III deposit at Ayios Andoni. It seems, then, that the goldwork repertoire saw little develop­ ment in general terms from the onset of goldworking in Crete in early EM.II to the beginning of the palatial era. In techniques, there seems to be more historical development. The Pyrgos goldwork reveals only the basic skills of hammering sheet gold and producing gold wire. The Mochlos EM.II material, certainly later than EM. Ila, reveals the development of repouss£ and traced decoration. 'Plating' of objects with a bronze core first appears in an EM.II-III context in one of the Mochlos tombs, whilst the earliest dateable examples of filigree are on beads from the EM.III-MM.I level in Platanos tholos A. Examples of granulation and 'openwork' come only from mixed EM.I-MM.I deposits, but as with filigree decoration, it seems unlikely that the techniques are developed before EM.Ill since none of them appear in the Pyrgos, Mochlos Tombs VI and XIX, and Platanos tholos A lower level, assemblages of EM.II. Granulation and openwork are of course scarce even in deposits ranging up to MM.I, and this too suggests that the techniques were developed no earlier than the last phase of the Cretan EBA. Regional patterns in Crete The material culture of the people living in and around the Mesara in the EBA is distinct from that of the occupants of the east of the island, and the same is true to a lesser degree of the people of the northern central region• It might be anticipated that it would be possible to identify regional 'schools' of goldworking but this proves to be possible only in a limited way. The repertoire of articles seems to be common throughout the north, east and south; beads are more widespread in the Mesara than either

441

the east or north, and diadem attachments are rare outside Mochlos, but these are at most differences of emphasis. Similarly, the commonest techniques represented in the EM goldwork assemblage - the production of gold wire, and the use of repousse and traced decoration, are found in all three regions. Plating is found in both the east and the Mesara. At present granulation, openwork and filigree are known only from the Mesara and although examples are limited to just three sites, it may be signific­ ant that all six articles decorated in these EM.III-MM.I techniques come from the Mesara; that is, these techniques may have been first developed or introduced there. The regional distribution of goldwork in EBA Crete shows some interest­ ing variations. Of the sixteen sites producing gold artifacts of some sort, eight are in or around the Mesara, four are in the north-central part of the island, and four are in the east. This distribution of sites is not in it­ self surprising, reflecting broadly the distribution of known EBA sites in these three regions. The quantity of material from the different sites and regions, however, does reveal a pronounced bias. Quantification is not easily achieved, since to simply add up the number of items of goldwork from any single site would obviously produce misleading results - a diadem or bangle contains far more gold than a foil bead or small pendant. With time and freedom of access to the material, one could of course weigh the assemb­ lages from each site - but no one has yet published the w eights of Minoan EBA goldwork. I have therefore had to devise a very rough and ready order of magnitude for the goldwork; for example, thin sheet discs, foil beads, small sheet pendants etc. have been given a value of 1 , whilst at the other end of the scale wire bangles have been valued at 6 and diadems at 8 . In table 1 I show the 'quantity1 of goldwork from each EM site producing gold, the left hand column simply listing the number of gold items found on the site, the right hand column the total 'value1 of those items using my sliding scale. Two things stand out quite clearly from these tables - the first is the richness of Mochlos, and the second is the richness of the Mesara in comparison to the north and east of the island (if Mochlos is excluded) • The nature and status of the EM community on Mochlos should perhaps be given close scrutiny in the near future; apart from its wealth of goldwork, its small cemetery has also produced a very fine array of high quality stone vases, a range of good quality bronze tools and weapons, and a group of eight or nine objects of silver or lead (metals very scarce in EM Crete) - three of which represent the only EM metal vessels yet to be found. The richness of the Mesara in comparison to other parts of the island is in keeping with the general wealth of material from the Mesara tholoi and with the continuing agricultural richness of this area. But if gold diadems and other jewellery are indicative of wealth and rank in the EBA Mesara, then we are still left with the problem of the emergence of the first palatial society not here but at Knossos in the north of the island. There is no time to consider further the social implications of EM goldwork and its distribut­ ion but they too deserve further attention. Crete and EBA Goldwork Elsewhere in the Aegean On present evidence, Crete was more prolific in its use of gold than was most

442

No. ITEMS

SITE

VALUE

Platanos

80

130

Koumasa

lo

27

Kalathiana

io

48

Ag. Triadha

55

81

5

38

24

38

2

4

Ag. Onouphrios

17

28

Pyrgos

12

33

3

8

46*

50*

Porti Lebena Siva

Krasi Arkhanes Trapeza

7

17

Sphoungaras

3

4

Mochlos

160*

418*

Palaikastro

5

20

Maronia

1

1

* Figures for Arkhanes based on published information only; figures for Mochlos minimum figures with no allowance for 'many* beads of types I and IX.

Table 1.

List of Early Bronze Age sites producing goldwork comparing

number of items recorded with their estimated 1value1 in terms of the quantity of gold they represent.

443

of the Aegean. Only nine sites on the mainland of Greece have produced EBA goldwork, with a total 1value1 score of about 270. Of that score, 200 is claimed by the Steno cemetery at Levkas,1®) which might possibly deserve consideration alongside Mochlos - an island community, rich in goldwork, a fine range of bronzework, and connections with several different parts of the Aegean. The gold sauceboats in the Louvre and Israel Museums, and the two gold vessels from 'Euboea1,!4) m ay point to a buried wealth of mainland goldwork yet to be revealed but the significance of these museum acquisit­ ions are difficult to assess. The Cyclades is notoriously lacking in EBA goldwork - a single bead from Naxos being the lone find to date. This leaves the Troad, which has produced two, probably three, great hoards of EBA gold­ work from Troy, Poliochni and 'the Troad*. Here, certainly, the discovery of hoards of goldwork within the settlements fits with the picture of an emerging social hierarchy and the storage of wealth.1®) To what extent this interpretation can be transferred to Crete, where the gold is found in tombs (and in the Mesara in communal tombs) is uncertain, but this brings us once again to the social significance of gold in the Cretan EBA. There has been no opportunity in this short paper to even begin to consider this topic, but it is hoped that the summary of the material evidence for EM goldwork presented here will provide a basis on which further discussion can be based. Footnotess 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

R.B. Seager Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (1912). S. Xanthoudides The Vaulted Tombs of Mesara (1924). C. Davaras 'Early Jewellery from Mochlos' BSA 70(1975) 101-114. Seager op.cit. n.l, figs. 8 , 18a-h; 38, 13; 43, 17a-b. K. Branigan Aegean Metalwork of the Early & Middle Bronze Ages (1974) Cat. No's. 3190-1, 3203-5. 6 . All 5 bronze examples of 'type 1' pins from Crete could be simple awls rather than p i n s , and all could be as late as MM.I-II. The distinctive hook pins (type 2) may also all date to MM.I and later times. 7. Xanthoudides op.cit. n.2, pi. XLIIIb, 394. 8 . e.g. Seager op.cit. n.l, fig. 43, 17a-b. 9. Xanthoudides op.cit. n.2, pi. LVIII, 454-55. 10. Xanthoudides o p .cit. n.2, pi. IV, 386; Branigan op.cit. n.5, Cat. No. 2420. 11. e.g. on leaf 12 (pi. 19d) there are 15 dots every 2cms, wherever measure­ ments are taken; on leaves 9A and 9C (pi. 20,D) there are 13 dots every 2 CTOS . 12. e.g. leaf 9B (pi. 20,D) forming a spray with leaves 9A and 9C, has only lO dots every 2cms down its centre line. 13. W. Dozpfeld Alt-Ithaka (1927) . 14. see note 5. 15. C. Renfrew The Emergence of Civilisation (1972) 281-2.

444

Aegean and Near Eastern Gold Jewelry in the Early Bronze Age Lucinda Rasmussen McCallum

EBII marks a floruit in the wealth and foreign exchange in the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean and Near East. One indicator of this prosperity is the abundance of gold jewelry which appears in these regions from about 2500 B.C.l Sites producing most of the gold ornaments include Mochlos and settlements in the Mesara on Crete, Troy in Anatolia,2 Poliochni on Lemnos, and Ur, Kish and Tell Asmar in Mesopotamia.3 The objects can easily be grouped by their geographic regions on the basis of style and technique,^ the three major areas being Crete, the Northeastern Aegean (the Troad and Lemnos), and Mesopotamia.^ Several scholars have addressed the stylistic similarities which integrate the three regional groupings of gold jewelry. While the similarities do suggest international contact, marked differences separate the regional groups from one another, indicating three indigenous goldworking industries. The objects in question include gold diadems, necklaces, earrings, bracelets, rings and pins. The similarities which have excited theories relating the jewelry groups to one another include a variety of elements. First, one type of diadem has been found at Ur, in the Troad, and on Crete (figs. 1, 2, 12).^ It is made of hammered gold, usually with repousse dots defining the circumference, and punched holes at each end for fastening around the head. Second, Ur and the Troad produced a pendant which encircles four conical spirals, the ends of which are usually twisted together along the vertical axis (figs. 3, 4).® Third, an earring from the Troad and one from Ur each have a multiple wire body with an applique boss, and a series of scored rods attached at the lowest part (figs. 5, 6);9 the two pair of applique spirals on the Ur example find a parallel in a second Troad earring. 0 Lastly, loop-in-loop chains are known throughout the Aegean and Near East in this period, and have been considered a technological link between the re­ gions (figs. 7, 14).11 The similarities just mentioned do not offer proof of direct importation of foreign jewelry. Rather, they consist of a few visual elements and jewelry types (such as the sheet-gold diadem) which were assimilated by three distinct regional styles. The degree of homogeneity which does occur in these pieces seems to have been controlled by local variations in technological skill, as well as preferences of style and materials. In the EBA, goldwork from Meso­ potamia and the Northeastern Aegean was more advanced technologically than that from Crete. This sophisticated workmanship included knowledge of fili­ gree, granulation and casting, as well as hammering, chasing and w i r e w o r k i n g ; 1 2 cloisonne and inlay were practiced solely in M e s o p o t a m i a . 13 Minoan goldsmiths, on the other hand, were limited to hammering, chasing and wireworking, al­ though a few examples of applique can perhaps be dated as early as the EM period.1^ Due to limited technology, Minoan jewelry is characterized by a simplicity of surface articulation, an aspect absent from most Trojan and Near Eastern jewelry. The gold flowers from Mochlos, for example, are gen­ erally made in two pieces, a flat-topped pin and a series of petals cut from sheet-gold (fig. 8).-*-^ When decorated, the raw-edged petals are simply outlined by series of repousse dots. This dotting technique constitutes the

usual method for embellishing Early Minoan jewelry; only occasionally are designs formed by solid lines. The Mochlos flowers are quite different from their Mesopotamian counterparts, and help to illustrate the independence of Minoan goldwork. ^ A hair ornament from Ur, for example, illustrates two characteristics which are absent in Minoan jewelry (fig. 9 ) : a taste for sculpted volume seen in the concavity of each petal; and second, as these rosettes had lapis centers,^ghey show the local popularity of juxtaposing gold and colored materials. Other rosettes from the same woman1s headdress are inlaid with shell and lapis, and the gold leaves are tipped with c a m e l ian balls (fig. 10).19 a hair ornament from Troy is further isolated from the Mochlos flowers by the use of filigree to heavily outline a rosette on both front and back (fig. 11).20 Knowledge of skills such as filigree and inlay naturally expand the choices open to goldsmiths when making a flower. The Minoan technological limitations, however, actually benefit their product in this instance; the thin gold sheet and tentative aspect of dotted patterning create the sense of fragility inherent in a flower. The diadems from Mochlos best illustrate the flatness and simplicity of Early Minoan jewelry (fig. 1).21 The type has also been found at Troy and Ur, and consists of a hammered strip of gold pierced at each end for fastening, usually with the circumference defined by repousse dots. On the Mochlos pieces, the designs are also depicted by series of dots, and range from abstract patterns to schematic animal figures. The dogs on one diadem break from tradition in having their contours defined by short broken lines (fig. 1). In most cases, holes were punched along the upper border to accom­ modate upright gold leaves and perhaps other elements. 2 Although the appearance of this type of diadem at Mochlos, Troy and Ur suggests a common source, slight variations do separate the regional groups. In contrast to most of the Minoan pieces, those from Troy are much thinner (0.6-0.8 cm. versus an average width of 2.3 cm. for the Mochlos diadems), lack any holes along the upper border, and are decorated with concentric circles or paired large dots, neither of which appear on Minoan examples (fig. 12). In spite of these differences, it must be noted that the two groups of diadems con­ stitute the strongest evidence for a common source of EBA Aegean jewelry. The single diadem of this type found at Ur, on the other hand, is clearly a Mesopotamian product (fig. 2).2^ While the circumference is dotted, solid lines delineate a scene of men interacting with animals. The frieze is far more complex than animal processions produced on Minoan diadems, and includes the characteristic bearded bull and rearing goat/ram with rosettes of Mesopotamian art.24 In addition to the type just discussed, the Troad and the Near East each produced more elaborate diadems which can be used to define their individual goldworking styles. A diadem from Ur illustrates the local predilection for figural elements, sculpted volume, and varicolored materi­ als (fig. 13). It is sprinkled with three-dimensional reclining bulls, stags and rams, in addition to clusters of leaves and berries. Gold jewelry in this region almost always incorporated contrasting materials such as lapis, carnelian and shell. On this piece, gold animals and clusters of fruit are attached to a background beaded with lapis, and berries are indi­ cated by carnelian beads. On Crete and in the Northeastern Aegean, the only instance of gold contrasted with colored materials occurs on necklaces which sometimes include one or more gold beads.2 In these two Aegean areas,

446

however, individual pieces of gold j ewelry remain free of supplementary materials. The divergence of regional tastes, then, explains the abun­ dant use of cloisonne and inlay in Mesopotamia, and its absence in the Northeastern Aegean and on Crete. The Near Eastern penchant for contrasting gold with colored materials is further illustrated by the pendant discussed toward the beginning of this paper (fig. 4).27 it is one of several examples of this type known from Ur: a second piece is identical yet has lost the encircling lapis beads;2® a third lacks the bounding spokes, and includes a piece of lapis at its center; a fourth example is silver and has triangular pieces of lapis wedged around the four spirals, each being topped with a lapis bead.®^ Although similar in conception to the Troad pendants (fig. 3 ) these pieces have been designed to satisfy the local taste for contrasting gold with other materials. Further, the necking on the Ur gold pendants is a Near Eastern type made of a solid strip which was soldered together at points to form channels, the Troad pendants are topped by tiers of coiled wires which were soldered together.^ Two diadems from Troy illustrate the local popularity of multiple chains, often peppered with cut-out leaves and spacers (fig. 14).®^ Several earrings similar to this type have been recovered from Poliochni and the Troad. Although foreign to the Near East, long chains with a few leaves or spacers attached are known from Mochlos (fig. 7).®® In the Northeastern Aegean, these chains were massed together on earrings and diadems; their isolated occurrences in Minoan tombs, however, suggest they were used singly or in small groups as pendants of some sort. No evidence supports their use as earrings on Crete, although they may have hung from the holes in diadems. This brings forth the comparison introduced earlier between an earring from the Troad and one from Ur (figs. 5, 6). Although similar in their basket-like body with applique boss and attached scored rods, marked dif­ ferences tend to assign them to separate goldworking centers. The Troad earring suits that region1s preference for multiple pendant chains with at­ tached leaves; its upper part, is similar to the thin converging wires on five earrings from P o l i o c h n i , a l t h o u g h different from the single wire on most known examples from the Troad. In Mesopotamia, gold earrings are one of the few jewelry types which are not embellished with other materials. The earring from Ur diffegs from its Troad counterpart in two aspects: its bar and dot termination; and the fact that the "basket” portion hangs from a spiral hoop which is common in earrings from U r . W h i l e the two earrings share certain elements, they seem to be products of their respec­ tive geographic regions. Loop-in-loop chains form perhaps the strongest connection between Aegean and Near Eastern goldworking in the EBA, Although visually similar, it is now clear that regional differences exist not only in the use of the chains, but also in their technique of manufacture. In the Northeastern Aegean, the chains were used for earrings and diadems (fig. 14), in Cre|0 perhaps as pendants (fig. 7), and in Mesopotamia as parts of necklaces. A recent study has shown that the loop-in-loop chains from the Troad were composed of individually cast l i n k s . ^ In contrast, the Ur chains were made from cut pieces of wire whose ends were soldered t o g e t h e r . ^2 Thus,

447

although the loop-in-loop chain type was probably transmitted cross-cultur­ ally, its fabrication technique was not. This provides evidence for the independent manufacture of the Troad and Ur loop-in-loop chains. This paper has attempted to clarify the differences separating the goldworking industries of Crete, the Northeastern Aegean and Mesopotamia. The distinctions range from the limited skills of the Minoan goldsmiths to the bursts of color produced through inlay and cloisonne at Ur. The similarities found in EBA jewelry in the Aegean and Near East are one source of evidence for the increased contact noted in this large area during EBII. The assimilation of new designs, however, was dependent upon each region1s aesthetic preferences and technological skills.

Notes

The following special abbreviations are used in this paper: Troy and Ur = G.F. Bass. ,fTroy and Ur: Gold Links Between Two Ancient Capitals,” Expedition 8 , n. 4 (Summer, 1966):26-39. AegMet. * K. Branigan. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford, 1974. Ilios = H. Schliemann. Ilios: The City and Country of the Trojans. New York, 1880. Mochlos = R.B. Seager. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos. Boston and New York, 1912. Ur = C.L. Woolley. Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery: A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves Excavated between 1926 and 1931. London, 1934. VTM = S. Xanthoudides. The Vaulted Tombs of Mesara^ (1924) with new introduc­ tion and additional bibliography by K. Branigan. Westmead, England, 1971. 1 would like to thank Drs. Robert Dyson and G. Roger Edwards for per­ mission to study the Ur and Troad j ewelry at the University Museum (Philadel­ phia) , Dr. Irene Romano and Maude de Schauensee for their very kind assistance in working with the material, and Dr. Philip Betancourt for his helpful com­ ments and support. *K. Branigan, ”Troy and the Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age,” Transactions of the IVth International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Sheffield, 1977, pp. 2, 4.

2

Although only reputed to be from the Troad (allegedly purchased at panakkale), this jewelry hoard is so similar to the objects from Poliochni and Troy Ilg that its authenticity is generally accepted. 3 The tombs on Mochlos producing the gold under discussion are dated to EM II - EM III, C. Davaras, ”Early Minoan Jewellery from Mochlos,” BSA 70 (1975):114. In the Mesara, tombs at sites such as Platanos, Koumasa B, and Kalathiana, however, contained material ranging in date from the EM into the MM period, AegMet., pp. 155-203. The Poliochni gold was found in a small clay basin, buried under ground, and was within a settlement which was destroyed

448

in Troy Ilg, L. Bernabo Brea, "A Gold Treasure Comparable with the 'Great Treasure1 of Troy: A Remarkable Discovery from a 4500-Year-Old Site on the Isle of Lemnos," ILN (Aug. 3, 1957):197. The Royal Cemetery at Ur and Cemetery "A" at Kish are dated to ED III, H.J. Nissen, Zur Datierung des Konigsfriedhofes von Ur unter besonderer Berticksichtigung der Stratigraphie der Privatgraber (Bonn, 1966), p. 144, C. Burney, The Ancient Near East (Ithaca, 1977) , p. 75 » and McG. Gibson, The City and Area of Kish (Miami, 1972), p. 79-80. The jewelry hoard from Tell Asmar was found under the floor of the Akkadian palace reception room; although the building dates to the Akkadian period, the j ewelry has many elements in common with the Ur and Kish j ewelry, H. Frankfort, "Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute 1932/33, II. Tell Asmar: The Akkadian Palace," Oriental Institute Communica­ tions 17 (1934):35-37. 4 see Troy and Ur for some of the similarities connecting the j ewelry from the Troad and Poliochni. ^Levkas and the Greek Mainland produced only a small amount of gold in the EBA; it lacks significant similarities to the other groups to be included in this paper. The Cyclades produced jewelry in silver, bronze, shell and semi-precious stones during the EBA, but almost none in gold. Although of different materials, much of this j ewelry shares elements with the goldwork in the rest of the Aegean and Near East, E. Sapouna-Sakellarakis, "Cycladic Jewelry," in Art and Culture of the Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C., ed. J. Thimme (Chicago and London, 1977), p. 123. In addition to similar diadems, for example, the Cycladic "cage" pins (Ibid., fig. 95, third from right) closely resemble a gold bead from Mochlos (Davaras, supra n. 3, pi. 16b). ^e.g., G. Bass, "A Hoard of Trojan and Sumerian Jewelry," AJA 74 (1970): 335-341; Troy and U r ; AegMet., p. 119 ff.; Bernabo Brea, supra n. 3, p. 199; R.A. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery (London, 1961), p. 55-56; S. Hood, The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (Middlesex, New York, Victoria, Ontario, Auckland, 1978), p. 188 f.; K.R. Maxwell-Hyslop, "The Ur Jewellery: A re­ assessment in light of some recent discoveries," Iraq 22 (1960):105-115. ^Troy and U r , p. 35. 8Ibid., p. 37. 9 Ibid., p. 38, left photograph (Troad), right photograph (Ur; U . 11584, U r , pi. 138). ^ T r o y and U r , p. 38, and see p. 35 for Troad earring with double spiral applique. 11Ibid., p. 31. 12 K.R. Maxwell-Hyslop, Western Asiatic Jewellery c. 3000 - 612 B.C. (London, 1971), p. 6 ; Ur, p. 296-297. 13Ur, p. 296-297. 14

bead from Kalathiana, EM I - MM I, VTM, pi. XLIIIb no. 391, and AegMet., p. 192 no. 3030; beads from Platanos, EM III - MM I, VTM, pi. LVII nos. 454,

449

455, and AegMet., p. 193 no. 3096. ^Mochlos, fig. 41, X I X .11.a and b. ^ s e e Branigan'8 comments on Crete*s independence in metalworking during the EBA, K. Branigan, "Silver and Lead in Prepalatial Crete," AJA 72 (1968): 228. 17Ur, pi. 128, 129, and 130 (U.10937). 1 Q

Ur, p. 565, U . 10937. 19Ur, pis. 20

127-129, U . 10936.

Ilios, p. 488 no. 835.

2 ^e.g. Mochlos, fig* 8 and 9, nos* II. 1-7, II* 10*

22

Davaras, supra n. 3, p. 109 ff.

23Ur, pi. 139, U.8173. 24cf. Ifeid., pi. 89* U . 12357. 25

Ibid., pi. 140, U . 10948; cf. example from Tell Asmar, Frankfort, supra n. 3, fig. 29 second from top. 26

While several examples are known from Crete, such necklaces are rare in the Troad. Crete: Mochlos, Tomb XIX.14, fig. 41, mixture of gold, carneli­ an, steatite, amethyst, shell and crystal beads; Mochlos, Tomb IV.11, fig. 20, gold, crystal and stone beads, although perhaps not all from one necklace; Mochlos, Tomb VI.27, fig. 25, gold and rock crystal beads. Troy: Ilios, p. 491 nos. 854-858 (all gold); perhaps one instance of carnelian and gold beads strung together with a gold frontlet, p. 493. "^University Museum, Philadelphia, no. CBS 16794 (U.9351). 28 29

Ur, pi. 134, U.9656, fifth from top.

30 31 32 33 34

Troy and U r . p. 37, right photograph.

University Museum, Philadelphia, no. CBS 16370. Troy and U r , p. 37, left photograph.

Ur, p. 374. Troy and U r , p. 37. Ilios, p. 455 and 456 no. 685 and 686; p. 457 and 458 no. 687 and 688.

35Mochlos, fig. 10 11.35, 11.30; fig. 20 IV.14; fig. 43 XIX.20, XIX.22.

450

36 37

Hood, supra n. 6 , p. 189; Mochlos, p. 26. Bernabo Brea, supra n. 3, fig. 9 and 10.

38

although this ball termination may relate to the five earrings from Poliochni, supra n. 37. 39

U r , pi. 219, types 3 and 4.

40e.g. Ur, pi. 146: U . 13792, U . 13794, U . 13796 A and B. 41

F. Athanassopoulos, E. Banou, N.E. Barchi, M. Ellis, L.R. McCallum, J.A. Nash, and C.G. Orr, "The Technology of Loop-in-Loop Chains in the Third Millennium B.C.," forthcoming in AJA. 42

The chains were studied under a microscope by the author.

Figures

1.

After Mochlos, fig. 9, II.4.

2.

After Ur, pi. 139.

3.

After Troy and U r , p. 37, left photograph.

4.

After Troy and U r , p. 37, right photograph; but also including lapis beads in the interstices.

5.

After Troy

and U r , p. 38, left photograph.

6.

After Troy

and U r , p. 38, right photograph.

7.

After Mochlos, fig. 11, 11.35.

8.

After Mochlos, fig. 42, XIX.11.

9.

After Ur, pi. 130, U . 10937.

10.

After Ur, pi. 129.

11.

After Ilios, p. 488, no. 835.

12.

After Troy and U r , p. 35, top photograph.

13.

After Ur, pi.

14.

After Ilios, p. 455, no. 685.

140, U . 10948.

451

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Diadem, from Mochlos.

Diadem, from Ur.

Figure 3. Pendant, probably from the Troad.

Figure 4.

453

Pendant, from Ur

Figure 8,

Flower, from Mochlos.

Figure 10,

Figure 9,

Hair Ornament, from Ur.

Rosette and leaf headdress (detail), from Ur.

Figure 11.

Filigree rosette pin, from Troy.

454

Figure 12.

Diadem (detail), probably from the Troad

455

The Gold of the Shaft Graves: The Transylvanian Connection by Ellen N. Davis

One conclusion from my study of Aegean vessels of precious metals that I had not anticipated was the striking contrast between the occurrence of gold and the way it was used on the vessels of Crete compared with those of the Greek mainland. A new gold cup from a MH-LH I grave near Tholos I at Peristeria*^ illus­ trates the typical Mycenaean product and the criteria I used to distinguish Mainland work. It is a kantharos, a local shape, that was simply formed by hammering. The handles were made separately with their rims rolled up over copper or bronze wire, and attached with rivets. They have a simple hammered decoration with a geometric design. The way the rims are rolled around wire is the most diagnostic feature; it is not found on any of the vessels from Crete. In Crete, the vessels of precious metal are quite different. Of 14 examples found on the island, only one is of gold (see Appendix, No. 19). It is a one-handled cup with repousse spirals and arcades that was found in a "warrior grave" at A. Ioannis, near Knossos. The cup is very light (68 gr.), and the metal was beaten very thin. Although no analysis has been made, it is clear from the unusually pale dull color that the gold has been alloyed with another material. Two of the remaining silver vessels from Crete show the more typical use of gold in Minoan metalwork— in conjunction with other metals and worked with exceptionally sophisticated techniques. The ewer from Zakros is especially fine in its workmanship (No. 13). It was decorated with strips of silver. The two curving around the body bear precise bosses formed separately and attached by fusion. The strips were then covered with thin gold foil. A third strip applied to the bottom of the ewer was gilded with foil of a lighter color. The goblet, also from a "warrior grave" near Knossos (No. 21), illustrates another Minoan technique, the use of cast copper parts for strengthening and shaping. The stem, rim, and handle were made this way, and gold was then applied to the rim and handle, its adhesion aided by the cross-notched decoration into which the gold plate was tooled. The manner in which gold was used in Crete provides strong evidence that the supply was not abundant. These two vessels, especially the ewer from Zakros, exhibit the artistry with which Minoan goldsmiths achieved a maximum effect from a very small quantity of gold. It is true that the frequent combination of gold with other materials in Crete reflects the Minoan taste for color contrast, but it is clear that economy was also an important factor. Two well-known objects will make the point. The tiny gold strips on the neck ring of the rock crystal rhyton from Zakros are not solid, but made of another material that was covered with gold foil.^ The bodies of the bees on the Mallia Bee pendant are not solid, but hollow: they consist of two separate plates fused together.^ The Zakros Sanctuary Rhyton with its traces of gold foil still adhering bears out Evans's ori­ ginal conjecture that all the Minoan relief vases were originally gilded

to imitate gold repousse vessels.** But this was surely not because they had not yet learned the repousse technique in Crete as he thought, but rather to economize on gold. These gilded vessels must have been quite fragile, requiring great delicacy in handling, and the gold-covered flattened cylinder seal from Palaikastro^ could hardly have withstood much use. I am sure that there must have been some gold vessels in Crete. But it is clear from the finds that gold was in much shorter supply than silver, which is more abundant among the finds and is treated less preciously. Whatever the source or sources of precious metal were for the Minoans, gold constituted a very small portion of the supply.^ I need hardly labor the point that the situation is entirely different on the Mainland, beginning with the period of the Shaft Graves at Mycenae. The distribution of the metal vessels there amply supports the picture we get from the grave goods: an abundance of gold that was worked locally. Twenty-eight gold vessels were found in the Shaft Graves alone, most of them bearing the telltale signs of local workmanship, e.g., the pretentious arcade cup from Shaft Grave V (No. 34) or the toreutic horror that Schliemann named the "Cup of Nestor" (No. 63). The few vessels of gold that exhibit the more sophisticated Minoan techniques of manufacture, e.g., the rosette goblet (No. 82) and the inlaid electrum goblet patinated with a dark metallic substance (No. 83), each weighing more than a kilogram, must have been made on the spot by Minoan craftsmen. Although the specific features of these vessels, the bowls, handles, stems, and ornaments, point along with the techniques of manufacture, to Minoan craftsmanship, the vessels as a whole lie within the local tradition of the huge Minoan goblet and must have been requestedby Mycenaean patrons. The 42 vessels of silver from the Shaft Graves present a different picture from those of gold. Only a few, five or perhaps six, are clearly of local manufacture (Nos. 28, 30, 36?, 37, 76, 90). The majority are vessels of standard Minoan type, and they may have been imported from Crete. There are only a few silver vessels that for various reasons may be considered to have been made under Mycenaean patronage (Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 92). The conclusion that the silver vessels were mostly imported from Crete is borne out by the other finds from the Shaft Graves, which include very few silver objects. It is clear that the wealth of the Mycenaeans at the time of the Shaft Graves consisted primarily of gold bullion, and it is clear that it did not come from Crete. While a great many of the other objects, the faience, the stone vases, most of the silver vessels, and probably the bronze vessels and weapons® were imported from Crete, and gold was not. Our search for the cause of the newly gained wealth of the Mycenaean Shaft Graves must focus on gold, gold introduced from outside the Aegean. No other theory of trade, for example that the Mycenaeans gained control of the supply of some commodity desirable to the Minoans,9 would explain what we find in the Shaft Graves: more than 15 kg. of gold, most of it untouched by Minoan hands. If they had anything desirable to the Minoans, it was most likely the gold itself. Recent scholarship has quite rightly emphasized trade connections between Mycenae and areas to the north for the explanation of the new-

458

found wealth. But what would they have to trade? The answer, it seems to me, is clearly indicated by evidence from the Transylvania region, evidence that has been closely analyzed and well-understood by scholars of European prehistory, but which has been ignored by Aegean specialists. A number of gold hoards from the Transylvanian plateau of central Rumania provide clear evidence of specific trade contacts with the Mycenaeans. Two of the hoards were found in 1956 and 1962 in Persinari, northwest of Bucharest. *-0 One hoard consisted of a fragmentary gold sword that imitates an Aegean prototype and five silver battle axes of local type. The sword was cast in two parts, with the gold haft attached to the blade with four rivets. Although it was locally made, and already has a few characteristics of the later European bronze swords, it is basically a gold version of an Aegean sword.11 A second hoard from Persinari con­ sisted of 11 daggers at least partially imitating Aegean daggers with midribs, and two more similar daggers, this time with rivet holes indicat­ ing they were hafted. were found in a third hoard from the village of Macin in eastern Rumania.1* These hoards, along with another hoard from Tufalau that contained weapons of copper and gold, date from the period just prior to the bronze age in Europe, a time contemporary with the Shaft Graves.1** These finds of heavy cast gold objects reflect an intensification of gold mining in the region of central Rumania, and it is clear that the new-mined gold together with contacts with the Mycenaeans were epoch-making events. They created a desire for weapons that spurred the development of bronze technology and weapons manufacture in Europe and inaugurated the bronze age t h e r e . ^ The gold sword from Persinari is an especially important document for European prehistorians, since it stands at the beginning of the entire typology of European swords and daggers, a series that begins with a number of bronze swords from central Rumania that have been classi­ fied as Mycenaean.1^ Whether they are actually Mycenaean or local imita­ tions is a matter of dispute, but Kilian has identified at least two as actual imports on authoritative technical grounds. He has also identified three swords from the western part of the Balkan peninsula from later contexts as Aegean.1^ It is clear that these weapons from the Aegean were highly regarded and that their importation continued even after bronze weapons were being manufactured locally. The Persinari weapons have been clearly understood for their evidence of the pivotal role that Mycenaean contact played at the beginning of the bronze age in Europe. But it seems to me they provide evidence of an equally pivotal contact for the Aegean. The sword especially speaks elo­ quently of the special situation that prevailed at the time in central Rumania, which some Mycenaeans must have exploited. The breaks in the sword, at the handle and mid-blade, indicate what a sorry enterprise it was to cast a sword of gold. Even if these weapons were merely status symbols or show pieces, it is clear that the actual bronze versions would have been even more valuable to these people who had much gold, but no bronze. What kind of exchange rate did the traders who contacted them establish? What windfall profits for the traders who got there first! How long did the situation prevail before two factors would have reduced the price— the subsequent development of local bronze technology, and other Mycenaeans entering into the trade? Were the men buried in the richer Shaft Graves at Mycenae among those who reaped this bonanza? The evidence from the graves fits the picture very well: large quantities of gold, beginning with Grave Gamma, found in

459

association with large quantities of weapons, I am reminded of Spyros Iakovidesfs observation at the discussion at this Symposium in 1981 that all of the Shaft Grave swords were broken before they were deposited in the graves. Can we view them as damaged products that accrued from the ongoing weapons trade? This idea might also explain the excessive wealth of the Shaft Graves, when compared with that of the other undisturbed burials (See appendix). Was this wealth typical or was it extraordinary for its time? Why is the wealth of the undisturbed burials from the tholos tombs so much more modest? There isn’t time to go into the many questions raised by this theory. Were the weapons traded from Crete, or was manufacture set up at Mycenae? Were Minoans involved in the enterprise? Can the vast quantities of Baltic amber beads, 1290 of them found in Shaft Grave IV alone,17 be explained as part of this trade, or are they evidence of some other enterprise? The spiral hair ornaments from Graves Omicron and III^® provide support for the theory of a special and direct connection of Mycenae with central Rumania, but what about the spiral ornament in general which is so much more prevalent and often more precisely executed on Shaft Grave objects than in the rest of Mycenaean art? Such questions are beyond the scope of this paper, but I believe that the evidence from the Transylvanian region gives us all very much to think about.

460

APPENDIX.

EXCAVATED AEGEAN VESSELS OF PRECIOUS METAL GOLD

SILVER

CYCLADES EC II LC I

3.4. Kret.Chron. 3, 1979, 534-73.

KYTHERA, KASTRI, LMIA

138.139.

CRETE EM II-III

11. BSA 70, 1975, PI. 17.

12

MMIB LM I-IIIA:1

19.

13.14.15.16.17.18. 20.21.22.23.

SHAFT GRAVES OF MYCENAE CIRCLE B 25.26.27. CIRCLE A

.

28.29.30. 36.37.39.40.41.42. 43.44.45.56.47.48. 49.50.51.53.54.64. 65.66.67.68.69.70. 71.72.73.74.75.76. 77.78.79.80.81.90. 92.97.98.

31.32.33.34.35. 38.52.55.56.57. 58.59.60.61.62. 63. 82.83.84.89.91. 93.94.95.96.

OTHER MAINLAND FINDS, LH I-IIIA:1 PERISTERIA

99.100.101. Praktika 1976,B, PI. 263. 102 .

MYRSINOCHORION-RUTSI VAPHEIO

103.104.

105.106.107.108.

MIDEA-DENDRA

110.116.

109.111.112.113.114. 115.117.118.119.120.

121 . 122 . MYCENAE

123.124.125.126.127. 128.129.130. 131 (gold-lined copper)

MARATHON

133.

KALAMATA

134, plus two others (BSA 52, 1957, 239)

KAZARMA

137.

THEBES

Deltion 3. 1917, fig. 142,9.

LH III B PHARAI

135 (earlier?)

PYLOS

136

(NOTE: NUMBERS REFER TO CATALOGUE IN E. Davis, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. New York and London, 1977.) 461

Footnotes

^•Praktika 1976, 496-498, fig. 8, pi. 263. 2e . Davis, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Sliver Ware, New York and London, 1977, 94-101. 3N. Platon, In L. von Matt, Ancient Crete, New York and Washington, 1968, 170, pi. 187. ^N. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery, London, 1961, 64. 3A. Evans, The Palace of Minos I, London, 1921, 676; P. Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge, 1969, 87, 162-63, P484. ^J. Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings, London, 1970, fig. 59, Color PI. 12. 2For recent opinions about silver sources for the Minoans, see N. H. Gale, "Some Aspects of Lead and Silver Mining in the Aegean," 161-195, and J. L. Davis, "Minoans and Minoanization at Ayia Irini, Keos," in Thera and the Aegean World, II, London, 1980. ®For bronze vessels, see H. MatthHus, Die BronzegefHsse der kretischmykenischen Kultur (PrHhistorische Bronzefunde, 11,1), Munich, 1980, who points out the similarity of the Shaft Grave vessels with Minoan protypes, but leaves open the question of whether there was local manufacture; S. Hood, "Shaft Grave Swords: Mycenaean or Minoan?" Pepragmenon tou 4th Diethnous Kretologikou Synedriou, Vol. 1, Athens, 1980, 233-242. 9O.T.P.K. Dickinson, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization (SIMA 49), GBteborg, 1977, 54-55. 1®E. Zaharia and 0. Iliescu, "Un tesoro di pugnali d'oro e di asce d'argento dell'eta del bronzo," Fasti Archaeologici 18-19, 1963-64 (1968), 125-127, pis. V-VI; M. Gimbutas, Bronze Age Cultures inCentral and Eastern Europe, The Hague, 1965, 55-56, pi. 8,b,l.

^ K . Kilian, "Nordgrenze des HgHischen Kulturbereiches in mykenischer und nachmykenischer Zeit," Jahresbericht des Institute ftlr Vorgeschichte der UniversitHt Frankfurt a.M., 119, notes 41 and 42. I am grateful to Gllnter Kopke for calling my attention to this publication. 12G. Severeanu, "Zwei DolchHxte aus Gold," Bucurestii Revisita Muzeului si Pinacotecei Municiplului Bucuregti, 1935, 7-11; Gimbutas, Bronze Age Cultures, 55, PI. 8,a,l. 13Gimbutas, Bronze Age Cultures, 56, 215, fig. 21; Barbara Hardmeyer, PrHhistorisches Gold Europas im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend vor ChriStus (WHdenswil, 1976), 32-33.

462

^ T h e s e relationships have been especially clearly explained by H. MUller-Karpe, "Zur altbronzezeitlichen Geschichte Europas," esp. 51-63, and B. HMnsel, "Zur historischen Bedeutung der Theisszone un das 16. Jahrhundert v. Chr." 86-100, in Jahresbericht dfes Ihstituts fflr Vorgeschichte der UniVefsitHt Frankfurt a.M., 1977. l^See note 14. A.D. Alexandrecu, "Die Bronzeschwerter aus RumHnian, Dacia, N.S. 10, 1966, 119-121, Pis. I-II; S.T. Foltiny, "Schwert, Dolch und Messer," in Archaeologia Homerica, Kriegswesen, (Gottingen, 1980) I,E,2, E 251 and note 1517. 16Kilian (note 11), 112-123. 1?A. Harding and H. Huges-Brock, "Amber in the Mycenaean World," BSA 69, 1974, 145-172. 1®G. Karo, Die SchachtgrHber von Mykenai, Munich, 1930, Nos, 53-55, PI. XX; G. Mylonas, 0 Taphikoa Kyklos B ton Mykenon, Athens, 1973, 200, No. 428, PI. 180, a.

463

CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF SOME LATE MINOAN SIGNET RINGS

*

by Ingo Pini

Late Minoan and Late Helladic metal signet rings are the main source for our understanding of cult practices in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Most of the known signet rings are made of gold or at least they are or were originally covered.with gold foil. Only two LM examples of bronze rings are known to me. In both cases the rings had been fixed to the bezels by rivets, and even these may have been covered originally with gold foil. Besides the relatively small number of gold signet rings, we know many more indirectly from impressions on sealings from several Cretan sites and from the Palace of Nestor. In most cases impressions of signet rings can be distinguished easily from those of lentoids or amygdaloids because of their oval shape, but it is rather difficult to de­ termine whether the originals were made of gold, bronze or of stone. The fact that some of the sealings clearly show impressions of two rivets one above the other in the short axis does not necessarily point to bronze originals, since rivets are clearly visible, for instance in the gold foils whiclvcover the bronze bezels of the rings CMS I nos. 200 and 201 from Asine. The fineness of engraving as well as comparable motifs, es­ pecially cult scenes and other multiple compositions on existing gold rings oftentimes are criteria in favour of gold originals. The interpreters of cult scenes normally accept dates provided by the ceramic contexts without questioning them. Since religious representations on signet rings with various combinations of rather similar motifs range from LM I to LM IIIA1(2) in date, a reconsideration of their chronology seems reasonable. Problems of technique and interpretation will not be con­ sidered here. The discussion concentrates on the use of motifs and on aspects of style. Before I come to the main problem of this paper I should like to make some general remarks. As I have pointed out elsewhere a context dated on the basis of pottery found in it does not automatically date other artefacts, especially precious small finds like seals and signet rings. It only gives us a terminus post quern non for their manufacture. A signet ring found in a securely dated context therefore theoretically may have been made at any time before this date. Such an assumption seems to have been considered by very few archaeologists. That it is not totally wrong has been demonstrated recently by W.-D. Niemeier who discussed the problem of dating seals by their contexts. Unfortunately scholars seem to have accepted and still to accept too easily and uncritically dates of differing value provided by ex­ cavation reports or even by preliminary notes on excavations, mainly when they want to date nonceramic objects from such contexts. Furthermore there are reasons to believe that, especially in the later phases of the Late Bronze Age, not a few seals have to be considered as heirlooms. Therefore we should try always to find out whether the date of a seal based on its context is in agreement with its stylistic stage or not.

The starting point for my discussion will be the signet ring HM 1034 from tomb 4 at Sellopoulo near Knossos(a). The exemplary publication of tombs 3 and 4 at Sellopoulo by M. Popham and others leaves no doubt that the interments to which the ring belongs took place in LM IIIA1. The representation on HM 1034 (a) shows in the centre an almost naked man kneeling in front of an "oval object", upon which he leans with one arm. The other arm he stretches out towards a bird flying down from above which snaps at something beneath its beak. The aniconically rendered head of the man seems to be turned back in the same direction. Tiny dots above his head and right arm as well as besides his belt probably represent hair. Above the central part of the composition there is an elongated object which I call here a "spike". At the right side some flowers and a tree grow in a rocky landscape, or the rocks are the gnarled trunk of the tree. At the left end there is another object (or two objects combined?) difficult to describe, the left part of which resembles a built structure. As the closest parallel to this ring M. Popham quotes the Vaphio ring piS I no. 219(b) which he believes was engraved by the same artist because both are "extremely close in scene, details, style, and shape". With these he groups some other signet rings: HM 424 from Isopata (c), HM 45 from Kalyvia Tomb 11 (d), HM 989 from tholos A at P h o u m i near Arkhanes (e) and Ashmolean1Museum 1919*56 (f). In his opinion all these rings were made in LM IIIA1, while Evans preferred for some of them a date in LM I. The question arises whether we have to consider these rings as heirlooms from LM I or whether some workshops (or only one?) continued for some 50-100 years to engrave signet rings with very similar motifs and compositions and with the same characteristics of style. The Vaphio ring was found on the floor of the tholos tomb which had been partly plundered. While the finds of the undisturbed burial in the cist can be securely dated to LfcLIIA, the same date seems not so certain for the finds from the chamber. Even if there was later pottery from the chamber (LH IIB-IIIA), as Popham believes, this was not a sealed and well dated group. Without any doubt the motif (b) is very similar to that of the Sellopoulo ring (a). In the centre of the representation there is a woman in a long flounced skirt with raised arms, who is perhaps dancing. At the left end a tree is growing above, behind or out of an object which may be a pithoid jar. The lower part of the trunk seems to be gnarled like that of the Sellopoulo ring (a). The branches are surrounded by tiny dots. An almsot naked man on rocky ground either shakes the tree or tries to pull down a branch. At the right end a small female figure dressed in a skirt similar to that of the woman in the centre is kneeling in front of an object usually described as a figure-of-eight shield in profile. She rests her elbow on the shield. In the upper part of the field there are a double axe combined with loops and tassels, a "spike" and a "chrysalis". The human figures are ren­ dered aniconically. The heads and the upper parts of the bodies of the female figure in the centre and the male one at the left side are surrounded by small dots. While the representations of the rings from Sellopoulo and Vaphio seem to be rather similar, a close study of the impressions under the stereomicroscope shows clear differences in style. The motif of the Vaphio ring (b) has a higher relief and a more compact shaping of single forms than that of the Sellopoulo ring (a). This becomes apparent especially if one compares the foliage of the trees and the male figures. On the Sellopoulo ring the forms

466

are executed sketchily. It therefore seems difficult to attribute both rings to the same workshop or even the same master. HM 424 (c) was found on the floor in the western part of chamber tomb 1 at Isopata which had been robbed in antiquity. A. Furumark attributed some pottery sherds from the chamber to LM IIIA. 9 But as Niemeier has shown the dromos of tomb 1 was cut at an right angle by the dromos of tomb 1A which is dated by its pottery to LM IIIA1. This provides a terminus ante quem for tomb 1 and not a fixed date for the ring. Four aniconically rendered female figures with raised arms, dressed in long flounced skirts seem to be danc­ ing like another much smaller figure near the upper edge. The heads of the figures again are surrounded by dots. In the field some flowers, a human eye, a "chrysalis" and a "spike". Iconographically and stylistically the Isopata ring (c) seems to belong to the same stage as the Vaphio ring (b). A closer comparison of the two impressions under the miscroscope leads to the assump­ tion that both rings were executed by two different hands. Compared to the Isopata ring (c) the Vaphio ring (b) now seems to be executed more sketchily and hastily. The Isopata ring shows a higher relief; single forms are more voluminous and more calligraphic. The engraving is more accurate in the rendering of details. This becomes apparent by juxtaposing the female figures on the two rings. A comparison of the two "spikes" shows the same difference.

22

HM 45 (d)_comes from tomb 11 at Kalyvia, which contained pottery of LM IIIA2 date. The representation shows in the centre above a short ground line, a naked man kneeling in front of an "oval object" very similar to that on the Sellopoulo ring (a). It is not quite clear whether his head is en­ graved or not. Behind him there is a flying bird and near the periphery a barrel-shaped object with cover(?), perhaps the same kind as found on the Sellopoulo ring HM 1034 (a). On his right side a female figure with hyper­ trophic thigh is shaking a tree which grows out of a built precinct. The head of the female figure again is engraved aniconically. Sytlistically the Kalyvia ring (d) finds its closest parallel in the Sellopoulo ring (a) al­ though on the former the forms show a higher degree of disintegration. In spite of the slight differences in style both rings in my opinion seem to be contemporary. HM 989 (e) was found in a LM IIIA context in tholos A at P h o u m i near Arkhanes. The bezel shows a comparable cult scene on an ashlar base con­ sisting of two layers. In the centre there is a female figure similar to those on the Isopata ring (c). To the right a male figure dressed with apron and belt, is kneeling in front of an elongated "oval object" which is dec­ orated with sane irregular lines in low relief. While the upper part of his body and the head seem to be turned back, he leans with one arm on the "oval object" and with the other he apparently embraces the object. To the left another male figure dressed analogously is vigorously shaking a tree which grows from a built enclosure. The heads of the figures are rendered an­ iconically as usual. Dots and irregular short lines above and around the heads and the upper parts of the bodies are similar to those on the pre­ viously described rings. In the field there are a butterfly with wings dis­ played, a dragonfly{?) in profile, a small "column", a "chrysalis" and a human eye. There can be no doubt that iconographically it seems not to re­ present a different stage than the others. The forms are not wooden as oi the

467

X

X

X

X

HM 989 (e) Oxford, AM 1919.56 (f)

X

X X

X

HM 44 (g) Ring of Nestor (h)

X

X

Berlin 11 886 (k)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X?

Kenna, CS 250

X

X?

CMS XII 264

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

AT 118/434 AT 120/534

? X X?

AT 123/535 X

X X

X

X?

X

X

X

9

X

AT 142/507 AT 143/595 Papapostolou Nr. 31

X

X?

X

AT 138/523

X X

HM 2490 (m)

CMS IX 115 CMS IX 163 Z, unpublished

j floating figures

x

X X

woman with hypertrophic thigh

dress head dotted

heads m

aniconic

eye •r4 Cl

X X?

X

X

J*

X X X

X

human

bird

X X

X

Berlin 30 219,512 (1)

~ o

double

man tree

tree X

with HM 1034 (a)

4-> o 2 face open spaces or partially enclosed courts. The smaller, eastern room of building B serves as vestibule for the larger room west of it, though most of the two- or three-room units at Kephala Chondrou consist of rooms of almost equal size. Room -ft may face an enclosed court ( A ) with central door in its eastern side; a hearth was identified as built against the east wall of room (Fig. 7).H Doors are often located near corners in long or short walls, placed for easy access to streets or courts. These small, axially constructed buildings appear in new Postpalatial foundations and in villages which continue to be occupied, or are reoccupied, after the destructions at the close of the LM IB period.^ The evidence is at present too limited to claim that these plans dominate; regionalism may be even more important in this period than in Neopalatial Crete. Other LM III villages, such as Amnisos and Kommos, may show a similar pattern: contiguous or agglutinative construction, narrow passageways, some enclosed courts, and possible dwellings consisting of one or more rooms (Figs. 8, 9).13 One

516

possible explanation for the appearance of these small structures has been mentioned: they may be associated with a small, resident Mycenaean population. The second possibility is that these plans constitute a re-emergence of a simple building type that was present in the island, but far from dominant in the Neopalatial period, when domestic architecture was strongly influenced by Minoan palace design and architects. Simple building plans do occur very rarely in the LM I period. For example, a small two-room unit is located north of the so-called "Agora" at Malia; the structure is sixteen meters square internally and has a door in the southern long wall, opening onto a street (Fig. 11).11* Any attempt to demonstrate a relationship between Mycenaean and LM III architecture must be based on current research. Two different typologies of LH III domestic architecture are presently available (I. Shear, P. Darcque).15 Although these interpretations vary widely, both include the possible existence of one-room buildings on the mainland, and the presence of other buildings consisting of rooms (usually two or three) arranged along one axis. Proportionally, vestibules and rear chambers of two-or three-room LH III buildings are smaller than the main, central chamber (less than one-half to onethird the length of the main chamber} Built hearths are common in LH III houses, and are frequently central and circular, though other forms and locations are known.16 The variation between these mainland and Cretan buildings consisting of one to three rooms must be considered before any comparisons can be drawn. There are general similarities in plan and axial room arrangement, but the following features, detailed by Shear and Darcque, should be considered in attempting to establish the degree of relationship: (1) Darcque estimates that a large percentage (51.4$) of mainland two- or three-room buildings have an average size of ca. 55 square m.1? The Cretan LM III buildings are with few exceptions consistently smaller, averaging ca. 40 square m. (2) The mainland emphasis on the larger, main chamber at the expense of rear room or vestibule frequently does not occur in Cretan buildings which have rooms of nearly equal size (this is especially true of the Kephala Chondrou examples). Only house B at Kephala Chondrou and a two-room structure at the LM III site of Kastro Kephala have vestibule to main room proportions similar to those of mainland buildings (that is, vestible depth one-fourth to one-third the total building length). (3) Mycenaean houses occasionally open through the vestibule upon a partially enclosed court (Malthi, B73; Nichoria, room north of Unit III-2; Mycenae, Panaghla I, room 1; Korakou, room south of room I, house 0). This feature is frequent at Kephala Chondrou, occurs at Kommos, and possibly Amnisos. (4) Door location in Cretan buildings is generally not central, though doors are usually placed in short walls as in mainland architecture. Off-center doors are frequent in mainland construction.18 (5) Many of the small LM III two- or-three room types are contiguously built. Though mainland structures can be freestanding (Aghios Kosmas), an examination of mainland village architecture indicates that agglutinative or contiguous construction is common, perhaps because mainland villages were occupied for several hundred years and continuously rebuilt (Fig. 11).19 (6) Rectangular, built hearths are known in LM I and LM IIIA-IIIC Crete. Though they occur more frequently in the Postpalatial period, these hearths are

517

more possibly an outgrowth of the LM I period than a result of mainland influence. A large circular, central hearth in the main room of an LM III Chania building, however, has been compared with some validity to mainland construction, using the criteria of size, shape, and location.20

(7h Windows are a frequent occurrence in LM I domestic architecture, especially in the larger buildings of the period. They can rarely be detected in LM III construction, and this appears to correspond to the simpler range of mainland domestic buildings.21 (8) Columns in antis within vestibules or porches occur in mainland construction, but not in LM IIIA-IIIB Crete, where identified vestibules appear to be enclosed. (9) Lack of right angle corners is a common occurrence in mainland domestic architecture, but not in Crete until after the palace destructions. Construction quality varies, but the smaller Cretan buildings of this last phase of the Bronze Age are generally less well built than even the simplest of their LM I predecessors.

This short list of criteria illustrates the problem involved at present in attempting to assess the degree of relationship between these simple LM IIIand LH III buildings and village layout. Published information concerning the nature of LH III domestic architecture is too imprecise for a detailed, statistical comparison. For example, it is often said that mainland buildings are freestanding, axially built, face courtyards, with doors centrally located in short walls— yet within any Mycenaean village there are few (if any) structures which can be completely or accurately characterized using these criteria. It is equally true that we have few complete Postpalatial buildings which can be used for comparative purposes. A consensus of opinion concerning the nature of mainland domestic architecture is a seeming prerequisite to any study which attempts to account for the presence of these simple Cretan structures. This analysis must include a statistical account of features commonly found in a large percentage of Mycenaean houses and also the range of variants. It is apparent that the Postpalatial two- to three-room structures discussed above bear a general resemblance to simple mainland types in the arrangement of rooms along one axis. It can be established that a break in the Neopalatial architectural tradition occurred at LM II/IIIA:1, corresponding to the destruction of the Minoan palaces: few Neopalatial house plans are built after 1450 B.C., including the simple Type 3 variety. The impetus for change may result from two factors which may not be mutually exclusive, a small Mycenaean population or the admittedly rare presence of simple LM I buildings, which may be potential ancestors. Still to be explained, however, is the sudden disappearance of the simple Neopalatial Type 3 house plan, the type least dependent on palatial prototypes. This examination of two possible causes for the transformation of Cretan architecture in the Postpalatial period should not be concluded without reference to the often-mentioned description of LM III Crete as an impoverished backwater. The argument of poverty must be used with caution in attempting to explain architectural differences. The presence of many LM III tombs suggests a high population level not generally associated with hard times in the Aegean.22 some degree of wealth is also attested by complex sites such as Aghia Triada. Related to this argument is the fact that some of the small Neopalatial Type 3 buildings equal in size a few of the larger LM III one- to

518

three-room houses, though the LM I Type 3 house with more rooms is much more complex internally. The far fewer rooms of an LM III house imply that rooms must have been far more multi-functional, with perhaps the enclosed village courts talcing over some of the functions (i.e., cooking) which were internal in the LM I period. The gradual submergence of Minoan culture that occurred in the two hundred years following the destruction of the Minoan palaces can be partially traced in the architectural developments of this period. This process of cultural change also occurred, though perhaps more slowly, in burials and pottery. It culminates architecturally in the LM IIIC through Geometric periods. In the twelfth century larger, more complex one- to three-room buildings appear at sites such as Karphi. There can be little doubt that a relationship exists between these LM IIIC house plans and the domestic architecture of the preceding two hundred years. The question of origin may be more complex than that of a simple choice between a Mycenaean or Cretan ancestry. Ongoing study of Mycenaean domestic architecture and more careful attention given to the third period of the Cretan Late Bronze Age will furnish a solid basis for future work and a greater understanding of this complex, transitional period.

Footnotes 1.

Burials: I. Pini, Beitrage zur minoischen Graberkunde (Wiesbaden, 1968) 36-57; pottery: A. Kanta, The Late Minoan III Period in Crete, a Survey of Sites. Pottery and their Distribution. SIMA vol. 58 (GBteborg, 1980). For a recent discussion of the date of the Knossos Linear B tablets: H. W. Catling, J, F. Cherry, R. E. Jones, J. T. Killen, "The Linear B Inscribed Stirrup Jars and West Crete," BSA 75 (1980) 102-103.

2.

J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge, 1973) 102-105, 169, 203-205, 396.

3.

J. C. McEnroe, "A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses," AJA 86 (1982) 3-7, 13.

4.

McEnroe (supra n. 3) 10-13.

5.

McEnroe (supra n. 3) 13-15.

6.

J. Walter Graham, The Palaces of Crete (Princeton,1962) 70.

7.

B. J. Hayden, The Development ofCretan Architecturefrom the LM IIIA through the Geometric Periods Ph.D. dissertation (University of Pennsylvania, 1981) 113-122.

8.

Kanta (supra n. 1) 114; N. Platon, " Praktika (1957V 136-147; To. v/* « t o p i tee 5 r d ii/ t o i tcow twvoiK.wp.oo t?S /o'oipoO," Praktika (1959) 197-206.

9.

S. Sinos, Die vorklassischen Hausformen in der Agais (Mainz, 1971) 104.

10.

The few tentatively identified Minoan features include a light well (K), benches in anterooms (D, MV, and a porter’s lodge Platon 1957

519

(supra n - 8) 141. 11.

Platon 1959 (supra n. 8) 199.

12.

Hayden (supra n. 7) 31-38; J. C. McEnroe, Minoan House and Town Arrangement Ph.D. dissertation (University of Toronto, 1979) 165-168.

13.

Amnisos: S. Alexiou, "Chronika," KretChron 17 (1963) 404; "Chronika," Deltion 19 (1964) 439; "Chronika," Deltion 23 (1968) 402; J. W. Shaw, "Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1978," Hesperia 48 (1979) 152-153, fig. 2b, 150; "Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1979," Hesperia 49 (1980) 211; Hayden (supra n. 7V 38-40, 59-60, 101-107.

14.

H. and M. Van Effenterre, Le centre politique I , 1*agora. Fouilles executees a Mallia (1960-66)-. vol. 17 (Paris, 1969) 137-138, plans 1, 2.

15.

I. Shear, Mycenaean Domestic Architecture Ph.D. dissertation (Bryn Mawr College, 1968); P. Darcque, L*architecture domestique Mycenienne Ph.D. dissertation (Ecole des hautes etudes en science socialesi 1980).

16.

Darcque (supra n. 15) 100-101.

17.

Darcque (supra n. 15) 299.

18.

Menelaion: BSA 16 (1909-10) 6, fig. 1; Mouriatada: Ergon (1960) 151; Panaghia II, Mycenae, Shear (supra n. 15) pi. XVII, room 8.

19.

Contiguous construction occurs in several mainland villages, including Malthi (M. N. Valmin, The Swedish Messenia Expedition (Lund, 1938) plan, pis. VII: 4, X: 7); Asine (0. Frddin, A. Persson, Asine, Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930 (Stockholm, 1938) 75, fig. 53, 79, fig. 58); Korakou (C. W. Blegen, Korakou, a Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth (Boston, New York, 1921) pi. VIII; Zygouries (C. W. Blegen, Zygouries (Cambridge, 1928) pi. II, rooms 12, 13, 30-34).

20.

A. Evans, The Palace of Minos atKnossos. vol. 2 (London,1928) 20, n. 1; 0. Pelon, Exploration des maisons etquartiers d^abitation (1963-19661. Fouilles exefcuteels a Mallia. fetudes crd'toises. vol. 16 (Paris, 1970) 72­ 73; Hayden (supra n. 7) 124; E. Hallager, "The History of the Palace at Knossos in the Late Minoan Period," SMEA 68 (Rome, 1978) 19-20.

21.

Shear (supra n. 15) 442-443; Platon 1959 (supra n. 8) 200-201; Hallager (supra n. 20) plan, p. 20.

22.

Kanta (supra n. 1) 321.

Figures 1.

LM I house A, Tylissos, after J. Hazzidakis, Les villa minoennes de Tylissos. Etudes cretoises. vol. 3 (Paris, 1934) pi. 33.

2.

LM I house D b , Gournia, after H. B. Hawes et al., Gournia, Vasilike and Other

.

Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete (Philadelphia. 1908) pi. 1

520

3.

LM I house Ah, Gournia, after H. B. Hawes, Gournia, pi.

4.

LM I Palaikastro town plan, after BSA 60 (1965) pi. 65.

5.

LM III village plan, Kephala Chondrou, after Praktika (1959) 135, fig. 147.

6.

Central section, Kephala Chondrou.

7.

One-, two-, and three-room structure, Kephala Chondrou.

8.

LM III Amnisos, courtesy of Professor S. Alexiou.

9.

LM III Oblique Building, Kommos, after J. W. Shaw, Hesperia 48 (1979) 150, fig. 2b.

10.

LM I building Kd at Malia, after H. and M. Van Effenterre, Le centre politique _I, plans 1, 2.

11.

LH III village plan, Korakou, after C. W. Blegen, Korakou. pi. VIII.

521

1.

522

CO

523

524 T O W N 1M.AN OI KOLSSOl.AKKOS

525

527

The

B i r d M o t i f in t h e M y c e n a e a n Pottery of Cyprus

IIIC:lb

Barbara Kling Introduction J u d g i n g f r o m t h e q u a n t i t i e s of M y c e n a e a n p o t t e r y w h i c h h a v e b e e n f o u n d in C y p r u s , t h a t i s l a n d is o n e ^ a r e a w i t h w h i c h t h e Mycen a e a n w orld had substantial contact. It is, in fact, o n e of t h e p l a c e s to w h i c h M y c e n a e a n r e f u g e e s a r e s a i d to h a v e g o n e f o l l o wi n g the c ol l a p s e of the m a j o r p a l ac e centers. One element o f p r o o f c i t e d in s u p p o r t o f t h i s t h e o r y is t h e s u d d e n a p p e a r a n c e o f l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s o f p o t t e r y of M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b s t y l e at s e v e r a l C y p r i o t e sjtes, o u s t i n g e a r l i e r l o c a l p a i n t e d w a r e s almost completely. T h e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b p o t t e r y o f C y p r u s is o v e r w h e l m i n g l y A e g e a n in c h a r a c t e r , b u t p o s s e s s e s s o m e t r a i t s w h i c h s u g g e s t t h e s u r v i v a l of some local c e r a mi c t r a d i t io n s and i n f luences from the n e a r b y S y r o - P a l e s t i n i a n co a s t . This p a p e r e x a m i ne s one feature of C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b , t h e b i r d m o t i f , to d e t e r m i n e the principal factors present. 4 Description

and Discussion

B i r d s a re t h e m o s t c o m m o n p i c t o r i a l m o t i f in t h e C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b r e p e r t o i r e ; t h e y o c c u r at e v e r y s i t e w h e r e p o t t e r y o f t h i s t y p e h a s b e e n found. B irds appear m o s t o f t e n on bell k r a t e r s , but are found on s e v e r a l o t h e r v e s s e l t y p e s as w e l l : jugs, i n c l u d i n g t he s t r a i n e r s p o u t e d t y p e , c a r i n a t e d bow l , a m p h o r o i d k r a t e r , s k y p h o s a n d s t i r r u p jar. T h e m a j o r i t y of b i r d s are t h e L a t e E a s t e r n t y p e d e s c r i b e d b y Furumark. T h e s e a r e s h o w n s t a n d i n g o n b o t h fee t in p r o f i l e vie w . T h e b o d y is l o o p - s h a p e d w i t h a t i n y h e a d o n t o p o f a long, t hin neck. T h e b o d y m o s t o f t e n c o n s i s t s o f an o u t l i n e d c e n t r a l l o o p w h i c h m a y be s o l i d - p a i n t e d , d o t - f i l l e d , c o n t a i n c o n c e n t r i c s e m i c i r c l e s , or b e em p t y . The space b et w e e n the ce n tral loop and o u t l i n e is u s u a l l y l e f t e m p t y b u t m a y c o n t a i n do t s , l i n e s o r z i g ­ zag. O t h e r b i r d s o f t h e sam e t y p e h a v e a s i n g l e - o u t l i n e d b o d y w i t h s i m i l a r t y p e s of f i l ling; m o s t c o m m o n a r e d o t s a n d c o n c e n t r i c semicircles; one example has a large cross-h a t c h e d lozenge filling t h e b o dy. Birds are m o s t o f ten shown w i t h r a ised wing. T h i s is r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h r e e o r f o u r c u r v i n g l i n e s w h i c h r i s e f r o m t h e b a c k o f t h e bird, sometimes joining together. On a highly stylized example from S i n d a , t h e r a i s e d w i n g t a k e s t h e f o r m o f fou r p a r a l l e l c h e v r o n s . T h e r e is n o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e b o d i e s o f b i r d s w i t h r a i s e d w i n g a n d t h o s e w i t h f o l d e d w i ng. The

neck

is

l o n g a n d thin,

sometimes

c u r v i n g or

arched,

and

rises from low on the sometimes double with

breast. Usually a single short strokes b e t w e e n the

line, it lines.

is

T h e h e a d o n m o s t e x a m p l e s is a s i m p l e , sxm a l l , r o u n d e d f o r m a t t h e e n d o f t h e n e c k , w i t h a s i n g l e d o t fo r t h e e y e , a n d a lo n g , p o i n t e d , c l o s e d b e a k . A few examp l e s have flatter, mo r e duck-like beaks. On the s t y l ized e x a m p l e from Sinda, the head, like the wings, has d e g e n e r a t e d into a p a t t e r n of three pa r a l l e l chevrons. A l t h o u g h the m a j o r i t y of birds have their heads facing forward, a small number look backward. T h e b i r d m o t i f h a d a l o n g p r i o r h i s t o r y in t h e M y c e n a e a n p o t t e r y of Cyprus, and the earl i e r e x a m p l e s p o s s e s s e d some of t h e f e a t u r e s f o u n d in t h e I I I C : l b t y p e s . They were portrayed p r i n c i p a l l y at r e s t . T h e y w e r e d r a w n in o u t l i n e , p o s s e s s e d raised or folded wing, and were shown wi t h both forward and b a c k w a r d l o o k i n g head. The b o d y types, however, are ve r y different; the e a rlier birds are fuller, h e avier c r e a t u r e s than t h e d e l i c a t e I I I C : l b e x a m p l e s , a n d m o t i f s u s e d for i n t e r i o r b o d y filling are q u i t e different. Cypriote M y c e n a e a n IIIC:lb birds, in f a c t , c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e in a l l r e s p e c t s t h e I I I C b i r d s f r o m t h e e a s t e r n p a r t o f t h e M y c e n a e a n w o r l d , s u c h as P e r a t i , N a x o s a n d Rhodes, and d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e from such p r o t o t y p e s can be supposed. T h e m o s t c o m m o n c o m p o s i t i o n s c h e m e f o r b i r d s o f t h i s t y p e in C y p r u s is p l a c e m e n t in p a n e l s o r h o r i z o n t a l f r i e z e s in a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h o t h e r birds, fish, or a b s t r a c t designs. Two birds from Sinda stand b e t w e e n sets of ant i t h e t i c spirals. T h e y ar e , t h u s , n o t in n a r r a t i v e or t r u e p i c t o r i a l s c e n e s b u t a re p i c t o r i a l m o t i f s used d e c o r a t i v e l y . T h e n o n - p i c t o r i a l u s e o f t h e b i r d m o t i f w a s c o m m o n in e a r l i e r M y c e n a e a n p o t t e r y in C y p r u s a n d G r e e c e ; f i l e s o f b i r d s in h o r i ­ zontal friezes were especially popular. This treatment continued in u s e i n t o t h e I I I C p e r i o d . T h e d e c o r a t i v e r a t h e r t h a n p i c t o r i a l u s e o f b i r d s in C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b p o t t e r y t h u s r e f l e c t s a l o n g - s t a n d i n g c o n v e n t i o n in M y c e n a e a n p o t t e r y in G r e e c e a n d Cyprus. T h e p r e d o m i n a n c e in C y p r u s of t h e u s e o f p a n e l i n g , w h i c h w a s l e s s c o m m o n in A e g e a n I I I C p o t t e r y , m a y , h o w e v e r , r e flect a n o t h e r strain of influence, viz., the g e neral p o p u l a r i t y in C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b p o t t e r y o f a d i s t i n c t i v e p a n e l style, w h i c h u s u a l l y u t i l i z e d c l o s e l y - p a c k e d ^ b s t r a c t d e s i g n s b u t o c c a s i o n a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d b i r d s a n d fish. Schachermeyr has s u g g e s t e d t hat this Cypri o t e p a nel style d e r i v e d f r o m Levantine textile decoration. S i m i l a r t e n d e n c i e s c a n , in fact, a l s o b e o b s e r v e d in s o m e L e v a n t i n e p o t t e r y , s p e c i f i c a l l y P a l e s ­ tinian Bird and Gazelle ware, w h i c h features closely packed tangular panels of abstract designs, birds, and other animals. T h u s , C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b b i r d s in p a n e l s r e f l e c t a C y p r i o t e f usion of e a s t e r n and w e s t e r n d e c o r a t i v e e l e m e n t s and concepts. A

few r e m aining

examples

of

Cypriote

530

Mycenaean

IIIC:lb birds

d i f f e r f r o m t h e m a j o r i t y d e s c r i b e d a b o v e in f e a t u r e s or c o mp o s i t i o n w h i c h deserve special mention.

of

form

One e x a m p l e of the Late M a i n l a n d type d e s c r i b e d by F u r u m a r k h a s b e e n f o u n d in C y p r u s , at K i t i o n . It is e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m the Late E a s t e r n type by the fuller body form and filling, in t h e m a n n e r of the C l o s e Style, of c l o s e l y s p a c e d g r o u p s of c o n c e n t r i c ar c s . P a r a l l e l s f or t h i s t y p e c o m e p r i n c i p a l l y f r o m A r g i v e c e n t e r s s u c h as M y c e n a e a n d K o r a k o u . Two Cypriote M y c en aean I I I C : l b - ^ i r d s , from Kition and Kouklia, f o r m a n e s p e c i a l l y p l e a s i n g type. In t h e s e e x a m p l e s , t h e u p p e r b o d y is f i l l e d w i t h d o t s . At the upper end, the back and b r e a s t c o m e t o g e t h e r to fo rm the lower neck, f i l l e d w i t h a r o w of c o n c e n t r i c arcs. T h e n e c k c o n t i n u e s f r o m h e r e as a s i n g l e , g r a c e f u l l y c u r v e d line. T h e h e a d is a c i r c l e , t h e e y e a n e n c i r ­ c l e d d o t , a n d t h e b e a k long, p o i n t e d , a n d u p t u r n e d . The body of this type ca n be r e c o n s t r u c t e d from a f r agment from T a r s u s wh ich par allels the Cypriote examples exactly. It is a f u l l figu r e d c r e a t u r e w i t h a d o t - f i l l ^ lower body. One other parallel for t h i s t y p e c o m e s f r o m T i r y n s . T w o o t h e r e x a m p l e s , b o t h f r o m Enkbmi, s h o w b i r d s w h i c h face eac h other on either side of a floral design. Dikaios described t h i s m o t i f as t h e " T r e e o f L i f e " m o t i f w h i c h h a d a l o n g p o p u l a r i t y in N e a r E a s t e r n art. A l t h o u g h the u l t i m a t e source of i n s p iration f o r t h i s m o t i f m a y i n d e e d li e in t h e N e a r E a s t , i m m e d i a t e p r o t o ­ t y p e s for t he C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b e x a m p l e s c an be f ound m u c h c l o s e r to h o m e . Antithetically arranged animals, sometimes f l a n k i n g a f l o r a l m o t i f , a p p e a r e d a l r e a d y in M y c e n a e a n p i c t o r i a l s t y l e p o t t e r y o f e a r l i e r p e r i o d s in t h e A e g e a n a n d C y p r u s . The m o t i f , i n f a c t , w a s c o m m o n in t h e P a s t o r a l S t y l e v a s e s p r o d u c e d l o c a l l y in C y p r u s , a n d i n c l u d e d e x a m p l e s s p e c i f i c a l l y o f b i r d s fla n k i n g trees. T h e b i r d s , are, h o w e v e r , o f t h e v e r y d i f f e r e n t , P a s t o r a l ty p e . C l o s e r r e s e m b l a n c e to t h e I I I C : l b e x a m p l e s is f o u n d o n t h e s h o u l d e r o f a s t i r r u p jar f r o m P e r a t i , w h i c h s h o w s two birds of Eastern type arranged antithetically around a c h e v r o n tree. The Cypriote Mycenaean IIIC:lb birds flanking a t r e e t h u s r e p r e s e n t t h e s u r v i v a l in t h e n e w s t y l e o f a m o t i f w h i c h w a s p o p u l a r in G r e e c e a n d C y p r u s f r o m a n e a r l i e r d a te. Finally, two Cypriote Myce naean IIIC:lb birds, both from E n k o m j g are shown in a c t i o n scenes, a t t a c k i n g and d e v o u r i n g fi s h . A l t h o u g h t h e s c e n e p o r t r a y e d is s i m i l a r in t h e t w o fragments, the birds port rayed are quite d ifferent from each other. O n e e x a m p l e s c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e L a t e E a s t e r n t y p e w h i c h w a s so p o p u l a r in C y p r u s . It is s h o w n s t a n d i n g in p r o f i l e v i e w ; i t s l o o p - s h a p e d b o d y is d o t - f i l l e d ; it s w i n g is r a i s e d s l i g h t l y . T h e b e a k is o p e n , as it n i b b l e s its p r e y . T h e o t h e r b i r d is s h o w n in a n u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p o s e , w i c h o p e n w i n g s d e p i c t i n g v i o l e n t m o v e m e n t or f l i g h t . T h e b o d y is d r a w n in o u t l i n e b u t is f i l l e d w i t h s o l i d - p a i n t e d a r e a s a n d l i n e s o f v a r i o u s t h i c k ­ nesses w h ich suggest a variegated plumage.

531

D i k a i o s s u g g e s t e d t h a t b o t h t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h t h e b o d y o f t h e l a t t e r b i r d is d e p i c t e d a n d t h e ^ c t i o n s c e n e r e f l e c t s ten d e n c i e s of M y c e n a e a n ivory carving. In a g e n e r a l s e n s e , these observa tions are quite correct. The use of thick and t h i n l i n e s a n d s o l i d a r e a s o f v a r i o u s s i z e s is a t e c h n i q u e usecjg i n i v o r y c a r v i n g , a n d a c t i o n s c e n e s a r e c o m m o n in t h a t m e d i u m . H o w e v e r , I b e l i e v e a c e r a m i c p r o t o t y p e for b o t h t h e m a n n e r o f d e p i c t i n g the b o d y of the b i r d and the type of scene p o r t r a y e d i s m o r e l i k e l y a n d c a n b e f o u n d in t h e P a s t o r a l S t y l e o f C y p r u s . A l t h o u g h P a s t o r a l S t y l e b i r d s d i f f e r f r o m t h e e x a m p l e in q u e s t i o n , t h e u s e o f t h i c k a n d t h i n l i n e s a n d s o l i d - p a i n t e d a r e a s is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f P a s t o r a l S t y l e a n i m a l s in g e n i a l . The method is s a i d , i n fact, to d e r i v e f r o m i v o r y c a r v i n g . More importantly, t h e t y p e s o f a n i m a l s u s u a l l y d e p i c t e d in i v o r y c a r v i n g a r e fa r m o r e m a g n i f i c e n t t h a n b i r d s a n d fish, s u c h as l i o n s a n d b u l l s , 22 a n d i n c l u d e e v e n t h e f a n t a s t i c , s u c h as g r i f f i n s a n d s p h i n x e s . T h e p o r t r a y a l o f b i r d s e a t i n g fish, t h e i r n o r m a l e v e r y d a y a c t i v i t y , scarcely c o m p a r e s to the m o n u m e n t a l combat scenes b e t w e e n these o t h e r a n i m a l t y p e s p o r t r a y e d in i v o r y c a r v i n g . It is, in fac t , q u i t e p a s t o r a l in c o n c e p t , a n d c o r r e s p o n d s to s c e n e s o f b u l l s a n d o t h e r a n i m a j ^ g r a z i n g o r s n i f f i n g f l o w e r s f o u n d in P a s t o r a l Style ceramics. Conclusion T h i s s u r v e y o f t h e b i r d m o t i f in C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b p o t t e r y h a s r e v e a l e d a v a r i e t y o f i n f l u e n c e s p r e s e n t in d i f f e r e n t degree. A l t h o u g h G r e e k m a i n l a n d t y p e b i r d s d o o c c u r in t h e Cypriote M y c e n a e a n IIIC:lb repertoire, the m ajor i t y of bird typ e s s e e m to have b e e n i n s p i r e d d i r e c t l y by e x a m p l e s from e a stern G r e e k c e n t e r s in b o d y form. The principal composit ion schemes a n d t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e b i r d p r i n c i p a l l y as a d e c o r a t i v e r a t h e r than a p i c t o r i a l m o t i f c o r r e s p o n d s to the usual use of the b i r d in e a r l i e r a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y M y c e n a e a n p o t t e r y in a l l a r e a s . The C y p r i o t e f o n d n e s s f o r p l a c i n g b i r d s in p a n e l s may derive from a L e v a n t i n e - i n s p i r e d p a n e l s t y l e w h i c h d e v e l o p e d in C y p r i o t e M y c e naean IIIC:lb ceramics. Features of the local C y p r i o t e P a s t o r a l S t y l e a r e o b s e r v e d in s c e n e s o f b i r d s e a t i n g fish. The r e l a t i v el y m i n o r importance of m a i n l a n d IIIC bird types c o m p a r e d to e a s t e r n b i r d t y p e s o b s e r v e d in t h i s s t u d y is in c o n t r a s t to the strong Ar g i v e el e m e n t w h i c h has sometimes ^|en c l a i m e d fo r C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b p o t t e r y in g e n e r a l . It s u g g e s t s t h a t a r e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e w a r e w h i c h c o n s i d e r s a more v a r i e d range of possible sources of influence w o uld give a m o r e b a l a n c e d p i c t u re of the ware, and thus u lt i m a t e l y of t h e p e o p l e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h it s a p p e a r a n c e a n d p r o d u c t i o n in Cyprus.

532

Abbreviations The

following

Coche de

are

used

in t h e N o t e s

d e la F e r t e - C o c h e d e la F e r t e , E s s a i d e la C e r a m i q u e M y c e n i e n n e d 1E n k o m i (1951)

Dikaios HST

abbreviations

- Dikaios,

P.

E n k o m i , Excavations

5 - O b r i n k , U. in H a l a A r c h a e o l o g y Vol. XLV:5)

Sultan Tekke (1979)

5

and Catalogue:

Classification

1 9 4 8 - 19 5 8 (Studies

(1971)

in M e d i t e r r a n e a n

H S T J3 - Astrflm, E. a n d A. H a t z i a n t o n i o u in H a l a S u l t a n T e k k e ( S t u d i e s in M e d i t e r r a n e a n A r c h a e o l o g y Vo l . X L V : 8 ) (1983)

8

K i t i o n IV - K a r a g e o r g h i s , V . , " A e g e a n a n d D e r i v a t i v e W a r e s , " i n E x c a v a t i o n s at K i t i o n I V . T h e N o n - C y p r i o t e P o t t e r y (1981) MEM

- A cts of Mycenaeans

the I n t e r n a t i o n a l A r c h a e o l o g i c a l S y m p o s i u m , The in t h e E a s t e r n M e d i t e r r a n e a n (1973)

MPVP - Vermeule, Vase Painting Op A t h RDAC

- Opuscula

- Report

of

E. a n d V. (1982)

Karageorghis.

Mycenaean

P ictorial

Atheniensia the

Department

of A n t i q u i t i e s

533

of

Cyprus

Notes

1.

Sstrflm, P., " C o m m e n t s o n t h e C o r p u s i n C y p r u s , " M E M , 122 ff.

of M y c e n a e a n

2.

K a r a g e o r g h i s , V.

ff.

3.

K l i n g , B . , " M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b P o t t e r y in C y p r u s : Principal Ch aracteristics and Historical Context," (forthcoming).

4.

See

5.

F u r u m a r k , A. T h e M y c e n a e a n P o t t e r y (1941), 250 ff.; fig. 31, no. 7 / 3 9 - 4 3 . Featu r e s of Late Ea s t e r n type b i r d s in t h e C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b p o t t e r y a r e s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 1.

6.

Sstrflm, P. The S w e d i s h C y p r u s E x p e d i t i o n Vol. IV:lc (1972), 3 85-6; M P V P pp. 23, 28, 31, 51, 56, 65

7.

e . g . , I a k o v i d e s , S. P e r a t i , To N e k r o t a p h e i o n Vol. B (1970), 148 ff.; K a r d a r a , Ch. H a p l o m a t a N a x o u (1977), 65 ff.; M P V P pi. X I I . 19, 20, 23.

8.

MPVP,

9.

S c h a c h e r m e y r , F . , "T h e P l e o n a s t i c P o t t e r y S t y l e in C r e t a n M i d d l e I I I C a n d it s C y p r i o t e R e l a t i o n s , " A c t s o f t h e International Arch aeolog ical S y m p o s i u m , The Relations B e t w e e n C y p r u s a n d C r e t e c a . 2 0 0 0 - 500 B.C. (1979) , 2 0 4 - 2 1 4 ; i d e m , D i e L e v a n t e i m Z e i t a l t e r d e r W a n d e r u n g e n (1982) , 1 5 4 - 1 6 3 .

Catalogue,

pages

Cyprus

(1982),

86

Pottery

below.

cited

in n o t e

6 and

82-3,

102-4,

116-7,

145-9.

10.

R i i s , P. J . , " T h e M y c e n a e a n E x p a n s i o n in t h e L i g h t o f t h e D a n i s h E x c a v a t i o n s a t H a m a a n d S u k a s , " M E M , 20 3 a n d fig. 1.

11.

Furumark, no. 31.

12.

e.g.,

13.

Catalogue

14.

G o l d m a n , H. (1956), pi.

15.

MPVP,

16.

Catalogue

17.

F u r u m a r k , op. p i t . , 442, 454, 458, 469. Earlier examples in C y p r u s : M P V P pi. V . 4 1 , 114. P a s t o r a l Style: MPVP pi. V I . 36. Perati: I a k o v i d e s , op. p i t . , 175 no. 229.

18.

Catalogue

op.

c i t . , fig.

M P V P , pi.

pi.

nos.

31, m o t i f

7/47-52;

Catalogue

X I . 98-141. 32,

45.

E x c a v a t i o n s a t GOzlti K u l e , 3 3 5 : 1 3 2 3 , 1 324

Tarsus,

Vol.

II

I X . 111.1 no s .

no s .

14,

18,

27;

Dikaios,

21

534

p.

286

ff.

19.

Dikaios,

p.

286

ff.

20.

Poursat,

J.

C.

Les

21.

M P V P , 59 ff.

22.

Poursat,

Pastoral

op.

MPVP

I v o i r e s M y c e n i e n s (1977).

c i t . , pp.

pi.

Style

b i r d s , pi.

V I . 29- 3 9 .

57-94.

23.

e.g.,

V I .2,9,11,19,20,21,50.

24.

F u r u m a r k , A . , "The E x c a v a t i o n s a t S i n d a . Some Historical R e s u l t s , " O p A t h 6 (1965), 110. E. S. S h e r r a t t h a s a r g u e d that A r g i v e eleme n t s are almost t o t a l l y absent in C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n IIIC:lb pottery, but East G r e e k i n f l u e n c e s strong. (T h e P o t t e r y o f L a t e H e l l a d i c I I I C a n d i t s S i g n i f i c a n c e , D. P h i l . T h e s i s 1981, S o m e r v i l l e C o l l e g e , 224-5)

535

Table 1 Some F e a t u r e s of Birds of Late E a s t e r n Type in C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b P o t t e r y

Feature

Catalogue

nos.

Solid-p ainted body wi t h dots and outline

1,

2,

39

Solid-painted body with outline

7,

10,

Body filled with semicircles

3,

6,

concentric

Body

filled with dots

10, 24,

Body

filled with

8

lozenge

29,

11

9,

11, 25,

19,

17, 27,

22

20, 44

21,

Raised wing

8, 9, 10, 15, 20, 29, 37, 39, 44

Folded wing

1,

Head

1, 3, 6, 7, 26, 28, 30, 42, 45

forward

2,

Head reversed

2,

In p a n e l s

2, 3, 6, 37, 39 birds

5,

spirals

44

In f r i e z e w i t h o t h e r or other motifs Between

antithetic

536

39,

7,

10,

17,

44, 7,

11,

23,

23,

21,

33,

26,

35

8, 9, 10, 23, 32, 33, 37, 38,

46 12,

35,

14,

40

16,

C a t a l o g u e of Bird M o t i f s in C y p r i o t e M y c e n a e a n I I I C : l b P o t t e r y

1.

Enkomi

2 . Enkomi

3.

Enkomi

J u g , no. 6 2 9 / 1 A r e a I, D e s t r u c t i o n of L e v e l I I I A D i k a i o s , p. 318, 874; pi. 98/1, 1 2 3 / 6 ,

307/183

J u g , no. 630 A r e a I, D e s t r u c t i o n of L e v e l I I I A D i k a i o s , p. 318, 874, pi. 98/3, 1 2 3 / 4 ,

307/184

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 5 8 6 5 / 1 3 A r e a I, L e v e l I I I A - B D i k a i o s , p. 319, 875; pi.

99/7,

308/211

4.

Enkomi

J u g o r K r a t e r , no. 5 9 0 7 / 3 A r e a I, L e v e l I I I A D i k a i o s , p. 309, pi. 8 8 / 1 6

5.

Enkomi

J u g w i t h S t r a i n e r S p o u t , no. 3130 A r e a III, L e v e l I I I A D i k a i o s , p. 269, 583; pi. 7 5 / 4 3 , 44;

6.

Enkomi

7.

Enkomi

Bell krater, no. 161 A r e a I, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l I I I A D i k a i o s , p. 264, 574, 874; pi. 7 1 / 3 2 , Bell krater, no. 5 7 0 3 / 7 A r e a I, E a r l y L e v e l I I I B D i k a i o s , p. 322, 875; pi.

101/3,

8. Enkomi

Bell krater, no. 5 7 0 5 / 6 A r e a I, L e v e l I I I B D i k a i o s , p. 323, pi. 1 0 1 / 2 7

9.

Bell krater, no. 3 3 9 4 / 1 A r e a III, E a r l y L e v e l I I I B D i k a i o s , p. 2 8 6 - 7 , 604, 875;

Enkomi

10 .

11

12

. .

13.

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

308/148

pi.

308/235

81/35,

’ s h a p e , no. 1 352 A r e a III, E a r l y L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 287, 599,

IIIB 875; pi.

81/37

P s h a p e , no. 3 7 0 5 / 8 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n D i k a i o s , p. 287, 606,

of Level 877; pi.

IIIB 81/31,

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 7 0 4 / 3 8 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 606; pi. 8 2 / 2 1

IIIB

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 5 9 9 / 8 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 604; pi. 8 1 / 2 8

IIIB

537

307/194

308/237

309/287

14.

15.

16.

17 .

18.

19.

20.

21 .

22

.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

Enkomi

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 8 2 3 / 1 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n of L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 287, 607, 876; pi.

IIIB 81/34,

309/282

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 6 9 9 / 2 1 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 287, 606, 877; pi.

IIIB 81/36,

309/288

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 6 7 6 / 3 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 287, 605, 876; pi.

IIIB 81/30,

309/284

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 2 9 3 1 / 8 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 281, 601, 876; pi.

IIIB 81/33,

309/285

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 6 1 6 / 1 9 A r e a III, E n d o f L e v e l I I I B D i k a i o s , p. 286, 604, 876; pi. B e l l k r a t e r , no. 4 3 6 6 / 8 A r e a III, D e s t r u c t i o n o f L e v e l D i k a i o s , p. 608, pi. 8 1 / 3 8

81/27

IIIB

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 6 1 6 / 2 0 A r e a III, E n d o f L e v e l I I I B D i k a i o s , p. 287, 876, 605; pi.

81/32,

309/283

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 3 6 1 6 / 1 8 A r e a III, E n d o f L e v e l I I I B D i k a i o s , p. 286, 604, 876; pi.

81/26,

309/277

B e l l k r a t e r , no. A r e a III, W e l l s D i k a i o s , p. 330; B e l l k r a t e r , no. A r e a III, W e l l s D i k a i o s , p. 330,

6265/3 pi.

110/17

6264/3 877;

pi.

110/22,

310/307

?shape Coche de

la F e r t e ,

p.

24;

pi.

III.l

?shape C o c h e de

la F e r t e ,

p.

24;

pi.

III.2

?shape C o c h e de

la F e r t e ,

p.

24;

pi.

III.3

?shape C o c h e de

la F e r t e ,

p.

24;

pi.

III.4

?shape C o c h e de

la F e r t e ,

p.

24;

pi.

III.6

538

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Kition

Kition

Kition

Kition

Kition

C a r i n a t e d b o w l , no. 135 A r e a I, F l o o r I I I A K i t i o n I V , p. 4; pi. 1 1 . 1 9 ,

I X . 12

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 1 1 3 3 b A r e a I, F l o o r I I I - I V K i t i o n T V , p. 4; pi. I I I . 28,

I X . 13

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 1 1 3 3 a A r e a I, F l o o r I I I - I V K i t i o n I V , p. 4; pi. I I I . 27,

I X . 14

Jug, no. 898 A r e a I, F l o o r K i t i o n I V , p.

III-IIIA 4; pi. 1 1 . 1 8 ,

I X . 16

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 7 6 4 / 1 A r e a I, F l o o r I I I - I I I A K i t i o n I V , p. 4; pi. 1 1 . 2 1 ,

I X . 15

34.

Kition

K a l a t h o s , no. A r e a I, F l o o r K i t i o n IV, p.

35.

Kition

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 8 4 2 / 1 + 8 9 9 / 4 A r e a I, F l o o r III K i t i o n IV, p. 4; pi. 1 1 . 2 0

36.

Kition

Ju g , n o . 5 8 2 b / l A r e a I, F l o o r I I - I I I A K i t i o n I V , p. 4; pi. 1 1 . 2 4

37.

Kition

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 4 9/4 A r e a I, F l o o r I I - I I I K i t i o n I V , p. 4; pi. 1 1 .23,

I X . 18

B e l l k r a t e r , no. 6 8 1 / 2 A r e a I, F l o o r I I - I I I K i t i o n IV, p. 4, pi. 1 1 . 2 3 ,

I X . 18

38.

Kition

1155 III-IIIA 4; pi. I I I . 26

39.

Kition

Araphoroid k r a t e r , no. 3 8 0 6 a A r e a II, F l o o r I I I A K i t i o n I V , p. 8; pi. V I . 23, X I I I

40.

Kition

B o w l , no. 2 5 4 4 A r e a II, F l o o r III K i t i o n IV, p. 8; pi.

V I . 26,

X I V . 31

S k y p h o s , no. 3339 A r e a II, F l o o r III K i t i o n IV, p. 8; pi.

V I . 27,

X I V . 29

41.

42.

Kition

Hala

Sultan Tekke Bowl A r e a 6, S o u t h e r n S e c t o r , H S T 8, p. 113, fig. 3 5 1 b

539

Layer

2,

F2301

43.

Hala

44.

Sinda

Sultan TekkeBell krater A r e a 22, L a y e r 2, F 6 2 1 7 H S T 5, p. 34, fig. 1 8 0 i Jug with Strainer Spout P e r i o d III O p A t h 6 (1965), p. 108,

45.

Kouklia

Skyphos E v r e t i , TE V I I I . 9 M E M , pi. X V . 3

46.

Maa-Palaeokastro Stirrup Jar P e r i o d II R D A C 1982, pi. X V I I I . 10

540

fig.

6 top;

pi.

II,

top

left

UMPIRING THE MYCENAEAN EMPIRE James C. Wright Bryn Mawr College

I expect many of you have reservations about using the word "empire” to describe the extension of Mycenaean culture over the A e g e a n region during the LBA. Actually few scholars have used that word, although for lack of a better one it is frequently e m p l o y e d w i t h o u t being m e a n t to denote the form of M y c e n a e a n society in its heyday. They have tempered their judgement with such w o r d s as "dominance" (Warren 1975: 121) or have denied the concept entirely (Mylonas 1966: 211-212). Vermeule (1972: 23637,254-57,271-72 passim) and Hooker (1976: 134-136) have loosely examined the question in terms of how applicably empire describes M y c e n a e a n d o m i n a n c e in the 14th and 13th centuries B.C. Thus it is apparent that the use of the term has been taken seriously and it is understood that we are not just dealing with a question of semantics. For the sake of clarity we ought to have a working defini­ tion as a reference point. The dictionary provides a very usable one: "a m a j o r political unit having a territory of great extent or a nu m b e r of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; esp. one having an e mperor as chief of state." (Webster's Collegiate). Now it is clear that the Roman empire or that of Napoleon fit this definition to a "t". On a lesser scale we customarily refer to the Athenian domination of the Aegean in the fifth century B.C. as the "Athenian empire". Yet there are vast differences between these examples, primarily having to do with the determinants of territory and different peoples. Insofar as they limited their expansion to the Greek-speaking Aegean, the Athenians did not subdue foreigners in their quest for power, nor did they conquer large territories. In fact on the mainland they .controlled little area, rather they secured their interests through alliances. Garrisons and cleruchies w e r e largely re­ served for reluctant islanders (Meiggs 1972: 203-219, passim). T h e basis of the sys t e m w a s w a r f a r e for conquest (Austin and V i d a l - N a q u e t 1977: 125-128) w h i c h resulted in political and economic benefits for the Athenians. Of fundamental importance to the establishment and maintainence of the system was its founda­ tion in the stable institutions of the A t h e n i a n state (Meiggs 1972: 42-49, 205, 221-254, passim). If this system is truly to be considered as an empire, it must be on these terms that we study it. In like manner we are obliged to study less well documented societies that we think are candidates for similar developments. When the evidence is only archaeological, then we must be careful to assess it with care and always keep in mind that such evidence will often be inadequate to supply detailed answers to the ques­ tions we ask. I n terpretation of the evidence of the M y c e n a e a n era is inevitably linked w i t h the previous Minoan one as w e l l as w ith

evidence from within the geographic frame of the Aegean basin and the E a s tern Mediterranean. All variety of theories have been brought forward to account for the events that effected or facil­ itated this transition, and they can generally be categorized as (1) environmental, (2) political, or (3) e c o n o m i c in form (for e n v i r o n m e n t a l theories see: Evans 1928: 321; Marin a t o s 1939; discussion in Pichler and Schiering 1980; for political ones see: Hood 1971, 1978; P o p h a m 1970:85-88, 1974: 255-257, 1975; and S c h a c h e r m e y r 1964: 116-117, 273-282; for e c o n o m i c ones see: F u r u m a r k 1950: 252-254; V e r m e u l e 1972; D o u m a s 1982). All of these theories have been developed by a close reading of the e v i de n c e f r o m excavation, particularly ceramic development and distributions, but also, importantly, such artifacts as archi­ tectural and m o r t u a r y forms. This material has not, though, customarily been used to test theories about the societal systems or institutions that may have operated as prime movers in shaping the course of affairs in the prehistoric Aegean. As just stated, we traditionally have reconstructed the events of Aegean prehis­ tory by inducing trends and interrelationships am o n g the a rti­ facts w e find. But the possibility of ever recovering all the material evidence of the prehistoric Aegean (or anywhere) is nil and, since the chance that we will correctly induce the meaning of most of the artifacts we do recover is equally dim, another approach, c o m p l e m e n t a r y to our traditional one, is called for (Watson, LeBlanc and R e d m a n 1971: 3-57; Hodder 1978: 3-24). W h a t w e need is to find w a y s to incorporate our data into the general body of theory that has been developed in study and comparison of present and past societies around the world. The peoples of the A egean are not today and never have been unique. Un de r l y i n g causes for their behavior are only human. I do not suggest that we disregard the evidence and climb on a bandwagon of theory. Rather I urge that the evidence be used in a m ore c o n sciously structured manner. This is really nothing new. In fact it has been applied beforehand with varying degrees of consistency and success by such scholars as Schachermeyr (1955: 17-20, 1964: 13-17,268-272) and Renfrew (1972, 1975). I would like in this short paper to correlate theories about political evolution with accepted interpretations of the familiar evidence for primarily political developments in the Aegean dur­ ing the Late Br o n z e Age. The purpose, as I have stated, is to clarify our thinking about such concepts as empire and to stimu­ late a more systematic approach to the study of the institutions of A e g e a n society, an approach that u l t i m a t e l y looks at the processes of change and variation in those institutions. A s I observed above an e m p i r e is based on an extension of the normal political and economic structure of a state to secure m u l t i - t e r r i t o r i a l domination. But to j u m p straight into the argument as to whether or not the Mycenaeans held an empire (or anything approaching it) without beforehand examining the polit­ ical (and economic) form of the Myce n a e a n society is to get the cart before the horse. The questions then are: W h o w e r e the Mycenaeans? What was the form of their political development? For the sake of brevity I will assume in answer to the first that

542

they were the indigenous mainlanders (and not conquering Minoan princes [Evans 1928], not horse-riding chieftains from the IndoEuropean homelands [Wyatt 1970] or from Syria [Marinatos 1968: 278-294]). To begin to answer the second, I suggest we must look to the initial major period of contact between these peoples and the nearest d o m i n a n t political force, i.e. Crete, and consider how and when the Mycenaeans borrowed various cultural items and institutions from the Minoans and incorporated them into their own emerging society (Furumark 1950: 185-203). It is generally accepted that (1) the mainlanders took over or inherited the d o m i n a n c e of the Aegean established by the pa latial society of M i d d l e B ronze Age Crete, (2) and that this d o m i n a n c e wa s built largely on a c o m m e r c i a l network (perhaps governed by an administrative and military system) that initially linked C r e t e w i t h the Near East. In this regard w e m a y see that our thinking about the origin of Myce n a e a n society is in line w i t h anthropological theory that postulates that m o r e highly organized societies stimulate their less organized neighbors to develop a more structured organization (Fried 1967, 1976; Price 1978; Haas 1982). This process of "secondary state formation" can also be v i e w e d in terms of the tension and conflict that arises between differently structured societal groups which can result in warfare as well as in economic and technological com­ pe tition (Cohen 1978a; W r i g h t 1978; Haas 1982). Thus w e are likely talking about much more than the assumption by the Mycen­ aeans of M i n o a n trade routes. A s has often been observed the Mycenaeans had to learn how to run this Minoan machine, whatever it was. This process must have taken some time and been not just one of learning from the Minoans, but also of creating a stable internal political structure through the institutionalization of their own customs. Of course the active beginning of this pro­ cess m u s t lie in the Shaft Grave era and have s o m e t h i n g to do with how these early Mycenaean "princes" could have come by their wealth (Hooker 1967; Dickinson 1977: 53-56). Study of the evidence for direct contact between the Minoans and the Mainlanders has not satisfactorily explained much about these developments (cf. Dickinson 1977:55; Schofield 1982), but work in the islands, largely since Marinatos' excavations on Thera and Caskey's on Ayia Irini, has begun to clarify the impor­ tant political and economic role the islands played at this time as intermediaries, and also in their own right ( contributions to Davis and C h e r r y 1979, C h e r r y and Davis 1982; Schofield 1982). Among other things we have learned how the islands directed trade to and from specific areas of the mainland (Coldstream and Huxley 1972: esp. 220, 272-303, 309-310); Rutter and Rutter 1976: 63-65; O v e r b e c k 1982, 1983) as we l l as played a probable role in the e x p l o i t a t i o n of resources on the mainl a n d (Stos-Gale and Gale 1982). T h e s e new interpretations enable us to visualize the di rec t i o n and to so m e extent the m a n n e r (Davis 1979; Schofield 1982) of transmission of information to stimulate the formation of local incipient political units on the mainland of Greece. W e recognize these in the Argolid and in Messenia (Haegg 1982: esp. 32), as we l l as perhaps Lakonia (at Aghios Stefanos: Rutter and

543

Rutter 1976; at the Menelaion: Catling 1977: esp. 28; and of course at Vapheio: Tsountas 1889). This contact se e m s to have propelled the process of social differentiation, probably already underway in the Middle Helladic period (see below) into one more structured and pronounced. Crucial to any analysis of the deve l o p m e n t of My c e n a e a n society is an assessment of the changing levels of social differ­ entiation the Mycenaeans achieved and, as well, their ultimate level of political organization. This is so because it is uni­ ve rsally accepted by social and cultural anthropologists that social d i f f e rentiation is a p r i m a r y indicator of the level of c o m p l e x i t y of a society. M o r t o n Fried (1967) has p r o m u l g a t e d four levels leading from egalitarian to ranked to stratified to, finally, the state. The differences among these levels for our present purposes are that the ranked society is primarily kinship oriented and awards status and access to valued items according to an order w i t h i n the kinship structure, such as age. The stratified society does not rely so much on kinship mechanisms, rather it works on institutionalized relationships, offices if you will, w h i c h provide certain eleme n t s of the society w ith well-defined means of access to valued items and information and imbues them with responsibility for certain political and eco­ n o m i c functions; important a m o n g these is the use of force to m a i n t a i n their position (Fried 1967:186, 215, 225-226). The processs of maintaining the status quo according to Fried (1967: 225-226) leads to the development of institutionalizing coercion in terms of control of military, political, e c o n o m i c and information-supplying elements of the society. The result of this process leads to the creation of a state, a stable social form that exists apart from the direction and supervision of a kinship structure, relying instead on specialized groups and some form of class structure for its maintainence. Elman Service has approached the question from a different point of view arguing that social groups organize themselves in an integrative fashion into four different levels of organiza­ tion: fr o m the lowest in bands through tribes to chiefdoms, w h i c h lead, finally, to the state (1971). Although there are important differences between these two points of view (for which see Haas 1982), they both provide a useful structure for ordering the data about the rise of the Mycenaeans. In particular it is easy to see that the archaeological evidence from the MH through the LH periods s e e m s to bespeak the theoretical phases from ranked to stratified and from tribe to chief d o m (cf. Ren f r e w 1972: 363-403; Service 1975: 71-102). Thus the important question for our examination of the so-called Mycenaean "empire" is, did the Mycenaeans achieve the status of statehood, that is, did the political form of Mycenaean society achieve a level of complexity and stability that wa s capable of supporting a political, e c o n o m i c and i nformational network that wa s supra-national in scope, and able to control activities on the mainland of Greece as well as across the Aegean? Before trying to answer that question let us look briefly

544

in more detail at the evidence for some of these developments to see h o w M y c e n a e a n society mi g h t have evolved. In the tombs and s e t t l e m e n t s of the M H Period there is a slow, almost impercep­ tible di f f e r e n t i a t i o n in residential and, especially, mortuary items from the earliest MH strata to the later ones that reflects some changes in the constitution of MH society (Dickinson 1977: 33-34; cf. Blackburn 1970; Syriopoulos 1964: 330-353, 1968: 305­ 323). In general these are slight and might best fit wi t h a ranked/tribal organization, perhaps what is to be recognized in the ge n e r a l l y u ndifferentiated form of s e ttlement plans as at Eutresis, Lerna, and Kirrha and of mortuary types as the grouped communal tumulus burials and cist grave cemeteries (Pelon 1976; T o u m a z o u 1983). It is only coincident wi t h the appearance of i m ported items fr o m the Aegean and beyond in the late MH shaft graves and late tumulus burials on the mainland (e.g. Karo 1930/1933: 334-349; M y l o n a s 1973; Dietz 1980; Korres 1976; M a r i n a t o s 1970: 351-357) that change of a d r a m a t i c nature is perceptible. These unambiguously contain the requisite archaeo­ logical information to satisfy the following criteria for social stratification in terms of unrestricted access for specific per­ sons to a variety of social institutions and resouces (Haas 1982: 91-129; Service 1975:304): (1) evidence of nutritional advantage for a select few, as at M y c e n a e (Angel 1973: 379-397), (2) dif­ ferentiation of burial type by m e a n s of form and distribution (the grave circles) and content (the wealth of the Shaft Graves); (3) evidence of coercive p o w e r (the daggers and swords of the shaft graves), and (4) special access to prestige items (the gold and silver jewelry). Lastly, (5) w e find the requisite elements to suggest the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a hereditary s y s t e m for the transferral of power, which is tantamount to the institutional­ ization of power, as in a chieftaincy (Service 1975:72-74). That so m u c h of this m a t e r i a l is of Aegean (island or Cretan) origin demonstrates the secondary nature of the mainland social develop­ m e n t s and stresses the mul t i f a c e t e d nature of this process involving symbolic, informational, economic, and political activ­ ities (Haas 1982: 130-152). In its turn this structuralization of society spawned simi­ lar developments at sites neighboring those in early contact with the outside world. In line with the theory of external stimulus is the reaction of neighboring sites and regions to the rise of these early Mycenaean centers. It seems that such a development is reflected in the d r a m a t i c overall increase in the number of sites controlled by an elite group as represented by tholos tombs in the LH II period: F r o m a possible ten sites w i t h w e a l t h displayed in shaft graves or tumuli we find a progression to at least forty sites in LH II with tholos tombs (Bridges 1974; Pelon 1977; Dickinson 1977:59-65) without counting the numerous elegant c h a m b e r tombs w i t h rich burials wh i c h have been argued to also represent substantial increases in population beginning in LH IIA and p e aking in LH IIIA (Alden 1981:159-160, 193-199, 214-218, passim) . Such an expansion of w e a l t h and p o w e r also created conflict. Competition eliminated weaker contestants. Consolida­ tion in Messenia seems to have moved to extreme nucleation such that by LH III A only a few sites could c l a i m p r i m a r y status

545

(McDonald and Hope Simpson 1972) and only one, Pylos, remained by LH III B. Bu t this process wa s played out differently in the Argolid where the various contestants apparently stayed longer in the field. These differences, though, are more quantitative than qualitative. This is clear when one observes the homogeneity of Mycenaean material culture not only during its acme in the palace p e r iod but fr o m the start in MH III/LH I and not only on the mainland of Greece but across the Aegean as at Rhodes (Furumark 1950) or Melos (Atkinson et al 1904: 54-58; Renfrew 1982: 41-43). Clearly more than external stimuli promoted the development of the distinctive and apparently uniform Mycenaean cultural form. Here we need to consider the problem in a manner that takes into a ccount the relatively early expansion and h o m o g e n e i t y of the Mycenaean culture beyond its core area on the mainland of Greece. The question is w h o m do w e m e a n wh e n w e speak of the "Mycenaeans"? W e r e the supposed settlers at Trianda on Rhodes "Mycenaeans" as m u c h as those w h o controlled Phylakopi or as those living in the Argolis and in southwestern Messenia? Most scholarship on this problem denies that there was a single poli­ tical center, a capital or so m e federal organization (with an appropriate center) that spoke for the "Mycenaeans", that repre­ sented them abroad, and that regulated their trade (Mylonas 1966: 211-212; T h o m a s 1970 and 1976; contra V e r m e u l e 1972: 232 and D e s b o r o u g h 1964: 218). It seems that the various palatial cen­ ters w e r e a u t o n o m o u s (Thomas 1970; 1976:95). C l early there is then a need to account for the o v e r w h e l m i n g and early m a terial e v i dence of M y c e n a e a n presence at Ayia Irini on Keos (Caskey 1972: 397), at Phylakopi on Melos (Renfrew 1982:40-43), in Crete at Knossos (cf. Catling, in P o p h a m 1974; Hood 1971), at Cha n i a (Tzedakis and Hallager 1979:44-45; 1980:4-6), and at Trianda on Rhodes (Furumark 1950), to name only some of the most outstanding representatives of the Mycenaean expansion in the Aegean. Were these places conquered, settled or colonized by individual palatial centers? Why and how would this have taken place? There are actually two different elements to consider with respect to these questions. First is that of the archaeological evidence as an indicator of the culture we call Mycenaean. Se­ cond is the extent to and manner by which political forms can be e qu ated w i t h that sa m e evidence. I think w e m a y begin to m a k e sense of the p r o b l e m by a t t e m p t i n g to explain the rapid estab­ lishment across the mainland and contemporaneously into the Aeg­ ean and onto Cr e t e of M y c e n a e a n centers, e s pecially those w ith ev i dence of an elite e l e m e n t as m a n i f e s t e d p r i m a r i l y in the tholos tombs (although perhaps equally by the chamber tombs: see Alden 1981). What is the mechanism by which diverse and seem­ ingly a u t o n o m o u s political units can arise and partake of a h o m o g e n e o u s culture? N o w if one considers the core area of the Argolid during the whole Mycenaean period, it is apparent that it had the highest number and density of citadels of all the regions of the m a i n l a n d ( m i n i m u m of 7 in LH IIIA/B). This stands in contrast to Messenia where a process of centralization occurred that focussed power in the hands of an elite group at Pylos. The contrast is made sharper by comparing the results with the begin-

546

nings: A relatively large number of important and wealthy sites is k n o w n in each region during the Shaft Grave and early Tholos T o m b periods (MH III-LH II): ca. 23 in Messenia, ca. 10 in the Argolis. A p p a r e n t l y the Argolid centers m a n aged to succeed b e ­ cause they found mechanisms that permitted a high population and high political density to maintain itself in an otherwise cramped and not particularly good agricultural zone (Bintliff 1977:271­ 347). One such mechanism would have been entrepeneurship. The signs of it are readily apparent in the w e a l t h of the shaft graves, tholos and c h a m b e r tombs of the sites in the Argolic plain. And this is the period when Mycenaean pottery and other artifacts begin to increase in Aegean contexts (Barber 1981: 7-8) and further abroad in Cyprus (Nicolaou 1973: 53-55; A s t r o e m 1973:123). The importance of considering entrepeneurship is seen b y observing that the different levels of access to basic resources and prestige items recorded for the late MH and early LH p e r iods pred i c a t e a relationship of conflict a m o n g those c o m p e t i n g for access. And these persons wo u l d have been none but other m e m b e r s of the elite. W h a t happened to the losers? How do we explain the process of nucleation that occurred in the LH III period and resulted in the formation of the palaces, their defensive systems and their recording systems? These questions are equally applicable to Messenia (and presumably to other less well known regions of the Mycenaean mainland) as to the Argolis. N o w it is usually recognized that the political form of these early Mycenaean centers consisted of a small ruling class, often c o nsidered to be warriors. W e m i g h t feel comfor t a b l e seeing these as stratified chieftaincies (Service 1971: 133-169; Haas 1982: 91-129). But without the political and economic struc­ ture manifested in a palace or other such redistributional center they did not have the stability to conquer and administrate at a level that anyone w o u l d identify as a state, not to m e n t i o n an empire. Yet it is during this time just before the founding of the palaces on the mainland, that we see the expanding distribu­ tion of Mycenaean material items across the Aegean and, in some small quantity, into the Eastern Mediterranean. We are challenged to explain this phenomenon. Cohen, a m o n g others, has pointed out that chieftaincies are characterized by a limitation of their ability to expand and by the tendency for splinter groups to break away and replicate the original system (Cohen 1978a: 35-36; Service 1971:142-143; cf R e d m a n 1978: 265). This fissioning he describes as a normal political process which occurs when they reach a "critical point and then send off subordinate segme n t s to found new units or split because of conflict over succession, land shortage, failure of one s e g m e n t to support another in intergroup c o m p e t i t i o n or hostilities, or for so m e other reason" (Cohen 1978: 4). We should add that it is important that the area within which this fissioning occurs is not circumscribed by other, stronger, poli­ tical groups. Such would appear to be the case on the Mainland, per haps also in the Aegean. In the Argolis the c o m p e t i t i o n for land and other resources and for control over people during this period (MH III - LH II) must have been fierce and become progres­

547

sively stiffer as p o pulation increased and the various power centers g r e w (cf. Alden 1981: 110-112). Outlets for overpopula­ tion or for disaffected m e m b e r s of the ruling group we r e p r e ­ s u m a b l y possible, such as retreat to an area less populated, perhaps the highlands of Arcadia and the Corinthia-Argolid (cf. to Snodgrass' d i scussion of Greek colonization, 1980: 24-25). Yet if that happened w e have little evidence of it. Th e sites known in those regions were settled already and show no signs of not iceable increase in size or n umber from LH II to LH III (Howell 1970: although see 113-115 for so m e evidence of early elite burials). In any event these upland areas would not have been especially inviting and their nearness to the Argolis would per haps only have served to prolong for the new settlers the c onflicts that caused their fissioning in the first place. I w o u l d suggest that an easier and s i m pler solution w o u l d be for s o m e of the d i s affected e l e m e n t s to take advantage of their access to external and p r estige-type resources by developing entrepeneurial activities overseas. With a weakened Minoan state (and p e rhaps one not yet governed by other "Mycenaeans", see N i e m e i e r 1983: 9-12), the sea lanes and the islands that served as stopping off points w e r e w i d e open. Thus in LH III A the sudden and abundant appearance of M y c e n a e a n eleme n t s at Ayia Irini on Keos, Phylakopi on Melos, Khania, Knossos, Trianda on Rhodes, S erraglio on Kos (summarized in Nieme i e r 1983: 11) and other suspected and yet unknown sites could be seen as resulting from such a split a w a y from original political bases in the A rgolis and e l s e w h e r e on the mainland. In so far as these set­ tlers maintained contact (with their supporters?) on the mainland they were able to share in the cultural developments of the core area. W e l l placed to take advantage of trade, they began to function as the intermediaries between the mainland centers and the outside world. It would have been natural for them to assume the p o s i t i o n of the earlier island-located free-lance traders p ostulated by Davis (1979), Schofield (1982) and K e m p and M e r r i l l e e s (1980). In such a capacity they would soon b e c o m e familiar with the trade routes of the Eastern Mediterranean and the states that governed in this area. C ertainly these entrepeneurs would have identified themselves according to their own sense of their ethnic identity, which we may wonder was not the same as for all of the Greek-speaking "Mycenaeans". After the period of stress and fissioning was over, probably in the latter half of LH III A, the d o m i n a n t centers on the mainland consolidated their power and, perhaps, stabilized their population. An intensification of the p o w e r structure set in and an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n g r e w up around certain of the centers. Along w i t h this came, apparently, the introduction of Linear B and a scribal bureaucracy, M i n o a n architectural and decorative arts, increased trading (and recognition? - in Hittite lands and in Egypt and the Levant) w i t h foreigners. Perhaps in these latter d e v e l o p m e n t s the palace centers relied on friendly contact, even a l l i a n c e / i n t e r m a r r i a g e w i t h the p r e v i o u s l y fissioned groups. Certainly the latter were in a good position to have served as e m i s s a r i e s for the long distance trade and contacts that the m a i n l a n d centers developed (Renfrew 1975:42-

548

44). This process can have occurred very q u ickly because it followed a formerly established system and was not dependent upon the creation of a s ystem as w i t h the pristine Near Eastern states, and we may see it as one link in the chain of events both internal and external that occurred during IH III A and resulted in the further expansion of the Mycenaeans in the Aegean and the creation of a palace society on the mainland. It does not depend upon a p olitical unification of the people and areas sharing Mycenaean cultural traits. Instead it conforms to Starr's idea of the A e g e a n being a "Greek lake" (Starr 1962: 108; cf. Plato, Phaedo 109b.2) and establishes a parallel for the autonomy of the historical Greek city states around the Aegean basin. Indeed, in d i s c u s s i o n of the process of political evolution during the M y c e n a e a n period w e s e e m to have c o m e to the stage that m i ght best be described as "city-state" in form (cf. Ehrenberg 1971; Redman 1978: 202, 277-305). Perhaps the best exemplar of this is Mycenae. There, during the LH III A and B periods the original citadel expanded to become a dense metropolitan area with houses both inside and outside of the city walls, wi t h differentiated political, economic, industrial and religious activities occur­ ring in various areas of the city. I refer not just to the well-known "Houses Outside the Citadel" excavated by the Greeks and the English but to the total area where traces of settlement have been found (cf. Alden's summary of chamber tomb cemeteries around the site: 1981:122-153) . This is no small site, no chieftain's lair, rather it is a functioning urban center or state with an apparently tightly controlled administrative core. S u c h a city w o u l d have to have controlled a considerable area around it, cert a i n l y the hill country behind w h e r e a s y s t e m of roads has been documented leading to the city (Mylonas 1966:86­ 88), and p r o b a b l y much, if not all of the plain of the Argolic Gulf. In fact on the basis of a r g u m e n t s put forth by M y l o n a s (1962: 167-185; 1966: 19-33) about the expansion of the citadel d u r ing the LH III B period it is even possible to suggest that the c i ty-state of M y c e n a e extended its control over the other citadel conurbations in the plain. This is found in analysis of the great building project of the mid-thirteenth century (Mylonas 1962). Perhaps a related p h e n o n m e n o n is recorded in the recent anaylsis by Porada suggesting that the rulers of Thebes were in d i rect and equal contact w i t h Near Eastern potentates (Porada 1981/1982: 68-70). Thus a t t e m p t s to consolidate these cultural foundations under the hegemony of one Mycenaean palace center or another m a y have been carried out during the LH III B period. Yet even such evidence of the achievement of apparent statehood by a select few of the palatial centers is in no way evidence of a hegemony over the Mycenaean cultural sphere in the Aegean and beyond let alone of an imperium. This outline of events a t t e m p t s to provide an organic outline of d e v e l o p m e n t s in the LBA in the Aegean. It does not deny the conscious decisions of individual leaders in the crea­ tion of e l e m e n t s of the s y s t e m w e call Mycenaean, yet urges an unplanned growth and spread of Mycenaean culture that is stimu-

549

lated as much by internal as by external developments. Although a version of a state form of political development seems to have been attained, it does not seem to have reached the point w h ere it could sustain an "empire" and in any event w e have found reason to explain the evidence we have without necessary recourse to such a development. If w e are left then wi t h no indications of an empire, we still remain with interesting problems of how to set into operation archaeological study that will more substan­ tively a nswer the quest ions set forth here about the nature of the economy and political form of Mycenaean society.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g jg £ |jO Q jyy?I^ Y ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bronze Age Population Fluctuations in the Argolid from the Evidence of Mycenaean Tombs, Goeteborg.

M. Alden 1981 J. Angel 1973

"Human Skeletons from Grave Circles at Mycenae," IN Mylonas 1973: 379-397. T.Atkinson et al. 1904 Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, Society for the P r o m o t i o n of Helle n i c Studies, Suppl. Paper No, 4, London. P. Astroem 1973 'Comments on the Corpus of Mycenaean Pottery in C y p r u s , " IN Acts of the International

Archaeological Symposium "The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean*(Nicosia 1972): 122-127. M. Austin and P. Vidal-Naquet 1977 Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece, Berkeley. R. Barber 1981 "The Late Cycladic Period: A Review," BSA 76: 1- 21. J. Bintliff 1977 Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (BAR, supplementary reports no. 28). E. Blackburn 1970 Middle

Helladic Graves and Burial Customs with Special Reference to Lerna in the Argolid, Ph.D.

R. Bridges 1974

University of Cincinnati.

Mycenaean Tholos Tombs: An Architectural Study

Ph.D. Bryn Mawr College. "Investigations in Keos, Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery, "Hesperia 41: 357-401. C a t l i n g 1977 "Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973­ 1976," AR: 24-42. Cherry and J. Davis 1982 "The Cyclades and the Greek Mainland in LC I: The Evidence of the Pottery," A J A 86: 333-341. Cohen 1978a "State Origins: A Reappraisal," IN H. Claessen and P. Skalnik (eds.) The Early State, New York: 31-75. C o h e n 1978b "Introduction," IN R. Cohen and E., Service (eds.)

J. Caskey 1972 H. J.

R.

R.

Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, Philadelphia. N. Coldstream and G. Huxley 1972 Kythera, London. J.Davisand J. C h e r r y 1979 (eds.) Papers in Cycladic Prehistory, J. Davis 1979

Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Monograph XIV. "Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the

550

Later Bronze Age," IN Davis and Cherry 1979: 143-157. V. DesboroughL964 The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, London.

OJDickinson 1977

The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation, SIMA

49, Goeteborg. S. Dietz 1980

Asine II, Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970-1974: Fascicule 2. The Middle Helladic Cemeteries, The Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Periods, Stockholm.

C. Doumas 1982

"The Minoan Thalassocracy and the Cyclades,"

AA 5-14. V. Ehrenberg 1971 The Greek State, London. A. Evans 1927 The Shaft Graves and Bee-hive Tombs of Mycenae and Their Interrelation, London. A. Evans 1928 The Palace of Minos, volume II. 1, London. M. Fried 1967 The Political Evolution of the State, New York. M. Fried 1976 The Notion of Tribe, Menlo Park, California. A. F u r u m a r k 1950 "The S e t t l e m e n t at Ialysos and Aegean Prehistory," OpArch 6. R. Haegg 1982 "On the Nature of M i n o a n Influence in Early Mycenaean Messenia," OpAth 14: 27-37. J. Haas 1982 The Evolution of the Prehistoric State, Columbia. I. Hodder 1978 "Simple correlations between material culture and s o c i e t y : a r e v i e w , " IN I. H o d d e r (ed.) The Spatial Organization of Culture, London: 3-24. S.Hood 1971 "Late Bronze Age Destructions at Knossos," A c t a of

the First International Scientific Congress on the Volcano of Thera (1969), Deltion, publication no. 19, Athens: 377-383. "Traces of the Eruption Outside Thera," Thera and the Aegean World I, London: 681-690. Hooker 1967 "The Mycenae Siege Rhyton and the Question of Egyptian Influence," AJA 71: 269-281. Hooker 1976 Mycenaean Greece, London. Howell 1970 "A Survey of Eastern Arcadia in Prehistory," BSA 65: 1-21. Karo 1930/1933 Die Schachtgraeber von Mykenai, Munich. Kemp and R. Merrillees 1980 Middle Minoan Pottery in Second Millenium Egypt, Mainz. Korres 1976 "Anaskaphai en Peristeria Pylou," Praktika: 469-550. Marinatos 1939 "The Volcanic Destruction of Minoan Crete," Antiquity 13: 425-439. M a r i n a t o s 1968 "Mycenaean culture w i t h the f r a m e of

S H o o d 1978 J. J. R. G. B. G. S. S.

Mediterranean anthropology and archaeology," Atti eMemorie dellcCongresso Internazionale di Micenologia. 1 (1967) Rome: 277-294. S. Marinatos 1970 "Further Discoveries at Marathon," AAA 3: 349-366. W. McDonald and R. Hope Simpson 1972 "Archaeological Exploration", IN W. McDonald and G. Rapp (eds.) The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: 117-147. R. Meiggs 1972 The Athenian Bropire, London. G. Mylonas 1962 "He Akropolis ton Mykenon: hoi Periboloi, hai

551

Pylai, kai hai Anodoi," phonier is. G. Mylonas 1966 Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, Princeton. G. Mylonas 1973 Ho Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon, Athens. K. N icolaou 1973 "The Fi r s t Myce n a e a n s in Cyprus," IN Acts

of the International Symposium "The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean” (Nicosia 1972: 51-61.

W.-D. N i e m e i e r 1983 "The End of the M i n o a n Thalassocracy," IN p u b lication of the s y m p o s i u m on the "Minoan Thalassocracy" held at the Swedish Insitute at Athens, 1982 (forthcoming). J. Overbeck 1982 "The Hub of Commerce: Keos and Middle Helladic Greece," TOAS 7: 38-49. 0. Pelon 1976 Tholoi, Tunuli, etCercles Funeraires, Paris. H.Pichler and W. Schiering 1980 "Der spaetbronzezei11iche Ausbruch des Thera-Vulkans und seine Auswirkung auf Kreta," AA: 1-37. M. Popham 1970 The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos, SIMA 12, Goeteborg. M. Popham 1974 IN M. Popham and H. Catling, "Sellopoulo Tombs 3 and 4, T w o Late M i n o a n Graves near Knossos," BSA 69: 195-257. M. Popham 1975 "Late Minoan II Crete, A Note," AJA 79: 372-374. E. Porada 1981/1982 "The Cylinder Seals found at Thebes in Boeotia," AOF 28: 1-70. B. Price 1978 "Secondary State Formation: An Explanatory Model," IN R. Cohen and E. Service, Origins of the State Philadelphia: 161-186. C. Redman 1978 The Rise of Civilization, San Francisco. C. Renfrew 1972 The Emergence of Civilisation, London. C. Renfrew 1975 "Trade as Action at a Distance," IN J. Sabloff and C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Ancient Civilizations and Trade, Albuquerque. J. R utter andS. Rutterl976 The Transition to Mycenaean, Monumenta Archaeologica, 4, Los Angeles. F. Schache r m e y r l 9 5 5 Die aeltesten Kulturen Griechenlands, Stuttgart. F. S c h a c h e r m e y r 1964 Die minoische Kultur des alten Kretas, Stuttgart. E. Scho f i e l d 1982 "TheWestern Cyclades and Crete: A 'Special Relationship' "Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1: 9-25. E. Service 1971 Primitive Social Organization, New York. E. Service 1975 Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution, New York. A. Snodgrass 1980 Archaic Greece, The Age of Experiment, Berkeley. C. Starr 1962 The Origins of Greek Civilization, 1100-650 B jC., New York. Z. Stos-Gale and N. Gale 1982 "The Sources of Mycenaean Silver and Lead,' JFA 9: 467-485. K. Syriopoulos 1964 He Proistoria tes Peloponesou, Athens. K. Syriopoulos 1968 He Proistoria tes Sterea Hellados, Athens. C. Thomas 1970 "A Mycenaean Hegemoney: A Reconsideration," JHS 90: 184-192.

552

"The Nature of Mycenaean Kingship," SMEA 17: 93­ 116. M. Toumazou 1983 Aspects of Middle Helladic Burial Practice in

C.

Thomas 1976

Lakonia, Arkadia, the Argolis and Corinthia, C. G. G. E. P. P. H.

W.

M.A. thesis, Bryn Mawr College. T sountas 1889 "Erevnai en te Lakonike kai o taphos tou Vapheiou," Ephemeris: 129-172. Tzedakis and E. Hallager 1979 "The Greek-Swedish Excavation at Kastelli, Khania, 1976 and 1977," AAA 11: 31-46. Tzedakis and E. Hallager 1980 "The Greek-Swedish Excavation at Kastelli, Khania 1980," manuscript. Vermeule 1972 Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago. Warren 1975 The Aegean Civilizations, Oxford. Watson,S. LeBlancand C. Redmanl971 Explanation in Archeology New York. W r i g h t 1978 "Toward and Explanation of the Origin of the State," IN R. Cohen and E. Service, Origins of the State, Philadelphia: 49-68. Wyatt 1970 "The Indo-Europeanization of Greece," IN IndoEuropean and Indo-Europeans (G. Cardoza et al., eds.) Philadelphia: 89-111.

553

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AEGEAN SYMPOSIUM

1985

A symposium sponsored by the Department of Art History, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, with the theme "Aspects of Aegean Pottery in the Middle Bronze Age."

April 12, 1985

Repertory of Decorative Motifs on Middle Cycladic Pottery from Ayia Irini, Kea by Gatewood Folger Overbeck

In this paper I will concentrate principally on motifs which are especially characteristic of Period IV (earlier Middle Bronze Age) pottery from Ayia Irini, Kea* What particularly distinguishes Cycladic motifs is the addition of dots and dotted patterns to otherwise ordinary linear and curvilinear patterns. Dotted patterns seem to be especially Middle Cycladic Keian , since few appear ^n the pottery from the rest of the Cyclades, as at Paros or Phylakopi . Use of two colors, especially black and red on yellow slip, and of one color, whitish—yellow, on burnished, in a motif is also a Cycladic feature. This is compatible with the lively, imaginative art typical of the Cyclades. Undotted motifs, especially bi-colored ones, may also be determined particularly Cycladic if done in a technique (such as Middle Cycladic Burnished decorated with paint or incised; Yellow-Slipped, (dark-on-light, polychrome, or mixed technique); Light-on-Dark Patterned (White-on-Gray or White-on-Red); Black-and-Red; or MatJ:-Painted, Pink-Orange or Middle Cycladic Matt-Painted/Cycladic White ) or occur on locally made wares or on shapes typical of Middle Cycladic. Decorated shapes include carinated cups, deep basins, deep bowls, beaked jugs, feeding bottles, and jars (globular, hole-mouth, and barrel). Certainly some of the motifs and techniques used are not found outside of the Cyclades and others not out­ side of Ayia Irini. The same types of motifs occur in different techniques on the same shape— for example, on both Yellow-Slipped and decorated Burnished barrel jars. There are unique instances of two techniques used to decorate a particular shape, such as a deep basin in combination Yellow-Slipped and Burnished. The barrel jar holds a special place in this period at Ayia Irini— there is almost a "Barrel jar culture". The majority of barrel jars at Ayia Irijii are locally made, with a small number of Middle Helladic imports. This shape occurs in Burnished decorated, Yellow-Slipped (darkon-light, polychrome, and mixed technique), Light-on-Dark Patterned ware (White-on-Gray), as well as mainland Matt-Painted. The barrel jar in all wares disappears at Ayia Irini during phase IVb. Although the barrel jar is common in Middle Helladic pottery, the use of dotted motifs on them is not. This seems to be a Cycladic innovation. Some of the more elaborately decorated barrel jars were used for infant burials. Most of the Cycladic type dotted motifs can be illustrated on barrel jars, carinated cups, and deep basins. The following dotted motifs in various patterns are characteristic at Ayia Irini: rosette, spiral, wheel, saltire, butterfly or double axe, hook, swastika, "C" pattern, flower, and row of dots. The most common dotted motif, and the one which most occurs outside of the Cyclades, is the rosette. At Ayia Irini the dot rosette occurs in several variations, usually used as a spacer, alternating or in combination with other dotted (wheel, saltire, butterfly/double axe, "C" pattern, swastika, hook, or diamond) and undotted (bands, saltire, diamond) motifs on a single vase.

The rosette motif is found on decorated Burnished, Yellow-Slipped (darkon-light, polychrome and mixed), Light-on-Dark Patterned ware (White-onGray), and Cycladic White, principally on shapes such as barrel jars, deep basins, carinated cups, and rounded bowls. An elaborated form of the dot rosette is the dotted linked false spiral which is also used in combination with other dotted motifs (such as the wheel, saltire, butterfly/double axe, and hook) on barrel jars and carinated cups in Burnished and Yellow-Slipped technique• Other dotted motifs at Ayia Irini are found usually on barrel jars. These include wheels with various types of spokes or fill ornamentation, butterflies or double axes, triangles, lozenges or diamonds, swastikas, and S-and multiple hooks. A variation of the simple band is the use of a row of dots, sometimes flanking a band. In the rest of the Cyclades there are only a few examples of dotted patterns, and these are mainly dot rosettes on vases from Paros and Phylakopi. S On the mainland, dotted patterns are also scarce. In fact, Buck presents only two of the dotted motifs which occur at Ayia Irini— the rosette and dots flanking a line— in his list; it is also interesting that the examples given for these motifs do not include the barrel jar shape C 1. Buck presents the rosjgte used as a spacer, as a star with dots on points, and as a flower. He allocates the origin of some of the spacer rosette ^ p e s to Cycladic, the other types to Middle Minoan and mainland. Furumark sees antecedants for Middle Helladic lustrous light-on-dark, dark-on-light, and earlier matt-painted decoration in the Cycladic incised motifs; he sees antecedants for the earlier curvilinear style of Cycladic, including Black-and Red style, in MM II B decoration— rosettes, flCn-patterns, and spirals. Although there is Minoan inspiration in some of the Cycladic decorj|ion, the Cyclades managed to retain its own distinctive character . Certainly it is easy to see that the dot rosette and the spiral could develop from simple, incised, concentric circle patterns, and incised decoration is used on Burnished ware at Ayia Irini. Plain motifs consisting of the usual linear and curvilinear patterns but without outlining dots and occurring in a Middle Cycladic technique, on locally made ware, or on a Middle Cycladic shape include: rosette, wheel, butterfly/double axe, swastika, saltire, circle, diamond, lozenge, spiral, and a r . According to Buck1s chart on the origins of mattpainted motifs , most of these plain motifs are indeed originally Cycladic. These can be illustrated equally well on the barrel jar shape as the dotted motifs. There is a whole repertory of horizontal and vertical bands, varying in color, number, and arrangement. Barrel jars usually have a series of horizontal bands around the widest part of the jar. These bands may be in a series of two to four or five, but usually three. Colors may be all black, all red, alternating black-red-black or red-black-red, or all white. Barrel jars also feature series of two or three arcs or vertical/ slanting series of bands on tops of rims and bands on handles. Bands of two colors may be considered Cycladic. On the mainland they are rare— the Yellow-Slipped polychrome from Orcljipmenos and sherds from Eutresis and Athens are likely Cycladic imports .

558

It seems that the barrel jar at Ayia Irini is the more representative shape for presenting almost our complete range of Cycladic motifs, parti­ cularly the dotted motifs so uniquely Cycladic. It is also true that this is the shape which occurs in several Middle Cycladic techniques— Burnished,Yellow-Slipped, and Light-on-Dark Patterned ware. Dotted motifs seem to be characteristically Cycladic at this time and some unique to Ayia Irini.

559

FOOTNOTES

1.

John L. Caskey. "Investigations in Keos, Part II. A Conspectus of the Pottery” Hesperia 41 (1972) 357-401. The pottery terminology used belongs to John C. Overbeck, who is publishing the Ayia Irini IV pottery as part of the Keos volumes.

2.

The Period IV motifs from Ayia Irini were collected by me while assisting with the pottery study.

3.

T. D. Atkinson, et a l . Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Supplementary Paper 4 of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies), London 1904; R. M. Dawkins and J. P. Droop. "The Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos" BSA 17 (1910-1911) 1-22; Otto Rubensohn. "Die Praehistorischen und Fruhgeschichtlichen Funde auf dem Burghdgel von Paros" AM 42 (1917) 1-98. I have seen motifs or Middle Cycladic pottery from Paros in John C. Overbeckfs reexamination of Rubensohn fs material.

4.

For the terminology of Middle Cycladic Matt-Painted/Cycladic White see: John C. and Gatewood F. Overbeck. "Consistency and Diversity in the Middle Cycladic Era" Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (eds. Jack L. Davis and John F. Cherry) (Monograph 14, Institute of Archaeology, UCLA) Los Angeles 1979, 106-121, esp. p. Ill; Robin Barber. "The Cyclades in the Middle Bronze Age" in Thera and the Aegean World I (ed. C. Doumas and H. C. Puckett) London 1978, 367-379, esp. p. 375.

5.

John C. Overbeck• "The Hub of Commerce: Keos and Middle Helladic Greece" Temple University Aegean Symposium 7 (1982)38-49, esp. p. 43.

6.

Ibid, 43.

7.

Gatewood F. Overbeck. "Graves and Burial Customs at Ayia Irini, Kea" Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY-Albany 1974.

8.

Robert J. Buck. (1964) 231-303.

9.

Ibid,

10.

Ibid, 307.

11.

Arne Furumark. see p. 218.

12.

Ibid, 222.

13.

Buck, op cit, 304-308.

14.

John C. Overbeck 1982, op cit, 42-43.

"Middle Helladic Mattpainted Pottery", Hesperia 33

247, 264, 276.

The Mycenaean Pottery, Stockholm 1941 (1972 reprint),

560

Early Elements :Ln Middle Minoan Pottery by Gisela E. Walberg

The connection between Early and Middle Minoan pottery is very close — in fact so close that no study of MM pottery would be complete without taking the earlier ceramic phases into account. In my studies of palatial and provincial M M pottery, shapes and decorative motifs were traced back to the EM period, and in his recent study of East Cretan White-on-dark Ware, P. P. Betancourt has followed the deyelopment of that class of pot­ tery from EM IIB into the first MM phases. His Late Phase of East Cretan White-on-dark corresponds to my first phase of East Cretan MM pottery. Most pottery forms found in EM III contexts have EM IIB predecessors, and several of them survive until the end of the MM period. The cylindri­ cal cup and the semiglobular cup of the MM period, for example, both have EM IIB predecessors at Myrtos. The angular or carinated cup, which is another typical MM form, found all over the island of Crete in my provin­ cial MM phase 3 and in palatial Classical Kamares contexts, first appears in House D at Mochlos, in a context which in my opinion represents a late stage of EM but is previous to MMIA in Eastern Crete. The carination is not very sharp either in EM III or in early MM specimens and the upper part of the cups is tapering, while the lower part is low and wide, something that indicates that the shape ma^r be derived from depressed rounded or possibly even cylindrical cups. There is also some continua­ tion in the shaping of bridge-spouted jars in Central, East-Central, and Eastern Crete, even though the MM ones are slightly more convex-sided and have a wider mouth than their EM III predecessors.7 The difference in shape between EM III and Pre-Kamares/phase 1 jugs in different parts of the island is also rather slight. Most beaked jugs of both phases have, for instance, a globular-conical shape. The MM jugs tend,ghowever, to have a higher maximum diameter and more angular shoulders. Handleless cups of the MM phase 1 and of the Pre-Kamares phase tend to be slightly more spreading than EM III cups and the ,fegg-cupn of the EM III phase— a form which has been believed to be typical of Northern Crete, but which has been found at Hagia Triada and Vorou— develops into two different types in MM one with high, conical and another with a low, disc­ shaped foot. Neither the semiglobular, nor the cylindrical cups show much difference in shape. There is thus an obvious connection between EM and MM forms and shapes. If we turn to decorative elements, the connection is even more obvious. Predejgssors of most MM motifs can be found in EM III East Cretan pottery. This is especially the case with spirals, semicircles and triangles. There are jjso many spiral derivatives, disconnected parts of spirals and band types. Several varieties of J-spirals are, for instance, found in EM III pottery from the North Trench at Gournia and also appear in pl^se 2 and palatial Early Kamares as well as in PostKamares pottery. The antithetic J-spiral motif, which is one of the most important motifs in Kamares pottery and used as a point of departure for numerous pictorialized varieties, representing various kinds of plants and which can be followed down to the end of the Bronze Age in Minoan and later also In Mycenaean pottery, first appears at Gournia in a simple, abstract variety, reminiscent of later ivy-leaf motifs. There are several similar varieties from Paterikies in Central Crete, which

belong to phase 1 and from Palaikastro, which belongs to phase 2. In the Classical Kamares examples from Knossos and Phaistos, the connection with the Gournia motif is still obvious, and this is also the case with a Post-Kamares motif from Phaistos, which is an elaborajg variety with many additional details but based on the same elements. Spirals with filled angle appear on some jugs from House D at Mochlos. There are no examples of this type of motif from the next two phases, but in Classical Kamares pottery from Knossos and Phaistos, spirals with filled angle are again comparatively frequent. They are also found in provincj^l pottery of the contemporary phase 3 and in PostKamares pottery. The EM III motif which shows the greatest number.of variations and where the creativity of the EM III vase-painters is most obvious, is the disc spiral. The EM III disc spirals are usually very elaborate and contain a number of different filling motifs like crosshatching, spirals, arches and diagonal lines. All examples of elaborate EM III disc spirals I know of come from Eastern and East-Central Crete: from Gournia, Palaikastro, Vasilike and Mallia. Motifs which are clearly related to ^ them appear in the provincial MM 1 phase at Hagia Triada and Paterikies. Disc spirals are, however, not found in the next phase, except in the shape of a dark-on-1ight network variety in Eastern Crete, which survives throughout the MM period. In Classical Kamares pottery and in contemporary provincial pottery of phase 3, elaborate disc spirals with interior details appear again, but the details show no connection or even similarity with the ones used by the East-Cretan EM III vase-painters. They consist of rosettes, simple dots, etc. In a Post-Kamjres vase from Phaistos, the discs are filled with small crocus motifs. Some of the discs of the EM III disc spirals have interior radiating motifs and cross-motifs formed by the addition of semicircles and squares to the periphery of the disc. A cross-motif of this kind from Gournia has rather close parallels in some phase 2 motifs from Palaikastro, Zakros and Phaistos. These cross­ motifs have no later, Classical Kamares or phase 3 successors. Radiating motifs formed by semicircles drawn from the periphery are, however, found in provincial pottery from phases 1 and 2 from Eastern as well as from Central Crete• Classical Kamares motifs of the same kind appear in dark— on—light varieties on large storage vessels and also on fine, polychrome vases. There is thus clearly a continuation from EM III to the Classical Kamares phase in these motifs. Many EM III motifs consist of parts of spirals which have been broken up and recombined to form new varieties^ Quirks consisting of S-shaped elements are common in EM III material and continue throughout the MM period. A variety with three parallel lines from the North Trenct^at Gournia resembles some later varieties from Knossos and Phaistos. Spiral links without a coil are sometimes used in East-Cretan EM III pottery from Gournia and Mochlos. 2 §ne varietY from Hagia Triada and two from Paterikies belong to phase 1. There are no parallels from the following phase, but a cup from phase 3 at Gournia, which was probably imported from Knossos or Phaistos to Eastern Crete, has a motif made up from the same kind of elements. A late EM III jug from Vasilike has a decoration which consists of a disc-spiral and a spiral link ending in three parallel lines. These three parallel lines are related to the "spray" or "plume" motif, which

562

is frequent in East-Cretan pottery throughout the MM period.

24

Parallel semicircles are frequent in EM III pottery. In MM decora­ tion they are less popular, but they are nevertheless represented in each MM phase, including Post-Kamares. In phase 1, they are more popular in Eastern and East-Central Crete, but in phases 2-4, they are especially frequent in Central Crete. A fragmentary pithos from Phaistos, which belongs to the Classical Kamares phase, is decorated with a semicircle pictorialized as a pair of arms and a number of Post-Kamares bridgespouted jars from^^amilari have parallel semicircles of varying size around the spout. Many of the East-Cretan EM III motifs are rectilinear; c^gvrons and triangles especially can be traced back to EM IIB decoration. They continue to be frequent in MM pottery, especially in Eastern Crete in phase 1 and sometimes even in phase 2 • A well-known late example is a cup from Vasilike with crosshatche^triangles on the rim and a decoration otherwise consisting of swastikas. Horizontal bands with chevrons are found throughout the MM period. They are normally used for secondary decoration. Diamonds and lozenges, which like the triangles often are crosshatched, appear occasionally in EM III East-Cretan decoration and continue in phases 1 and 2 at East-Cretan sites. Some of them consist of a rectangle with two crossing, diagonal lines and form a kind of doubl^g axe m o t i f. After phase 2, this variety disappears from the repertory. Wavy lines are found in the North Trench at Gournia and become increasingly popular during the MM period. They are used in many different ways: single or £|peated, forming horizontal zones and combined into network varieties• Network motifs with rosettes between the loops of the net are not found in Pre-Kamares or Early Kamares pottery, nor do they appear in contemporary provincial pottery, but they become frequent again on Classical Kamares and phase 3 cups. They are formed in exactly the same way as a variety from the North Trench at Gournia. Late examples of the Post-Kamares phase have been found at Phaistos. Most MM band types have, as was mentioned above, an early origin. Joined semicircles can be traced back to the EM IIB phase. They appear, for instance, on a jug from Myrtos, where they form part of a decoration which ^grren has interpreted as possibly the representation of a distaff spool. They are popular in all MM phases, including Post-Kamares, and are generally used as framework on lips and other accessory parts of the vessel body. A well-known exception is, however, a small amphora from the Loomweight Area at Knossos^yhich has a decoration entirely consisting of rows of joined semicircles. Foliate bands are first found in EM III contexts. Two different varieties appear at Gournia and Mallia. One consists of petaloid loops springing from a band and the other from detached loops reminiscent of a row of chevrons. There are no Pre-Kamares or phase 1 examples, but both types are found in phase 2 and they continue throughout the HI period. Some of the MM varieties are abstract,^hile others have a decidedly representational and floral character. Dentate bands can be traced from the EM III phase onwards, until the end of the M M period. There is one example from the North Trench at Gournia, which consists of rows of joined triangles. Later on, in the

563

MM period, these triangles become increasingly concave-sided and thin, so that they look like herring-bone motifs, but their origin is still recognizable. Phase 2 and Post-Kamares varieties are often rather elabor­ ate.33 Repeated-circle bands also appear first in EM III contexts. From then onpirds, they are frequent in all parts of Crete throughout the MM period. They are often used for secondary zones in the lower part of the vessels or to frame the main field of decoration. Most abstract MM pottery motifs thus have more EM predecessors than has previously been assumed. Is the connection direct and have the MM motifs gradually developed from these earlier motifs? In the cases where the motif is found in every stylistic phase from EM IIB or from EM III onwards and in Central as well as in Eastern and East-Central Crete, this seems rather likely. To this category we can, as we have seen, count the J-spirals, the antithetic J^spirals and the semicircles. Some motifs of cross-type disappear after the Early Kamares phase in palatial and after phase 2 in provincial pottery. The "plume" decoration is only found in Eastern Crete, but can be followed from the EM III to the end of phase 4 in that area. Many of the band motifs also seem to continue. Their part in the MM decoration is, however, different and whereas they often formed the main motif in EM III vases, they are used for subordinate frame­ work in MM decoration. An exception from the band motifs is the foliate band, which is not found among palatial pottery of the Pre-Kamares phase or in phase 1 provincial pottery. We have also seen that spirals with filled angle, some disc spiral varieties and the network formed by wavy lines and rosettes disappear after EM III and are not found again before the Classi­ cal Kamares phase and phase 3. The disc spirals are also elaborated in a different way when they appear again. How can the disappearance and reappearance of these similar motifs be explained? The motifs may, of course, have survived, although no examples have been found. The EM and MM motifs may also be totally unrelated and the later motifs could have been reinvented in the MM period. A third, more likely explanation is, however, that they represent elaborations of basic motifs which are present from EM III onwards. EM III and the Classical Kamares phases represent peaks of Minoan pottery decoration, when more variations are created than during any other ceramic phase of the Bronze Age. Except for some few motifs which went out of use in the earlier part of the MM period, there is a long and steady tradition from the Early Bronze Age in MM pottery and the development that leads to the splendid Classical Kamares style began in EM IIB and EM III.

564

T he

fol l o w i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s arc u s e d

in this paper:

WM'

G. Walberg, Kamares. A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery, Uppsala 1976, motif

WPM

G. Walberg, Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz 1983, motif

WPS

G. Walberg, Provincial M M , shape

WS

G. Walberg, Kamares, shape

Footnotes 1.

P. P. Betancourt, East Cretan White-on-dark Ware, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 8.

2.

Ibid., p. 18.

3.

Ibid., p. 36.

4.

G. Walberg, Provincial Middle Minoan Pottery, Mainz 1983, p.

8.

5.

Ibid., p. 130.

6.

Ibid., p. 8.

7.

Ibid.,

8.

G. Walberg, Kamares, A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery, Uppsala 1976, p. 42.

9.

Walberg, Provincial MM, p. 27.

10.

Ibid., pp. 67-68.

11.

Ibid., pp. 38-44 and 65.

12.

Ibid., p. 38.

p. 27.

13.

Annuario

29-30, 1967-68, Figs. 40a,c,d,g

14.

Pernier, L . , II Palazzo minoico di Festos I, lnv. no. C 1667.

15.

R. Seager, Explorations in the Island of Mochlos, Boston & New York 1912, Fig.19:2, inv. no. Va and Walberg,Provincial MM, p. 41.

16.

Annuario .13-14, 1930-31, Fig. 126b, inv. N.S. 29-30, 1967-68, Fig. 41h.

17.

D. Levi, Festos e la Civilta Minoica (Incunabula Graeca 60), Rome 1976, PI. LXXXIVc, inv. no. F 5259.

18.

Ibid., PI. XVIIIa, inv. no. F 2207, BSA 9, 1902-03, Fig. 8 and Ergon 1971 (1972), Fig. 274.

565

and 42a,b,d,e,g. Rome 1935, PL. XVIIIa,

no. C 4004 and Annuario

19.

Cf. Transactions 1:3, 1905, PI. XXXII:1, Annuario N.S. 29-30, 1967-68, Fig. 43a, Palazzo I, PI. XXXIX, inv. no. C 2519 and ibid., PI. XVIIIa, inv. no. C 1667.

20.

Betancourt, White-on-dark, pp. 22 and26, motif

21.

WPM 8:74-75 and WM 8:27-30.

22.

Transactions 1:3, 1905, PI. XXX:8, AJA 13, 1909, Fig. 13:4, Annuario 13-14, 1930-31, Fig. 129 and Annuario N.S. 29-30, 1967-68, Fig. 41d and 43e.

23.

H. Boyd Hawes, Gournia, Philadelphia 1908, PI. VI:6.

24.

WPS 110:14 and WPM 7(ii)13.

25.

WM 9(v)l and WPM 9 (i)1-11.

26.

Walberg, Provincial M M , pp. 65-68.

27.

Transactions 11:2, 1907, PI. XXXI:1.

28.

Walberg, Provincial M M , p. 65.

29.

C f . Betancourt, White-on-dark, motif 6:4 and WM 1 6 (ii)1-11.

30.

P. Warren, Myrtos. An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (The British School at Athens, Suppl. Paper 7), Oxford 1972, P 460.

31.

A. Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos I, Fig.

32.

Walberg, Provincial M M , p. 52.

33.

WPM 1 9 (iv)1-2 and WM 19:4-13.

34.

Walberg, Provincial MM, p. 54.

7.

See also WM 10(ix)l-8.

566

191:17, WM 17:11.

MM IB and MM ITA at Kommos by Philip P. Betancourt

Introduction At any archaeological site, some pottery deposits will be especially useful because they contain a large selection of material, are not dis­ turbed by later intrusions, and contain a minimum of earier survivals* At Kommos, the best of these deposits receive special study. All recognizable sherds are recorded, with information on clay fabrics, shapes, and other pertinent information. From this data one can build up a detailed picture of each period, and temporal changes in items like the appearance of new shapes or the relative frequency of selected shapes can be clearly docu­ mented . Statistical information on the two periods MM IB and MM IIA is especially important because of the difficulty in distinguishing between these two phases by stylistic criteria alone. In fact, at the palace of Phaistos, where many of the deposits are mixed with both^MM IB and IIA present, the excavators did not distinguish the two phases.

Distinguishing MM IB and MM IIA The best data for £hese two periods comes from eight Kommian deposits, four from each period: MM IB: Deposit Deposit Deposit Deposit

5 6 7 8

Trench 1 1 A , lowest level Central Hillside, Rooms 26-27, on a floor at ca. + 9.50 East of Round Bid, below the MM IIA deposits Central Hillside, Room 38, 4 - 1 0 . 6 8 - 4 * 10.555

MM IIA: Deposit Deposit Deposit Deposit

9 10 11 12

Central East of East of East of

Hillside, Room 35, 4- 10.53 - 4* 10.24 Round Building Round Building Round Building

While the archaeological contexts of these deposits are too complex to be described in detail here, all are well situated stratigraphically. Deposit 5 rested on sterile soil, below a mixed MM-LM III level. Deposit 6 was below a MM IIA-B layer. Deposit 7 was between a MM IA level and a stratum from MM IIA. A clay floor separated Deposit 8 from a higher MM II A-B level, sealing it off completely. For the MM IIA contexts, Deposits 10, 11, and 12 were all superimposed, lying above Deposit 7 and below a MM IIB stratum. Deposit 9 was below a MM IIB deposit, with a plaster floor between them, and it rested on a MM IB level. Thus the first basis for the division into two phases is stratigraphic, with some of the deposits (notably nos. 79) neatly sandwiched between well-defined earlier and later phases. That the two periods represent the passage of a space of time is confirm­ ed by the relative frequency of certain shapes, particularly the cups. Of the approximately 5,300 sherds in these deposits, over 800 were fragments of

(counted after mending joining sherds). The most popular shapes and their relative frequencies are noted in Fig. 1.

cups

The conical cup is by far the most common shape. It is almost always handmade during MM IB, but by MM IIA the wheelmade version has replaced the earlier type. Three other cups also show dramatic increases in popular­ ity in the later period: the straight-sided cup; the semiglobular cup; and the carinated cup. Among these the carinated cup is by far the most popular. Although individual deposits exhibit small deviations from the statistics, the main tenets are clearly present in all contexts. The size of the set is large enough to approach the norm for the site as a whole. The conclusions from these statistics confirm the picture derived from the stratigraphy. MM IB and MM IIA may be regarded as separate, definable phases, separated from each other chronologically by enough time to allow for changes in the type of pottery used at Kommos• The artistic styles of the two phases may now beexamined, alizations on the two periods. MM IA

MM IIA

Handmade conical cups 268 Wheelmade conical cups 8

6 383

Straight-sided cups

3

35

Semiglobular cups

0

22

Carinated cups

9

44

Carinated or semiglobular cups

1

21

Straight-sided or carinated cups

4

27

293

538

Figure 1.

with gener­

Cup sherds in Deposits from Kommos

MM IB Middle Mino^n IB begins with the first use of wheelmade pottery in southern Crete• The new technique of manufacture is only accepted slowly at first, and most Kommian MM IB pottery is still handmade• Among the cups, the handmade conical cup is by far the most common shape; all other cup shapes together make up less than 20% of the cup inventory. Also used are

568

jugs, open spouted or bridge-spouted jars, bowls, and several other shapes. Stylistically, the MM IB decoration consists almost exclusively of a linear repertoire (see Fig. 2) white, red, and orange are used on a dark ground, or the dark paint is laid directly onto the clay surface. Most of the decoration is fairly uncomplicated, and simple bands, vases which were merely dipped into a container of paint, or motifs composed of just a few lines are especially numerous. Many vases are decorated as White-ondark Ware. The south Cretan stylg is not as splendid as the elaborate pottery of the east Cretan sites; the examples in Figure 2 are typical. This is the main period for Barbotine Ware in southern Crete. Several different types of rough surface are used in this period, including raised bands, knobs, prickles, and the rough areas Sir Arthur Evans called barnacle work. Jugs are very popular in the ware, especially with zones of barnacle work combined with painted dots, groups of diagonal lines, or other motifs. Jugs with sinuous raised bands laid on to create a pleasing torsional movement also occur.

MM IIA By Middle Minoan IIA the potters1 wheel has almost completely supplanted hand techniques for cups and other small, fine, ceramics. Eggshell-thin walls are fairly common. While the wheelmade conical cup with no handle is the most popular cup type, it shares the spotlight with its handled cousins the straight-sided, carinated, and semiglobular shapes. Barbotine Ware declines, replaced by a greater use of polychromy on a dark ground, the Kamares Ware of the middle phases of Middle Minoan* Dark-on-light, however, continues as well. The motifs of MM IIA are greatly enriched over those of the preceding phase• Examples are shown in Fig. 3• Several of the new motifs, especially those borrowed from the plant kingdom, are stiff and spiky. Grass clumps tend to be straight, without the grace they would develop in later years• Versions of the spiral, on the other hand, are sinuous and graceful. Con­ centric circles, tendrils, petaloid loops, and rosettes with rounded petals have all appeared. The ceramics is well on the way toward the elegance of MM IIB, the high point of the Kamares Ware tradition.

569

FOOTNOTES

1.

Both are called Phase IA. Rome, 1976.

See D. Levi, Festos e la civilta minoica,

2.

Deposit numbers are those that will be used in Kommos I I . Pottery, in preparation.

3.

For its earlier appearance at Knossos see S. Hood, The Minoans (1971) p. 39.

4.

Betancourt, P., East Cretan White-on-dark Ware (1984).

5.

For the style see K. P. Fqster, Minoan Ceramic Relief (1982) Chap. 1-2.

6.

For discussion see G. Walberg, Kamares Ware (1976).

570

The Minoan

✓

s

/

C 4360

C 3279

C 6460

C 3452 Fig. 2.

C 3277

C 6462

Sherds from MM I B .

C 5801

C 5709

C 4367 C 1451

C 16^8

c 4296 Fig. 3.

c 1582

Sherds from MM IIA.

571

C 4276

d

AN

EXERCISE

IN F O R M vs. F U N C T I O N : OF THE DUCK VASE

THE

SIGNIFICANCE

Aegean askoid vessel forms have periodically attracted the attention of scholars since the beginning of this century,! but interest in such vase shapes has intensified and become more highly focussed over the past decade, seemingly as a result of Renfrew's emphasis in 1972 on the broad geographical distribution of a distinctive askoid juglet of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages commonly known as the "duck v a s e " . 2 Yet, despite the fact that it is now possible to list over one hundred whole or fragmentary duck vases from a large number of sites (see A p p e n d i x ) , there is no scholarly consensus on what the origin of the shape is, how sensitive a chronological indicator it may be, how the large number of known examples are to be classified into types, what significance such classificatory subdivisions may have, and above all how the popularity of this particular shape in those areas where it is commonly found, whether as import or local product, should be interpreted. Due to a considerable degree of morphological variation among the conventionally recognized examples of the duck vase, it is difficult to frame a definition to which all commonly accepted specimens of the shape conform. Moreover, this variability in shape is evidently not highly patterned since distinct groups of examples exhibiting particular combinations of shape features such as specific body and neck profiles, forms of handle and locations of upper handle attachments, presence and nature of subsidiary lugs, and so forth do not emerge when the readily classifiable morphological features are tabulated and a n a l y z e d . ^ A l ­ though the number of exceptions to the following definition is thus a relatively large one, a canonical duck vase may be defined as having a flat base, a squat piriform body, a short, narrow, and quite markedly offset neck positioned well down the shoulder from the pointed apex of the body proper, a sharply flaring rim defining a leaf-shaped mouth outline, and a short vertical strap handle running from the upper shoulder just behind the neck to the neck itself (Fig. 2:5). Apart from the eccentrically positioned narrow neck, at least three morpholo­ gical attributes recur so frequently that their presence may justifiably be required in order for a vessel to be considered a true duck vase rather than simply a related shape or an unfaithful imitation: namely a flat b a s e , 4 an upper handle attachment somewhere on the neck even if as high as the rim,5 and a mouth outline in the shape of a pointed oval or leaf designed to facilitate pouring.6 Although subtypes of duck vases cannot presently be distinguished easily or consistently on the basis of shape, division of the known examples into four classes according to gross distinctions in decorative treatment, that is, incised, plain, ribbed, and dark-on-light patternpainted in descending order of frequency, constitutes an unambiguous and hence easily replicable system of classification which may produce taxonomic groupings with as much spatial or temporal significance as a system based upon morphological differences (Appendix I -IV).7 Within the incised class, by far the largest of these decorative subdivisions, some smaller groups may be separated out on the basis of the use of a specific motif at the apex of the body or of particularly distinctive patterns elsewhere (Appendix I V A - F ) .

The distribution of the true duck vase as herein defined includes the islands of Aegina, Amorgos, Keos, M e l o s , Paros, and Thera in the central and western Aegean, the islands of Kalymnos, Rhodes, and Samos in the eastern Aegean, the Western Anatolian sites of Aphrodisias, Bozhttyttk near Izmir, and Troy, and the Mainland Greek sites of Athens, Brauron, Eutresis, Gonia, Lerna, and Vrana near Marathon.8 Strikingly absent from this list of findspots is the island of Crete, while per­ haps equally impressive is the discovery on Cyprus and further inland in Anatolia at the site of Beycesultan of fairly faithful imitations of the duck v a s e . 8 Several of the decorative classes and groups out­ lined above seem to be spatially clustered, thus raising the possibility that particular decorative categories may be the products of certain regions or even of specific sites. For example, the ribbed class is particularly characteristic of the central Greek Mainland, the Saronic Gulf, and the nearby Cycladic island of Keos, although it is true that a couple of examples have also been found a good deal further afield (Lerna, A m o r g o s ) . All Mainland examples of this class are considered imports at their places of discovery, presumably on the grounds of their non-local fabrics, and a center of production for these on the island of Aegina seems most likely.I8 As far as other decorative categories are concerned, the distribution of known examples might be interpreted as evidence that the pattern-painted class and one incised group (IVD: Vertical Panels in One Zone) are to be attributed to Paros, another incised group (IVA l Concentric Circles) to Melos, and a last incised group (IVBs. Quatrefoil) to an eastern Aegean center, presumably Samos. Whether or not decorative differences are in fact this localized, it is in any event abundantly clear that a relatively large number of the duck vases known were not produced where they were found. Aside from the Greek Mainland, where certainly most, if perhaps not quite all, duck vases are considered to be imports, such vessels also appear to have been imported at the few sites in Western Anatolia where they have so far been found and the same is likely to be true of the examples known from Kalymnos, and perhaps also Rhodes, in the Dodecanese. Indeed, the centers of production of such vases may have been confined to Aegina, Melos, Paros, and Samos, although it is likely that they were also manufactured on one or more of Amorgos, Keos, Naxos, and T h e r a . T h e duck vase, therefore, though widely exported and even more widely imitated, is evidently a product of the islands alone, Samos in addition to the Cyclades. But what of the shape's ancestry? Merrillees, following Edgar, has drawn attention to the formal resemblances between Aegean duck vases and a series of Egyptian late Predynastic stone and clay vessels, while at the same time expressing serious doubts about any genuine historical connection between these two artifactual s e t s . 12 Much closer in both time and space to the Aegean type is a trio of askoi from the small fort at Kastri on Syros which certainly predates the earliest known true duck vases from the Cyclades, although by how much is at present the subject of warm debate. The Kastri askoi (Fig. 1:1— 2) , called "proto—duck—vases'* when they are not identified as actual duck vases,!4 lack the upper handle attachment on the neck characteristic of true duck vases and seemingly have proportionately somewhat wider necks, but they must surely be in some sense ancestral to the later shape, even if perhaps not directly. The point that needs to be stressed is that the Kastri askoi constitute the earliest evidence for a locally produced askoid

574

15

c e r a m i c f o r m in t h e C y c l a d e s . By c o ntrast, b o t h o n the G r e e k M a i n l a n d a n d in W e s t e r n A n a t o l i a t h e a s k o s h a s a h i s t o r y of s e v e r a l c e n t u r i e s p r i o r to t h e d a t e o f the K a s t r i f o r t .^ S i n c e a g o o d d e a l o f the r e s t of t h e p o t t e r y f r o m K a s t r i is u n m i s t a k a b l y W e s t e r n A n a t o l i a n in c h a r a c ­ ter, it w o u l d s e e m r e a s o n a b l e to a s c r i b e a W e s t e r n A n a t o l i a n o r i g i n to t he K a s t r i a s k o i and, b y e x t e n s i o n , t o t h e l a t e r d u c k v a s e as w e l l l 7 B u t is it r e a l l y so simple?

Western Anatolian askoi predating those from Kastri have broad cutaway necks to whose rims are attached vertical strap h a n d l e s . The vast majority stand on three short legs (Fig. 1:3), but even when flatbased (Fig. 1:4) this Anatolian vessel form is, as Hood and Podzuweit have observed, consciously imitative of animals or birds in a way that the Kastri askoi and most later duck vases are n o t . ^ Meanwhile, on the Greek Mainland no fewer than three different forms of flat-based askoi were popular during the Early Helladic II p e r i o d : an extremely wide-necked, usually elliptical-mouthed, and normally rim-handled shape which can reasonably be termed a scoop (Fig. 1:5); a trumpet­ necked, r o u n d - m o u t h e d , and invariably rim-handled form which I shall call an askoid round-mouthed jug (Fig. 1:6); and finally a beak-spouted, narrow-necked form whose upper handle attachment is located either at the rim or on the upper body, a version which by virtue of its extremely close resemblance to the Kastri askoi, like them merits the title of "proto-duck-vase" (Fig. 1:7). 19Rather than being inspired by Western Anatolian m o d e l s , the Kastri askoi, oddities for their time in an island context, would appear to be patterned after Mainland Greek, perhaps even specifically Peloponnesian, p r o t o t y p e s . Does a Mainland Greek ancestry hold good for the true duck vase also? The answer to this question i s , "Probably n o t , " but more evidence is unquestionably needed in order to settle the issue for once and for a l l . During the Early Helladic III period on the Mainland, askoi still occur in three basic forms. The most common is a broad-mouthed, troughspouted version which is probably directly descended from the EH II scoop but is now furnished with a cutaway neck (Fig. 2 :1 ).20 The second, featuring a relatively high cylindrical neck and a handle which is usually attached at or just below the neck *s rim, is certainly the lineal successor of the EH II round-mouthed askoid jug (Fig. 2:2-3).21 In the Peloponnese, the proto-duck-vase seems to have no successor, while in central Greece a large, basket-handled and beak-spouted askoid jug with a broad troughed spout seems to be a rather distantly removed EH III version of this earlier form (Fig. 2:4).22 interestingly, this last shape has some close relatives in the Cyclades which are some­ times considered to be duck vases although they have basket- rather than n e c k - h a n d l e s . ^ At least one true duck vase comes from a good Early Helladic III context at the site of Gonia in the Corinthia but this is certainly, to judge from its fabric, an import to that site, presumably from somewhere in the islands although it lacks a close decorative parallel among known Cycladic examples.24 A second duck vase from an unknown site in Boeotia may also date from the Early Hella­ dic III period but once again has no close parallels in the islands.25 The evidence from the Mainland shows that the duck vase was definitely current by the Early Bronze 3 period while at the same time implying that this form was developed elsewhere, almost certainly in the Aegean islands. Of those askoid vessels which precede its appearance,

575

closest morphologically to the true duck vase are the Peloponnesian rim-handled proto-duck-vase and the Cycladic proto-duck vase known from Kastri (Fig. 3): onto the former must be grafted the leaf-shaped mouth typical on Cycladic jugs, teapots, and proto-duck-vases during the period represented by the Kastri fort, while a neck-handle must be substituted for a basket-handle on the latter.26 The contexts in which genuine duck vases have been found at sites on the Greek Mainland and on the islands of Aegina and Keos show that the real floruit of this ceramic type in the western Aegean was the earlier stages of the Middle Bronze A g e . 2 ' No convincing evidence from the central or eastern Aegean exists to indicate that the shape was truly popular at an earlier period, although the evidence of the Gonia specimen shows that it had come into existence before the end of the Early Bronze Age. In calendar years, therefore, we can estimate the duck vase's "lifetime" to have spanned roughly the period ca. 2250/2200 - 1750/1700 with a period of maximum popularity in the period ca. 2100-1800 B.C.2® Despite the indisputably wide margins of error inherent in such chronological estimates, it will be apparent that the duck vase as a form is not a particularly sensitive chronolo­ gical indicator per se.2^ Two much neglected aspects of the duck vase have been its function and its contextual associations. While the observation that this shape was designed to hold a liquid is common,30 no one to my knowledge has stressed the fact that the narrowness of its neck coupled with the impossibility of picking it up by only its handle in order to pour from it seem designed to create a vessel whose liquid contents can be dispensed only very slowly and rather cumbersomely. In this respect it differs significantly from the wider-mouthed proto-duck-vases of the Early Bronze 2 period and from narrow-necked Early Cycladic jugs and b o t t l e s . 31 Indeed, it is seemingly the earliest Aegean closed ceramic form designed for the sort of slow and awkward pouring which also seems to have been a functional specialty of such shapes as the Minoan and Mycenaean stirrup jar and the Corinthian aryballos. The analogy with these later forms immediately suggests that the duck vase may like them have served as a transport container for a relatively valuable liquid such as plain or, perhaps more probably, perfumed oil. Consonant with such a usage are the small size of most duck askoi and their frequent identification as imports. The seemingly non-decorative markings impressed or incised on several of them prior to their firing, so-called "potters' marks", may conceivably be connected with their hypothetical function as transport containers, although this seems rather unlikely in view of the fact that closely comparable "potters' marks" are also common on a wide range of other shapes during the Middle Bronze A g e . 33 The duck vase is by no means the only ceramic form characteristic of the earlier Cycladic Middle Bronze Age to be distributed widely throughout the Aegean, especially in central Greece and the north­ eastern Peloponnese. Others include truncated conical, cylindrical, and concave-sided pyxides along with the associated convex, conical, and cylindrical lids, the vertically ribbed jar, the rhyton in the form of a quadruped, and the ring vase.34 The facts that all the forms in question are containers, easily closed with a lid or a

576

stopper,and that they are r e p e a t e d l y found at the same sites suggest t h a t t h e d u c k v a s e w a s n o t t h e o n l y t r a n s p o r t v e s s e l in t h i s p u t a t i v e C y c l a d i c e x p o r t t r a d e in p e r i s h a b l e c o m m o d i t i e s . The four-footed r h y t o n a n d t h e r i n g v a s e h a v e t h e s a m e p r o v i s i o n f o r s l o w p o u r i n g as does the d uc k v a s e andsu r e l y w e r e l i kewise i n t e n d e d to h o l d s o m e sort of c o s t l y l i q u i d . T h e p y x i d e s a n d jars, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r e w i d e r - m o u t h e d a n d p r e s u m a b l y h e l d a m o r e v i s c o u s s u b s t a n c e s u c h as h o n e y o r e v e n a s o l i d . 36 these s h a p e s , e v e n t h o u g h c l o s e d , a r e f ar m o r e c o m m o n l y f o u n d i n s e t t l e m e n t t h a n in f u n e r a r y c o n t e x t s , w h e t h e r in t h e C y c l a d e s o r o u t s i d e t h e i r a r e a of m a n u f a c t u r e . This fact could b e i n t e r p r e t e d to m e a n that, e v e n w h e n i m p o r t e d , s u c h v e s s e l s h a d n o p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e as c o n t a i n e r s b u t w e r e e x c h a n g e d p r i m a r i l y f o r c o n t e n t s w h i c h w e r e r e g u l a r l y u s e d in d a i l y l ife, a l t h o u g h o t h e r i n t e r ­ p r e t a t i o n s a r e e q u a l l y p l a u s i b l e a n d it is p r o b a b l y p r e m a t u r e to i n s i s t o n any p a r t i c u l a r o n e at this t i m e . H o w e v e r , the fact t hat a c o n t a i n e r s u c h as t h e d u c k v a s e w a s i m i t a t e d in a r e a s o n t h e f r i n g e s o f its n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n a l r a n g e (v i z . C y p r u s to t h e s o u t h e a s t , B e y c e s u l t a n to t he e a s t , a n d p e r h a p s T r o y to t h e n o r t h e a s t ) m a y b e a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h e s h a p e 1s n o r m a l c o n t e n t s w a s c o n s i d e r a b l e , s u f f i c i e n t to g e n e r a t e a l o c a l d e m a n d n o t m e r e l y for i m i t a t i o n s of t h a t c o m m o d i t y b u t e v e n for i m i t a t i o n s o f its u s u a l container. The a r c h a e o l o g i c a l v a l u e of the d uck v a s e at the p r e s e n t time thus l ies n o t so m u c h in i t s u t i l i t y as a p r e c i s e c h r o n o l o g i c a l m a r k e r n o r in its i n d i c a t i o n o f a v a g u e l y d e f i n e d " C y c l a d i c i n f l u e n c e " i n m a i n l a n d a r e a s o n e i t h e r s i d e of t h e A e g e a n as i n i ts t e s t i m o n y , a l o n g w i t h t h a t of s e v e r a l e q u a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e b u t r a t h e r l e s s c o m m o n v e s s e l f o r m s , to t h e p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e n c e o f a C y c l a d i c e x p o r t t r a d e in o n e o r m o r e p e r i s h a b l e c o m m o d i t i e s d u r i n g t h e e a r l i e r M i d d l e B r o n z e Ag e . What c o m m o d i t i e s w e r e in fact b e i n g t r a n s p o r t e d from the i s l a n d s in these duck vases and p y x i d e s ? ^ 7 That these contents were luxury items rather than d a i l y n e c e s s i t i e s seems clear from the small size of the c o n t a i n e r s in q u e s t i o n , t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y c o m p l e x d e c o r a t i o n , a n d t h e i r c o m p a r a t i v e rarity; t h e s e v e s s e l s w e r e c e r t a i n l y n e i t h e r as c a p a c i o u s n o r as p l a i n l y u t i l i t a r i a n n o r a n y t h i n g l i k e as c o m m o n as t h e C l a s s i c a l a m p h o r a or the L a t e B r o n z e A g e s t i r r u p jar. W h y d i d C r e t e p a r t i c i p a t e so s p a r i n g l y in w h a t w a s c l e a r l y a f a r - f l u n g A e g e a n e x c h a n g e n e t w o r k in t he e a r l y s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m B.C.? W h a t d o e s the d i s a p p e a r a n c e of d u c k va s e s and othe r o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d Cy c l a d i c v essel forms s i g n i f y 8 8 , and wh at if a n y c o n n e c t i o n e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h i s d i s a p p e a r a n c e a n d t h e r i s e of M i n o a n c o m m e r c e in t h e s o u t h e r n A e g e a n d u r i n g t h e O l d P a l a c e p e r i o d ? T h e s e a n d r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s lie w e l l b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h i s p a p e r a n d s o l u t i o n s to t h e m w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f m u c h m o r e in the w a y of d a t a than the t y p o l o g i e s and s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f a f e w c e r a m i c t y pes. W h a t is c l a i m e d h e r e is t h a t the A e g e a n * s e a r l i e s t k n o w n e x c h a n g e s y s t e m in p e r i s h a b l e g o o d s c a n be h y p o t h e s i z e d on the b a s i s of a b r o a d d i s t r i b u t i o n of a s i n g l e c l o s e d , f u n c t i o n a l l y p r e s c r i b e d v e s s e l form. If t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d a b o v e are c o n s i d e r e d v a l i d , this c o m m e r c i a l n e t w o r k and the m a n n e r o f its i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i l l h o p e f u l l y b e d e e m e d w o r t h y of further study, the f o r m e r for s p e c i f i c c u l t u r e - h i s t o r i c a l r e a s o n s but the l a t t e r b e c a u s e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r i ts m o r e g e n e r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y in o t h e r p e r i o d s a n d p l a c e s .

Jeremy B. Rutter Dartmouth College

577

FOOTNOTES Acknowledgements: I am greatly indebted to M.S. Joukowsky, J.A. MacGillivray, J.C. Overbeck, and C.W. Zerner for unpublished information and to J.L. Davis for several helpful references. J.C. Overbeck, J.C. Wright, and C.W. Zerner have very kindly allowed me to refer to unpublished material under their control. For useful comment and criticism on an earlier draft of this article, I am extremely grateful to, aside from those scholars already mentioned, R.L.N. Barber, S.S. Brown, J.F. Cherry, J. Coleman, P. Getz-Preziosi, and C. Runnels. Such errors and oversights as may remain are, of course, entirely my own. 1.

Mayer 1907?

Milojcic 1950?

Rtldiger 1966.

2.

Renfrew 1972: 189, 192, 203, 207, figs. 12.2.5, 12.4, pi. 12? Dietz 1974? Kaiser 1976: 62-3? Wtinsche 1977: 52-4? Merrillees 1979. For the origin of the name and the amusing possibility that the Greek workmen who christened the shape at Phylakopi in the 1890's were actually calling it a "bedpan" rather than a "duck", see Merrillees 1979:9. Merrillees* catalogue of examples (1979: 27-40) differs considerably from that appended to the present article. He chose to omit almost thirty fragments, mostly from Kalymnos, Melos, Paros, and Samos. He inevitably overlooked a few pieces, as no doubt I have also, and he included a number of pieces which for one reason or another I refuse to accept as valid examples (see especially notes 4-6 below). Another five pieces have been published since he wrote. Several still unpublished pieces from Lerna and Ayia Irini have been listed here thanks to the generous cooperation of C.W. Zerner and J.C. Overbeck respectively, the two scholars who will be publishing the relevant fragments in detail. Overbeck has also been kind enough to share with me some recently collected information on the numerous fragments from Rubensohn's excavations at Paroikia on Paros.

3.

For the difficulties of establishing a shape typology of duck vases and for an apposite critique of Dietz' classification of 1974, see Merrillees 1979: 11-2. The task of classification is further complicated by the generally poor standard of description and illustration of published duck vases (ibid.: 12), while personal examination of these same pieces is rendered time-consuming in the extreme by the broad dispersal of the material throughout a large number of museums in at least five different countries. The additional fact that significant numbers of un­ published examples, albeit highly fragmentary, exist from Ayia Irini on Keos, Lerna, Paroikia on Paros, Phylakopi on Melos, and no doubt other sites such as Athens and Kolonna on Aegina renders the goal of a comprehensive classification by shape in effect unrealizable at the present time. In any event, a typology based on shape would not be well suited for the classification of fragmentary specimens, since many of the criteria required for attribution to a particular morphological type would simply not be preserved in such cases.

4.

Eliminated by this prescription are askoi having legs, such as an example from the Samian Heraion (Milojcic 1961: 16, 48, 65, 72, pi. 19:8? Merrillees 1979: 38 Samos #3) and a matt-painted specimen from Eutresis (Goldman 1931: 160, fig. 223), as well as askoi with round bottoms such as the four imitations from Cyprus (Merrillees 1979: 14-5).

5.

Eliminated by this prescription, in addition to the piece from the Samian Heraion cited above in note 4, are basket-handled vessels from Thera (Renfrew 1972: pi. 12.2) and Phylakopi (Atkinson et al. 1904: 89-90, fig. 74) otherwise quite similar to the true duck vase. Considered true duck vases here, perhaps incon­ sistently, are a couple of miniature examples from Samos which lack a handle of any kind (Milojcic 1961: pis. 15:2, 42:17, 49:16).

578

6.

Disqualified by this requirement and therefore considered local imitations are fragments from Beycesultan IX (Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 214-5, fig. P.53:1; Merrillees 1979: 30 Beycesultan #1) and Troy V (Blegen et a L 1951: 249, 281, fig. 256:41? Merrillees 1979: 40 Troy #3), as well as the piece from Eutresis cited above in note 4. Also disqualified for this reason is an Early Helladic II askos from Lerna III (Caskey 1954: pi, 11a? Merrillees 1979: 32-3 Lerna #2). The four known Cypriote imitations (Merrillees 1979: 14-5) are once again excluded from consideration as true duck vases on this basis. A few published sherds whose claim to be fragments of true duck vases cannot be rated very highly have nevertheless been retained in the Appendix at its end under the heading "Possible Duck Vase Fragments".

7.

A significant number of pieces, especially spout fragments, cannot be assigned with certainty to one or the other of these decorative classes and consequently are listed under the rubric "Decorative Treatment Undeterminable" (Appendix V ) . Note that the plain class includes both vases said to be solidly coated with a colored slip (usually red, brown, or black) and vases evidently altogether lacking a slip? the reason for making no distinction between the two is the simple fact that very few archaeologists seem to mean the same thing by the term "slip" and hence there can be no certainty that the treatment of all otherwise plain duck vases described as "slipped" is in fact the same. The application of a burnish to vessel surfaces in the plain, ribbed, and incised classes is normal but by no means universal.

8.

Renfrew's listing of Naxos and Dhaskalio (1972: fig. 12.4) among the findspots of duck vases cannot be confirmed by published illustrations, although neither locality would be in any way surprising as a source of such vessels.

9.

For Crete, ibid.: 192? note, however, the existence of bird-shaped askoi of quite different forms in Early Minoan Crete (Branigan 1970: 111, pi.12b), from w^hich an example found at Ano Kouphonisi in the Cyclades was probably imported (Zapheiropoulou 1983: 86 fig. 16). For the Cypriote imitations, Merrillees 1979:14-5. For the imitations from Beycesultan and perhaps also from Troy, see the end of the Appendix.

10.

For the highly distinctive fabric of some Aeginetan pottery and its importation in considerable quantities into Lerna at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, see Wtinsche 1977; 115 and Zerner 1978: 150, 156.

11.

The lack of large numbers of duck vases from Naxos is explained by the fact that no large settlement site of the Phylakopi I culture comparable to Paroikia or Phylakopi has yet been excavated on this island? the same may be said of both Amorgos and Thera. To judge from the relatively small number of duck vase fragments apparently found at Ayia Irini on Keos, examples of the form were either imported to the site or local production of it was minimal? no doubt also partially responsible for the paucity of examples from this site is the fact that occupation in the Middle Bronze Age is not certainly attested there prior to a phase corresponding to MH II on the Mainland and MM IB on Crete, a period apparently following the era of the duck vase's maximum popularity (Overbeck and Overbeck 1979: 114-7? Rutter 1983: 75? Barber 1983: 78-9). The two dark-on-light patternpainted examples from Rhodes (Dietz 1974) are not well paralleled elsewhere, but in the present state of our knowledge these could as well be imports from Paros, Naxos, or Amorgos as local Rhodian products.

12.

Merrillees 1979: 9-11.

13.

For the Kastri askoi, see Bossert 1967: 70, fig. 5:1-2 and Catling and MacGillivray 1983: 7 n. 50. J.A. MacGillivray has kindly informed me that the example not published and illustrated by Bossert is on display in the Ermoupolis (Syros) Museum?

579

labelled as Inv. No. 790, this piece is decorated with three horizontal rows of zigzags. For the debate over the date of the Kastri fort relative to the floruit of the Phylakopi I culture, see Barber and MacGillivray 1980? Rutter 1983? Barber 1983? MacGillivray 1983? Rutter 1984? Barber 1984? MacGillivray 1984. 14.

Renfrew 1972: 533? Doumas 1977: 23? Barber and MacGillivray 1980: 151? Gillivray 1983: 83? Catling and MacGillivray 1983:7.

15.

The standard closed shapes in earlier phases of the Early Cycladic period are the pyxis, the jug, the footed jar, and the bottle: Doumas 1977; 15-22? Barber and MacGillivray 1980: 144-50, ill. 2. For an askos probably imported into the Cyclades from Crete at a date well before that of the Kastri fort, see above note 9. A recently published askoid vase from the Panormos area of Naxos, in some ways strongly reminiscent of the duck vase and yet quite different from the protoduck-vases of Kastri, unfortunately lacks a context and has therefore been dated on purely typological grounds to a broadly defined Early Cycladic III period including both the era of the Kastri fort's occupation and that of the later duck vase's floruit(Bossert 1983: 123-5, fig. 1:16, pi. 37: 16). The currency of askoid vessels throughout the Cyclades at a stage preceding the Kastri fort is perhaps to be inferred from a pair of spout fragments and a handle found in Ayia Irini II on Keos (Caskey 1972: 366, fig. 3: B39, pi. 78: B38? Bossert 1983: 125 n. 13). However, the absence of such a form at other Early Cycladic II sites and its rarity even at Ayia Irini suggest that these fragments are better viewed as evidence for the occasional imitation of a Mainland Greek form on nearby Keos than as examples of a genuinely Cycladic ceramic form at this early date.

16.

For Early Helladic II askoi, see Kunze 1934: 24-7 (Orchomenos), Mtiller 1938: 22-4 (Tiryns), and Caskey 1960: 290 (Lerna), to name just a few southern and central Greek sites where they are common. For Western Anatolia, see Podzuweit 1979: 229-30 type 11BII (for early examples from Poliochni, Thermi, and Yortan) and Hood 1981: 188-9, 393 nos. 1170-1173, fig. 177, pis. 68-69 (for early examples from Emporio IV). The askoi of Podzuweit's type 11BI (1979: 229) are contemporary v/ith, indeed include, examples of the later true duck vase and so can hardly be cited as prototypes for the Kastri askoi.

17.

An Anatolian origin for the Kastri askoi is somewhat diffidently suggested by Catling and MacGillivray (1983: 7 and n. 51).

18.

For a flat-based bird-like askos from Emporio, see Hood 1981: 393 no. 1173, fig. 177, pi. 69. For the pronounced zoomorphic character of Western Anatolian askoi, see Hood 1981: 188-9 and Podzuweit 1979: 229. That the three-legged Western Anatolian form co-existed with the true duck vase is clear from discoveries on both sides of the Aegean: Milojcic 1961: 16 nos. 1-2, pis. 18:1-2, 19:8, 38:16 (Samos)? Goldman 1931: 160, 182-5, figs. 223, 255:1-2, 256 (Eutresis). Perhaps closest to the Kastri askoi from the Western Anatolian cultural sphere is a spout and handle fragment from the Samian Heraion which, however, lacks a context (Milojcic 1961: 48, 75, pi. 49:17).

19.

Mtiller identified the three forms of Early Helladic II askos and felt that one of them fully deserved to be called a "duck vase" (1938: 22-4). For examples of the scoop, see Mtiller 1938: pi. IX:7-8 (Tiryns), Blegen 1928: figs. 82-83 (Zygouries), Blegen 1931: 68 fig. 18 (Gonia), Kunze 1934: fig. 5, pi. XXII:1 (Orchomenos), and Caskey 1956: pi. 46e (Lerna). For examples of the round-mouthed askoid jug, see Mtiller 1938; fig. 11, pi. IX:3 (Tiryns), Kunze 1934: pis. VII-VIII (Orchomenos), and Sotiriadis 1912: 272 fig. 13, upper right? Milojcic 1950: fig. 1:5 (Ayia Marina)? a variant of this form has a basket-handle aligned on an axis perpen­ dicular to that defined by the neck (Schliemann 1976: 67 no. 5? Blegen 1928:

580

Mac­

pi. XII:2). For examples of the Mainland proto-duck vases, see Mtiller 1938: fig. 13, pi. IX:2, 6 (Tiryns) for the basket-handled variant and Mtiller 1938: fig. 12 (Tiryns) and Caskey 1954: pi. 11a (Lerna) for the rim-handled version. 20.

Published examples come from Ayia Marina (Kunze 1934: 27 n. 2; Milojcic 1950: fig. 1:6), Gonia (Blegen 1931: 74, fig. 20), Olympia (Weege 1911: figs. 2-4; Ddrpfeld 1935: figs. 10:4, 12:2, 16:2, 19, pi. 22:13; Koumouzelis 1980: 150, pi. 94), Thebes (Touloupa 1964; 192, pi. 222b), and Tiryns (Mtiller 1938: 23, pi. IX:1). A vase from Kolonna on Aegina is almost more of a beaked jug (Walter and Felten 1981: 160 no. 204, pi. 94). Of the large number of examples from Lerna IV, five were fully enough preserved to be inventoried but none have yet been published. Askoid cups from central Greece may also be descended from the EH II scoop: Sotiriadis 1912: 272 fig. 13, bottom, second from left; Fimmen 1924: fig. 128, right; Milojcic 1950; fig. 1:7-8 (Ayia Marina); Kunze 1934: pi. XX:4 (Orchomenos).

21.

Published examples come from Ayia Marina (Sotiriadis 1912: 272 fig. 13, bottom center; Fimmen 1924: fig. 128, left; Milojcic 1950: fig. 1:1) and Lerna (Caskey 1966: pi. 55; 18, with basket-rather than neck-handle; Rutter 1982: 469-70 nos. 33-34, fig. 2, pi. 100). A fully restorable example (Inv. No. 806-2-7) was found at Tsoungiza (Nemea) in 1984, for permission to mention which I am grateful to J.C. Wright.

22.

Fragments or fully restorable examples of at least seven such vases come from Ayia Marina (Sotiriadis 1912: 271 fig. 12, upper and lower left, 273 fig. 14, left and center? Milojcic 1950: fig. 1:2, 4). Fragments of two more come from Eutresis (Goldman 1931: fig. 155:4 plus an unpublished handle) and possibly yet two more from Orchomenos (Kunze 1934: pi. I X :2-3).

23.

The two vases from Thera and Melos

24.

Blegen 1931: 79 fig. 36? the base is, to be sure not preserved, but there seems no reason to doubt that it was flat. The spare incised decoration, consisting of no more than a complex "potters' mark", and the lack of a burnish are atypical of Cycladic examples. Note, however, the close resemblance between the anthro­ pomorphic form of this "potters' mark" and the figure of a helmsman incised on a duck vase from Phylakopi (Atkinson et al. 1904; pi. V:8C).

25.

Mountjoy 1980: 142 no. 8, fig. 1:8, pi. 12b? despite the missing mouth and uppermost neck, the identification of this piece as a true duck vase seems unobjectionable. For the decoration, compare that on an early EH III round­ mouthed askoid jug from Lerna (Rutter 1982: 469 no. 33, fig. 2, pi. 100).

26.

For examples of the Peloponnesian rim-handled proto-duck-vase, see Mtiller 1938: fig. 12 and Caskey 1954: pi. 11a. For the leaf-shaped mouth on Early Cycladic jugs and teapots, see Zervos 1957; figs. 192-196 and Renfrew 1972: 533-4, pi. 9: 1-2. Edgar, to some extent following the lead of Dtimmler (1886: 37), theorized that the duck vase in fact originated as an imitation of a teapot of the above type, fitted with a conical lid (Atkinson et al. 1904: 89), a notion which has some appeal although it fails to explain the appearance of the duck vase's neckhandle.

27.

For duck vases in western Aegean contexts, see Goldman 1931: 182-3? Immerwahr 1971: 54, 58; Pantelidou 1975: 161; Overbeck and Overbeck 1979: 114-7? Rutter 1983: 70-1 and n. 13. The claim by Wtinsche (1977: 51-9) that two chronologically distinct types of duck vase as well as of truncated conical pyxis can be identified at Kolonna on Aegina, one in each case datable to Early Helladic III and the other to Middle Helladic, has received no support from the recently published excavations at the site (Walter and Felten 1981).

(Phylakopi) cited above in note 5.

581

28.

For the absolute chronology followed here, see Warren 1980.

29.

Certain subtypes of the duck vase may, however, be quite sensitive chronologically. Thus the ribbed class, whose decoration Wtlnsche aptly compares to that on the shoulders of Argive Minyan goblets (1977: 53), is likely to represent a late stage of development perhaps restricted to the 19th century B.C. Some of the decoratively differentiated groups within the incised class may conceivably represent not simply the output of specific sites but the products of a single workshop or even of a single potter.

30.

Renfrew 1972: 284;

31.

For a selection of Early Cycladic narrow-necked jugs, see, in addition to those cited in note 26 above, Tsountas 1898: pi. 9:26? 1899: pis. 8:10, 9:2? Doumas 1968: nos. 95-96, 236, 238, 260. I am grateful to C.W. Zerner for drawing my attention to the incised bottles characteristic of the Early Cycladic Kampos group and of some Early Minoan sites in northern Crete (Barber and MacGillivray 1980: ill. 2:7), from which the often elaborately incised early Middle Helladic flasks of Lerna VA and other Mainland Greek sites may possibly be descended (Zerner 1978: 180-6). All such bottles and flasks must, of course, have been pouring vessels, but their necks, especially in the cases of the Mainland flasks, are considerably broader than those of duck vases. Neither flasks nor bottles can be said to have been designed specifically for slow and relatively awkward pouring.

32.

For interesting earlier discussions of DtLmxnler's theory (1886: 37) that the duck vase was the ancestor of the later stirrup jar, see Atkinson et al. 1904: 89-90 and Rubensohn 1917: 19. Note the parallel between the broad, flattened lip of Corinthian aryballoi and the similar lip profile, usually inclined slightly towards the interior of the neck, on duck vases. This feature, less pronounced on Early Cycladic jugs and teapots which share with the duck vase a leaf-shaped mouth for precision of pouring, presumably has some functionally related purpose such as the elimination of dripping or at least some reduction in spillage. For the nature of the contents of duck vases, see also notes 36 and 37 below.

33.

For duck vases bearing "potters' marks", see Blegen 1931: 79 fig. 36 (Gonia), Caskey 1957: 152, pi. 42d (Lerna), and Walter and Felten 1981: 172 no. 393, pis. 115, 124. For Early and Middle Bronze Age potmarks in general, see Renfrew 1972: 411-4? Ddhl 1978? Zerner 1978: 150, 156; Walter and Felten 1981: 125-6, 186 n. 255, pis. 124-125? Bikaki 1984. Such "potters' marks" are particularly common both in the Cyclades and on the Greek Mainland during the period when the duck vase flourished and are perhaps above all to be associated with Aeginetan, Kean, and Melian ceramic production.

34.

For truncated conical pyxides, see Tsountas 1899: pi. 9:24 (right); Atkinson et al. 1904: 87, pis. IV:l-3, V:l-6? Rubensohn 1917: 24-5, 42-3, 49-50, figs. 42-43, 52, 54? Blinkenberg and Johansen 1931: 31, pi. 37:5? Brock and Mackworth Young 1949: 31 no. 2, pi. 12:6? Zervos 1957: figs. 85, 198? Renfrew 1972: fig. 12.2:1-2, pi. 10:3 (Cyclades)? Renfrew 1972: pi. 10:6; Wtlnsche 1977: 54-5, 58, figs. 34-35, pi. IXb (Aegina)? Wide 1896: 394, pi. XV:3? Broneer 1933: 357, fig. 27:c,i,j; Immerwahr 1971: 72-3 nos. 253-254, pis. 16, 70 (Attica). For cylindrical and concave-sided pyxides, see Caskey 1972: 383 D137, fig. 9, pi. 84 (Cyclades)? Wtlnsche 1977: 54-5, 58, pi. IXc-d (Aegina)? Goldman 1931: 129, 182, fig. 253:2, pi. IX:1 (Boeotia)? Evans 1921: 167 fig. 118b:3? Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923: 5 fig. 2; MacGillivray 1984 (Crete). Also from Ayia Irini on Keos are a cylindrical pyxis fragment preserving a small foot and a probable concave­ sided pyxis fragment bearing incised and impressed decoration? for information concerning these two as yet unpublished pieces and permission to mention them here,

Dietz 1974: 138-9?

582

Merrillees 1979: 9.

I am very grateful to J.C. Overbeck. Two horizontally grooved pyxides from Eleusis (Mylonas 1932: 74 fig. 49, nos. 67-68) seem to be local imitations in Gray Minyan of similarly decorated concave-sided pyxides known from both Aegina and Boeotia. For the lids associated with both groups of pyxides, see Tsountas 1899: pi. 9:24 (left)? Atkinson et al. 1904: 87-8, fig. 72, pi. I V :4-5; Rubensohn 1917: 25 , 34 , 43 ,50,figs. 17, 30, 44, 52-53? Blinkenberg and Johansen 1931: 31, pi. 37:5? Zervos 1957: figs. 197-198? Caskey 1972: 383 D138, fig. 9, pi. 84? Renfrew 1972: fig. 12.2:3-4, pi. 10:5 (Cyclades)? Renfrew 1972: pi. 10:6? Wllnsche 1977: 55-8, figs. 36-38, pi. IXf-g? Walter and Felten 1981: 172 no. 394, 174 no. 418, figs. 115, 128, pis. 115, 118 (Aegina)? Goldman 1931: 182, figs. 253:1, 254 (Boeotia)? Wide 1896: 394, pi. XIV;1? Mylonas 1932: 104-6, fig. 84:7? Hansen 1937: 545, fig. 4d? Immerwahr 1971: 73 no. 255, pi. 16 (Attica)? Evans 1921: 167 fig. 118b:l-2? MacGillivray 1984 (Crete). For information about and permission to mention an imported conical lid fragment decorated with small triangular impressions from Lot DE 537 of the developed Middle Helladic period at Lerna, I am very grateful to C.W. Zerner. For the vertically ribbed jar, see Atkinson et al. 1904: 154 fig. 138? Doumas 1976: 8 no. 1717, fig. 4, pi. lb: left? Marthari 1983: 95 no. 3, fig. 13, upper right (Cyclades)? Walter and Felten 1981; 171-2 no. 392, fig. 108, pi. 115 (Aegina)? Goldman 1931: 129, pi. XI:3 (Boeotia)? MacGillivray 1984 (Crete). For the four legged rhyton, see Atkinson et al. 19C4; 91, fig. 75, pi. IV:7? Lamb 1936: 1, pi. 1:1; Zervos 1957: figs. 96-98 (Cyclades)? Goldman 1931: 183-4, fig. 257, pi. XII:1 (Boeotia). For the ring vase, see Atkinson et al. 1904: 91, pi. IV:9? Zervos 1957: fig. 94 (Cyclades); Immerwahr 1971: 59 n. 56, 73 no. 257, pi. 17 (Attica). For a thorough discussion of the Cycladic examples of these types in the context of the full range of shapes in this dark-surfaced and incised class, see Barber 1984. MacGillivray, who considers the cylindrical pyxides and associated lids of MM I date from Knossos and Palaikastro to be probably Melian (1984), observes of the numerous pieces of this imported class which he has identified at Knossos itself: "Oddly enough, among the 37 pieces I've inventoried from Knossos there are no duck vases! Whatever they contained was of no use or interest to the Minoans, while the presumably dry contents of the pyxides w*ere very much in demand" (pers. comm., 4 October 1984). As it happens, the cylindrical pyxides imported in some quantity to Crete are poorly represented in the Cyclades (Barber 1984, who never­ theless correctly stresses the descent of this shape from an Early Cycladic II form) and far more abundantly attested on Aegina and in Attica and Boeotia. Could it be that this particular form in the early Middle Bronze Age was more Aeginetan than Cycladic, in which case the imports at Knossos argue more for Minoan contacts with Aegina in MM IA than with the islands of the central Aegean? 35.

Some Cycladic bowls also appear to have reached the Greek Mainland in the early Middle Bronze Age, but these are rare in comparison to the copious numbers of closed shapes, particularly duck vases? see Immerwahr 1971: 72 no. 251, pis. 16, 70? Rutter 1982: 472 n. 14.

36.

Note the comparable dichotomy between narrow-necked and wide-necked containers in the later Mycenaean export trade to the Near East (Leonard 1981). The utilization of both narrow-necked and wide-mouthed containers for the transport of a single class of perishable produce is, interestingly enough, attested in the case of the trade in garum in the Roman Western Mediterranean (Ponsich and Tarradell 1965: 93-118, pi. XIII? for the most recent bibliography, see Curtis 1984a, 1984b). Of considerable value and traded in large quantities during the late Republican and Imperial periods, this commodity was evidently known in the Aegean as early as the fifth century B.C. v;hen it is mentioned by both Aeschylus and Sophocles (Ziegler and Sontheimer 1979: 709-1). The etymology of the Greek word garos from which the Latin word garum is derived is unknown (Frisk 1960; 290-1? Chantraine 1968: 211). There seems no reason to

583

doubt that a highly valued sauce like garum, which presumably also served as a salt substitute, might have been the substance which in either liquid or paste form filled the distinctive range of dark-surfaced and incised containers surveyed in note 34. Of course, the fact that garum is a fish product, and thus a marine resource particularly suitable for exploitation by the Aegean islanders, only makes the identification of these vessels' contents as various forms of garum more appealing. That duck vases contained a fish product of some kind may conceivably be implied by the painted decoration (a rov; of vertically oriented fish, arguably hung up by the head) on a fragmentary beak-spouted closed vessel from Phylakopi (Atkinson et al. 1904: 100, pi. IX:11), which some authorities identify as a duck vase (e.g. Barber 1984) although its sharp back gives it a highly unusual body profile which Atkinson compared to that of a fish itself and by which the vase in question is clearly differentiated from the true duck vase as herein defined. I am extremely grateful to E.L. Will for originally suggesting fish sauce(s) to me as the possible contents of duck vases. 37.

It is difficult to conceive of the Aegean islands, even the larger and more fertile ones, as net exporters of plain olive oil to the Greek and Western Anatolian Mainlands. Either olive oil was combined with an additive peculiar to or particularly abundant on the islands or some other liquid altogether was being transported, possibly a special liqueur or a marine product of some kind (see above, note 36). If such a product were readily available on Crete, the failure of Crete to import it from the islands wrould be readily intelligible, although why the Cretans chose not to produce it for export themselves might require some explanation, especially in view of their contemporary interest in external exchanges of some other kind with the southeastern Greek Mainland (Rutter and Zerner 1984).

38.

To J. Davis I owe the pertinent observation that vdiat requires explanation may not be the disappearance of duck vases in the later Middle Cycladic period so much as their replacement by functionally equivalent but formally distinct vessel shapes.

584

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF KNOWN DUCK VASES

I.

Dark-on-Light Pattern Painted Fully preserved or Restorable 1. Rhodes, Lakki (Copenhagen NM 12500) - Dietz 1974: 134 fig. 1; Merrillees 1979: 37 Rhodes #2, pi. 111:4. 2. Rhodes, neighborhood of Vati (Copenhagen NM 5769) - Dietz 1974: 136 fig. 2? Merrillees 1979: 37 Rhodes #1. Fragments 1. Keos, Ayia Irini, presumably period IV though from a later context Unpublished (Cycladic White fabric). 2. Melos, Phylakopi (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GG.80) - Lamb 1936: 2 no. 16, pi. 1:16. 3. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 140 - Rubensohn 1917: 54, fig. 57; Merrillees 1979: 36 Paros #12. 4. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 141 - Rubensohn 1917: 55, Merrillees 1979: 36 Paros #13 (False neck?). 5. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 177 - Rubensohn 1917: 55; Merrillees 1979: 36 Paros #14 (Actually unpainted as preserved). 6. Paros, Paroikia - Rubensohn 1917:54-5? Merrillees 1979: 36-7 Paros #15.

II.

Horizontally Ribbed Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Aegina, Kolonna - Welter 1938: 14 fig. 14? Wtlnsche 1977: 119no. 45, pi. VIlie? Merrillees 1979: 28 Aegina #3. 2. Aegina, Kolonna - Welter 1938: 14 fig. 15? Renfrew 1972: pi. 12:5; Wtlnsche 1977: 120 no. 46, pi. VIIId? Merrillees 1979: 28 Aegina #4. 3. Amorgos, Cist Grave E (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1893.77 = AE 265) - Renfrev1972: pi. 12:6? Merrillees 1979: 29 Amorgos #3, pi. 111:1. Fragments 1. Athens, Agora Well T 2 4 :1 (Agora Museum P9742) - Immerwahr 1971: 58, 73, pis. 17:256, 70:256? Merrillees 1979: 30 Athens #8. 2. Athens, Odos Garibaldi Tomb 2 - Pantelidou 1975: 52 no, 3, pi, 3a? Merrillees 1979: 30 Athens #4. 3. Athens, Odos Garibaldi Tomb 2 - Pantelidou 1975: 52 no. 4, pi. 3b, left? Merrillees 1979: 30 Athens #5. 4. Eutresis, Middle Helladic House X, Inv. No. 232 - Goldman 1931: 183, fig. 255:2; Merrillees 1979: 31 Eutresis #2. 5. Eutresis, Middle Helladic House X, Inv. No. 241 - Goldman 1931: 183, fig. 256:1? Merrillees 1979: 31-2 Eutresis #3. 6. Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVb (early), Group AB - Overbeck and Overbeck 1979: 114, fig. 10, left. 7. Lerna V, Lots DE 457 and 468 - Unpublished (Neck and body sherds).

III.

Solidly Slipped or Plain Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Athens, bothros west of Asklepieion on Acropolis South Slope - Platon 24, pi. 14b, second from left; Immerwahr 1971: 54 n. 18? Merrillees 30 Athens #7 (Black slip). 2. Lerna V, Inv. No. L.977 - Caskey 1957: 152, pi. 42d? Merrillees 1979: Lerna #1 (Red to reddish brown slipped and burnished). 3. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 1 - Rubensohn 1917: 19, fig. 8? Merrillees 34 Paros #1 (Dark burnished).

585

1964: 1979: 32 1979:

4. 5.

Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 9 - Rubensohn 1917: 22, fig. 12? Merrillees 1979: 35 Paros #3 (Red burnished). Troy - Schliemann 1884: 216 no. 130? Schmidt 1902: 92 no. 2066? Mayer 1907: 228 fig. 28? Merrillees 1979: 39-40 Troy #1 (Dark yellow slip).

Fragments 1. Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVa/b, Group R - Unpublished. 2. Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVb (late), Group AS - Unpublished. 3. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 10 - Rubensohn 1917: 22? Merrillees Paros #4. 4. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 11 - Rubensohn 1917: 22? Merrillees Paros #5. 5. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 12 - Rubensohn 1917; 22? Merrillees Paros #6. 6. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 13 - Rubensohn 1917; 22? Merrillees Paros #7. 7. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 14 - Rubensohn 1917: 22? Merrillees Paros #8. 8. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 53b - Rubensohn 1917: 22; Merrillees Paros #9. IV.

1979: 35 1979: 35 1979: 35 1979: 35 1979: 35 1979: 35

Incised A.

The Concentric Circle Group

Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. "Asia Minor" (?) (Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 2922) - Kaiser 1976: 62-3, pi. 17:1-3. 2. Melos, Phylakopi I (Athens NM 5705) - Atkinson et al. 1904: 88-91, pi. IV:6? Servos 1957: fig. 95; Merrillees 1979: 33 Melos #1. 3. Melos, Phylakopi (?) (Mus^e National de Sevres 1419, 7) - Zervos 1957: fig. 93 (misnumbered 100); Merrillees 1979: 33-4 Melos #4, pi. Ill:2. 4. Melos, Phylakopi (?) (London BM 1865, 12-14, 39 = A 330) - Forsdyke 1925: 59 fig. 68, pi. V:A 330; Furness 1956: fig. 11:4? Zervos 1957: fig. 92 (misnumbered 99)? Merrillees 1979: 34 Melos #5, pi. 111:3. 5. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:13; Merrillees 1979: 39 Samos #4. Fragments 1. Melos, Phylakopi I - Atkinson et al, 1904: 90, pi. V:9. B.

The Quatrefoil Group

Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Aphrodisias, Acropolis Trench 3, Complex II - Kadish 1969: 56, 64, pi. 23:7. 2. Melos, Phylakopi I - Atkinson et a l . 1904: 88-91, pi. I V :8? Merrillees 1979: 33 Melos #2. 3. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72-3, pis. 18, 38:16? Merrillees 1979: 38 Samos #2. 4. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 73, pi. 42:17? Merrillees 1979: 39 Samos #15 (Miniature lacking handle). 5. Samos, Heraion IV - Isler 1973: 173, top center. Fragments 1. Kalymnos, Vathy Bay Cave - Furness 1956: 191 fig. 11:1? 34 Kalimnos #1. 2 . Kalymnos, Vathy Bay Cave - Furness 1956: 191, pi. XX:4. 3. Kalymnos, Vathy Bay Cave - Furness 1956; 191, pi. XX:6.

586

Merrillees 1979:

4.

Melos, Phylakopi X - Atkinson at al. 1904: 90, pi. V:12A-B; Furness 1950; 191 fig. 11:2-3. 5. Paros, Paroikia (Paros Museum Inv. No. 1460) - Unpublished. 6. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 20:2-3, 5? Merrillees 1979: 38 Samos #4-6 (Three fragments assigned by Milojcic to the same vase). 7. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:12? Merrillees 1979: 39 Samos #13. C. The Pendent Triangle Group Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Aegina, Kolonna - Wtlnsche 1977: 120 no. 47, fig. 33, pi. IXa (Unburnished). 2. Aegina, Kolonna - Walter 1983: 117 fig. 86. 3. Aegina, Kolonna VII - Walter and Felten 1981: 172 no. 395, pi. 115 (Bird­ shaped vase, perhaps round-bottomed). 4. Paros, Paroikia - Renfrev; 1972: fig. 12.2:5? Merrillees 1979: 35 Paros #1 bis. Fragments 1. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 102 - Mayer 1907: 227 fig. 23? 40, fig. 37? Merrillees 1979: 36 Paros #11. 2. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. Ill - Rubensohn 1917: 40-1. D.

Rubensohn 1917:

The Vertical Panels in One Zone Group

Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Amorgos (Athens NM 5768) - Mayer 1907: 227 fig. 24? Merrillees 1979: 28-9 Amorgos #2. 2. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 65, 71, 75, pis. 15:2, 49:16? Merrillees 1979: 37-8 Samos #1 (Miniature attachment, lacking handle). 3. Thera - Renfrew 1972: pi. 12:1? Merrillees 1979: 39 Thera #1. Fragments 1. Melos, Phylakopi 2. Paros, Paroikia, 1979: 35-6 Paros 3. Paros, Paroikia, 4. Paros, Paroikia, 5. Paros, Paroikia, 6. Paros, Paroikia, E.

I - Atkinson Inv. No. 100 #10. Inv. No. 101 Inv. No. 104 Inv. No. 119 Inv. No. 120

et al. 1904: 90-1 , pi . V :10 . - Rubensohn 1917: 39, fig. 35? -

Rubensohn Rubensohn Rubensohn Rubensohn

1917: 1917: 1917: 1917:

Merrillees

40, fig. 36. 40, fig. 38 (Unburnished) 39. 39.

The Vertical Panels in Multiple Zones Group

Fully Preservable or Restorable 1. Amorgos (Athens NM 2857) - Dtimmler 1886: 23, 37, Beil.2:1? Merrillees 1979: 28 Amorgos #1. 2. Bozhflytik (Istanbul Museum) - Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 214-5, fig. P.53:2? Renfrew 1972: pi. 12:4? Merrillees 1979: 30-1 Bozhtiytik #1. F.

The Punctate Circle Group

Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Athens, Acropolis West (Athens NM 4954) - Pelekides 1915: 34 fig. 1:1? Merrillees 1979: 29 Athens #1. 2. Eutresis, Middle Helladic House A, Inv. No. 139 - Goldman 1931: 182-3, fig. 225:1? Merrillees 1979: 31 Eutresis #1. Fragments 1. Melos, Phylakopi I - Atkinson et al. 1904: 90, pi. V :8A-C. 2. Melos, Phylakopi I - Atkinson et al. 1904: 90-1, pi. V:ll.

587

G-

Miscellaneous

Fully Preservable or Restorable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Aegina, Kolonna - Welter 1938: 14 fig. 12; Renfrew 1972: pi. 12:3; Wtlnsche 1977: 119 no. 43, pi. Villa; Merrillees 1979: 27 Aegina #1. Aegina, Kolonna - Welter 1938: 14 fig. 13; Wtlnsche 1977: 119 no. 44, pi. V U I b ; Merrillees 1979: 27-8 Aegina #2. Athens, Odos Garibaldi Tomb 2 - Pantelidou 1975: 52 no. 2, pi. 2c; Merrillees 1979: 29 Athens #3. "Boeotia” - Mountjoy 1980: 142 no. 8, fig. 1:8, pi. 12b (Unburnished). Brauron - Papademetriou 1963: 35-6, fig. 47: right. Samos, Heraion IV - Isler 1973: 173, top right.

00

Fragments 1. Aegina, Kolonna VII - Walter and Felten 1981: 172 no. 393, pis. 115,. 124. 2. Athens, Acropolis North Slope - Broneer 1933: 358-9, fig. 27h; Merrillees 1979: 29 Athens #2. 3. Gonia, Trench Beta, level IV - Blegen 1931: 79 fig. 36 (Unburnished). 4. Kalymnos, Vathy Bay Cave - Furness 1956: 191, pi. XX:5. 5. Kalymnos, Vathy Bay Cave - Furness 1956: 191, pi. XX:7. 6. Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVb (early), Group AQ - Caskey 1972: 381, pi. 84:056. 7. Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVc, Groups 0 and Al - Unpublished. 8. Melos, Phylakopi - Mayence and Verhoogen 1952: H E 4 no. 13, pi. 4:13. 9. Melos, Phylakopi (Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 2074, 50) - Kaiser 1976: 63, pi. 17:4. 10. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 106 - Rubensohn 1917: 40. 11. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 109 - Rubensohn 1917: 41. 12. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 107 - Rubensohn 1917: 41, fig. 39. 13. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 108 - Rubensohn 1917: 41, fig. 40. 14. Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 103a-b - Rubensohn 1917: 41-2, fig. 41a-b. Paros, Paroikia., Inv. No. 120a - Rubensohn 1911r: 42. 15. Samos, Heraion IV — Milojcic 1961: 65, 72, pi. 23: 1; Merrillees 1979: 16. 38 Samos #7. Merrillees 1979: Samo s , Heraion IV — Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:7; 17. 38-9 Samos #8. Samos, Heraion IV — Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:8; Merrillees 1979: 38-9 Samos #9. Samos, Heraion IV — Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:9; Merrillees 1979: 19. 38-9 Samos #10. Merrillees 1979: Samos, Heraion IV — Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:10; 20. 38-9 Samos #11. Samos, Heraion IV — Milojcic 1961: 48, 65, 72, pi. 24:11; Merrillees 1979: 21. 38-9 Samos #12. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 73, pi. 36: 19. 22. Samos, Heraion IV - Milojcic 1961: 48, 73, pi. 41: 22. 23. V•

Decorative Treatment Undeterminable Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Vrana, Tumulus 1, Grave 2, No. 11 (Athens NM 9220) - Pantelidou 1975: 53 n. 14, 161 n. 3. Fragments 1. Athens, Acropolis North Slope - Hansen 1937: 545, fig. 3e (Unburnished). 2. Eutresis - Goldman 1931: 183; Merrillees 1979: 32 Eutresis #4. 3. Eutresis - Goldman 1931: 183; Merrillees 1979: 32 Eutresis #5. 4. Eutresis - Goldman 1931: 183; Merrillees 1979: 32 Eutresis #6. 5. Lerna V, Lot A 199 - Unpublished (Dark burnished spout).

588

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Lerna V, Lot B 1461 - Unpublished (Brown slipped and burnished spout). Lerna V, Phase AH - Unpublished (Red burnished spout). Paros, Paroikia - Rubensohn 1917: 19 fig. 9? Merrillees 1979: 35 Paros #2 (False neck?). Paros, Paroikia - Rubensohn 1917; 18, fig. 7a (Possibly one of Inv. Nos. 10-14 and 53b listed above in Section III). Paros, Paroikia - Rubensohn 1917; 18, fig. 7b (Possibly one of Inv. Nos. 10-14 and 53b listed above in Section III). Paros, Paroikia - Rubensohn 1917: 18, fig. 7c (Possibly one of Inv. Nos. 10-14 and 53b listed above in Section III). Samos, Heraion - Milojcic 1961: 48, 75, pi. 49:15. Samos, Heraion - Milojcic 1961: 48, 75, pi. 49:18.

POSSIBLE DUCK VASE FRAGMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Eleusis - Mylonas 1932: 106, fig. 84:1. Eleusis - Mylonas 1932: 106, fig. 84:5. Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVb, Group X - Unpublished (Incised body sherd). Keos, Ayia Irini, period IVb, Group Y - Unpublished (Incised body sherd). Paros, Paroikia, Inv. No. 8b - Rubensohn 1917: 33 (Solidly slipped). Troy IVd - Blegen et a l . 1951: 136, 179, fig. 170:13? Merrillees 1979: 40 Troy #2. [Several sherds from Phylakopi on Melos illustrated by Renfrev; (1972: pi. 10:3-4) may also belong to duck vases.] CERTAIN AND POSSIBLE IMITATIONS Fully Preserved or Restorable 1. Cyprus, Lapithos, Vrysi tou Barba T.314B^- no. 27 (Stockholm Medelhavsmuseet) Merrillees 1979: 14 Lapithos #1, pi. I I :5. 2. Cyprus, Lapithos, Vrysi tou Barba Pennsylvania T.9C no. 25 (Nicosia, Cyprus Museum) - Merrillees 1979: 15 Lapithos #2, pi. 11:6-7. 3. Cyprus, Nicosia, Ayia Paraskevi Tomb - Merrillees 1979: 15 Nicosia #1. 4. Cyprus, provenience unknown (de la Penha Collection) - Merrillees 1979: 15 Unknown Site #1. Fragments 1. Beycesultan X - Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 217, fig. P.56:8. 2. Beycesultan IX - Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 215, fig. P53:1. 3. Beycesultan VIII - Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 217, fig. P.56:1. 4. Troy V - Blegen et al. 1951: 249, 281, fig. 256:41.

589

DUCK VASE BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkinson et al

T.D. Atkinson et a l . , Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (London 1904)

Barber 1983

R.L.N. Barber, "The Definition of the Middle Cycladic Period," AJA 87 (1983) 76-81

Barber 1984

R.L.N. Barber, "The Pottery of Phylakopi, First City, Phase ii ( I - i i ) i n R.L.N. Barber and J.A. MacGillivray (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades (forthcoming)

Barber and MacGillivray 1980

R.L.N. Barber and J.A. MacGillivray, "The Early Cycladic Period: Matters of Definition and Terminology," AJA 84 (1980) 141-57

Bikaki 1984

A.H. Bikaki, Keos IV. Ayia Irini: The Potters1 Marks (Mainz 1984)

Blegen 1928

C.W. Blegen, Zygouries. A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae (Cambridge 1928)

Blegen 1931

C.W. Blegen, "Gonia," Metropolitan Museum Studies 31 (1930-31) 55-80

Blegen et al. 1951

C.W. Blegen et al., Troy I I : The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Settlements (Princeton 1951)

Blinkenberg and Johansen 1931

C. Blinkenberg and K.F. Johansen, CVA Denmark 1^ Copenhagen, National Museum 1^ (Copenhagen 1931)

Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923

R.C. Bosanquet and R.M. Dawkins, The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations, 1902-1906 (London 1923)

Bossert 1967

E-M. Bossert, "Kastri auf Syros," AD 22A (1967) 53-76

Bossert 1983

Branigan 1970

E.M. Bossert, "Zu einigen FigurgefMssen von den Kykladen und aus Westkleinasien," in R.M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beitrflge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschrift fttr Kurt Bittel (Mainz 1983) 121-138. K. Branigan, The Foundations of Palatial Crete (London

1970)

“

Brock and Mackworth Young 1949

J.K. Brock and G. Mackworth Young, "Excavations in Siphnos," BSA 44 (1949) 1-92

Broneer 1933

O. Broneer, "Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens, 1931-1932," Hesperia 2 (1933) 329-417

Caskey 1954

J.L. Caskey, "Excavations at Lerna, 1952-1953," Hesperia --- ---23 (1954) 3-30

Caskey 1956

J.L. Caskey, "Excavations at Lerna, 1955," Hesperia 25 (1956) 147-73

Caskey 1957

J.L. Caskey, "Excavations at Lerna, 1956," Hesperia 26 (1957) 142-62 --- -----

Caskey 1960

J.L. Caskey, "The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid," Hesperia 29 (I960) 285-303

Caskey 1966

J.L. Caskey, "Houses of the Fourth Settlement at Lerna," Charisterion eis Anastasion K. Qrlandon III (Athens 1966) 144-52

590

Catling and MacGillivray 1983

H.W. Catling and J.A. MacGillivray, "An Early Cypriot III Vase from the Palace at Knossos," BSA 78 (1983) 1-8

Chantraine 1968

P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque (Paris 1968)

Curtis 1984a

R.I. Curtis, "Negotiatores Allecarii and the Herring," Phoenix 38 (1984) 147-58

Curtis 1984b

R.I. Curtis, "A Personalized Floor Mosaic from Pompeii," AJA 88 (1984) 557-66 ~

Dietz 1974

S. Dietz, "Two Painted Duck-Vases from Rhodes," Acta Archaeologica 45 (1974) 133-43

DOhl 1978

H. D£5hl, "Bronzezeitliche Graffiti aus Tiryns Is Vor dem Brand eingeritzte Zeichen," Kadmos 17 (1978) 115-50

Ddrpfeld 1935

W. D6rpfeld, Alt-Olympia, Untersuchungen und Ausgrabungen zur Geschichte des aitesten Heiligtums von Olympia und der Mlteren griechischen Kunst (Berlin 1935)

Doumas 1968

C. Doumas, The N.JP. Goulandris Collection of Early Cycladic Art (Athens 1968)

Doumas 1976

C. Doumas, "Protokykladike Kerameike apo ta Christiana Theras," AE (1976) 1-11

Doumas 1977

C. Doumas, Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades (Gdteborg 1977)

Dfimmler 1886

F. Dfimmler, "Mitteilungen von den griechischen Inseln. I. Reste vorgriechischer Bevdlkerung auf den Cykladen," AM 11 (1886) 15-46

Evans 1921

A. Evans, The Palace of llinos at Knossos JI (London 1921)

Fimmen 1924

D. Fimmen, Die kretisch-mykenische Kultur (2nd edition) (Leipzig-Berlin 1924)

Forsdyke 1925

E.J. Forsdyke, Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum Is Is Prehistoric Aegean Pottery (London 1925)

Frisk 1960

H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wflrterbuch I (Heidelberg 1960)

Furness 1956

A. Furness, "Some Early Pottery of Samos, Kalimnos and Chios," PPS 22 (1956) 173-212

Goldman 1931

H. Goldman, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia

Hansen 1937

H. Hansen, "The Prehistoric Pottery on the North Slope of the Acropolis, 1937," Hesperia 6 (1937) 539-70

Hood 1981

S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala I (London 1981)

Immerwahr 1971

S.A. Immerwahr, The Athenian Agora XIII: The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton 1971)

Isler 1973

H.P. Isler, "An Early Bronze Age Settlement on Samos," Archaeology 26 (1973) 170-5

Radish 1969

B. Kadish, '*Excavations of Prehistoric Remains at Aphrodisias, 1967,11 AJA 37 (1969) 49-65

Kaiser 1976

B. Kaiser, CVA Deutschland 4 0 . Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 2 (Munich 1976)

591

(Cambridge 1931)

Koumouzelis 1980

M. Koumouzelis, The Early and Middle Helladic Periods in Elis (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University 1980? University Microfilms International 8024537)

Kunze 1934

E. Kunze, Orchomenos III: Die Keramik der frtihen Bronzezeit (Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung. N . F . 8 ) (Munich 1934)

Lamb 1936

W. Lamb, CVA Great Britain 11. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum 2: (Oxford 1936)

Leonard 1981

A. Leonard, Jr., "Considerations of Morphological Variation in the Mycenaean Pottery from the Southeastern Mediterranean," BASOR 241 (1981) 87-101

Lloyd and Mellaart 1962

S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart, Beycesultan l_i The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels (London 1962)

MacGillivray 1983

J.A. MacGillivray, "On the Relative Chronology of Early Cycladic IIIA and Early Helladic III," AJA 87 (1983) 81-3

MacGillivray 1984

J.A. MacGillivray, "The Relative Chronology of Early Cycladic III," in R.L.N. Barber and J.A. MacGillivray (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades (forthcoming)

Marthari 1983

M. Marthari, "Anaskaphe ste These Phtellos Theras," AAA 15 (1983) 86-101

Mayence and Verhoogen 1952

F. Mayence and V. Verhoogen, CVA Belgium 3^. Musees Royaux d fArt et d ^ i s t o i r e (Brussels 1952)

Mayer 1907

M. Mayer, "Askoi," Jdl 22 (1907) 207-35

Merrillees 1979

R.S. Merrillees, "Cyprus, the Cyclades and Crete in the Early to Middle Bronze Ages," in Acts of the International Symposium "The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 B.C.11 (1978) (Nicosia 1979) 8-55

Milojcic 1950

V. Milojcic, "Die Askoskanne und einige andere SgHischbalkanische GefMssformen," Mdl 3 (1950) 107-18

Milojcic 1961

V. Milojcic, Samos 1^: Die prahistorische Besiedlung unter dem Heraion. Grabung 1953 und 1955 (Bonn 1961)

Mountjoy 1980

P.A. Mountjoy, "Some Early and Middle Helladic Pottery from Boeotia," BSA 75 (1980) 139-49

Mtiller 1938

K. Mtiller, Tiryns I V : Die Urfirniskeramik (Munich 1938)

Mylonas 1932

G.E. Mylonas, "Prolstorike Eleusis," in K. Kourouniotes, Eleusiniaka (Athens 1932) 1-172

Overbeck and Overbeck 1979

J.C. and G . F . Overbeck, "Consistency and Diversity in the Middle Cycladic Era," in J.L. Davis and J.F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (Los Angeles 1979) 106-21

Pantelidou 1975

M.A. Pantelidou, Ai Proistorikai Athenai (Athens 1975)

Papademetriou 1963

I. Papademetriou, "Brauron," Ergon 1962

Pelekides 1915

E. Pelekides, "Pelina Angeia Akropoleos," AD 1 (1915) Parartema 34-41

Platon 1964

N. Platon, "Archaiotetes kai Mnemeia Athenon-Attikes," AD 19B1 (1964) 20-38

592

.

(1963) 25-39

Podzuweit 1979

C. Podzuweit, Trojanische GefHssformen der Frtlhbronzezeit in Anatolien, d e r A g & i s und angrenzenden Gebieten. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Stratigraphie (Mainz 1979)

Ponsich and Tarradell 1965

M. Ponsich and M. Tarradell, Garum et Industries Antiques de Salaison dans la MediterranCe Occidentale (Paris 1965)

Renfrew 1972

C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilization. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. (London 1972)

Rubensohn 1917

0. Rubensohn, "Die pr&historischen und frtihgeschichtlichen Funde auf dem Burghtigel von Paros," AM 42 (1917) 1-98

Rildiger 1966

U. Rtidiger, "'Askoi* in Unteritalien," RM 73-74 (1966-67) 1-9

Rutter

J.B. Rutter, "A Group of Distinctive Pattern-decorated Early Helladic III Pottery from Lerna and its Implications," Hesperia 51 (1982) 459-88

1982

Rutter 1983

J.B. Rutter, "Some Observations on the Cyclades in the Later Third and Early Second Millennia," AJA 87 (1983) 69-76

Rutter 1984

J.B. Rutter, "The 'Early Cycladic III Gap': What It Is and How To Go About Filling It Without Making It Go Away," in R.L.N. Barber and J.A. MacGillivray (eds.), The Prehistoric Cyclades (forthcoming)

Rutter and Zerner 1984

J.B. Rutter and C.W. Zerner, "Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts," in R. Hclgg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Stockholm 1984) 75-83

Schliemann 1884

H. Schliemann, Troja. Results of the Latest Researches and Discoveries on the Site of Homer *s Troy (New York 1884)

Schliemann 1976

H. Schliemann, Tiryns. The Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns (reprinted edition) (New York 1976)

Schmidt 1902

H. Schmidt, Heinrich Schliemann1s Sammlung trojanischer Alterthtimer (Berlin 1902)

Sotiriadis 1912

G. Sotiriadis, "Fouilles prehistoriques en Phocide," REG 25 (1912) 253-99

Touloupa 1964

E. Touloupa, "Anaskaphe Oikopedou Theodorou," AD 19B2 (1964) 192

Tsountas 1898

C. Tsountas, "Kykladika," AE (1898) 137-212

Tsountas 1899

C. Tsountas, "Kykladika II," AE (1899) 73-134

Walter 1983

H. Walter, Die Leute im alten Xgina 3000-1000 (Stuttgart 1983)

Walter and Felten 1981

H. Walter and F. Felten, Alt-Agina III, li Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt: Befestigungen, Hfluser, Funde (Mainz 1981)

Warren 1980

P. Warren, "Problems of Chronology in Crete and the Aegean in the Third and Earlier Second Millennium B.C.," AJA 84 (1980) 487-99

Weege 1911

F. Weege, "Einzelfunde von Olympia 1907-1909," AM 36 (1911) 163-92

Welter 1938

G. Welter, Aigina (Berlin 1938)

593

Chr.

Wide 1896

S. Wide, "Aphidna in Nordattika," AM 21 (1896) 385-409

Wtlnsche 1977

R. Wtlnsche, Studien zur Hginetischen Keramik der frtihen und mittleren Bronzezeit (Munich-Berlin 1977)

Zapheiropoulou 1983

P. Zapheiropoulou, "Un cimeti^re du cycladique ancien a Epano Kouphonissi," in Les Cyclades; Materiaux pour une etude de geographie historique (Paris 1983)

Zerner 1978

C.W. Zerner, The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati 1978; University Microfilms International 7904772)

Zervos 1957

C. Zervos, L 1Art des Cyclades

Ziegler and Sontheimer 1979

K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike 2 (Munich 1979)

594

(Paris 1957)

GREEK MAINLAND

SCOOP

ASKOID JUG

EARLY BRONZE 2

\/

EA R LY

BRONZE

TROUGHSPOUTED ASKOS

ROUND­ MOUTHED ASKOID JUG

3 595 EARLIER MIDDLE BRONZE

IMPORTED T R U E ^ -DUCK VASES (Attica/ Boeotia, northeastern Peloponnese)

LEGGED ASKOI

CYCLADES

PROTODUCK-VASE

WESTERN ANATOLIA

LEGGED ASKOI

PROTO-DUCKVASE (Kastri)

BASKETHANDLED BEAK-SPOUTED \ ASKOID JUG (Central Greece only)

-AlMPORTED TRUE DUCK VASES (Aphrodisias, Bozhtiytlk, Troy)

i IMITATIONS (Beycesultan, Cyprus, Troy)

Fig.

3

Sources of Illustrations

Fig.

1:1

After Bossert 1967:

fig.

5:1

1:2

After Bossert 1967:

fig.

5:2

1:3

After Hood 1981:

fig.

177:1171

1:4

After Hood 1981:

fig.

177:1173

1:5

After Kunze 1934: pi. X X I I :1

1:6

After Mtiller

1938:

fig. 11

1:7

After Mtiller

1938:

fig. 12

2:1

Lerna Inv. No. L . 630

2:2

After Rutter

1982:

fig. 2:33

2:3

After Fimmen

1924:

fig. 128,

2:4

After Fimmen

1924:

fig. 127

2:5

Lerna Inv. No. L.977

(from Lerna IV)

(from Lerna V;

courtesy of C.W.

596

left

Zerner)

m

m (Scale 2:5)

(Scale 1:2)

(Scale 1:4)

(Scale 1:4)

(Scale 1:2)

(Scale 5:6) FIGURE 1 [reduced here 1/5 from the original publication]

597

(Scale 1:1)

(Scale 3:10) (Scale 1:3) (Scale ca. 3:7)

(Scale ca. 4:15)

FIGURE 2 [reduced here 1/5 from the original publication]

598

(Scale 2:3)

A Middle Cypriot Jug from Kommos, Crete by Pamela J. Russell

"....We may hope for more finds to fill our gaps, which will illuminate both Cyprus1 first centuries of life shared with the Aegean and a fascinating aspect of the development of Minoan civilization. We need not lose hope. Only last year another site in Crete produced a Cypriote import: Kommos with a White Slip II milk bowl. Now we need something a little earlier." — Gerald Cadogan, 1979 "Cyprus and Crete c. 2000-1400 B.C." In 1982 the excavations at Kommos, Crete, directed by Prof. Joseph Shaw of the University of Toronto, brought to light a^Middle Cypriot jug of the White Painted IV-VI Cross Line Style (Fig. 1). Over thirty examples of Cypriot pottery have now been found at the seaport town of Kommos, comprising the greatest concentration of Cypriot material yet identified on Crete. The majority of the Cypriot sherds are of Late Bronze Age date and represent a wide variety of wares: White Slip II, Base Ring I and II, and White Shaved. At Kommos sherds of these wares have appeared in LM I (late) to LM IJIA:2/LM IIIB contexts with the. largest number occurring in LM IIIA. There are also, however, three probable Cypriot imports from Middle Minoan levels. From a MM IB context come two sherds, probably from jugs, with a fabric very close to Cypriot examples. Unfortunately, the surface on these sherds has completely worn away so without the evidence of slip or painted decoration we cannot be sure of their place of origin. We can, however, be very sure of the origin of the pot under consideration here. It is undoubtedly a Middle Cypriot III White Painted jug, and it is of great importance for the study of early Cypro-Aegean relations. The vessel comes from a house on the Central Hillside of the site. Specifically, it was found in Room 51 at the southern side of the excavated area. The Cypriot jug was found on the lower of the room’s two floors, in a context dated to the MM III period. The other sherds from^the deposit are similar to those from a sounding made at Kommos in 1976. The Cypriot jug (C 6112) is two thirds complete with parts of the body and rim missing. Its height is 13.0 cm, and the maximum diameter is 8.7 cm. The fabric is reddish yellow (SYR 6/6) and very gritty. The hand­ made vessel has a rounded base, a globular body, a cylindrical neck and round mouth. A vertical handle is thrust into the shoulder and joins the rim. The surface of the jug is covered with a white slip, and the body is decorated with groups of five oblique lines, matt red in color, which cross at the shoulder and at the widest part of the body. At the base of the handle are two short horizontal strokes. No decoration is preserved on the neck. Before assessing the importance of the Kommos jug I would like to discuss, first, the Cypriot parallels for its shape and decoration, second, Middle Cypriot connections with the Levant and, third, early Cretan relations with the Eastern Mediterranean.

CYPRIOT PARALLELS AND RELATIVE DATE Cypriot White Painted IV-VI Cross Line Style is one of several individual styles that have been recognized within the general White Painted tradition. Other styles include the White Painted I Wavy Line Style, White Painted I Latticed Diamond Style, White Painted I Stringhole Style, White Painted II-III Framed Caduceus Style and the White Painted III-IV Pendent Line Style. The main decorative characteristics of the Cross Line Style are intersecting groups of three to nine parallel lines arranged obliquely on the body of the vessel and broad horizontal bands at the shoulder and neck. The most common shapes are the jug with vertical handle from shoulder to neck or rim and the bottle with two string-hole handles at the base of the neck. On Cyprus the ware is ugually handmade, and the normal fabric is red-brown without a gray core. The Ware is slipped and decorated with matt or lustrous black, red-brown or red paint. Of the total of Cypriot j White Painted jugs and bottles, 6% are decorated in the Cross Line style. The Kommos Cross Line vessel has the reddishclay typical of the ware. The clay is quite gritty which is normally considered a later feature. The body decoration is normal for the style. There are encircling bands at the base of the neck and the handle, but the paint is too worn to discern any decoration on the neck. The shape is also standard for White Painted Cross Line Style jugs. The White Painted Cross Line Style is known to be a phenomenon mainly of eastern Cyprus, as are the Framed Caduceus and the Pendent Line Styles. Paul XstrHm has suggested that these three styles form a chronological sequence. A few vessels of the Cross Line Style bear elements related to the Pendent Line Style, in particular single wavy lines scattered in the field among the crossed lines. According to XstrOm this combination of motifs would indicate that the Cross Line Style evolved from the earlier Pendent Line Style. The Pendent Line g Style, in his view, had in turn evolved from the Framed Caduceus Style. David Frankel, however, has stated that this "simple genetic relationship11 is not correct, and that the Cross Line and Pendent Line Styles may be in part contemporary. He believes contemporaneity is a fetter explanation for the appearance of the two styles on a single pot. Eastern Cypriot sites, such as Kalopsidha, Milia, Nitovikla, and Kythrea have produced the greatest numbers of Cross Line Style vessels. The style was certainly a product of eastern settlements and has a very limited distribution in Cyprus outside of this restricted region. Over half of the jugs from Kalopsidha, jijir best known Middle Cypriot site, are decorated in the Cross Line Style. At Kalopsidha sherds of the style begin to appear9in Stratum 3 (MC II-MC III) and reach a peak in Stratum (1-2 (MC III). Outside of eastern Cyprus the style is very rare. Tombs at Lapithos have produced one imported example of the style and local vessels influenced by the eastern Cypriot p r o d u c t s . 13 The White Painted Cross Line Style is most common in MC III contexts, but a few examples are known from the immediately succeeding period, Late

600

Cypriot 1A.

Two LC IA tombs at Enkoml produced jugs in this style.

14

No examples of the Cross Line Style occur later than LC IA. The White Painted tradition, which began at the end of the Early Cypriot period, was soon to give way to the new Late Bronze Age ceramic types. White Painted VI developed into White Slip ware, the best known of the native Cypriot wares. The Cross Line Style, however, had no effect on the evolution of early White Slip styles, which seem to have develoj^d in western Cyprus, far from the center of Cross Line Style production. The decoration on tljtg Kommos jug seems closest to those of XstrHm's Style 2 from Kalopsidha. This group is given no specific chronological range, but its members are not the latest in the Cross Line series. The latest Cross Line jugs (Style 4) have a less globular and moj^ piriform body, and the painted decoration is very carelessly applied. The Kommos jug sits comfortably in the mid-MC III period. MIDDLE CYPRIOT GROWTH AND LEVANTINE CONTACTS The Middle Cypriot III period was a time of rapid transition for Cyprus. Prior to this period Cyprus had been relatively isolated from its neighbors and had been developing at a slow rate. The first sign of change observable in the archaeological record is the dramatic shift in the size and location of sites, from the villages of the northern and^g inland regions to the large towns of the eastern and southern coasts. These coastal settlements, typified by the site of Enkomi, were to remain the major population centers of the island throughout the Late Bronze Age. A second sign of change is the increase in contacts with the nearby Levantine coast, attested by the occurrence of Middle Cypriot III wares at many Syro-Palestinian sites. Before this period there are very few Cypriot imports known in the Levant. The MC III wares represented are mainly ^ i t e Painted V and White Painted Pendent Line and Cross Line Styles. The last two wares are those most characteristic of the eastern Cypriot sites, particularly Kalopsidha. The shift of settlements to the east of the island and the expansion of trade with the Levant must be related phenomena. The towns of the Syro-Palestinian coast were also maturing at this period, ushering in "an era of established urbanism, prosperity, and the stability so vital to guarantee trade," according to one author discussing the Levantine scene.20 Cypriot merchants took advantage of this positive climate and learned quickly that Levantine demand for their products, perhaps mainly copper and only incidentally ceramics, could bring a new economic vitality to their island. Vessels of the Cross Line Style made their way to Ugarit, Askalon, Akko, Megiddo, and Gezer.21 Vessels of the other main eastern Middle ^ Cypriot Style, the Pendent Line Syle, have a very similar distribution. Kalopsidha, perhaps the center for the production of these styles, must have been very active in these new Levantine exchanges. A neutron activa­ tion study of fourteen sherds of Cypriot White Painted ware (including sherds of the Pendent Line and Cross Line Styles) from Akko showed that 11 of the sherds match closely analyzed sherds excavated at Kalopsidha. The other three are also similar to a second sherd group identified at Kalopsidha. The report of the study concludes "all of these wares (from Akko) have a composition of the general type found at a number of sites in Eastern Cyprus, so it is quite clear that we are dealing with that

601

23 region.” It has been suggested that during the Middle Cypriot period Kalopsidha, now seven miles from the sea, was situated on the coast and served as a port. When the shoreline silted up a move was made east, to Enkomi, which eventually also lost its coastal position, necessitating a second move to Salamis.24 The birth of new coastal towns and the growth of trade with the Levant are hallmarks of the end of the Middle Cypriot period. It is now time to return to the Aegean and examine the evidence for early Minoan relations with the Eastern Mediterranean. CRETE AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE The earliest certain Minoan export in the Eastern Mediterranean is the frequently discussed EM III/MM IA bridge-spouted jar from Tomb 806A at Lapithos.25 The relative Cypriot date of this tomb has been much debated, but here we will accept the conventional date of EC I I I B . 2 6 Approximate1y contemporary are a series of bronze daggers from Vounous and Lapithos which Hector Catling has argued are Minoan products, though others remain sceptical.27 Kamares Ware (MM IB/MM IIA) has been found at Karmi and Kourion in Cyprus,28 and at several sites in Syro-Palestine including Byblos, Ugarit, Qatna, and Hazor. A possibly MM III sherd from Atchanah was identified by Sinclair Hood.29 Turning now to Eastern Mediterranean imports found in pre-Late Minoan Crete, we can confidently cite only three, and all are from Cyprus. The earliest is the recently identified Red Polished III amphora from Knossos which its publishers have dated to EC IIIB.30 The second is a shoulder fragment of a White Painted Pendent Line Style jug from Zakros which Paul AstrOm has dated late to MC Ill/early LC IA (Fig. 5).31 The third is, of course, the new Kommos jug of the White Painted Cross Line Style which should be dated to late MC III. On the basis of this ceramic evidence it now seems that links between Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean existed throughout most of the Middle Bronze Age. Did the nature of these ties change over time? Can we determine the precise routes taken by the overseas adventurers? With so little evidence we certainly cannot answer such questions with conviction. Nonetheless some ideas can be considered. The first question I want to raise is whether the appearance of Cypriot vessels in early Cretan contexts is the result of direct contact with Cyprus or indirect contact via the Levantine coast. The points in favor of direct contact are 1) the earliest Minoan export is found on Cyprus, not in the Levant and 2) while there are at least three Cypriot vessels in Middle Minoan Crete, we know of no Levantine ceramic imports. I do not want, however, to rule out the possibility of indirect contact. Minoan imports appear in the Levant immediately after their appearance on Cyprus and in far greater numbers. We now know of two Cypriot imports in Crete, the Zakros Pendent Line sherd and the Kommos Cross Line Jug, which date to the very period when Cypriot interests were flourishing on the Levantine coast. Cyprus itself, just emerging from a period of relative isolation, may not yet have developed the marketplaces needed to attract international customers. Instead, they may have brought their goods to be sold at the established nearby emporia of the

602

Levant* especially at Ugarit, Just seventy miles away. Lera 1d Ladogan has argued along similar lines stating that "on present evidence it seems more likely that direct contact of Crete with Syria and Lebanon...came before contact with Cyprus,11 and "we may have established then a continuity of relations between Crete and Cyprus through the Middle Bronze A g e ; but it may well be that for almost all the period Syria and Lebanon...were more important to Crete than Cyprus was." This situation was soon tochange, however, when early in the Late Bronze Age Cypriot towns became major trading ports in their own right. The second and related question to raise is whether the distribution of exports and imports in the Eastern Mediterranean reflects a change in trade routes being followed. The first Minoan imports on Cyprus cluster on the north coast of the island. Later, at a time when no Minoan imports are known from Cyprus, the island shows close ties to the Levant, exempli­ fied by the export of primarily eastern Cypriot ceramics of the sort that were also to find their way to Crete. Diane Saltzhas outlined the following suggestion: In EC III, MC I fc and initially in MC II, the north coast of Cyprus would have been an integral part of the route between the Aegean and North Syria. Then, perhaps already in later MC II, the North Syria-Aegean route became separate from the traffic between Cyprus and North Syria. In this light, it is perhaps significant that a Mari tin inventory records consignments going to Crete and Caria, via Ugarit, in one breath, while Cyprus is not mentioned in this document. Such a westbound passage could have avoided Cyprus altogether, or else the north coast of Cyprus may have served as no more than a "watering hole" en route. Meanwhile, the bulk of the extended Cypriote traffic to and from (the Levant) would have gone through the Kalopsidha area. Cyprus would have been directly linked to the Levant not only through North Syria (Ugarit), but also by other harbors, such as Akko. The sheer volume and frequency of the trade between Cyprus and (the Levant) in MC III would have continued to justify the shift from north coast to east....33 We might suggest that the MC III vessels found on Crete had been acquired in the Levant, not in Cyprus itself. Again, the evidence is too slight for us to be convinced of any of the above ideas. At the moment they seem reasonable explanations for the few facts we have. In archaeological research, of course, the facts change with each new discovery. In closing, I'd like to return to the humble Cypriot jug from Kommos and discuss the significance of this particular new discovery. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MC III JUG FROM KOMMOS The Middle Cypriot III jug found at Kommos is important for three main reasons. First, it is among the very earliest Cypriot imports in the Aegean. Only the Red Polished III amphora from Knossos is possibly earlier. It is approximately contemporary with the Pendent Line Style sherd from Zakros. Both the Zakros and Kommos MC III vessels predate the next occurrence of Cypriot wares, namely the appearance of White Slip I at sites such as Thera, Phylakopi, Trianda, and Z a k r o s .

603

Second, the Kommos jug is the only early Cypriot import to have a secure Minoan context. It was found well stratified on a MM III floor• The Knossos amphora is from the Monolithic Pillar Basement in a mixed deposit cont|^ning mainly MM IA but also later intrusive material includ­ ing MM IIIB. The Zakros sherd, too, is from an uncertain context. It "almost certainly" came from o n ^ o f the "Pits" at the site with a probable date range of MM IIIB to LM IA. The Kommos jug with its secure context will prove very valuable for studies in the relative chronologies of the two islands. MC III should be approximately contemporary with MM III. Third, the Kommos jug is significant because it can be traced, through its decoration, to a particular region in Cyprus, the area around Kalop­ sidha. We know that this area was active in trade with the Levant during the MC III period. It is not surprising that at least two of its products, the Kommos and Zakros jugs, also made their way westward to Crete. I suspect that Minoan sailors were responsible for bringing the Cypriot jugs back to Crete. We cannot be sure of the mechanics of trade in this early period, but the Celidonya and Kas shipwrecks provide some c l u e s . 37 Independent entrepreneurs, perhaps under some control of a local ruler, filled their ships with a variety of goods from a variety of ports. Ships were certainly not dedicated to transporting a particular commodity. The Kas ship with its pithoi filled with smaller ceramic vessels proves that pottery made its way around the Mediterranean alongside the more valued commodities of copper and glass. We can imagine a Middle Minoan Kommos sailor returning from the east, perhaps delivering the bulk of his valuable goods to the ruler at Phaistos, but also having cheaper novelty items left over to sell to his fellow townsfolk. One such item must have been the Cypriot jug discovered in 1982,once again a pleasant novelty, this time to be valued by curious archaeologists.

C 6112. Cypriot juglet from Kommos, Crete.

604

ABBREVIATIONS SCE IV:IB = Paul XstrBm, The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV, Part IB, Lund, 1972. SCE IV:1C = Paul XstrBm, The Late Cypriote Bronze A g e , Architecture and Pottery, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV, Part 1C, Lund, 1972. Cyprus and Crete - Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium "The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 B.C." Nicosia, 1979. NOTES 1.

Gerald Cadogan, "Cyprus and Crete c. 2000-1400 B.C.," Cyprus and Crete, p. 68.

2.

Joseph W. Shaw, "Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1982-1983," Hesperia 53, 1984, p. 254, pi. 4 9 :b.c . Prof. Philip Betancourt identified the jug as a Cypriot import, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to discuss the vessel here.

3.

J. W. Shaw, "Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1980," Hesperia 50, 1981, pp. 246-247; Idem., "Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1981," Hesperia 51, 1982, pp. 169, 170, 193 note 86.

4.

Philip P. Betancourt, "A Middle Minoan Pottery Deposit," Hesperia 47, 1978, pp. 155-164.

5.

SCE IV:1B, p. 11, Cross Line Style:

6.

See, however, evidence for wheelmade examples; M. Artzy, I . Perlman, F. Asaro, "Wheel-made Pottery of the MC III and LC I Periods in Cyprus Identified by Neutron Activation Analysis," RDAC 1976, 20-25.

7.

David Frankel, Middle Cypriot White Painted Pottery: An Analytical Study of the Decoration (SIMA Vol. XLII), GBteborg, 1974, p. 26.

8.

SCE IV:IB, pp. 11, 29-30, 66.

9.

Frankel, o p . cit.,

pp. 63-66.

p. 49.

10.

SCE IV:IB, pp. 64-66, 194 note 2.

11.

Frankel, oj>. cit.,

12.

SCE IV:IB, p. 169.

13.

Ibid.,

14.

Ibid*, p. 64 (Type l.A.3.f = E.19.60), p. 194 note 7 (=E.21.1).

15.

R. S. Merrillees, "The Early History of Late Cypriot I," Levant 3, 1971, p. 72; Frankel, oj>. c i t ., p. 51.

p. 26.

p. 184.

605

NOTES, continued.

16.

Paul XstrBm, Excavations at Kalopsidha and Aylos Iakovos in Cyprus (SIMA Vol. II), Lund, 1966, p. 84, Fig. 91.

17.

Ibid., pp. 83, 85; SCE IV:1C, p. 53 on the LC I Framed Cross Line Style.

18.

Merrillees, Levant 3, 1971, pp. 77-78: Hector Catling, "Copper in Cyprus, Bronze in Crete: Some Economic Problems," Cyprus and Crete, p. 72.

19.

Diane Saltz, "The Chronology of the Middle Cypriote Bronze Age," KDAC 1977, 57-58; R. S. Merrillees, The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt(SIMA Vol. XVIII), Lund, 1968, pp. 190-191.

20.

Saltz, op. cit., p. 65.

21.

IV:IB, pp.

217-219; see also note 19 above.

22.

SCE IV:IB, pp. 213-215; M. Popham, "Two BSA 58, 1963, p. 90 note 7.

23.

M. Dothan, "Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4," BASOR 224, 1976, p. 9.

24.

Saltz, op. cit., p. 65 note

25.

Cypriot Sherds from Crete,"

3.

V. R. Grace, "A Cypriote Tomb and Minoan Evidence for its Date," AJA 44, 1940, 10-52.

26.

See H. W. Catling and J. A. MacGillivray, "AnEarly Cypriot III Vase from the Palace at Knossos," BSA 78, 1983,p. for recent summary of discussions.

27.

Ibid., p. 5.

28.

Karmi: J. R. Stewart, "The Tomb of the Seafarer at Karmi in Cyprus," OpAth 4, 1.963, pp. 197-204. Kourion: E. J. Forsdyke, "Minoan Pottery from Cyprus, and the Origin of the Mycenaean Style," JHS 31, 1911, p. Ill.

29.

Paul XstrHm, "Remarks on Middle Minoan Chronology," KretChron 15-16, 1961-1962, pp. 145-146, 148; Saltz, op. cit., pp. 53-55; Barry J. Kemp and Robert S. Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt, Mainz, 1980, pp. 274, 276.

30.

Catling and MacGillivray, op. cit., pp. 1-8; for a possible fourth early Cypriot import (Red-on-Black Ware) see F.Chapouthier and P. Demargne, Fouilles executees Mallia. Troisieme Rapport, Paris, 1942, p. 41.

31.

Popham, op. cit. note 22 above, pp.

89-93

32.

Cadogan, o p . cit. note 1 above, ,pp.

64, 65.

606

33.

Saltz, o p . c it,, pp. 65-66.

34.

Gerald Cadogan, "Cypriot Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean and their Importance," Proceedings of the First International Cyprological Congress, Nicosia, 1972, pp. 5-13; R. S. Merrillees, Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant (SIMA Vol. XXXIX), GHteborg, 1974, p. 6; Emily Vermeule and Florence Wolsky, "New Aegean Relations with Cyprus: The Minoan and Mycenaean Pottery from Toumba tou Skourou, Morphou," Proc. A m . Phil. Soc., 122, 1978, p. 1 note 1.

35.

Catling and MacGillivray, o p . cit.,

36.

Popham, op. cit.,

37.

George F. Bass, Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck, Philadelphia, 1967; Merrillees, o p . cit. note 34 above, p. 8; Kemp and Merrillees, o p . cit. note 29 above, pp. 276-278.

pp. 4-5.

p. 91.

607

The Development of a Bronze Age Coarse Ware Chronology for the Khania Region of West Crete by Jennifer Moody

Cerajnic chronologies based on the seriation of surface decoration and shapes of fine wares have been the traditional means for establishing relative dates in archaeological work. In West Crete such an approach is of little use to archaeologists involved in surface survey (Map I ) . Experience has shown that very little fine decorated pottery is recovered from the ground surface in this region. Hood and Warren (1) noted the paucity of decorated sherds during their explorations of the area in the mid-sixties and my own studies of the local ceramics from 1978 to 1984 suggest that most Khaniot pottery, both fine and coarse, was not painted with designs until MMIII/LMI. Since I was conducting an archaeological surface survey in the area (2) and traditional ceramic typologies and seriations were not viable options, theproblem of finding a reliable way to date the occupational phases at each of the discovered sites became an immediate and major concern. Since plain, coarse, body sherds were and are the most abundant type of surface finds, one solution to the problem was to create, if possible, a local coarse ware chronology. In 1978 a preliminary study of local Khaniot coarse wares was carried out in order to see if the proposed chronology was feasible. The results were positive. Definite changes in the composition and character of the coarse wares through time were noted. Although this initial study was un­ systematic and superficial, it did provide a framework against which obser­ vations in the field could be made. Over the years of survey (1978 to 1982), as familiarity with the local fabrics increased, special care was taken to observe which coarse wares occurred together and which did not. This was done in the hopes of establishing "suites" of coarse wares that would be temporally diagnostic. In many cases, however, it never became clear whether the associated wares represented single chronological periods or multiple ones. Further study was needed. In the summer of 1984 a systematic analysis of Khaniot coarse wares was completed and a statistically sound chronology was set up (3). Stratified material from five sites in the Khania region (two in Apokorana, two in the Khania plain, one in the foothills above the plain) was examined with the aid of a jeweler’s lens (15x) and classified by fabric and surface treatment. Fabric included hardness, surface color, core color, dominant inclusions, other inclusions, size of inclusions and density of inclusions. Surface treatment included burnishing, scoring, plastic decoration, inci­ sion, impressed, slipped and painted. The entire body of coarse ware per basket was weighed before separating it into different wares. Then each ware type was weighed and recorded on a form (fig. 1). It is important to note that not all coarse pottery was classifiable into distinctive wares. It must also be mentioned that because of publishing restrictions on some of the pottery collections studied, the results of the research can only be generally presented. Nevertheless the conclusions are exciting and clearly demonstrate the value of this type of ceramic analysis in Aegean archaeology.

Before discussing the results in detail, several observations about the study need to be m a d e . The first, and perhaps the most serious, concerns the sample. There are several problems. First is the uneven representation of occupational periods. LMIII is the best represented period with well— stratified material coming from three of the five sites examined. Next is MMIII/LMI which has well-stratified material coming from two sites. Third is EMI to II which is well-stratified at only one site and scrappily represented at another. The most poorly represented periods are MMI-II and the Neolithic; neither are very abundant and neither are well-stratif ied. Nevertheless, the sample studied was the best one available given the paucity of well-excavated prehistoric sites in the Khania region. Another related problem is the absence of records concerning what pottery was kept and what was thrown. This makes it impossible to objec­ tively assess the representativeness of the retained sample. There is no satisfactory solution to this problem except to believe in the integrity of the excavators and assume that a proper sample of each ware was kept. The next observation concerns the use of weight as a measure of ceramic quantity and significance. Such a method often implies that the more something weighs, the greater its importance. It is critical to remember, however, that abundance (or "weightiness") does not necessarily reflect chronological significance. For example, fabric A is fairly uncommon numerically, but is only found in MMIb levels; therefore, the pre­ sence of even one sherd of this fabric on a site, heirloom problems with­ standing, would be a secure indication of local activity in M M I b . Still, relative proportions of wares within periods can contribute to their significance as chronological indicators, but only when considered with other criteria. It is even possible that the relative proportions of coarse wares per period could be as chronologically diagnostic as a single fabric. But, the survey archaeologist must keep in mind that on the ground, unless one is dealing with a single period site, these proportions are not accurately preserved. Nor are the relative abundances of chrono­ logically diagnostic materials per site necessarily meaningful. Surface altering processes differ so greatly from site to site, even within a single region, that generalizations about when surface scatters are repre­ sentative of activity intensity per occupational phase and when they are not are difficult if not impossible to make (4). An alternative method for refining the dates of a site is what I call the "suite wares" approach. Since many wares span several cultural phases and others do n o t ,every cultural phase should be definable by a specific suite of coarse andfine wares. By diagramming out the indexed wares from each site, as illustrated in figure 2, a reasonably accurate assessment of the site's occupational phases can be made. A combination of this approach with chronologically specific index ceramics has been the most successful way to date sites discovered by the survey. Several observations concern the meaning of variation between and within coarse ware types. It is important to understand that variation in fabric and surface treatment can be the result of at least three different phenomena: 1) place of manufacture 2)function of vessel 3) period of manufacture or chronology.

610

Place of manufacture is, in general, a greater constraint on fabric than it is on surface treatment. Fabrics, although to some extent de­ pendent on style - e.g. mica makes a fabric glitter, calcite can produce a speckled white surface, schist creates a sequinned affect - are primarily a result of local geologic factors at the place of manufacture and/or the exploited clay source• It is usually assumed that the nearest ceramic resources (clay, temper, fuel) to a production center were used. Coarse wares in particular are thought to have been produced and consumed locally. This study contributes little to the question of local produc­ tion (5), but it does suggest that contrary to prevailing opinion coarse wares traveled out from their production centers in significant quantities. In this study it is assumed that if a ware has a striking spatial distri­ bution, e.g. it is found in abundance at only one site and occasionally at others, its character is due to its place of origin or manufacture. Such wares can vary through time, but more often they are fairly static. The relationship between vessel shape and function is the subject of much scholarly work; however, the relationship between fabric composition, surface treatment and vessel function is not a well-developed topic. Only two functional types of pots have been studied In this way in any depth: water pots and cooking pots (6). Rye points out that, "In terms of physical properties water pots and cooking pots are requLred to have differing pro­ perties related strictly to their function"(7). High channel porosity (permiability) in the ceramic wall of a water pot is the key to providing cool drinking water in hot climates (8)• Through capillary action water is drawn into the very fine channels causing it to permeate through the vessel wall to the outer surface where it is evaporated. Fine quartz sand and filimenting fibers are the most effective tempers for producing channel porosity (9)• In cooking pots this type of porosity would cause a pot to crack and eventually shatter. High pocket porosity is desirable instead (10). This type of porosity arrests cracking because its pores are large and isolated. The largeness of the pores absorbs the pressure causing the crack; the isolation of the pore makes it harder for a crack to travel through the wall of a pot from weak spot to weak spot (i.e. pore to pore). Cracking is usually caused by the stress of repeated heatings and coolings on the structure of a pot (thermal shock). Thermal shock resistance (TSR) can be enhanced in three ways: 1) the shape of a vessel - spherical shapes with even-wall thicknesses are best. 2) high pocket porosity. 3) control of inclusions in the clay mixture - inclusions which have a minimal increase in size when heated (low thermal expansion: LTE) or those which increase in size at the same rate as the clay matrix are best (11). Experiments have shown that basic rocks (gabbros, basalts etc.) lend to have lower thermal expansions than acidic rocks (granites etc.), while sedimentary and low grade metamorphic rocks (limestones to schists) have a very wide range of expansion (12). Zirkon, plagioclase and other feldspars, augite, hornblende and espe­ cially calcite have the lowest thermal expansions of the minerals tested (13). Grog and coarse plant fragments are also good tempers to use in cooking pots (14). The LTE of calcite is of particular interest to this study since it is one of the most common tempers used in the Khania region. Generally speaking calcium carbonate tempers are difficult to use. One of the problems is that when heated to temperatures between 620°C and 900°C (well within the firing range of Minoan pottery) calcite decomposes to calcium oxide (CaO) and

611

carbon dioxide (CO^) • The CO^ escapes as gas, while the CaO remains in the po t . This CaO will readily combine with water vapor from the air or else­ where, turning into quick lime (Ca(OH ) * and thus increase its volume several times. The pressure resulting from this expansion causes the surface of the pot to spall and can even cause the entire pot to shatter. The addition of salt to this ware type has been shown to retard decomposi­ tion during firing and post-firing damage due to CaO hydration (15). In general, however, the use of calcareous tempers (even with salt added) substantially weaken a pot when it is fired to temperatures over 950°C. Rye observes, "Thus, any tendency for techniques to move towards higher firing would be discouraged..." (16) so long as calcareous tempers were in common use. Therefore, changes in a functionally dependent fabric could be due to technical changes in the ceramic manufacturing process. Like spatially dependent wares, the use of functional wares can span long periods of time. They can also cover large geographical areas. The characteristic distribu­ tion of a functionally dependent ware would be its limitation to pots with a specific use. Variations in fabric and surface treatment can also be used as chrono­ logical indicators when such changes can be tied to finite temporal periods. The length of the time period can vary from 25 years or less to several thousand depending on the scale of o ne1s study. Some wares, although dis­ tinctive, are no more chronologically specific than Late Bronze Age or "prehistoric". To the survey archaeologist even such broad categories are useful. On the other hand, some wares are exclusively associated with a very short period of time. Even wares that were essentially spatially dependent can eventually go out of use and become broad chronological indi­ cators. The same can be said of functionally dependent wares. Nevertheless, the vagaries of fashion seem to have produced the most short-lived and therefore chronologically specific wares. Since fashion is particularly concerned with appearances; it is the more visual aspects of a vessel that are likely to change rapidly, e.g. shape and surface treatment. This is one reason why traditional ceramic chronologies have been based on the seriation of fine decorated pots. However, this and other studies (17) have shown that coarse ware analyses can also produce useful ceramic chronologies as well as contribute other pertinent cultural insights. All these observations indicate that the three phenomena - place of manufacture, function and time - are not mutually exclusive. A single coarse ware can be a product of all three. For example, many Middle Bronze Age sherds from Site A in the mountains, have coarse angular calcite temper in a yellow paste. Some of the sherds have a blackened surface and are tripod feet. At sites B, C, and D near the coast, many Middle Bronze Age sherds have fine shell temper in a red paste; some have a blackened surface and some are tripod feet. Both wares seem to have been used to make cooking pots and, therefore, the use of a calcareous temper may have been a function­ ally dependent variable. The type of calcareous temper as well as the color of the paste may be spatially dependent. Both wares seem to be chronologi­ cal indicators of the Middle Bronze Age. From this example it would appear that while one feature on a pot may be spatially dependent and another functionaliy dependent, the ware as a whole can be temporally dependent. It Is also possible for a particular feature, e.g. temper type, to be chronolo­ gically significant on Its own. For this reason it is important to consider every recorded feature about a ware from a spatial, functional and temporal perspective.

612

One last observation concerns where and how coarse ware studies can be used. In geologically heterogeneous regions there is likely to be great variation in coarse ware fabrics, and this variation is likely to be tied to place of manufacture. The study of coarse ware fabrics from such an area could provide detailed information on intra-regional exchange as well as chronological data. In homogeneous areas the results of such a study are likely to be less spectacular on an intra-regional level, but perhaps more informative on an extra-regional level. It is also possible that chronological data would be less specific since there would be less variables to change through time. Therefore, problem orientation should be an important factor in deciding to take on the tedious task of coarse ware analysis. Luckily the Khania region is fairly diverse geologically. Two points should be emphasized before presenting the results: 1) the study dealt only with coarse ware, i.e. pottery with visible inclu­ sions. 2) the resulting chronology is, at present, only applicable to the Khania region.

The written and oral presentation of this type of detailed analysis can be very tedious for the reader or listener. For this reason the results have been summarized in two diagrams (figs 3 and 4). The following discussion will highlight some of the more interesting observations. Red coarse ware is characteristically EM or earlier, especially that with a brown flaky core. Orange pottery is common throughout the Bronze Age and, although very characteristic of MMIII/LMI, cannot with confidence be considered to be diagnostic. Orange pottery with a green core, however, is only EMI to II, especially E M I . On the other hand, orange pottery with a grey core and crisp edges is usually LMIII. Buff pottery ranges in date from MMIII to LMIII. Spatially, red and orange pastes seem to be more characteristic of the Khania plain than of the Apokorana area, while pastes with a yellow cast are more typical of the Apokorana. Sherds that are the same color through are common in every period except EMI; they are especially common from MMI to LMI in the Khania plain. Pottery with a brown flaky core is predominently EMI, but it is also fairly common at remote LMIII sites in the mountains where it might be the result of local manufacture by a less than "state of the art" technology. Coarse wares with a grey core, and often with an orange surface, become common in LMIII. This may be a result of incomplete oxidation during firing, or it could reflect a change in local firing methods where reduction at some point in the firing process became an integral part of ceramic production. Small fragments of schist and phyllite are the most common inclusions found in Khaniot coarse wares. They occur as minor components in the fabrics throughout the study area and in al] chronological periods. As dominant Inclusions, schist and phyllite are particularly characteristic of LMIII. As a major and minor element, sand is common in many fabrics through­ out the Bronze Age in the Khania plain. It is not as typical of the Apokorana sites. In general, sand is most common in the Khania plain from

613

MMI II to LMIII. As the dominant temper in a fabric, it is most character­ istic of MMIII/LMI. Grey and white angular fragments of calcite occur as temper from EMI to MMII, but are most characteristic of EM. One site that has been dated only to LMIII also produced a few examples of this fabric. The presence of the fabric, however, is more likely to represent an earlier, EM to MMII, occupational phase at the site, than it is to indicate the continued use of the ware through LMIII. The recovery of other earlier EM and MM wares from the same site supports this interpretation. Other types of calcareous tempers (calcite sand, shell, limestone, etc.) are particularly charac ter is t ic of the Middle Bronze Age, especially MMI to MMII. 78% of all the recorded calcareous tempers date to MMI to I I . A few varieties, notably those where the inclusions are only occasional, continue into L M I . This apparent decline in calcareous tempers may have been due to higher firing temperatures which seem to have accompanied improved ceramic technology in the Late Bronze Age. It should be mentioned that not all potswith calcareous temper were cooking pots, but at least 50% of them were. In MMIII/LMI cooking pots were usually tempered with sand or schist, while in LMIII they were mostly tempered with schist. Occasional soft red inclusions, possibly grot, are common from MMI to LMIII and do not seem to be temporally diagnostic on their own. When com­ bined with soft yellow inclusions of small to medium size, however, the ware becomes characteristic of EMI to II. In this EM ware the red inclu­ sions are sometimes of a pinkier color. Soft yellow grits also occur in a very fine dense temper in LMIII. Hard angular red grits, possibly chert, are at no time abundant in the Khania plain. As the dominant temper in a ware, they begin to appear in the area in MMIII/LMI, and are more common in LMIII although still in very limited amounts. This temper usually occurs in fabrics with an orange to light orange buff color and is especially characteristic of far West Crete where I have found it from Gramvousa to Khryoskalitissa. The present study indicates that a similar ware, but with a yellowish-orange matrix is also common at the LMIII remote mountain sites in the Apokorana. Given the small quantities of this temper type in the Khania plain, its presence probably indicates interaction of some kind between the plain and sites to the east and/or w est, beginning in MMIII/LMI and continuing through LMIII. The evidence suggests that these ceramics came to the plain from Kissamou, to the west. Soft black inclusions are particularly characteristic of the orangesurfaced/green-cored fabric diagnostic of EM. It seems 1ikely that these are fragments of carbonized organic matter. Hard black grits are more difficult to pin down. One LMI ware from Khania plain combines long black crystals with milky quartz in a pinkyorange paste. This ware constitutes only 1% of the site1s pottery, but is very distinctive. Its small quantities and the nature of the temper sug­ gest that it was not manufactured locally. Shiny black inclusions (biotite?) were noted in some sherds from LMI to LMIII. They do not seem to be typical of the local Khaniot fabrics.

614

Gravel temper is characteristic of the Apokorana sites, especially in the mountains. It usually occurs in a yellowy-orange paste which con­ tains short white fibers. This paste is particularly characteristic of the Apokorana where it is found in large quantities. The paste also occurs in small amounts in MMIII/LMI levels from the Khania plain. The fibers are typically 1 - 2mm in length, about the thickness of a piece of silk thread and white in color. What these fibers are remains an unanswer­ ed question for the moment, but two possibilities can be considered. The first is that they are fragments from spondylus shells which tend to decompose into short white fibers. The second is that they are fibers of asbestos. The site where this ware is most common is only 6 km west of a known deposit of asbestos. Future petrographic analysis will no doubt resolve the questions. Coarse plant temper is especially common in E M U and seems to conti­ nue, in a minor way, into MMI at sites in the Khania plain. The EM ware is usually in a dark red paste that is very glittery. On some sherds the substance that causes the clay to glitter has turned to very, very fine speckles throughout the paste. This suggests that the substance is not mica, but some form of calcium carbonate (calcite or gypsum?) which natur­ ally occurs as a very fine fraction in the clay. Spatially, this paste is only characteristic of sites in the mountains or foothills. It appears in small amounts at sites in the Khania plain from MMI to L M I . This suggests that the plain and the foothills of the White mountains were interacting in some way throughout the Old and New Palace periods. Turning briefly to surface treatment several points can be made. Scored ware seems to be confined to EM, especially E M I . Burnished sur­ faces, although for the most part EM, do continue in a minor way through MMII. Another very distinctive burnished ware (Adriatic Ware) appears in LMIII (18). Thin black washes occur on pots from EMIII to MMII, while an allover red wash is characteristic of MMI to I I . Also characteristic of M M I - H is a thick creamy white to yellow slip. This usually covers spongysurfaced, orange fabrics with dense, fine calcareous temper. A white chalky slip is typical of MMIII/LMI. Rope decoration on large jars or pithoi can also be chronologically significant (19). In the Khania region the best indication that a pithos was made in LMIII is rope decoration made of an applied band of fine clay. Coarse applied bands are common from MMII to LMIII and moulded bands are typical of EM and MMI-II. The treatment of these bands also changes through time. Plain bands are most common in EM and LMIII, but do occasionally occur in the MBA. Thumb-impressed, slashed herring-bone and single fingertip-impressed are found on EM vessels, but thumb-impression is also common from MMIII to LMIII, and slashed herring-bone occurs in LMIII. Realistic rope, its variations, and triangles filled with impressed circles characterize MMI-II pithoi. Impressed circles are also common on much later pottery (Sitb-Mlnoan, Geometric) but the fabrics are so d Lfferent there is little danger of confusing the two. Typical MMIII/LMI rope decorations are cresant rope, multiple fingertip-impressed and thumb-impressed. Often

615

eresant rope and thumb-impressed are combined on the same pithos. LMIII pithoi have thumb-impressed, eresant rope, diagonal slashed, herring-bone slashed and plain rope decoration. In general, it is very difficult to distinguish LMI from LMIII pithoi• The fabrics are very similar and in most cases the rope decorations overlap. Some good indicators of an LMIII date are: 1) the applied band is of a finer paste than the body of the vessel. 2) the decoration on the band is slashed. 3) the temper is al­ most exclusively schist/phyllite. The above discussion, although tedious, should be of use to those interested in using coarse ware as a means of dating, especially in the Khania region. Besides providing a means to date the sites discovered by the archaeological surface survey, this study has contributed to our under­ standing of intra-regional interaction in the area during the Bronze A g e . It would appear that the Khania plain and the foothills to the south were tied to one another in some way since the Early Minoan period. Contact between the plain and Apokorana does not seem to begin until MMI to I I . It increased in MMIII/LMI and was at its peak in LMIII. Interaction between the Khania plain and Kissamou, at least that would be evident from coarse ware studies, does not begin until MMIII/LMI. It also reaches its peak in the LMIII period. This study can also provide a basis for the inter-regional comparison of coarse wares on Crete; but, before this can be done similar analyses must be carried out elsewhere on the island. Hopefully this will be done.

616

FOOTNOTES

1.

Hood, M.S.F. (1965) "Minoan Sites in the Far West of Crete" BSA 60:99-113; Hood, M.S.F. et al. (1967) "Some Ancient Sites in South-west Crete" BSA 62:47-52.

2.

Moody, Jennifer (1983) "The Khania Archaeological Survey" IN Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, D. Keller and D. Rupp (eds.) BAR-IS155, Oxford*

3.

My deepest thanks go to Yannis Tzedhakis, Peter Warren, Costis Davaras, Eric and Brigetta Hallager, Athanasia Kanta and Antonios Zois for allowing me to look at their pottery and so carry out this study.

4.

See Binford, L.R. et a l . (1970) "Archaeology at Hatchery West, Carlyle, 111." Am. Ant. 35(4) and the discussion in Keller and Rupp (1983) Supra:32-34, 64-72.

5.

In order to answer this question extensive field work on analyses of clay sources would have to be undertaken.

6.

Rye, O.S. (1976) "Keeping your temper under control", Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11(2):106-37.

7.

Rye (1976):113.

8.

Reid, Kenneth C . (1984) "Fire and Ice: New evidence for the production and preservation of Late Archaic fiber-tempered pottery", Am. A n t . 49(l):62-67)

9.

Reid (1984):62-67.

10.

Reid (1984):66-67; Rye (1976):113.

11.

Rye (1976):114.

12.

Winkler, E.M. (1974) Stone: properties, durability in man's environment, Springer-Verlag, New York: 47.

13.

Skinner, B. J . (1966) "Thermal Expansion" IN Handbook of Physical Constants, Sydney P. Clarke (ed.), GSA Memoirs 97: 78-96.

IA.

Rye (1976):115-20.

15.

Rye (1976):121ff.

16.

Rye (1976):13A.

617

and

17.

Lerner, Shereen (1983) "The Utility of Plainware Ceramics in Studies of Time and Space", paper given at the 48th Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeologists.

18.

Hallager, Brigetta (1981) "A New Social Class in Late Bronze Age Crete", paper given at the Cambridge Colloquium on Minoan Society.

19.

Vanna Niniou (Khania Museum) and Helle Vankilde (GSE) are in the process of studying the pithoi from Khania area in great detail. No doubt their very thorough study, when completed, will cause the views presented here to be reassessed to some extent.

618

OftsKrco/fivC

C l &.L±

Ckarttcitn'sKcS ! ! I ;

•:

I !

! I

FiCaz CUMC. stfift

I!i airr

i

!

I

:

I

1 1 ! i !: t

M

1 * i

! ; M

&V2.1:

» i

ta fe ; •

» !

i

j

1

!

!

!

i

J

1

i i i

j

i

!

M

!

Ksi&ji

1

sue:; D£4.i

! I

sj/Mz SI26:

CMC

CMC

i

m tii ?izgt»

!

tip*: M CMe i

; !! ! i !

!

i

St£5:j

iw m : ;

? ! * 1

! I

^

i i ;

!

; u>w*&

: !

i !

i i

I

iiiir:*

J*W :

I I

5ii€.*

!

;

!

!

cm m .

iMUl

oiiir:

5MSS:

f!Re£ catms

3tZ€*

• M l ! ’ * • i »

np£i\ 1 i cm c :

zm * OLnri i

m tt

» i

!

;

> ; i

si2e:‘

;

t)gc:j

|

uU x\

|

i• ; I I » :

i

: il

s**\ 5 J

uvcl:

'jh k l M

i

^f«s;

i :

i 1 i

&{*: j

;

i

.

b '2tv I

! f

I ! I

I Vt.aU*

1.

I 1

COM!

U a a ji •;

;

i f 3?4P£2 SSfit

i

; • ! Date ::

0 3r \\< L 'r

In c U ? ‘StowS

CMC

sum

:‘/iiVJif; i i

j i

! K«&:

I-ii's|.\

b o m !n a .« t In c lu s io n ^ T j?5;

csuxC

’-’- v u i : D fifi

WcrfriX !

i ; ! 1

bBe.'.-

i

;

i

Map 1:

West

Crete

- the E p a r c h i a s

620

Figure 2 i "Suite Wares" a p p r o a c h for d a t i n g the o c c u p a t i o n a l phases of a site. This d i a g r a m suggests that Site A was occu­ pied from MMI to LMI.

' Types of wares found at Site A.

EMI-II

MMI-II

1

1

;--- — I

3 .

*

j MMIII/LMI

|

•

*

t *

: #

■"

LMIII

Ware I Ware II Ware III Ware IV Ware V Ware VI Ware VII

. - ..... *■■ ■

621

.:

■

.... —

Figure Ji

Chronological summary of coarse ware fabric features

EMI-II

EMIII-MMI

Surface c o l o r red orange yellow buff Core c olor same brown grey g reen Inclusions sand schist ang. calcite fine w hite shell occ. w hite calcite sand soft red soft p i n k soft y e l l o w soft b l a c k hard b l a c k hard red gravel olant quartz fiber Paste spongy glittery

622

MMI-II

NMIII-LKI

LMIII

Figure ki

Chronological summary of coarse ware surface treatment

EMI-II

EMIII-MMI

thi c k c r e a m y sl i p

MMI-II ■

MMIII-LMI ■

—

th i n whi te sli p

LMIII

— — —

' ■ .... ... ...

thin b l a c k wash

— —

— ■■■....... ............ —

red w a s h

—

.......... -

trickle

.—

b urnished

— — —

scored

— —

—

—

........

—

.....

Rope D e c o r a t i o n fine a p p l i e d band

—

1 111

coarse a p p l i e d band moulded band

................. .

l‘"M 1

c r e s a n t rope

...........

— — — — —

....

"

....

— >— n .....

r eali s t i c rope

---------- --------------

d iagonalslashed he r r i n g - b o n e slashed

—

1111■ ...... ........— — — -------- —

thumb- .................. ... impressed

multiple fingertipimpressed

—

..... ... ..

—

impressed circle in triangle

.. ......

623

»■■