COMPOSITION PA’lTERNS OF MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN POlTERY SURVEY AND PROSPECTS.

BY A. MILLETT+ and H. W. CATLING++ * Research Laboratory fur Archaeolugy and the History of Art, Oxford University ++ Deptment of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

INTRODUCTION This investigation has been in progress for a number of years and various

aspects a€ it have already been published. either in Archaeometry or in Annual of the British School at Athens. FOD such earlier work the reader is referred to the bibliography appended to this note.

At the time of writing more than a thousand pottery samples from over fifty sites have been analysed under the conditions first described by Catling. Blin-Stoyle and Richards (1963). Though a substantial number of these analyses have already been published and commented on, an almost equal number have yet fully to be digested in readiness for more extended treatment that is planned for a future issue of Archaeomerry. In the meantime, the opportunity is taken to give a preliminary account of the work in hand, with particular reference to the distribution of the new sites from which samples have been taken, and to the isolation of one or two new types of composition that has resulted. Mention is also made of certain ancillary projects which have been undertaken.

From the time that the investigation began there has been a dichotomy of interest implicit in the choices made of material for sampling. This dichotomy is clearly reflected in the nature of the published work that has ensued. We have tried, on the one hand to build up as full a ‘control’ as possible; on the other, we have simultaneously attempted to apply the information provided by the ‘control’ to the solution of specific archaeological problems. By ‘control’, we mean the analysis of sets of samples taken from Minoan and Mycenaean sites where there is every presumption that the pottery vessels from which the sampled fragments derived were manufactured on those siles themselves, and could therefore be regarded as characteristic of them. As the scope of the ‘control’ has enlarged, so we have built up a more comprehensive picture of the differences that can be distinguished between the many pottery-producing centres of the prehistoric Aegean world; we have also had to recognize the relatively large areas within which no differences can be detected. So far as the second aspect of the work is concerned, attempts have been made to answer such problems as the ultimate source of the Mycenaean pottery found at Tell el Amarna in Egypt (Catling. Blin-Stoyle and Richards, 1963). the place of manufacture of the Mycenaean pictorial pottery in Cyprus (Catling and Millett. 196%~) and the origin of the storage stirrup jars with painted linear B inscriptions found at Thebes in Boeotia (Catling and Millett, 19656).

When it became clear that problems could be tackled by this method of inquiry, it was recognized that the expansion of the ‘control’ was of first importance; it has been on this aspect of the investigation that work has recently concentrated, so that the number of sites in Greece. Crete and the Islands from which samples have been analysed has risen from the twenty reported on in Catling, Blin-Stoyle and Richards (1963) to a total of forty-six. The map, figure 1, shows the location

A A

NA

LYSE

S A

LRE

AD

Y

PU

MIS

UE

D

AN

ALY

SE

S NO7

KT

WB

LIS

UE

D

FIO

. 1.

72 A R C H A E O M E T R Y

of all these sites; the two symbols used differentiate between the sites whose analyses have already been published and those which have not.

In 1965, R. Hope-Simpson published his invaluable survey of Mycenaean sites (Hope-Simpson, 1965). This publication gives a very welcome standard method of referring to the location of Mycenaean sites, and the opportunity is taken now to enumerate the sites from which samples have been taken with a cross-reference to Hope-Simpson, 1965. To avoid confusion, the numbers alloca,ted in Catling, Blin-Stoyle and Richards (1963) to the sets of samples then published are repeated in the summary of sites which follows.

SITE SUMMARY We follow Hope-Simpson’s order, and make use of his geographical subdivisions

of Greece. If applicable, each site is followed by one or two reference numbers. The first refers to HGpe-Simpson ( 1 969, the second to Catling, Blin-Stoyle and Richards (1963). The analyses of site names printed in italics have already been published. This summary is illustrated by the map (figure 1).

1 PELOPONNESE 1 Argolid and Corinthia

Mycerioe Berbati Zygouries Korukou A egiru

2 Arcadia Nil

3 Laconia Ayios Stephunos Kythera

4 South-West Peloponnese Pylos Peristeria

Araxos 5 Achaea and Elis

1 5

48 60 82

124 164

197 235

282

I1 NORTH-WEST GREECE AND THE IONIAN ISLANDS 1 Aetolia, Acarnania and Thesprotia

2 The Ionian Islands Astakos 314

Nil - 111 CENTRAL AND NORTHERN GREECE

1 Attica, Salamis, Megara and Aegina Athens Thorikos Perati Porto Raphti Island Megara Minoa Aegina

348 361 367

391 392

1 2

3 26

-

25 -

30 -

A R C H A E O M E T R Y 73 ~ ~- ~~

2 Boeotia Orchomenos 3% Pyrghos 399 Gla 402 Kalami 411 Thebes 416 Eutresis 417 Arma 427

Kirrha 449

Platania 474

Vulos 480 Veles t ino 498 Marmariani 508 A rg yropoulis 517

Lefkandi 554 A marinthus 564

Nil - Nil - Nil -

3 Phocis and Locris

4 Spercheios Valley and Malls

5 Thessaly

6 Euboea

7 Epirus

8 Macedonia

9 NorthernSporades

1V CENTRAL AND EASTERN AEGEAN 1 The Cyclades

Kea p.179 Naxos p.181 Melos (Phylukopi) p. 182

Rhodes (ialysos) p. 184 Kos p. 187 Kalymnos p.188

Chios p.190

Nil -

Crete, by definition, was excluded from Hope-Simpson (1965). Knossos - Hagia Triadhu - Gournia - Palaikastro - Tylissos - Zukro - Pseira -

2 TheDodecanese

3 Samos, Chios and Lesbos

4 Western Asia Minor

V CRETE

31

8

9 27

-

- 7

- 16

10 1 1 12 13 14 15

74 A R C H A E O M E T R Y

A R C H A E O M E T R Y 75

In addition to the sites enumerated above, which form the ‘control’, pottery of Mycenaean type has been analysed from sites in Cyprus, the Syro-Palestinian area and Egypt. With the exception of a set of analyses from Tell Abu Hawan, in Palestine, the results have all been published either in Catling, Blin-Stoyle and Richards (1963). or Catling and Millett (196%).

IDENTIFICATION OF NEW COMPOSITION TYPES PYLOS (S.W. Peloponnese and PLATANIA (Spercheios Valley).

TABLE I

3 0 P y l o s 1 9 9 5 2 . l L c 1 4 . 8 5 10.15 p . 4 2 0 . 7 6 k 0 . 6 7 k 0 . 0 5 2 a 0.019f 0.021&

31 Platania 13 72 4.5 5 3.7 -+. 16.7 5 11.9 k 1.6 f 0.99 f 0.081 k 0.101 5 0.018 C 0.5 1.4 2. I 1.4 0.27 0.14 0.011 0.010 0.005

0.5 0.6 2.6 1.4 0.3 0.07 0.009 0.010 0.006

Table I lists the results obtained from the analysis of sherds from Pylos and Platania; Figure 2 is the graphical illustration of these results. They are not comparable with any of the previously analysed types and are therefore designated as Types P and Q respectively.

MINERAL SEPARATION TECHNIQUE As a result of analysing mineral separation samples for other members of the

laboratory, the notion that the analysis of the crystalline fraction from such a separation might prove a useful complementary technique on our Aegean material came about. The technique of magnetic separation using a Thomas Cook separator and the collection of the non-magnetic crystalline extract was employed. As the Aegean material in general is so very fine it proved to be very difficult to obtain sufficient crystalline extract for analysis. Some fourteen Jamples were subjected to Eeparation (six of these being our standards of which we have large quantities) and of these only three yielded sufficient for analysis. These three resu1,ts are listed in Table 11. they are interesting results as the difference between Mycenae and Knossos (if one analysis on each can be regarded as significant) is again underlined. Secondly a possible means of distinction between Mycenae and Berbati is indicated.

Although the experiment perforce was limited. the results would seem to justify its continuation. it is obvious however that the technique could only be used complementarily and that .the necessary complete destruction of the sherds would seriously limit the field of possible investigation.

TABLE I1

1 Mycenae 23 2.2 31.3 12.2 2.4 1.5 0.19 0.036 0.016 0.0063 2 M a t i 11 1.4 7.3 11.2 1.5 2.0 0.36 0.037 0.012 0.0031

10 Knoraos 38 1.0 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.5 0.52 0.062 nd’ nd* nd = none dekckd

76 A R C H A E O M E T R Y

ANALYSIS OF RAW CLAYS It has several times been suggested that it would be profitable to obtain for

analysis samples of modern potter’s clay from some of the areas from which Minoan and Mycenaean pottery has been analysed. Such samples might either be taken fresh from the clay-pits, or from appropriate pot-, brick- or tile-factories. Some preliminary work has now been done in this direction. The first step (for which we are indebted to Mr. M. R. Popham) was to obtain a sample af raw clay from a modern brick-factory at Lefkandi in Euboea (very close to the Mycenaean site of Lefkandi from which pottery samples have been analysed.) This sample was found on analysis to correspond closely with Type D composition, already shown to be characteristic of Amarinthos in Euboea, and now known to be the dominant composition type in the (unpublished) analyses from Lefkandi itself. It is of considerable importance to reporl that pottery of the eighth century B.C. from Chalkis in Euboea (only a few miles from Lefkandi) has been analysed as par& of a completely different project, and been found also $to conform to composition Type D. So far as this western area of Euboea is concerned, potters have evidently continued to use clay of the same composition type from at least the fourteenth century B.C. until the present day.

The result of this comparative study was sufficiently encouraging to warrant the collection of more raw clay samples. In 1966 therefore, samples were taken from a number of parts of Greece, including Volos in Thessaly. the Spercheios Valley, Livadhia in Boeotia, Marathon in Attica and. for the Peloponnese. Argos. A comment on their analyses will be published in due course.

Part of the raw clay sample from Lefkandi mentioned above was fired to a temperature of 800°C. Material taken from it was then analysed. and the result was found to be the same as that part of the sample that had not been fired. This result is of some interest in view of suggestions that have been made that the firing process might materially alter a clay’s composition. Obviously, however, this one finding requires further substantiation.

MINERALOGICAL EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL American colleagues also working in the field of prehistoric Greek ceramics

have for some time taken a welcome and cor,structive interest in the Oxford investi- gation, leading to more than one piece of collaboration. This interest comes particularly from those concerned in identifying the source from which the clay is derived by examining thin sections cut from pottery samples with a polarizing microscope. Miss Marie Farnsworth has published a paper on this subject (Farns- worth, 1964), concerned with pottery of the classical period, and is engaged on further work. Professor F. R. Matson. of Pennsylvania State University, is also working in this field. Professor Matson. who has for some time been attached to the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition, is particularly concerned with problems of ceramic technology in the south-west Peloponnese in the Mycenaean period. We were glad to accept his suggestion that thin sections should be made of a number of the samples whose analyses were published by Catling. Blin-Stoyle and Richards (1963). This has been done with the assistance of the Institute of Archaeol- ogy in London University, and Professor Matson hopes shortly to publish the results of his examination of the thin sections. It will be of great interest to see what light each method of examination has to shed on the other. (Thin sections have been

c

A R C H A E O M E T R Y 77

made of sampks from the following sites:- Mycenae (7 sherds); Berbati (2); Ayios Stephanos (5); Thebes (3); Volos (4); Amarinthos (5); Melos (imports. 8; local manufacture. 3); Knossos (4) ).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are glad to acknowledge continued help from institutions and individuals,

particularly the British School oE Archaeology in Athens, the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum, the Inspectorate-General of Antiqui- ties in Greece; also from Miss D. H. F. Gray, Dr. R. A. Higgins. Mr. M. R. Popham and Mrs. A. D. Ure.

REIXRENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Catling, H. W., Blin-Stoyle, A. E.. and Richards E. E., 1961, Spectrographic analysis of Mycenaean and Minoan pottery, Archaeometry 4, 31-38.

Catling, H. W., Blin-Stoylc, A. E., and Richards, E. E., 1963, Correlations between com- position and provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan pottery, Annual of the British School at Athens, 58, 94-115.

Catlin , H. W., 1963, Minoan and Mycenaean pottery: coniposition and provenance, Arcffocometry 6, 1-9.

Catling, H. W. and Millett. A., 196% A study of the composition patterns of Mycenaean pictorial pottery from Cyprus, Annual of the British School a! Athens 60, 212-224.

Catling, H. W. and Millett, A., 1%56, A study of the inscribed stirrup jars from Thebcs, Archaeometry 8, 3-85.

Catlin H. W. and Millett. A., 1966, Composition and provenance: a challenge, Arcfacometry 9, 92-97.

Farnsworth, M., 1964, Greek Pottery: A mineralogkal study, American Journal of Arch- aeolqgy 68, 221-228.

HopeSunpson, R.,. 1965, A. Gazetteer and A t h s of Mycenaean Sites, University of London Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement No. 16.