correlations between composition and provenance of mycenaean and minoan pottery
TRANSCRIPT
The Annual of the British School at Athenshttp://journals.cambridge.org/ATH
Additional services for The Annual of the British School at Athens:
Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here
Correlations between composition and provenance ofMycenaean and Minoan pottery
H. W. Catling, E. E. Richards and A. E. Blin-Stoyle
The Annual of the British School at Athens / Volume 58 / November 1963, pp 94 - 115DOI: 10.1017/S0068245400013812, Published online: 04 October 2013
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0068245400013812
How to cite this article:H. W. Catling, E. E. Richards and A. E. Blin-Stoyle (1963). Correlations between composition andprovenance of Mycenaean and Minoan pottery. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 58, pp 94-115doi:10.1017/S0068245400013812
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATH, IP address: 128.143.23.241 on 15 Nov 2013
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMPOSITION ANDPROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND
MINOAN POTTERY
(PLATES 28-34)
F O R E W O R D
T H I S investigation into the compositions of Minoan and Mycenaean pottery fabrics was carriedout in Oxford at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art by permissionof the Director, Dr. E. T. Hall. Mrs. E. E. Richards, co-author of this report, was in charge ofthe investigation, latterly with the assistance of Mrs. A. Millett. The potential importance ofthe work undertaken was first suggested by Mr. M. S. F. Hood, then Director of the BritishSchool at Athens. Mr. Hood has maintained lively interest in the investigation, and has mademany valuable suggestions about the course it should take, as well as providing much of thesherd material. In this connexion we are greatly indebted to Dr. J. Papadimitriou, Director-General of Antiquities in Greece, for granting the necessary export permits. We are also gratefulto Mr. M. R. Popham, for scraping selected sherds in the Herakleion Museum and in theStratigraphical Museum at Knossos, and to Dr. N. Platon, then Ephor of Antiquities in Crete,for allowing this to be done. Sherds from Thebes in the University Museum, Reading, wereloaned by Mrs. A. N. Ure; the Rev. Dr. A. J. Arkell provided a set of Mycenaean sherds fromTell el Amarna from the collections in University College, London. Fragments from Rhodeswere given by the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum throughthe kindness of Mr. D. E. L. Haynes and Mr. R. A. Higgins. Other sherds were provided fromthe reserve collection in the Ashmolean Museum. The sherds tested in the course of the investiga-tion are now housed in the Ashmolean,1 with the exception of the group from Thebes (Reading).
An interim report was published in Archaeometry iv (1961) 31-38.
G E N E R A L INTRODUCTION
The solution to many problems in the archaeology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age lies in thecorrect identification of the place of manufacture of individual vases and vase fragments.Obviously, such problems do not arise with the vast bulk of pottery found on Minoan andMycenaean sites in Crete and Greece themselves. It is a reasonable assumption that sites suchas Knossos, Phaistos, and Mallia on the one hand, Pylos, Mycenae, and Volos on the other,manufactured virtually all their own wares for themselves. But at the same time it is also clearthat pottery must have figured in trade and other forms of exchange between the main Aegeancentres; such material has in the past had to be distinguished from local products by the tradi-tional criteria of shape, fabric, and ornament. It is here that the marked technical and decora-tive homogeneity that runs through so much Minoan and Mycenaean pottery, irrespective ofits source, raises serious difficulties of interpretation. The Mycenaean origin of a vase found inCrete—or vice versa—may be extremely probable, yet doubt lingers for want of some addi-tional—and objective—criterion to support the judgement. As the Minoan and Mycenaean
1 Accession numbers 1962.357-76. The sherds scraped in museums in Crete are, of course, excluded. A summary descrip-tion of this material is given in the Appendix.
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 95
worlds were drawn into closer and closer association, with their material cultures coming moreand more to resemble one another, the farther our confidence in making such judgementsrecedes.
From L.M. I/L.H. I onwards there is increasing evidence for eastward and westward expan-sion from the Aegean, evidence which is largely ceramic. There has been not a little disputeabout the precise source of Aegean imports found in Egypt and the Syro-Palestinian area: arethey Minoan, or are they Mycenaean?2 Correct discrimination would help to clarify themanner—and its timing—in which Crete was supplanted by Greece as the dominant mercantilepower in the east Mediterranean.
In other cases, problems arise over Mycenaean pottery alone. Within Greece itself at fewpoints can headway be made in isolating regional ceramic groups by traditional methods.Though, again, it is obvious that the main sites produced their own pottery, there must havebeen exchanges between them in which pottery surely played a part. Suspicions there may bethat individual pieces are alien to the sites where they have been found, but nothing likecertainty is possible. We meet the same problem in a rather different aspect when we turn tothe rich finds of Mycenaean pottery outside Greece. From Myc. IIIAI onwards no region inthe east Mediterranean has more Mycenaean pottery than Cyprus. The earliest finds are clearlyimports; later, in the second half of the thirteenth century, Cypriot-made copies becomeobvious. But between these limits is a mass of material, including the important class of Pictorialvases, whose origin is controversial.3 Was it made in the Mycenaean home-lands and exportedto Cyprus in the course of trade? Was it made in Cyprus in Mycenaean colonial settlements?This problem may be carried a stage farther, to the Mycenaean III pottery from Egypt, parti-cularly that from Tell el Amarna, and from Syria, notably the finds at Ras Shamra and TellAtchana. Was such pottery exported from Greece, or was it exported from factories in Cyprusor, conceivably, was it even locally made?
There is a clear case for a search for new ways to help solve such problems of identity; onepossibility has now been partly explored by the present investigation.
INTRODUCTION
The fabric of pottery consists of about 50 per cent, or more of silica (SiO2), mostly chemicallycombined with the oxides of aluminium, calcium, and magnesium. Apart from these, iron inthe form of various oxides is present, as well as a long list of minor and trace constituents. Allthese are present in the clay from which the pottery was made, but the numerical values of theirindividual concentrations, i.e. the quantitative as opposed to the qualitative analysis of the twomedia will be different for two reasons. 'Raw' clay is not usually suitable for making finepottery; it has to be refined and processed in various ways which lead to changes in its com-position. The firing process results in the loss of water which gave the clay its original plasticquality; this leads to a change in the absolute, rather than in the relative, concentrations. Evenif it were possible therefore to identify the ancient clay-pits, the correlation of the fabric of thepottery with the clay from which it was supposed to have been made could only be carried outin the broadest outline. It was therefore decided to confine the study to the end product of thevarious factors: the pottery itself.
2 See, for example: A. J. B. Wace and C. Blegen, Klio Aegean history c. 1550—1400 B.C.', OpArch vi (1950), esp.xxxii (1939) 131 ff.; H. J. Kantor, 'The Aegean and the 2036"".Orient in the Second Millennium B.C.', AJA li (1947), esp. 3 See F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant33ff.; and A. Furumark, 'The settlement at Ialysos and (1951).
96 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
Earlier work4 has shown that while no qualitative differences appear to exist between thecomposition of pottery of different provenance, it is possible to find systematic quantitative dif-ferences. It was therefore decided to test the suggestion that pottery fabrics of the Aegean LateBronze Age might also differ significantly from one another in this respect, according to theirprovenance. If they existed, such differences could be used as an ancillary means towardsidentifying the place of manufacture of critical vases and fragments. It might be disputedwhether an Aegean vase found in Egypt was Minoan or Mycenaean; suppose it could be shownthat the composition of Minoan and Mycenaean pots was easily differentiated, then it shouldbe possible to have recourse to some method which will yield this information. Spectrographictechniques are particularly suitable for this purpose since under appropriate experimentalconditions it is possible to analyse a specimen weighing no more than 10 mg. for 10-15 elements,the concentrations of which may vary over a range covering four powers often (say IO-O-OOI percent.), with an accuracy of 20 per cent, or better. It is the exact proportion of the major con-stituents which cannot readily be determined by this method; these, however, vary compara-tively little from case to case. The experimental errors are liable to be systematic rather thanrandom, which is preferable provided the analyses are done by the same method in one labora-tory and are used for comparison purposes. Achievement of the same degree of absolute accuracyas of reproducibility is only necessary should several laboratories collaborate in compiling thedata.
When we carried out the experimental work a compromise had to be made between the com-pleteness of the information about a particular sherd and the total number of sherds analysed.In view of the nature of the problem it seemed preferable to analyse a large number of samples(some 500 individual sherds) in order that the results could be treated by statistical methods.This meant, however, that data were obtained for only a selected nine of the possible total ofsome twenty-five constituents.5
The choice was made partly on the basis of analyses of clay minerals available in scientificliterature, and partly on the basis of previous experience with ancient pottery ;6 but mainly asa result of a pilot programme7 on forty sherds each from Knossos and from Mycenae, carefullychosen for the experiment by Mr. M. S. F. Hood. These sherds were analysed under one set ofexperimental conditions8 for calcium (Ca), aluminium (Al), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe),sodium (Na), titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zirconium (Zr),and vanadium (V). The determination of potassium (K), gallium (Ga), strontium (Sr), barium(Ba), lead (Pb), and rubidium (Rb) was carried out under quite different experimental condi-tions. In this latter group no systematic differences were observed in the very small traces ofGa, Sr, Ba, Pb, and Rb which were found to be present, while the potassium content of bothsets of sherds remained very close to 2-5 per cent. It therefore did not add a criterion for dis-tinguishing between them, and the second type of experiment was discontinued for subsequentsamples. All the elements present in amounts of 0-5 per cent, or more which could be determinedby means of the first type of experiment were retained in the final selection, which also includesthe trace elements Cr, Mn, and Ni. The other two V and Zr did not give consistent results. The
4 E. V. Sayre, A. Murrenhoff, and C. F. Weick, 'The 5 Prelim. Reps. Reference Clay Minerals, Am. Petroleumnon-destructive analysis of ancient potsherds through Inst. Res. Project 49 (1951).neutron activation', Brookhaven National Laboratory, Report 6 Ibid. Archaeometry ii 23 and iii 25.No. BNL 508 (T-1222) (1958). E. V. Sayre and R. W. ' H. W. Catling, A. E. Blin-Stoyle, and E. E. Richards,Dodson, 'Neutron activation study of Mediterranean pot- 'Spectographic analysis of Mycenaean and Minoan potterysherds', AJA lxi (1957) 35. E. E. Richards, 'Spectographic (Interim Report)', Archaeometry iv (1961) 31.analysis of Romano-British mortaria', Archaeometry ii (1959) 8 E. E. Richards and K. F. Hartley, 'Spectographic ana-23 and iii (i960) 25. lysis of Romano-British pottery', Nature clxxxv (i960) 194.
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 97
minimum and maximum amounts of the selected elements encountered in the course of theentire project are given in Table 1. It is evident from this table that the greatest variations inconcentration occur in the cases of Mg, Ca, Cr, Mn, Ni, and Na, and it may be anticipated thatthese elements will prove to be most useful in characterizing the type of composition of a sherd(cf. FIG. 3).
TABLE I
Ca 0-8-32 Ti 0-4-1 -9Mg 0-8-15 Mn 0-007-0-27Al 6-32 Cr 0-015-0-5Fe 2-8-15 Ni 0-001-0-2Na 0-3-3
STATISTICAL BACKGROUND
If knowledge of the chemical composition of the fabric of pottery is to be useful in comparingand contrasting sherds of different provenance, some method of estimating the randomnessamong sherds of the same provenance has to be chosen. This can be done with a predetermineddegree of certainty by means of standard statistical methods which involve certain assumptions.The justification for these assumptions appears to some extent in the process of applying them.
The average value of the concentrations of each of the selected constituents is found for eachset of sherds (preferably at least ten) from a particular site. This set is referred to as a 'group'and treated statistically as a 'sample' from a 'normal' population. A 'normal' population is suchthat if a histogram is drawn or a frequency distribution is plotted for a very large 'sample'from the same population, the shape of the graph is a symmetrical bell, with its apex at theaverage value. Occasionally it was found that sherds from the same site divided themselves intotwo distinct groups, both 'normally' distributed about their mean values for the distinguishingelements. Sets of sherds which were believed to be different on archaeological grounds were nottreated as members of the same population even if they were from the same site, and this divisionis indicated in Table 2, which lists the provenance of all the sherds which have been analysed.In the tables and figures which follow, roman numerals are used to distinguish different groupsfrom the same site, whatever the reason for the division.
The amounts of any particular constituent present in the individual members of the groupwill fluctuate about the mean value for that group. To reduce the influence of experimentalerror on these fluctuations to a minimum the method was tested and improved at the outset ofthis project until the standard deviation associated with the experimental technique was lessthan the standard deviation obtained from sherds in the same group; i.e. the fluctuationsobserved when the same sherd was analysed say ten times were much smaller than if a sampleof ten sherds in the same group was analysed instead.
By means of statistical procedures concentration ranges can be calculated for reasonablywell-defined groups. The limits of these ranges are called 'confidence levels', since they dependon the degree of certainty with which one wishes to be able to predict the probable compositionof any other from the same group. For archaeological work the choice of an 80 per cent, levelof confidence seemed reasonable. This means that in the long run 80 per cent., i.e. four out of five,sherds belonging to the same population should have concentration within the calculated range.For a given confidence level, the width of the range depends on the magnitude of the deviationsfrom the mean of the individual analyses which have contributed to it. In this way we get 'good'groups, with narrow ranges, easily distinguishable from other groups, and also indistinct groupsresulting from wide ranges. While the average concentrations of the different constituents may
H
98 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
differ for different groups, they can only be said to be distinguishable with 80 per cent, con-fidence if the ranges of at least one of the constituents do not overlap. Bearing in mind thatmore samples will have compositions nearer the average than at the extreme of the range, wecan still make some distinctions between groups even when there is some overlap of the
TABLE 2
Ref no.
1
2
34
26t
25J5678
27t9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
'415
161728f
18
•92 0
2 1
2 2
Provenance
MAINLAND OF GREECE AND EUBOEAArgolidArgolidCorinthMegaridAchaiaLaconiaAtticaBoeotiaEuboeaThessalyThessalyThessaly
CRETE
MycenaeBerbatiKorakouMegara MinoaAigiraAyios StephanosPeratiThebesAmarinthosVolosArgyropoulisMarmariani
KnossosAyia TriadhaGourniaPalaikastroTylissosZakro
Selected sherds from the StratigraphicalMuseum, Knossos
THE ISLANDSMelosRhodesChios
CYPRUS*
EGYPT
NORTH SYRIi"
PhylakopiIalysosEmporio
Arpera ChiflikEnkomiHala Sultan Tekke
Tell el Amarna
Tell Atchana* For purposes of comparison a small
number of sherds of specifically Cypriottypes were analysed from the following sites:Arpera ChiflikDhenia, Mali;Ayia Paraskevi;
; Beuyuk Kaimakli, Evretadhes;Dhiorios, Aloupotrypes; Nicosia,and Pyla, Verghin.
No . of sherdsanalysed
402 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
1 2
2 2
162 0
2 0
2 0
401 0
1 0
I O
I O
I O
13
4240
33
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
I O
I O
PLATE 28
PLATE 28
PLATE 29PLATE 30PLATE 29
(32+10)(2O + t2O)
(IO+IO)(IO+IO)
PLATE 32
PLATE 33
PLATE 34
PLATE 34
(a)
(*)
(a)(a)
(*)
PLATES 30 (b) and 31
PLATE 32 (6)PLATE 33 (a)
(fl)
( * )
(a)
t These sherds arrived at a very late stage of the work; they have beenanalysed, but the results for them could not be included in all the Tables andFigures.
extremes of the ranges, provided that the average values of several of the constituents for one ofthem lie outside the ranges for the other.
It is now clear that the groups of sherds from Mycenae, Megara Minoa, Berbati, and Korakouare not distinguishable by these criteria and they are therefore treated as members of one
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 99
population. Since there are over ioo sherds from these sites taken together, it is possible to testthe assumption that this population is 'normal' in the statistical sense described above. Theother possibility9 is that the population is 'log-normal', i.e. that the bell-shaped distribution isonly obtained if the logarithms of the concentrations are plotted against the frequency ofoccurrence. The Ca and Mg content of the ioo sherds from the above sites were plotted bothways and the result for Ca is shown in FIG. I . Both linear and logarithmic plots lead to symmetri-cal distributions. Other, more stringent, numerical tests of'normality' were also applied. Usingthe log-normal distribution, the calculated statistics showed a marginal improvement in the
FIG. I
shape of the curve from one point of view, while there was a marginal deterioration fromanother point of view. No over-all benefit was gained which would justify the additional labourimplied in the use of logarithms, and therefore the groups were treated according to the 'normal'distribution law.
SELECTION OF M A T E R I A L AND D E S C R I P T I O N OF E X P E R I M E N T A L M E T H O D
The distribution of sites from which sherds have been tested is shown on the map, FIG. 2,and in Table 2. Here also each site is given a reference number by which it can be found in thevarious Tables and Figures. The first need was to examine material from major sites in Creteand Greece, for unless significant differences were detected at this stage, further work wouldhave been fruitless. When it was found that the samples tested from Mycenae and from Knossosformed two distinct groups, it was clear that more extended tests were justified.
Within the limitations imposed by the difficulty of obtaining sherds from this site or that, aswide an area as possible has been covered in Greece and Crete. Thessaly is represented byVolos, Marmariani, and Argyropoulis; Central Greece has Thebes. Sherds from Amarinthosenabled the island of Euboea to be included. Attica is poorly represented by Perati, on the eastcoast. From the Megarid (Megara Minoa) by way of Corinth (Korakou) into the Argolid(Mycenae and Berbati) there is a more representative choice; the rest of the Peloponnese israther thinly covered by Ayios Stephanos in Laconia and Aigira in Achaea. Five major siteshave been tested in Crete in addition to Knossos; though material from Phaistos was not avail-able, sherds from Ayia Triadha partly compensate for its absence.
Beyond the Greek mainland and Crete, the island settlements are represented by Rhodes(Ialysos) and Chios (Emporio). Melos (Phylakopi) offered a complex of fabrics, some thought
» L. H. Ahrens, 'The lognormal distribution of the ele- and R. W. Smith, 'Compositional categories of ancientments', Geochim. etCosmochim. Ada v (1954) 49. E. V. Sayre glass', Science cxxxiii (1961) 1824.
1 0 0 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
to be locally made, others to be imported from a variety of sources. Finally, sherds from threesites in Cyprus (Enkomi, Hala Sultan Tekke, and Arpera Chiflik) were examined, together withothers from Egypt (Tell el Amarna) and North Syria (Tell Atchana). This was done in order tocompare the data established for the producing centres with that from areas to which Aegeanpottery was traded or in which it was locally imitated. Use was also made of the results byexamining thirteen sherds from Knossos selected for their non-Knossian appearance.
KEYI23456789
MYCENAEBERBATIKORAKOUMEGARA MINOAPERATITHEBESAMARINTHOSVOLOSV1ARMARIANI
10II1213141516171819
KNOSSOSAYIA TRIADHAGOURNIAPALAIK ASTROTYLISSOSZAKROPHYLAKOPIIALYSOSARPERAENKOMI
20212225262728
0
HALA SULTAN TEKKETELL-EL-AMARNATELL ATCHANAAYIOS STEPHANOSAEGIRAARGYROPOULISEMPORIO
40 SO 120 /60 200
MH-ESTo(
FIG. 2
In most cases the date of the sherds chosen for testing falls within the period 1400-1150 B.C.,covered by the Late Minoan III and Late Helladic III phases. Some Cretan sherds, however,are as early as Late Minoan I; Phylakopi sherds include some L.H. I—II material.
For greater clarity, some of the tested sets of sherds are illustrated, PLATES 28-34. Thenumbered sets are those in which more than one of the groups described below were present.
The specimens for analysis were prepared by flaking off a few slivers from the cross-sectionof the sherd. The outside edges of the slivers were carefully removed to avoid contamination bythe slip which usually has a different composition. The material from the inside of the fabric ofthe sherd is finely ground in an agate mortar, and after being mixed with a fixed proportion ofa mixture of graphite, ammonium sulphate, and lithium carbonate, it is weighed into graphitecups and arced under controlled conditions. The light emitted by this arc is photographed ina Hilger Large Quartz spectrograph. The intensities of certain spectral lines, which are specially
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY ioi
chosen from among the very many which appear in the spectrum of this type of sample, are anempirical measure of the quantities of the elements which have given rise to those lines. It isonly by comparison with the intensities of the same lines in the spectra of chemically analysedsamples that absolute values for the concentrations can be obtained. For the trace elements Cr,Ni, Mn no chemically analysed standard samples were available. The calibrations for thesewere obtained by making up synthetic mixtures with the appropriate small concentrations. Itis the difficulties in calibration which may lead to the systematic errors in the absolute values ofthe concentrations referred to in the Introduction. For our purposes the analytical results couldequally well have been expressed in arbitrary units since we only wish to know that, for example,there is on the average nearly twice as much Mg in Cretan as in Mycenaean samples.
RESULTS
The average values and the ranges of the concentrations for all the groups are collected inTable 3. This also shows the number of samples in a particular group and that number asa percentage of the total number of sherds from that site. The number of samples in a particulargroup gives an indication of the reliability of the average: the more analyses have contributedto that figure the more nearly will it represent further members of that group. The percentagefigure is of interest because it shows that, for instance, nearly all (90-100 per cent.) of the sherdssupposed on archaeological grounds to be probably Mycenaean imports, but found at Enkomi,Hala Sultan Tekke, and Arpera Chiflik (Cyprus), do in fact fit into groups which turn out tohave Mycenaean type (A) compositions. Also, when two groups are found at the same site itmay be significant whether a larger or smaller proportion resembles a type of compositionencountered elsewhere: e.g. 64 per cent, of Theban sherds were found to have Cretan type (B)compositions while only 23 per cent, resembled type (A); the remaining 13 per cent, weredifferent again (Table 5).
A way of illustrating the differences and similarities between groups is shown in FIG. 3. Herethe average values of those elements, already referred to in the Introduction, which show thegreatest over-all variation are plotted on vertical axes and the points are joined up. A 'composi-tion pattern' for each group results, and they can easily be compared. Before we classify thegroups into types, however, the possible overlap of the ranges must be taken into account.FIG. 4 is a graphical representation of the numerical data in Table 3, but it is easier to use thanthe table. The diagram consists of vertical lines at positions corresponding to the average con-centrations of the various constituents, while the ranges are indicated by horizontal diamonds.It is only necessary to place a ruler in line with one of the averages to see whether it falls withinthe range of any of the groups. The same process is applicable in finding the possible origin of'odd' sherds, Table 5 (a). The use of a logarithmic concentration scale for both FIGS. 3 and 4 isonly a matter of convenience, to enable a spread over a power often to be confined in a reason-able space.
It is clear from Table 3 and the diagrams that with the exception of two small groups theCretan sherds are very similar. They were combined into a single population and used tocharacterize a type (B), Ref. no. 24. For the same reason groups 1-4 were also averaged andthey represent the other most frequently recurring type of composition, type (A), Ref. no. 23.If anything, this coalition of the groups emphasizes the distinctions which were already ap-parent when the original samples from Mycenae and Knossos were compared: there is nooverlap between the Mg, Cr, and Ni ranges and these elements can be used to decide whethera third group resembles type (A) or (B).
1 0 2 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
CO
W
W
uCO
OX
ID]
HA
iang
anes
e
B
Chr
omiu
|
Sodi
unIr
on
p
• S
s
1
3?
NiO
O1
0
d
U
O
q
0ca
MgO
tota
lP
rove
nanc
e
i
•8oo4O
o
BIO
o4Oloo
3
foo
o4ooo
OIO
o4CO
oo
in co•- do oo4Cl
g 5
o
36 644m -to too o6en
o4CO
toodCO
oCO
o4g1
o
02
1
o4dtooo
900
0400
OIO
040
•80
oog
0
4m00
-
o o o444•*• co to
o oto -mto
0
COCO
01
0
04000
6G0
040
0
CO0
0
4
0
i n
04
0
CO
o o o o o44444tO Tf d CO dr^ •- o o en
•*•
41tot o
CO
m
41to
CO
4to
I-~CO
t o
d d4 4CO t o
CO
CO
4• *
- * -
o4mCO
001
o
Myc
enae
-
t o
t o
m
BOO
O4d00
zfo
04to00
01
2
04
f0-
01
2
04to00
m3
goo
0400
Gio
0 044CO -
0 00
1?04CO
0
0 0440 0
CO O l0
• *
CO
04
d
O
0
to304inCO00
04COto0
m t o
0 0414en to01 -*•
into
CO
0
0
4to00
d004
f0c?
304000
S1
04CO0
0
gzofoo CO
8 810
0 0 0444r^to 000
30
4
0
00 0 0444
^ 0in i ~ ^u O O0
04to
0
0
01
0
m
0 044CO d
0
COCO
043
i n
444444c i m c o T } < H i n
_
d d
44to O
O l
d d
44O l CO
o4CO
100
od
Ber
bati
ct
m
en
t o
0
en
• * •
i n
d
d - ^
4 41d
1—
CO
i n
* ^
0
t o
d
• * CO
44cocoCO
d
•tfl
CO
44444• *
m mO O d
444
oen
O l
Kor
akou
CO
• *
m
i n
C3
n
Meg
ara
Min
m
3,
Per
ati
• *
0
COtO
m
01
0
CO
00
d0
00
30 044
CO
0
304
0
d
0
CO0
04d
0
0
0 044en -01 co0
CO
0
%
OIO
04CO
00
• *
304g>0
enCO0
30
400
zzo
04to
<S0
t o
0 044to d
0
0
043-
0
zoo
0
4CO60
ofo
04CO
CO00
ioo
0
400
en co
m30400
dCO004
0
d
"804
0
en
0 0 0
444COtO I-»0 01 0-
intoCO • *
0 0 0 0 0 0444444rf co 0 N intoco to r 0 0 co
CO
4
01
-
401
t o
4
m co
d CO CO
444en d d0
to
4•*
m co
• *
• *
01
4
_
444144- coto coco
00d
m
The
bes I
into
*~"
• *
to
?
The
bes II
Xto
d
01to
»
Am
arin
thos
m
CO
m
>—1
Am
arin
thos
m
t o
4t o
i n
41en
COd40
t o
01
mco
40
CO
t od4d«
4CO
CO
4CO0
Ol toCO
4CO
_,
1-1 CO CO
4440
041
coto
in mcoto
Vol
os I
C3
CO
Vol
os II
XCO
001
001
Mar
mar
iani
en
-
4CO
t o
IOO
s.
Kno
ssos
0
CO
CO
4- I
CO
0
010041
CO
4CO
*~"
i n
4to0
0
«
002
04«?00
CO
0
0
4
i0
iio
04enCO00
0 1
0
4CO
en0
tod
0 044en -H
co to
40
„in4in
0
4
„
CO
804000
ct00
4CO00
co to« d0 004000
Gio
900
04
00
100
04
• *
S0
r^co3 3
0 0
44r^coO OO
dO
0 0
44g1?0
m0400-
21
O
O
O
4
s0dd
0 044
1 - 1 i n~ en
CO
40en
^f cr
44O COcoco
r^• *
CO
CO
0
910
04
• *
•80
04<§0
CO00
CO
8
Goo
0 044coco00
ioo
00
02
0
0 044co ento to0 00
d0
0 044COtDO -H0
0 044coco
CO • *
0
0CO
0
CO
0
CO
04g1
-t o
0 0 0
4440 0 0oi m T$*
m t o
4
m
0
d4in
444444~ 0 0 c o i n i n T t *
d
OICOd d4401 i-~
t o
001
en
Ayi
a T
riad
h
_,
00 1
0 1
Gou
rnia
d
CO
d
d d
0
4 4 4mco «d
aCO
Pal
aika
stro
CO
IOO
0
1 yl
isso
s
d
0m
m
Zak
ro I
m
CO
0
410
**•
Zak
ro I
I
d
O
•4
t o
m
Phy
lako
pi I
-Q usmto
4enr~"
t o
4
• *
0110
4dm
74
3
m t od
4CO
CO
4dinto
t o m
CO
0
gio
0
4
s00
0
04CO
0
COd
04tod
0
002
04000
md0
foo
0
400
CO
30 044mtoOl CO
0
02
1
04000
-
04en0
CO
0
30
4COto00
oog
04• *
01
0
Goo
0
400
cocod d0 004
• *
•80
010
0
4CO
•80
ozo
0 044d to- 00
en CO
O 04401 toen 010
0 0
0 044CO COT f CO
444•. 0 r-»O
d
401en
4• *
03
_,
d40CO
t o
0
t o
4CO
m t od d
44CO ^ f« t o
0
CO
0
ioo
0
CO
00
d
004
0
foo
04CO
00
304to
•80
cocon 804000
-
O O
44COtOOl r^O 0
d
0 0 0444d ^ ^•*co en
0
4en0 1
O
4
01CO CO
44mtoCO
to co « co
4444*4* CO CO CO
en to0 0 0 0-H-H-H-HTt- co r^ 0"*"
$
dd
Phy
lako
pi I
I
Xto
d
100
0
Phy
lako
pi I
I
uto
0 1
m
0 1
Ialy
sos I
a
0in
0
Ialy
sos
II
X
CO
4COi n
100
0
KH
Arp
era
Chi
fl
OSCO
m
t o0401CO
0o>
0 1
k 11
Arp
era
Chi
fl
CO
• *
d
CO
4• *
CO
d 044•+10m
100
0
Enk
omi I
0 1
CO
100
0
Enk
omi
II .
X01
t o
40
CO
0
4COin00
040-
0CO04m
^
4en
CO
m
CO000
400
goo04to
g10
foo
0400
t o
0
4
0
t o
04m0
4O l
d CO CO
444in to rt o
CD04
4CO
1 ^
0
CO
4dm t o
m04
in01
m
CO
CO
d
4• *
m0 044« 01
00 1
01 co
Hal
a S
ulta
n T
ekk(
0
Tel
l el
Am
arna
•+
00
0
Tel
l A
tcha
na
d
Ave
rage
s of
Gro
uj
CO
Goo
0
4CO00
m30
4cf00
Gio
0
4COm00
CO
0401
to0
304
0
0
01d004CO
CO00
GGo
04to
0
• * •
04COen0
^•com co0 0
44
t o
4
•~~
d
CO
4to^h
d
CO
4CO
0
4en
r^
400 1
mCO
4• *
d
i n
CO
4d
d
401
coto
CO *"
01 co
00
r
CO
Cre
tan
Ave
rage
s
00
1
0
4CO0
6
00004en
g1
0
CO000
4COd00
r -
O
4CO0
m0
4ci
m
4to
• *
4
„
ioo0
4Ol00
dOO
4CM
O
O
OO4dto00
04d
CO0
804CO
0
0
0 1d004000
01
2
0
4in00
6zo
0430
• *
30 044to inmto0 00
0
0
0 044• * to
0
CO CO^ d04•*•
d
41m
d
CO
4m
04to
d
4t o
0
CO
0
4CO
0 1
4CO
mcoCO
4 4
mco
mcod in44en 1-m
- * •
m
d
44CO 03
OCO
t o
Arg
yrop
ouli
s
001
0
Aig
ira
4—to
4in0
0 1
CO
Go
0
4CO
0
0 1d004COd0
g1
0
4COCO
0
0
0
4CO
"
COd
0
4
• *
4d
en
40
CO
• * CO
44- Olm
1_1
0 -44m 01CO
IOO
0d
Ayi
os S
teph
anos
m
0to
Ialy
sos
II
|qi
• *
d
d4o>d
inCO
Ialy
sos
III
.
0
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 103
By a careful process of elimination and comparison all the groups, a total of some thirty-seven, can be classified into a dozen or so types: some much more widespread than others. Thisclassification is summarized in Table 4. Elements which have been particularly important inmaking a particular decision are mentioned in the 'remarks'. In summing up, we must em-phasize that these analytical results are quite definite in differentiating groups of sherds from
Ni Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca Nt % Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca Nc Ni Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca Nt Ni Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca Nc Ni Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca Nc Ni Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca No'iao 'loo »lo O "ICO »t0O .10
6a. rhebesli 6b.Theb 7a. Amari ithosl 7b. Amar iTil
\
\
\
\
9. Marmariani 24 Cr« tver age 15a Zakro II Paltlikaslro
\/ \
N7
\
FIG. 3, PART ONE
one another; if two groups are found to have the same type of composition, however, it is onlylikely but not certain that they are related to one another, by export or proximity in origin. Thepossibility of the independent recurrence of the same type of composition remains, even atwidely separated sites (q.v. Thebes and Crete).
The analyses of individual sherds which either have not been included in the group corre-sponding to their provenance or which have no group to compare them with are given inTable 5 (a), 5 (A), or 5 (c).
COMMENT ON THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
It must be emphasized that this was primarily an exploratory investigation. Its object wasto establish whether there are differences in composition of regional significance amongst the
104 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
pottery fabrics of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. When it was found that such distinctions couldbe drawn within Crete and Greece, the results were applied to tests made on a limited numberof samples from problem regions. The work was not intended as an exhaustive survey of theproduction centres or of the areas to which Aegean pottery was traded or where local imitationsof it were made. Such archaeological inferences as are drawn are tentative, and will no doubtneed revision when further work has been carried out.
20
B
10
7-
VTI
ON
S (%
O 15tuO
AV
ER
>
3
« Cr Mn Ti Mg Ca Ncwoo - l o o . l o o »13 MIO
1
\
18
V\
ia. F
\\
). A
/
hyla
p«r
topi
\
\
l Ct
\
\
1
1 /\flik
/
/
\
i Cr Mn 1000 >100 »IOO •
\
6b.
19a
\
=hyl
1 1
En
r
i Mg CaNco •»
ikop
\
(om
\
I=I
/
/
\
i
/
Ni Cr Mn 1000 - M 0 " W O •
i—'
Be.
/
19b
'hyl
\
En
H Mg CaNo
ikop
\
(om
\
\
mI
//
/
\\
Ni Cr Mn 1ooo >no .too •
\
\
20.
\ _
17a.
\
alys
i Mg CaNo0 . W
OS I
Hala Sultan
\
//
T<kke
1
//
\
Ni Cr Mn 1OOO .100 ' 1 0 0 •
\
\
17b
i
21. Te
. lal
'
I I . .
i Mg CaNc0 >10
yso
\
Am
V\
• i
/
/
irna
/
/
\
Ni Cr Mn Ti Mg CaNalOODitOO >100 ' 1 0 - M
18a.
V
^rp«
/
22.
ra C
ell
hifl
\
k]
/
/
Vtchana
\
FIG. 3, PART TWO
T H E G R O U P S (see Table 7, FIGS. 5 and 6)Group A
This fabric is overwhelmingly predominant. Almost exactly 50 per cent, of the materialtested was found to belong to it. The uniform results from Mycenae, Berbati, Aegira, and AyiosStephanos show clearly that it is characteristic of much, at least, of the Peloponnese. Whereasother groups were represented in the material from Korakou and Megara Minoa, Group A isdominant at these sites too, and we may conclude that its manufacturing range extends at leastas far north and east as the Megarid. Though it is present at Thebes, it amounts to less thana quarter of the sherds tested, which may well mean that it occurs there only as an import. Forthe present, Group A may be referred to as the Peloponnesian group, always recognizing that
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 105
T A B L E 4. Classification of Groups
Ref. no.
1
2
34
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
H15b
5
6a6b7a7b8a8b9
15
1316a16b16c17a17b
17c
18a
18b19a
19b2 0
2 1
22
2 52 6
27a27b
Group
MycenaeBerbatiKorakouMegara MinoaKnossosAyia TriadhaGourniaPalaikastroTylissosZakro IIPerati
Thebes IThebes IIAmarinthos IAmarinthos IIVolos IVolos IIMarmarianiZakro IPalaikastroPhylakopi IPhylakopi IIPhylakopi IIIIalysos IIalysos II
Ialysos III
Arpera Chiflik I
Arpera Chiflik IIEnkomi I
Enkomi IIHala Sultan TekkeTell el AmarnaTell AtchanaAyios StephanosAegiraArgyropoulis IArgyropoulis II
Serial no. of sherds in the group
1-40 \1-20 11, 3-7, 9, 10 I1, 3, 4, 6-9, n-14, 16-20 J1-40 ^1-4, 6-10 J1-6, 8-10 14I-IO
4-7 >i-7. 9-12
1, 3, 4, 6, 85, 7, 9, " - 2 11, 5-9, 11-16
2-4, 8, 10
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 17, 20
3, 6, 7,9-191-201, 2, 8-105 , 7 , 81, 7, 15, 20, 172-6,9-14, 16, 18, 19, 22-26, 28, 30, 32I-IO1, 3-6, 10-16, 18, 19, (38)*2, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 20 (22, 24, 25,
27-29, 3 1 , 32, 35-37, 39)*(21, 23, 26, 30, 33, 34, 40)*
•5-24
' - 911-20
I-IOI-2O1-6, 8-12, 14-20I-IO(1-20)*(1-20)*(12, 14, 17, 20)*(1—11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19)*
Type
AJr\
T3£>
C
ABD
B(E)E(B)
DEF
(G)HAIJA
K
L
AM
A \A )AAAABD
Remarks
The average of these four groupscharacterizes this main type
The average of these six groupscharacterizes this main type
Distinct from E (Cr, Ni, Ti, Na) andfrom B (Ca)
B more likely (Mn, Al, Cr)Not C (Cr)
Too few samples to define typeVery distinct group
Sherds believed to be localCf. K
Sherds in much better physical condi-tion than J
Sherds believed to be local imitation ofA(Fe)
Sherds believed to be local imitationofA(Cr)
Sherds believed to be Mycenaeanimports
* These samples arrived too late to be included in all the tables and diagrams.
it spreads at least as far as the Megarid, on the one hand, and that the future may show moregroups in other parts of the Peloponnese.
Group A is widely distributed outside the Greek mainland but not, we believe, as a localproduct. In Crete, for example, it appears in very small amounts at Knossos10 and Palaikastro.It is well represented at Phylakopi. It occurs in Rhodes in a surprisingly high proportion to thegroups—J and K—which seem to represent local Rhodian manufacture. Nowhere, however, isit so noticeable as in the east Mediterranean. Mycenaean pottery from three major sites in
10 Two out of thirteen sherds selected from the Stratigraphical Museum for their non-Knossian appearance: Table 6,nos. 7 and 8.
1 2 3 A 5 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9 10 11 12 13 V,
15a
15b
Myc
enae
Ber
bat
i
Kor
akou
Mcg
ara
Mln
oa
Per
ati
Theb
es I
Theb
es
I
Am
arin
thos
T
Am
arin
thos
Q
Vo
losI
Vol
osTJ
Mar
mar
iani
Kno
ssos
Ayi
a Tr
iadh
a
Gou
rnia
Pal
aika
stro
Tylis
sos
Zak
roT
Zakr
o TJ
MgO
2 3
5 7
10
-•
to
-^ to
»
—^
M
• to
>
CaO
2 3
5 7
W
15 2
0 30
-a
-^to
to
—-^
m
to>
-
• to
—
-4
-^
-—^
«
—«^
M
tos.
--
AI 2
0j
7 10
15
20
--
—•
—^
to>
--
to-
FeO
5 7
10
15
—-
^
« to
to
Na 2
0
0-3
0-5
1-0
1-5
—
-
——
^^
^^
-^
»
—^
•to
-
to-
to- •
to.
--
to-
M
to.
TiO
2
0 5
0-7
10
14
••
-•
« to
.
• to
-
--
• to
-
Cr 2
Oj
0«
2 0-
05
01
0-15
0 2
--
--
-•
—
--
^ to
.
to
MnO
0-01
0-
03
04
5 0
1
-^
—^
to^ •A
••
to.
-•
^^
-*
toi
-•
NiO
0 00
2 0-
005
00
1 0-
02 0
03
0-05
to-
^to
»
-^
to>
^t
o
^to
>
—^
to»
1 •-
^to
-
—^
FIG
. 4,
PA
RT
ON
E
16a
16b
16c
17a
17b
18a
18b
19a
19b
20 21 22 23 24 27 26 25
Phy
lako
pi
i
Phy
lako
pi H
Phy
lako
pi H
I
Ialy
sos
1
Ialy
sos
il
Arp
era
Chi
flik
I
Arp
era
Ch
iflik
H
Enk
omi
I
Enk
omi U
Hal
a S
ulta
n Te
kke
Tel
l el
Am
arna
Tell
Atc
hana
Ave
rage
s of
Gro
u1-
4
Cre
tan
Ave
rage
s
Arg
yrop
oulis
Aig
ira
Ayi
os S
teph
anos
MgO
2 3
5
7
10
-
-•
m
m-
-
CaO
2 3
5
7
10
15
20
30
i
•^m
m
m »
mm m
mm
m-
A12O
3
7
tt
15
20
—
-
-- -4
FeO
5 7
tt
15
—m
-4 -
•
-
-•
I M
.
Na 2
O
0-3
0-5
1-0 1
-5
—•
••
->•
• V <^
—^H ^
I
—^
-• ••
• K
--
to
^-
~
—•
TiO
2
0-5
07
10
1-5
-- -
-- •
•• -•
-•
Cr 2
O,
0-02
0
05
0-
1 0-
15 0
-2
-•
—^
^^
^^
-^
•^
^-
m-
MnO
0-01
043
005
0-1
--
••
-^ M
I
-^m
*m
•-
NiO
0-00
2
0-00
6
0-01
0-
02 0
43 0
-05
—^
^^
^
-^
-^
•^
-M
•
FIG
. 4
, PA
RT
TW
O
i o 8 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
TABLE 5 (a)
Provenance
KorakouMegara Minoa
Perati
Thebes
Argyropoulis
GourniaPalaikastro
Phylakopi
Arpera ChiflikTell el Amarna
Serial no.
85
I O
1 2
1582
I O
2 2
»41 2
172 0
7i
2
39
I O
82729311 0
! 3
Mg
5-85-65-54-55 75-92-3
12-810-9
5-45-85-79 08-63-44-33- 'i-7
io-67-2
5-67-5i-6
3'33'3
Ca
I I - O
8-59-0
'4-38 3
11-9
4-6H 7'7-35-29-3
n - 8n-714-71 i-g
13-1
u -7i-9
!4'51 8 0
" • 58-71-2
IO-I
2I-O
Al
II-214-0
n-613-916-0
20-5
16-8
8-6H'31 6 0
23-510-4
17-715-612-715-21 6 816-615-21 3 81 0 1
'5-416-9
15-7io-8
Fe
10-4
7'47-56-58 59-06-2
10-3I I-2
7'4" • 56 0
io-817-4
7-46-78 06-2
!3-98-89 0
~IO-O
6-45 77-1
Na
o-531-03
o-951-761-25
i-55J-450-72o-661-650-981-52
I-01
°'750-970-92o-930-690-84
o-97i-3i-60-840-720-92
Ti
0-84o-8i0-76o-66o-94I -O
0-851-29I-I20-761-02
0-761-361-280-900-870-870-78I-32o-95o-861-160 8 20-720-73
Cr
o-i 10-140-17O - I I
0-16
0-0770-023
0-29
0-21
0-070
CO930-14
0-15
O-2O
O-O7O
O-047O-O25O-022O-230-24O-I I
O-I I
0-020
0-0580-057
Mn
O-I I
0-0670-0690-0450-070
0-14
0063011
0-120-0950080O-I 2
0-0890-160-06100800-0680-028
0-14
o-i 1
0-0850-0560-0490-0540-14
Ni
0-0380-0230-02600160-0230-0160-0050-090-06700130-0150-0310-0350-0680-021
001 I
0-0027
0-0029
0-052
0-028
0-028
O-O22
O-OOI50-01 I
O-OI2
Type
BBB
(B)BEDKKDBBB
(K)AA
AF
(K)BBBF
(A)(A)
TABLE 5 (*)
Provenance
KorakouMegara Minoa
Ayia TriadhaPalaikastroZakro
PhylakopiIalysosTell el Amarna
Serial no.
2
2
563
2 1
12
7
Mg
4-52-6
13-23-02-2 '
6-o4 72-4
C a
4'9I2-I
I 6 - I
8-36-45-55 7
10-2
Al
' 3 98 4
2 6 820-48-6
<23-614-020-3
Fe
776-7
'9-49-0
3 77-28-27-6
Na
i-35I-6 I2-360 8 9
1 7 31-141-14o-6i
Ti
o-94o-451-58I -00
0-59o-8i
o-88I - I I
C r
O - I I
O - I I
0-25
0-081
0-024
0-17
0-17
O-O2I
Mn
0-042
0-046O-2O
O-O34O-O24
O - I I
0-0540-048
Ni
0-026
0-026
0-0390-014
0-0042
0-019
0-0330-0026
:se ke up
TABLE 5 (c) (see Table 2 ad fin.)
Cyprus Local Types
Provenance
MaliEvretadhesAloupotrypes
Arpera Chiflik
Ayia ParaskeviVerghin
Serial no.
1
2
1 1
1 2
'314
Mg
5-54'45-37'48 32-68 0
9'1
3'95'3
Ca
17-0
1 8 8
17-010-2
5-93-0
5 75 73-56-i
Al
'3-411-3I2-O
• 5-626-015-621-0
23-8
1 3 71 5 7
Fe
7'97'98-3
10-3
15-0
6-812-813-6io-o8-i
Na
I-6 I1-04
' 7 5i-541-2
o-66o-880-631-06
1-28
Ti
o-930-780-901-130-98
0-741-030-900-760-98
Cr
0-082
0-0830-0730-085o-o4g0-026
0-20
0-18
0-019
0-052
Mn
0-0760-082
0-14
O - I I
O - I I
0-064O - I I
O - I I
0-059O - I I
Ni
O-OI2
0-013
O-OII
0-0130-004IO-OO26O-OI2
0-014
O-OOI2
O-OO7I
Plate ref.
PLATE 34. 5
„ 34- '» 34- 3„ 34- 4.. 34- 7., 34- 8» 34- 9„ 34. 10
.. 34- 2„ 34- 6
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 109
Cyprus, from North Syria, and from Egypt all belongs to this group; no other Aegean grouphas yet been found in the material tested from this large area.
Group BThis is the group par excellence of Crete. One hundred per cent, of the material from Knossos11
and Tylissos conformed to its pattern, 90 per cent, of that from Gournia and Ayia Triadha.Zakro and Palaikastro, in the extreme east of the island, have it only as a minority ware, andit probably only occurs on these sites as an import.
DISTRIBUTIONOF GROUPS:
PRODUCTION CENTRES
KEY:•
A
O
A
GROUP A
GROUP B
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
GROUP
c
D
E
F
GROUP G
GROUP H
GROUP I
GROUP J
GROUP K
GROUP L
GROUP M
FIG. 5
Its appearances outside Crete are a little puzzling. Some, of course, could be interpreted asCretan exports, such as the few examples at Korakou and Megara Minoa, and those at Phylakopiand Chios. It is its preponderance at Thebes, where it accounts for fourteen out of twenty-twosamples, that is less readily explained. It seems at least as probable that local Theban potteryand the Cretan group present an instance of the recurrence of the same type of composition atdifferent sites, as that there could be so high a proportion of Minoan ceramic imports in thisMycenaean town. Five sherds from Amarinthos seem likely to belong to Group B—if B is indeedlocal to Thebes as well as to Crete, these Euboean specimens ought, no doubt, to be ascribed to
11 This, of course, takes no account of the specially selected sherds; see note 10.
I 10 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
Boeotia rather than Crete, and the same may be true of four Group B sherds from Argyropoulisin north Thessaly.
Group B was not found amongst the material from Rhodes and sites eastward.
Group C
This is so far unique to eastern Attica, at Perati. Future investigation must determinewhether this is typical of Attica, or a very local group of limited significance. The sherds werein a poor physical condition.
PRODUCTION CENTRESAND THEIR WIDER
DISTRIBUTION
® GROUP A ; PRODUCTION AREA• •• : IMPORTED® GROUP B : PRODUCTION AREAA » : IMPORTED@ GROUP D ; PRODUCTION-AREAA » : IMPORTED
® GROUP E : PRODUCTION AREA® GROUP F :• •• : IMPORTED<D GROUP K : PRODUCTION AREA• " : IMPORTED
Groups C, G-J, L and M have not yet been isolated outsidetheir production areas.
FIG. 6
Groups D and E
Though these two have a general similarity, they are sufficiently distinct to be treated asindividuals. With the exception of a Group D outlier in Thebes, they are confined to Euboeaand Thessaly. Group D provides most of the material from Volos and 80 per cent, of theArgyropoulis series. E has a narrower distribution, but covers all the Marmariani sherds and35 per cent, of the Volos material. There is no trace of these two groups in the Peloponnese, inCrete, or in the eastern Mediterranean.
Groups F and G
These two small groups appear to be local to east Crete. Apart from one sherd of Group Ffrom Phylakopi, they are restricted to Zakro and Palaikastro. F appears to be Zakro-made,
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF M Y C E N A E A N AND M I N O A N POTTERY ill
with a singleton at Palaikastro. G—which is admittedly based on a tiny volume of material—isat present unique to Palaikastro.
Group H (PLATE 30(b), nos. 1, 7, 15, 17, 20)A group which was only isolated at Phylakopi, where it accounts for about 18 per cent, of
the total number of non-Melian sherds tested. It is wholly distinct from Group I, which mustrepresent Melian fabric, and we assume that we are here dealing with imports from someMycenaean production centre which has yet to be isolated.
Group I (PLATE 31 (b))A very satisfactory outcome of testing the Melian material was that the sherds attributable
on archaeological grounds to manufacture in Melos itself should form so distinct a group,nowhere else recorded.
Groups J and KThese are Rhodian, Group K also occurring twice at Thebes and having possible single
outliers at two Cretan sites, Ayia Triadha and Zakro. There is a strong family resemblancebetween the two groups;12 it would be useful to extend the examination of Rhodian materialfurther to investigate the relationship. Their non-appearance in Cyprus is noteworthy.
Groups L and M (PLATES 32(6) and 33(a))When the material to be tested from Cyprus was selected, a choice of two kinds of Mycenaean
pottery was made from Arpera Chiflik and from Enkomi. Ten sherds from each site were chosenwhich appeared likely, on grounds of fabric, paint, and finish, to have been made in the westand imported to the island; another ten from each site were picked out which, by the samecriteria, appeared not to be imports but rather local imitations of Mycenaean. In the case of thethird Cypriot site—Hala Sultan Tekke—all twenty sherds were considered likely to be imports.It was very interesting, therefore, to find that from all three sites the sherds estimated to beimports should produce a homogeneous result which fitted them into Group A. This took onan added significance when it was found that the sherds from Arpera thought to be locally madebelonged to a new group, Group L, and that the similar material from Enkomi gave yetanother group, Group M. More thoroughly to check the results from Cyprus, a further test wascarried out on ten Late Cypriot sherds (see PLATE 34(i)), including White Slip and Base Ringwares. The results were heterogeneous (see Table 5 (c)), but included nothing resemblingGroup A.
ChiosVery late in the investigation thirty-three Mycenaean sherds from Emporio in Chios were
examined. These produced heterogeneous results, including a few type A and a few type Bcompositions. The sherds were, in general, harder than most other material previously examined.Chios appears to be like Cyprus in having a considerable range of widely differing local fabrics.
G E N E R A L OBSERVATIONS
The results from the producing centres are perhaps less satisfactory than might have beenhoped for. The sites of the Peloponnese which have so far been examined are indistinguishable
12 Group J is the only instance where the sherds were visually distinct in fabric.
1 1 2 H. W. CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
from one another. Against this, however, it has to be remembered that the area covered islimited—no work, for example, has yet been done in Messenia. It is not clear how far Group Aextends beyond the Megarid; more tests are needed on sites in Attica to see if the northernlimits lie there. Pottery from other groups is extremely rare in the Group A area, and appearsonly on the fringe, at Korakou and Megara Minoa; these belong to Group B, and may beCretan or Boeotian. On the other hand, Group A pottery is very widely distributed beyond theproduction area (see FIG. 6) along the sea-lanes through the Aegean to Cyprus, North Syria,and Egypt. After 1400 B.C., at any rate, it appears as though the Mycenaean states whosepottery belongs to Group A had a virtual monopoly of this eastern trade. Relations of this kindwith the rest of Greece were very restricted; only at Thebes is there Peloponnesian pottery.
T A B L E 6. Results of Analyses on Sherds from The Stratigraphical Museum, Knossos
Serial no.
1
2
3456789
10
11
12
' 3
Mg
7-21-0
8-38-9••47-33 84-87-9o-953-63'26-4
Ca
15-6o-88
'3-516-7
1-2
12-511-414-4•5-3
i-713-3'4-5I0'2
Al
I2'620-814-119-017-0n -410-216-912-2
15-7>4'912-717-2
Fe
8-24-2
10-3I I'O
5-87-i8-i
7-51 i-i
3-410-7IO-2
•37
Na
1-230-64
•34•41
•04
•35•21
•05
•290-620-67o-6i0-77
Ti
0-891-38I-IO1-171-05
0-830-700-761-07o-99o-8o0 7 91-13
Cr
O-I20-0340-150-150-0340-0910-0780-0550-140-0290-160-310-14
Mn
0-0680-00710062O-I20-0410-0550-0570-120-0510-00830-085O-IIO-O82
Ni
0-0250-00660-0350-0330-00640-0260-0230-0140-0410-0041o-oi 10-013
0-033
Type
BFBBFBAABF——B
Boeotia, as illustrated by Thebes, produced a fabric (Group B) which cannot be separatedfrom the main fabric of Crete. It is a guess that the Group B wares detected in Thessaly andEuboea are Boeotian, not Cretan. Besides her own products, Thebes has pottery from thePeloponnese, Thessaly, and possibly Rhodes, which suggests that the site handled a fair amountof overland trade, a role for which her geographic position well fits her.
The products of Thessaly and Euboea are quite distinct from the rest of Greece. Though thedistribution of the two groups D and E is such that we cannot define individual territory foreach one, their collective identity is not in doubt. The only outside contact of these groups iswith Thebes, where a single occurrence of Group D was recorded. The specimens of Group Bfound in Euboea and Thessaly—the only imported wares found in the area—are more likely tobe Boeotian than Cretan.
The pattern obtained in Crete would have been more useful had it not been that Group B,the chief Cretan fabric, appears so profusely in Thebes. Although more work on Thebanpottery is obviously desirable to see whether this difficulty is capable of resolution, it is clearlysafer to assume the independent occurrence of the Group B fabric at Thebes as a local productrather than try to insist that Group B finds in Thebes must be Minoan imports, although thisdoes remain a conceivable explanation. The inconvenience of this parallelism between Creteand Thebes in Group B is a little offset by the occurrence of two quite minor Cretan groups atZakro and Palaikastro. They help to illustrate exchanges between sites in Crete itself, for bothhave material belonging to the main Cretan group, while the Zakro fabric appears at Palai-kastro. Their wider distribution is so far limited to a Zakro-made piece at Phylakopi. Waresimported to Crete include the Peloponnesian Group at Knossos (amongst the sherds from the
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY 113
Stratigraphical Museum specially selected for test for their non-Knossian appearance, Table 6)and at Palaikastro. Ayia Triadha and Palaikastro each has a sherd which is likely to be Rhodian.The diversity of fabrics identified at Palaikastro may be connected with the convenience of itsposition as a staging port for vessels trading both within the Aegean and farther to the east.
The results from Phylakopi are amongst the most rewarding of the whole investigation. Fivedistinct groups are recognizable amongst the forty-two sherds tested from this site. One of these,Group I, represents the locally made Melian imitations of M.M. III-L.M. I painted wares;this group is found nowhere else. This marked difference draws a very satisfactory distinction
No. ofsherdstested
402 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
2 0
1 2
22
162 0
2 0
2 0
401 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
42412 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
503
Site
MycenaeBerbatiAyios StephanosAegira .KorakouMegara MinoaPerati .ThebesAmarinthosVolosMarmariani .Argyropoulis .KnossosTylissosAyia TriadhaGourniaZakroPalaikastroPhylakopiIalysos .Arpera ChiflikEnkomiHala Sultan Tekke .Tell el AmarnaTell Atchana
Totals
TABLE
A402 0
2 0
2 0
816X
5X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
322
239 + 1
1 0
2 0
•91 0
246
7. Topographic
BX
X
X
XI
3 + 1X
14
?5X
X
4401 0
9941
3X
X
X
X
X
1 0 4
CX
X
X
X
X
X
I I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 1
DX
X
XXXXX
I
I I
13X
16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4 i
Analysis
EXXXXXXXXX
72 0
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
27
of the
Groups
FX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
I
XXX
X
XX
7
GX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3XXXX
X
X
X
3
Types
HX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5X
X
X
X
X
X
5
IX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 0
JX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 0
X
X
X
X
X
1 0
KX
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?I
X? I
X
7X
X
X
X
X
1 1
LX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 0
X
X
X
X
1 0
MX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 0
X
X
X
1 0
Rogues
XXXX
I
XI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
XI
I
I
I
X
X
X
I
Y
8
between the wares produced on the spot and those brought to it from outside. Of the importedwares, Group H is interesting, but tantalizing. It is formed of sherds archaeologically in-distinguishable from normal Mycenaean III pottery. It is obviously non-Melian, but has notbeen found anywhere else; its origin must remain anonymous until future work manages toisolate its source. The presence of the two Cretan Groups B and F was to be expected; it is,indeed, a little surprising that they are not more widely represented. Much the greater part ofthe painted pottery which should on grounds of style be dated to the period after the fall ofKnossos turns out to belong to the Peloponnesian group. It is also clear, however, that the Greekmainland had had a considerable share of relations with Melos in L.H. I—II—see PLATE 31 (a),where all but nos. 21, 27, 29, and 31 are Peloponnesian.13 The diverse results from Melos are
13 The respective roles of Crete and Greece in Melos are discussed by Furumark in OpArch vi. ig2 ff.
I
114 H- w - CATLING, E. E. RICHARDS, AND A. E. BLIN-STOYLE
an appropriate reflection of its commercially important position midway between Crete andthe Greek mainland and as a port of call for traffic sailing to or from the east Mediterranean.
The position revealed at Ialysos in Rhodes is a little unexpected. While a local Rhodianfabric seems clearly to have been isolated in Groups J and K, the number of the Pelopon-nesian Group A—more than 50 per cent, of the sherds tested—is surprisingly high. It appearsthat a considerable volume of the Mycenaean pottery of Rhodes was brought to the island fromthe west. On the other hand, Rhodian products occur at Thebes and probably at Palaikastroand Ayia Triadha as well. The lack of Rhodian pottery in Cyprus, North Syria, and Egypt isstriking.
The investigation promises to have done much to clarify the situation in the Levant. ForCyprus there is now an objective standard whereby to distinguish between imported Mycenaeanpottery and locally made imitations. The imported pottery belongs exclusively to the Pelopon-nesian group. There is added interest from the fact that imitation Mycenaean at Enkomi andArpera belong to two different groups, and there is promise here of new information aboutexchanges within Cyprus itself. Peloponnesian products are met again at Tell Atchana inNorth Syria. Peloponnesian, too, is the Mycenaean pottery from Tell el Amarna.
H. W. CATLINGE. E. R ICHARDSA. E. B L I N - S T O Y L E
A P P E N D I X
Description of sherds scraped in Herakleion and Knossos (M. R. Popham)
Zakro (Herakleion Museum)1. Tortoiseshell ripple glazed. L.M. IA.2. Tortoiseshell ripple glazed. L.M. IA.3. Zakro floral type. Dark on light.4. Zakro spiral type. Dark on light.5. Zakro floral type cup. Dark on light.
KEY TO SAMPLES
6. Zakro horizontal foliate band. Dark on light.7. Jug fragment with foliate band (could be Knossian).8. 'Wood grain'. Dark on light.9. Zakro type spiral. Light on dark.
10. ? Light on dark.
Palaikastro (Herakleion Museum)1. Marine style with argonauts (probably Knossian).2. L.M. IA floral bowl applied white.3. L.M. IA floral bowl.4. Large L.M. IA spiral jug.5. Jug with spirals. ? L.M. IIIA.6. L.M. IA foliate band on large jug.
7. Pyxis with scale-and-leaf pattern L.M. Ill = Un-published Objects 81, fig. 65 (2).
8. L.M. I l l scale pattern.9. Light on dark cup.
10. Foliate band on large jug. L.M. IB (could be Knossian).
Ayia Triadha (Herakleion Museum)1. Coarse decorated sherd.2. L.M. I cup.3. L.M. IB foliate band on jug; fabric seems not to be
Knossian although the decoration is.4. L.M. IB degenerate (i.e. ? local) 'pendant'. FM 38.5. L.M. IA cup.
6. L.M. IB Marine vase, whorl shells (almost definitelyKnossian).
7. L.M. IA cup.8. L.M. IA tortoiseshell ripple cup.9. L.M. IA debased tortoiseshell ripple cup.
10. L.M. IA jug fragment.
COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCE OF MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY
Tylissos (Herakleion Museum)1. Plain bowl. ?L.M. IIIB.2. ? L.M. IB.3. Champagne glass. L.M. III.4. L.M. IIIB or C.5. Plain kylix foot.
Gournia (Herakleion Museum)1. Gournia-style rhyton.2. ? L.M. I jug.3. Scale pattern cup. ?L.M. IB.4. L.M. IA jug.5. Large jug, usual Gournia style.
6. Plain cup.7. Decorated. L.M. IIIB or C.8. ?9. Plain kylix.
10. Plain red cup with splash ornament inside.
6. Large jug, usual Gournia style.7. Large jug. L.M. IA spirals.8. Large jug. L.M. IA.9. Black-glaze Vaphio-type cup.
10. Large vessel with rockwork.
Sherds of Mycenaean Type (Stratigraphical Museum, Knossos)1. P.I. 14. Antithetic spiral bowl with L.H. IIIB/C style
ornament (not definitely non-Knossian fabric).2. P.I.14. Kylix with early flower. ?L.H. IIIA (not
definitely Mycenaean but not Knossian fabric).3. P.1.7. Mycenaean fragment.4. O_.III.3. Mycenaean kylix fragment.5. P.1.14. Kylix body with cross-hatched stars; not
Knossian.6. P.I.14. Bowl rim. L.H. IIIB/C.7. P.I.14. Bowl rim. ? IIIB; not Knossian.8. Q.. 11.2. Straight-sided alabastron (certainly Mycenaean).
9. P.I.8. Antithetic spiral bowl highly burnished (prob-ably Mycenaean).
10. Q.II.i. Kylix fragment (possibly Mycenaean, notKnossian).
11. Box L III 13A; Mycenaean type sherd with dottedwhorl shell, looks Mycenaean in fabric.
12. Box L III 13A; Mycenaean type sherd with linkeddouble whorl shell; looks Mycenaean in fabric.
13. Box M IV 5; shallow cup with Mycenaean typetailed spiral; not of Knossian fabric and could wellbe Mycenaean.
B.S.A. 58 PLATE 28
(*)
13
8
18
10 II
20
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM (a) MYCENAE AND (b) MEGARA MINOA.
B.S.A. 58 PLATE 29
21
(a)
•9*
II
J8(A)
14 '5 16
20
10
17
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM (a) THEBES AND (b) VOLOS (IOLCHOS).
B.S.A. 58 PLATE 30
Mr "PL.
3
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM (a) EUBOEA, AMARINTHOS, AND (6) MELOS, PHYLAKOPI.
B.S.A. 58PLATE 31
(A)
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM MELOS, PHYLAKOPI.
B.S.A. 58 PLATE 32
(A)
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM (a) HALA SULTAN TEKKE, CYPRUS, AND (4) ARPERA CHIFLIK, CYPRUS.
58 PLATE 33
(A)
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM (a) ENKOMI, CYPRUS, AND (A) FROM TELL EL AMARNA, EGYPT.
B.S.A. 58 PLATE 34
{a)
v> ":&
(*)
1
MYCENAEAN AND MINOAN POTTERY: COMPOSITION AND PROVENANCESHERDS FROM (a) TELL ATCHANA AND (b) CYPRUS.