² Furumark, A., Mycenaean Pottery, i: Analysis and Classification (2nd edn; Stockholm, 1941), 19, 38Google Scholar; Betancourt, P. P., The History of Minoan Pottery (Princeton, 1985), 105.Google Scholar

³ Late Helladic II Mountjoy, P. A., Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (Göteborg, 1986), 30–1.Google Scholar

⁴ Mountjoy (n. 3), 199.

⁵ Furumark (n. 2), 610–15; cf. Mountjoy (n. 3), under appropriate headings.

⁶ Furumark (n. 2), 19; Leonard, A., jun., ‘Considerations of morphological variation in the Mycenaean pottery from the southeastern Mediterranean’, Basor 241 (1987), 87–101 Google Scholar; Haskell, H. W., ‘Coarse-ware stirrup-jars at Mycenae’, BSA 76 (1981), 225–38Google Scholar; id., ‘From palace to town administration’, in Krzyszowska, O. and Nixon, L. (eds), Minoan Society: The Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981 (Bristol, 1983), 121–8.Google Scholar It is interesting, however, that the elements that account for such convenient ‘one-handed’ extraction from the smaller (later) jars could not have played that role in the larger (heavier) vessels that began the series nor, for that matter, in the big domestic stirrup jars such as FS 164. Yet they all share these morphological common denominators.

⁷ Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J., Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge, 1959), 217, 395–6Google Scholar; Chadwick, J., Linear B and Related Scripts (Berkeley, 1987), 36.Google Scholar

⁸ An introductory bibliography to this vast subject would include (alphabetically by author's surname): Åström, P., The Late Cypriote Bronze Age: Architecture and Pottery, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. iv, part 1 c (Lund, 1972)Google Scholar, esp. 289–414; Hankey, V., ‘Mycenaean pottery from the Middle East: notes on some finds since 1951’, BSA 62 (1967), 107–47Google Scholar; V. Hankey and A. Leonard, jun., Egypt and the Levant: Aegean Imports in the Second Millennium BC (A Gazeteer of Sites in the Levant, Egypt and Nubia where Aegean Pottery has been Found), forthcoming as Sonderforschungsbereich 19 of the Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients; A. Leonard, jun., An Index to the Aegean Pottery found in Syria–Palestine (forthcoming); Smith, T., Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean 1600–1000 BC (BAR S371, Oxford, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stubbings, F. H., Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge, 1951)Google Scholar; Taylor, W., Mycenaean Pottery from Italy and Adjacent Areas (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar; Vagnetti, L. (ed.), Magna Grecia e mondo miceno (Taranto, 1982).Google Scholar

⁹ Leonard, A., jun., ‘Archaeological sources for the history of Palestine: the Late Bronze Age’, Biblical Archaeohgist, 52 (1989), 4039.Google Scholar For the chronology of these deposits see id., ‘Some problems inherent in Mycenaean/Syro-Palestinian synchronisms’, Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School at Athens (Manchester, April 1986), 319–31.

¹⁰ On the Levanto-Mycenaean style cf. Furumark (n. 2), 9–10, 680; id., Mycenaean Pottery, ii: Chronology (2nd edn, Stockholm, 1972), 116–18.

¹¹ For the ‘Simple Style’ see Furumark, Chronology (n. 10), 116–18; Koehl, R. B. and Yellin, J., ‘The origin and provenience of the Mycenaean “Simple Style”’, AJA 86 (1982), 273.Google Scholar

¹² Unfortunately, most Near Eastern archaeologists publish these pieces simply as ‘native’ or ‘local’, without any indication of whether the fabric is local to the site, local to the region, or simply non-Aegean.

¹³ Discussions between AL and Dr Jonathan Tubb (British Museum), the Director of the Tell es-Sa'idiyeh excavations. These pieces will be published by AL in Tubb's final publication of this important and impressive site.

¹⁴ For a recent and excellent summary, see Jones, R. E. and Catling, H. W., ‘Pottery of Aegean type in Cyprus, the Levant and Egypt’, in Jones, R. E., Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Papers, 1; Athens, 1986), 542–625.Google Scholar In such studies sherds are often selected because their Aegean appearance causes them to stand out from the other (mostly ‘local’) pottery in the assemblage of a given site. Except for Lambert, J. B., McLaughlin, C. D., and Leonard, A., jun., ‘X-ray photoelectron spectroscopic analysis of the Mycenaean pottery from Megiddo’, Archaeometry, 20 (1978), 107–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, little interest has been shown in applying similar tests to a corpus that included a high degree of derivative wares and other ‘unknowns’; for problems with this study, see Jones and Catling, op. cit. 571.

¹⁵ Unless one argues that the clay itself was transported.

¹⁶ The results of a study, carried out in an attempt to answer questions concerning the identity of potters producing wares from Ashdod in the ‘Mycenaean III c1’ style, were presented by Asaro, F., Perlman, I., and Dothan, M., ‘An introductory study of Mycenaean III c1 ware from Tel Ashdod’, Archaeometry, 13 (1971), 169–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar They concluded that the Mycenaean style pottery was made using the same clays as local Philistine wares, but employing different techniques. The Mycenaean style wares were similar in form, design and fabric to ‘Mycenaean III c’ wares from other places, particularly Cyprus.

¹⁷ A parallel case, and a classic example of such a ‘signature’, is the late bronze age Cypriot potters' penchant for attaching vertical handles by pushing the bottom part of the handle through the body of the vessel (Åström (n. 8), e.g. pls 42. 7 (Black Slip IV); 49. 9 (Base Ring I); 52. 1–55 (Base Ring II); 56, ‘handles’ (Red Slip Wheelmade); 58. 6. 7 (White Shaved); etc.). When, during the LB II period, the Cypriot potters began to imitate the (by then) centuries-old Syro-Palestinian ‘dipper’ juglet, whose exterior surface is shaved (or pared) vertically, they inserted the bottom of the handle through the body of the vessel. This is a technical treatment that was never done by the Palestinian potters. See Amiran, R., Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (New Brunswick, 1970), 146, 173, and cf. pls 46Google Scholar: 15 (the local dipper juglet), 55: 15 (the Cypriot import).

¹⁸ Jones and Catling (n. 14), pp. 542–625, esp. 593–5.

¹⁹ Tubb, J., ‘Tell es-Sa'idiyeh: A preliminary report on the first three seasons of renewed excavations’, Levant, 20 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 65, 75, 78 and fig. 48 a, no. 14. For subsequent seasons of excavation at the site, see Tubb, J., ‘Preliminary report on the fourth season of excavation at Tell es-Sa'idiyeh in the Jordan Valley’, Levant, 22 (1990), 21–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id. and Durrell, P., ‘Tell es-Sa'idiyeh: interim report on the fifth (1990) season of excavations’, Levant, 23 (1991), 67–86.Google Scholar These articles give bibliography for J. Pritchard's earlier excavations at Sa'idiyeh, conducted on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania.

²⁰ Complete references are not given for the pottery from Mycenae, Argos, Athens, and Crete, since these vessels are not from secure archaeological contexts; some details of publication are, however, given in the catalogue (Appendix 2).

²¹ Murray, A. S., Smith, A. H., and Walters, H. B., Excavations in Cyprus (London, 1900), 1–54, pls. 1–12.Google Scholar

²² Mee, C., Rhodes in the Bronze Age (Warminster, 1982).Google Scholar

²³ Petrie, W. M. F., Illahun, Kahun and Gurob (London, 1891).Google Scholar

²⁴ Paton, W. R., ‘Excavations in Caria’, JHS 8 (1887), 64–82, at p. 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Furumark does offer some comments on how the false neck and disc developed (Furumark (n. 2), 85). For ‘technical’ studies that form a background to the present work, see inter alia Arnold, D. E., Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process (Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar; Hankey, V., ‘Pottery making at Beit Shahab (Lebanon)’, PEQ 100 (1968), 27–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; London, G., Traditional Pottery in Cyprus (Mainz, 1990).Google Scholar Also of interest are two unpublished dissertations: Evely, R. D. G., Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques (D.Phil. thesis; Univ. of Oxford, 1979), esp. pp. 397–404 Google Scholar; Lewis, H. B., The Manufacture of Early Mycenaean Pottery (Greece) (Ph.D. thesis; Univ. of Minnesota, 1983 Google Scholar; abstract only consulted). Both these authors consider the evolution of the potting techniques used by Mycenaean and Minoan artisans, in particular the relationship between the use of hand-building techniques and wheel-throwing. Evely comments directly upon the production of stirrup jars, noting that the identification of the techniques of manufacture of the kylix and of the stirrup jar causes some problems, and that ‘in the case of the stirrup jar I have been unable to reconstruct the various methods used in its production’ (ibid. 402). Evely also makes specific reference to the ‘false’ necks of the stirrup jar, noting that ‘A considerable range of solid, hollow and thrown cylinders and their flat or conical caps make up the central “false” neck’ (ibid.); as will be demonstrated later in the present paper the nature of the false neck is of some interest in elucidating the techniques of manufacture.

²⁶ Boag, J. W., Stacey, A. J., and Davis, R., ‘Some clinical and experimental applications of xeroradiography’, Journal of Photographic Science, 19 (1971), 45–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Xerographic recording of mammograms’, British Journal of Radiology, 45 (1972), 633.

²⁷ Alexander, R. E. and Johnston, R. H., ‘Xeroradiography of ancient objects: a new imaging modality’, in Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D. (eds), Archaeological Ceramics (Washington, 1982), 145–54Google Scholar; Carr, C., ‘Advances in ceramic radiography and analysis: applications and potentials’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 17 (1990), 13–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, G. V., ‘Kourion votive figures: a study using xeroradiography’, Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) Journal, 2 (1983), 179–81Google Scholar; Heinemann, S., ‘Xeroradiography: a new archaeological tool’, American Antiquity, 41 (1976), 106–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Middleton, A. P., Lang, J., and Davis, R., ‘The application of xeroradiography to the study of museum objects’, Journal of Photographic Science, 40 (1992), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Alexander and Johnston (n. 27); Carr (n. 27); Foster (n. 27); see also Foster, G. V., ‘Assessment of microinclusions in ceramic ware by pattern recognition analysis of microxeroradiographs’, in Olin, J. S. and Blackman, M. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium (Washington, 1986), 207–16.Google Scholar

²⁹ Heinemann, Foster (n. 27); see also Blakeley, J. A., Brinkman, R., and Vitaliano, C. J., ‘Pompeian Red Ware: processing archaeological ceramic data’, Geoarchaeology, 4 (1989), 201–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Glanzman, W. D. and Fleming, S., ‘Ceramic technology at prehistoric Ban Chiang, Thailand: fabrication methods’, Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) Journal, 3 (1985), 114–21Google Scholar; McGovern, P. E. (ed.), The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Jordan: The Baq'ah Valley Project, 1977–1981 (University Museum monographs, 65; Pennsylvania, 1986), 164–77.Google Scholar

³⁰ Vandiver, P., ‘The implications of variation in ceramic technology: the forming of neolithic storage vessels in China and the Near East’, Archaeomaterials, 2 (1988), 139–74.Google Scholar

³¹ Bieber, A. M., Brooks, D. W., Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E. V., ‘Application of multivariate techniques to analytical data on Aegean ceramics’, Archaeometry, 16 (1976), 59–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. J. Hughes, D. J. R. Williams, and K. Williams, ‘Neutron activation analyses of ceramics from the temple of Aphaia, Aegina’ (in preparation); Mommsen, H., Beier, T., Diehl, U., and Pozuweit, C., ‘Provenance determination of Mycenaean sherds found in Tell el Amarna by neutron activation analysis’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 19 (1992), 295–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; French, E., ‘Tracing exports of Mycenaean pottery: the Manchester contribution’, in Gale, N. H. (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90; Jonsered, 1991), 121–5Google Scholar; Asaro, F., Perlman, I., and Dothan, M., ‘An introductory study of Mycenaean III C1 ware from Tel Ashdod’, Archaeometry, 13 (1971), 169–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yellin, J. and Maeir, A., ‘The origin of the pictorial krater from the “Mycenaean” tomb at Tel Dan’, Archaeometry, 34 (1992), 31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Hughes, M., Cowell, M. R., and Hook, D. R., ‘Neutron activation analysis procedure at the British Museum Research Laboratory’, in iid. (eds), Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology (British Museum Occasional Papers, 82; London, 1991), 29–46 Google Scholar; Hughes, M. J., Leese, M. N., and Smith, R. J., ‘The analysis of pottery lamps mainly from Western Anatolia, including Ephesus, by neutron activation analysis’, in Bailey, D. M., Catalogue of Lamps in the British Museum, iii: Roman Provincial Lamps (London, 1988), 461–85.Google Scholar

³³ Principal components: Cooley, W. W. and Lohnes, P. R. Google Scholar, Multivariate Data Analysis (New York, 1971).Google Scholar For cluster analysis the Clustan program was used: Wishart, D., Clustan User Manual (4th edn; University of St Andrews, 1987).Google Scholar See also Bieber et al., (n. 31); and R. E. Jones (n. 14), ch. 2b, ‘Data analysis’ (by A. M. Pollard), 56–83.

³⁴ Technical problems during the counting of the short-lived isotopes (about 7 of the 23 elements) led to the loss of a small amount of data. A few values are therefore missing from Table 2; but as these particular elements were not normally used in the subsequent multivariate statistical tests, the loss was not significant.

³⁵ It is interesting to note that, although found elsewhere, the use of the ‘manganese-black’ technique for decorating ceramics was particularly popular on Cyprus. According to Noll et al. ( Noll, W., Holm, R., and Born, L., ‘Painting of ancient ceramics’, Angewandte chemie, 14 (1975), 602–13)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the ‘manganese-black’ technique originated in SE Anatolia in the 6th to 5th millenniums BC. Despite the local occurrence of manganese ores, the adoption of the technique on Cyprus was relatively late (c. 1600 BC); however, it rapidly became the predominant method for the execution of black decoration on pottery, displacing the ‘iron-reduction’ technique used previously.

³⁶ Neutron activation analyses of Rhodian amphorae (G. Harbottle, Brookhaven National Laboratory, unpublished results) showed high levels of chromium, probably present as the mineral chromite. Other NAAs of Rhodian amphorae have also been made, although only for eight elements; chromium was not among them, but the analyses show general similarities to our analyses of Rhodian stirrup jars ( Slusallek, K., Burmester, A., and Börker, Ch., ‘Neutronaktivierungsanalytische Untersuchungen an gestempelten griechischen Amphorenhenkeln: erste Ergebnisse’, Berliner Beiträge zur Archäometrie, 8 (1983), 261–76).Google Scholar Jones, R. E. and Mee, C. B., ‘Spectrographic analysis of Mycenaean pottery from Ialysos on Rhodes: results and implications, JFA, 8 (1978), 461–74Google Scholar, also found high levels of chromium in Ialysos Mycenaean III A–C pottery analysed by emission spectrometry, including stirrup jar A 532 (p. 466, table 1, no. 53), and attributed it to a Rhodian source, as NAA also indicates.

³⁷ Fillieres, D., Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E. V., ‘Neutron activation study of figurines, pottery and workshop materials from the Athenian Agora, Greece’, JFA 10 (1983). 55–69.Google Scholar

³⁸ They did not, however, analyse Mycenaean period ceramics. Inter-laboratory adjustment factors have been applied to bring the data of Fillieres et al. (n. 37), table 2, p. 61, onto the same standardization basis used by the British Museum.

³⁹ Hughes et al. (n. 31 ).

⁴⁰ Jones and Mee (n. 36) have found one Argolid sample out of five pieces of non-local Mycenaean pottery from Ialysos analysed, compared to 17 local. The other four non-local pieces could not be clearly attributed to origin; cf. NAA, which shows one Attic, one Argolid, and two unplaced among the non-local jars from Ialysos.

⁴¹ Mommsen et al. (n. 31 ).

⁴² Mommsen, H., Lewandowski, E., Weber, J., and Pozuweit, C., ‘Neutron activation analysis of Mycenaen pottery from the Argolid: the search for reference groups’, in Farquhar, R. M., Hancock, R. G. V., and Pavlish, L. (eds), Proceedings of the 26th International Archaeometry Symposium (Toronto, 1988), 165–71.Google Scholar The unpublished NAAs of Aegean pottery made by I. Perlman have recently been studied by multivariate statistics (French, n. 31): S. M. A. Hoffman, V.J. Robinson, E. B. French, and R. E. Jones, ‘The problem of the north-east Peloponnese and progress to its solution: effects of measurement error and element-element correlations defining ceramic reference groups’, in D. Adan-Beyitz, M. Artzy, and F. Asaro (eds), Nuclear Chemistry and its Influence on Modern Science (forthcoming), are in broad agreement with Mommsen about the existence of a Tiryns group and a major group from Mycenae, but also suggest that the Mycenaean ceramics from Berbati and Zygouries can be distinguished chemically.

⁴³ Our two laboratories have not formally compared their standardizations, but both have independently calibrated their in-house clay standard against Perlman and Asaro's standard pottery ( Perlman, I. and Asaro, F., ‘Pottery analysis by neutron activation’, Archaeometry, 11 (1969), 21–52)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, so the results of each on the same material should be broadly compatible. Jar A 912 from Rhodes has consistently higher concentrations of elements compared to the others, which is probably to be explained by its finer fabric (i.e. it includes fewer ‘diluting inclusions’). This vessel was excluded when mean concentrations were calculated for the group.

⁴⁴ French (n. 31), 124.

⁴⁵ Mommsen et al. (n. 31).

⁴⁶ Mommsen also considered the possibility that the Amarna group may have given lower elemental concentrations because of experimental errors (e.g. different water content in the sherds), but this seems very unlikely now that we have also found the same phenomenon.

⁴⁷ Bieber et al. (n. 31) analysed pottery from Berbati by NAA and found three compositional groups, of which their group 1 has concentrations of elements about 1.1 to 1.2 times higher than group 2. These may represent the two Mycenae–Berbati groups of Mommsen. McGovern has analysed five Mycenaean stirrup jars found in the Baq'ah Valley (P. E. McGovern (ed.), n. 29). Two of the jars (BQ 1 and 2) were of LM III B date, and matched compositionally N. Peloponnesian pottery in the Brookhaven databank of NAA pottery analyses, including Bieber's Berbati groups 1 and 3. We have found that McGovern's data on jars BQ 1 and 2 are generally similar, for most elements, to the Mycenae–Berbati main group of Mommsen and ourselves. McGovern reported that the other three jars analysed completely lacked matches with the Brookhaven database, although some element characteristics supported a Greek mainland origin; none of the three matched any of our composition groups.

⁴⁸ Hoffman et al. (n. 42), unpublished analyses of 20 sherds from Knossos and 60 from Phaistos (which were chemically similar to those from Knossos).

⁴⁹ Jones (n. 14), 906–7; Artzy, M., Perlman, I., and Asaro, F., ‘Alasiya of the Amarna letters’, JNES 35 (1976), 171–82.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Hughes et al. (n. 31 ).

⁵¹ Analyses of local pottery from Tell es-Sa'idiyeh suggest that this may fall into two sub-groups, but this will not be discussed in detail here.

⁵² P. M. Day, ‘Ceramic production and distribution in late bronze age East Crete: a study by petrographic analysis’, paper delivered at conference on Archaeometry, Los Angeles, March 1992 (abstract only).