Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T08:33:23.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pottery groups from Mycenae: a summary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

Elizabeth French
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The possibility of establishing the sequence and chronological development of Mycenaean pottery by excavation on a well-stratified site is remote. Remains of the Mycenaean period are, generally, found either on rocky outcrops or in the eroded upper levels of mounds which have been inhabited for many centuries, and there is, thus, little scope for true stratigraphic excavation. The very considerable quantity of Mycenaean pottery which has been discovered in the Mediterranean area and the studies of it which have been published in the last twenty-five years have produced the impression that Mycenaean pottery is ‘well known’. Indeed, such pottery is, on the whole, easily recognized but there is often great difficulty in dating it. Pottery from settlements has largely been neglected, on the grounds of its fragmentary condition, in favour of better-preserved examples from tombs. The result is that, in his volume dealing with chronology, Furumark was able to use, for the L.H. III period, only ten groups of pottery from domestic contexts. Moreover, if the student of today wishes to compare new material with these groups, he will find that the evidence from Mycenae (four of the ten groups) was almost completely lost during the war and that of the rest only the pottery from Athens and from Zygouries is available.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 58 , November 1963 , pp. 44 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbreviations additional to those in standard use

MP—Furumark, A., The Mycenaean Pottery (1941).Google Scholar

CMP—Furumark, A., The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (1941).Google Scholar

FS—Furumark Shape Number; MP 585 ff.

FM—Furumark Motive Number; MP 236 ff.

MT II—Bennett, E. L. et al. , ‘The Mycenae Tablets II’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society xlviii (1958) pt. 1.Google Scholar

MT III—J. Chadwick et al., ‘The Mycenae Tablets III,’ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society.

Ålin—Ålin, P., ‘Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem griechischen Festland’, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology i.Google Scholar

Schachermeyr—Schachermeyr, F., ‘Forschungsbericht über die Ausgrabungen und Neufunde zur ägäischen Frühzeit 1957–1960’, AA 1962Google Scholar, Heft 2.

T.505—Mycenae, Chamber Tomb 505, Wace, A. J. B., ‘Chamber Tombs at Mycenae’, Archaeologia lxxxii (1932) 12 ff.Google Scholar

This report embodies the first stage of my work on the analysis of the pottery from Mycenae which I have undertaken with the help of a Fellowship from the Bollingen Foundation. I hope later to publish detailed accounts of those groups which have not been published previously and to relate the evidence from the earlier excavations at Mycenae to this new chronological series.

1 Contrast the opinions expressed by Hanfmann, G. M. A. and Mylonas, G. E., both in Archaeology xiii (1960) 82 and 84.Google Scholar

2 CMP 28 ff., 40 ff. The groups are Mycenae: Ramp House, Lion Gate (Stratification), Rhyton Well, Granary; Thebes: Palace; Zygouries: Potter's Shop; Menelaion: House; Asine: Houses G-H; Eutresis: House V; Athens: Acropolis, North Slope.

3 A few unpublished sherds from the Lion Gate Stratification (and other deposits) have been recovered by sorting the heaps of mixed sherds in the Nauplia Museum.

4 In the Agora Museum, Athens.

5 In the Corinth Museum.

6 The only gap is the L.H. IIIA 2 early period. It should be noted that the pottery of this period is not closely defined even by Furumark though he assigns individual vases to this category. Perhaps the subdivision is here overdetailed and the L.H. IIIA period should be divided into only the 1 and 2 sections.

7 Schachermeyr, 220 f., suggests that Mycenaean pottery must be divided into characteristic groups before it can be assigned to chronological periods and he puts forward a tentative series of names for such groups. Though I agree that Mycenaean pottery can only be dated by the characteristic elements which appear in any group (and that, therefore, any individual vase will remain difficult to date on its own), I do not think it necessary to abandon Furumark's stylistic categories (whatever the absolute chronology) in favour of phases known by names which are sometimes misleading. Reference is made in the footnotes to Schachermeyr's phases and to the points where I believe the Mycenae evidence causes modification in them to be necessary.

8 Cf. Ålin (including many references) and Schachermeyr. The historical significance of this material is well summarized by Desborough, V. R. d'A., CAH (2nd ed.) vol. ii, chap. xxxvi.Google Scholar

9 Wace, A. J. B., Mycenae (1949) 127, figs. 45–48Google Scholar; BSA xlix (1954) 289. Only the painted pottery survived the war. It is stored in the drawers of Case 63 in the Nauplia Museum. The small objects are in the Mycenae storeroom in the Medrese in Nauplia.

10 The deposit belongs to Schachermeyr's ‘Agora-Stil’, though the Goblet, predominant in the material from the Atreus Bothros, is not found in the tomb group (Hesperia xxiv (1955) 187 ff.) from which the phase is named.

11 Cf. Wace, op. cit. fig. 48b.

12 FS 82, 84.

13 FS 93.

14 FS 144.

15 FS 77. This shape is decorated only with Stipple Pattern.

16 FS 255.

17 FS 256, 257.

18 FS 6, 7.

19 FS 219.

20 FS 225. No examples from this deposit have ridges at the rim. This feature seems to belong to L.H. IIIA 2, contrary to my opinion expressed in BSA xlix (1954) 275 f.

21 Blegen, C. W., Prosymna (1937) 353.Google Scholar

22 CMP 86 ff., 130. I have made a detailed study of these figurines and their chronological significance in my thesis, The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines, London University, 1961. This is also available for reference in the library of the British School at Athens.

23 Cf. Blegen, op. cit. fig. 611, no. 420. Called by me Proto-Phi.

24 Cf. Blegen, op. cit. fig. 611, no. 460. Called by me Phi A.

25 Cf. Blegen, op. cit. fig. 297, no. 725. Called by me Wavy 2 type.

26 Cf. Blegen, op. cit. fig. 617.

27 AE 1958, 194 ff.

28 BSA xxv (1921–2, 1922–3) 348, 357, fig. 76. Displayed in the National Museum, Athens.

29 There is other evidence supporting both extremes of date. The figurine found under the large block in the dromos (BSA xxv (1921–2, 1922–3) 340) can be dated to L.H. IIIA. Though its category is not mentioned in the original publication, the figurine was examined by Professor Blegen in 1931 and he recorded its type. The other figurines which were found by Stamatakis (BSA xxv. 353–4) are all preserved in the National Museum, Athens (no. 1342), and they also all belong to L.H. IIIA types. On the other hand, Stamatakis is said to have found in the doorway of the tomb a sherd identical with that from under the threshold (BSA xxv. 356). It was suggested long ago that the threshold may have been disturbed in L.H. IIIB. Recently, however, the architect, Mr. C. K. Williams, has pointed out to me that even if major structural alterations were not being carried out, it would be necessary to disturb the threshold merely to refurbish the doors, for example, on the occasion of a later interment. Such work would also account for the other objects found under the threshold (BSA xxv. 349), which included a bead similar to one from the doorway and thought to be from a burial.

30 PAE 1950, 203 ff.

31 Called Apotheke A.

32 No examples have a decorated belly zone.

33 MP fig. 7.

34 FS 151.

35 FS 257 with bands of paint decorating the stem and base. This type of Kylix was found in large numbers in the dromos of T.505. Furumark (MP 628) assigns these to L.H. IIIA 2 late.

36 FS 300.

37 Cf. MT II, fig. 39.

38 FS 284.

39 FS 274.

40 This group belongs to Schachermeyr's ‘El Amarna-Stil’. The small size of the sherds and the narrow range of shapes found at El Amarna make it a poor source of characteristic elements, though of vital chronological importance. Certainly the material from T.505 also illustrates essential elements of the phase.

41 Ålin, 18, uses information supplied by me before the interrelation of the buildings in this area had been fully studied. His statement should therefore be amended.

42 BSA xlix (1954) 267 ff. In comparison with other deposits this one now seems to be somewhat scanty and to cover a fairly wide range of date. The pottery from this and all the following groups is stored in the Mycenae storeroom in the Medrese at Nauplia.

43 It does not occur in the material from T.505 but Mackeprang, M. B. (AJA xlii (1938) 542)Google Scholar uses it as a criterion of L.H. IIIB.

44 The Stemmed Bowl (FS 305) does occur but it is also found among some unpublished sherds from T.505 which have been recovered from the sherd heaps in the Nauplia Museum.

45 BSA xlix (1954) pl. 48 b, top left-hand corner.

46 See above, n. 41.

47 BSA li (1956) 119 ff.

48 Reference to these trenches in the notebooks and the pottery store will be found under the designation Atreus Ridge Trench G.

49 JHS lxxvi (1956) 40.

50 Including some of the ‘Close’ style.

51 FS 257.

52 FS 305.

53 FS 220.

54 FS 225.

55 Both vertical and horizontal.

56 FM 18:20.

57 BSA xlix (1954) 231.

58 The preliminary report was the result of very brief study. There are, however, a few intrusive sherds of L.H. IIIB and C.

59 Cf. AJA xlii (1938) pl. 23:2.

60 One is decorated with a Flower of hybrid type (FM 18:33, 34), the other with a pair of Whorl Shells (FM 23:19, 20).

61 Cf. BSA 1 (1955) pl. 45 d and e. It is a fairly common feature on this shape.

62 For references see Stubbings, F. H., BSA xlii (1947) 20.Google Scholar No one seems to have considered this feature of any chronological importance.

63 The construction date of the House of Shields and the House of the Oil Merchant is determined by the pottery in the fill of the terraces beneath them. The West House can be shown architecturally (MT III, 30 f.) to be earlier than the House of the Oil Merchant, and similarly the House of Sphinxes can be shown to be later than the House of the Oil Merchant. For the destruction date of all four houses see below, p. 50.

64 For a description of the construction of the house and the relevant plans and sections see MT III, 30 ff.

65 Below the corridor at the north end.

66 Below Room 5.

67 MT II 9; BSA xlviii (1953) 14.

68 This deposit must belong to Schachermeyr's ‘Zyguries-Stil’, but see below, n. 75.

69 MT III, fig. 60. For the use of the term see BSA lii (1957) 218.

70 This proved to be part of the wall which supported the mound over the top of the Tomb of Clytemnestra. The name, Prehistoric Cemetery Central, was given to this section during the 1952 excavations and all records use this terminology. For the areas see BSA xlviii (1953) pl. 12.

71 As only painted sherds were preserved, it is no longer possible to prove this statement. Very few of the preserved pieces could be joined.

72 BSA xlviii (1953) 23 f.

73 Four sherds have two narrow body zones.

74 A deposit from the Citadel House, found in 1962, will supplement the repertoire of shapes for this period, particularly by the addition of two very handsome jugs. Kathimerini 23/9/1962.

75 This deposit is an excellent example of Schachermeyr's ‘Zyguries-Stil’ but the presence of numerous Deep Bowls (all of ‘Open Style’) is significant. I would suggest that Deep Bowls occur throughout L.H. IIIB but that they do not form an overwhelming proportion of the total pottery until the second half of the period. Some sherds of Deep Bowls were found at Zygouries (Blegen, C. W., Zygouries (1928) 139 f., fig. 131).Google Scholar For another small deposit with similar elements see BSA lvi (1961) 84 ff.

76 BSA xlii (1947) 29 f.

77 The evidence of the tablets supports this conclusion.

78 This must be distinguished from the debris with which the houses were filled. In the eastern part of the House of the Oil Merchant and in the House of Sphinxes there was a considerable depth of this debris which consisted of decomposed mudbrick and building material. It filled the basement portion of these houses and, because of the height of the walls, had not been eroded. The pottery from the debris contains a large proportion of early material (L.H. II–IIIA) and covers a wide range of date. The depth of soil over the other houses was slight and there was also considerable disturbance in the Protogeometric, Geometric, and Hellenistic periods.

79 e.g. the house found by Professor Mylonas in 1962, Kathimerini 3/10/1962. Professor Mylonas suggests that this house was destroyed by an earthquake. If so, the destruction cannot be linked to that of the houses by the Tomb of Clytemnestra because evidence of deliberate destruction was found in the House of the Oil Merchant (MT II 8).

80 BSA li (1956) pl. 29 b–d.

81 House of the Oil Merchant: BSA xlviii (1953) pls. 7, 8; MT II, figs. 32–41. House of Sphinxes: BSA xlix ( 1954) pls. 31, 37; BSA I (1955) pls. 28, 29, 31; MT II, figs 48–63, 65, 69. Only one vase was found in the House of Shields, a Piriform Jar almost identical with the one from the House of Sphinxes, Room 10 (BSA I (1955) pl. 31 c).

82 Ergon 1958, 131 f. (also in BCH lxxxiii (1959) 612); Archaeology xiv (1961) 12 f.; MT III, figs. 21–29, 33, 36–40, 48, 49, 55.

83 Cf. the Deep Bowls found in the street between the House of Shields and the House of the Oil Merchant (MT III, fig. 61). These must belong either to the occupation or to the destruction period of the houses.

84 Dr.Papadimitriou, , however, mentions traces of L.H. IIIC occupation in the area (PAE 1954 (1957) 268).Google Scholar

85 It appears that the vast fortifications of the Greek mainland (at least in their final state which we now know) are the direct result of this disaster, cf. Desborough, V. R. d'A., CAH (2nd ed.) vol. ii, chap. xxxvi.Google Scholar It is most important to distinguish between the destruction of the houses outside the walls at Mycenae and the destruction of those inside the walls. This point causes some confusion in the discussions of Broneer, O., Antiquity xxx (1956) 9 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Vermeule, E. T., Archaeology xiii (1960) 66 ff.Google Scholar

86 See below, the Prehistoric Cemetery East, and the destruction of the Citadel House. These groups belong to Schachermeyr's ‘Stil des Tirynther Schuttes’. This is an excellent identification as the material from Tiryns is ample and most decisive. The groups from Mycenae can be closely compared with it.

87 BSA l (1955) 209 ff.

88 This idea has become widely accepted in the last five years, cf. Ålin; Blegen, C. W., ‘The Mycenaean Age’, Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple, University of Cincinnati (1962) 23 f.Google Scholar; Desborough, V. R. d'A., CAH (2nd ed.) vol. ii, chap. xxxviGoogle Scholar; Schachermeyr.

89 The rim of this type is usually decorated with dots, cf. Furtwängler, A. and Loeschcke, G., Mykenische Vasen (1886) nos. 224 ff.Google Scholar

90 For the use of the term see BSA lii (1957) 218. Other sherds of this style are illustrated by Forsdyke, E. J., Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum, Vol. i, part 1, Prehistoric Aegean Pottery (1925)Google Scholar fig. 286.

91 Cf. BSA l (1955) pl. 43 c, d.

92 BSA lii (1957) 207 ff.

93 This might also account for the poor preservation of many of the sherds.

94 ILN 23/9/1961; MT III 35 ff. Kathimerini 23/9/1962.

95 See above, n. 74.

96 Beneath this ramp were found two Kylikes of the ‘Zygouries’ type, showing that it must have been constructed in or after the first half of L.H. IIIB.

97 There were also a few vases from the destruction level of the Citadel House itself, e.g. BSA l (1955) pl. 20 c.

98 This new material is still being studied but preliminary work seems to show that there exist in the earlier part of L.H. IIIC some but not all of the elements of both the ‘Close Style’ and the ‘Granary’ class. In the later period these elements continue together with the other elements typical of these two groups of pottery. It seems probable that Schachermeyr's phase may need some modification.