Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:48:09.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Boeotian Thebes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

K. Demakopoulou  and
J. H. Crouwel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eight fragments of Mycenaean pictorial pottery discovered in excavations conducted by K. Demakopoulou in 1973 at 29 Pindar Street, Thebes, are described and discussed. An appendix presents a chemical analysis of the fragments. Comparison with other Mycenaean pictorial pottery and the chemical analysis leads to the same conclusion, that the first five samples were made at a Boeotian centre, not necessarily far from Thebes, while examples 6 and 7 were imported, their source being probably a centre, other than Mycenae, in the NE Peloponnese.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 79 , November 1984 , pp. 37 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1984

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

Acknowledgements. We wish to thank most warmly the Ephor of Boeotia, Dr. A. Andreiomenou, for her help in collecting the samples. We also thank Miss Ino Ioannidou and Miss Lenio Bragiotou for taking the photographs of sherds 1–2, 3b, 4–7 and the Epimeletria, Dr. A. Christopoulou, for the photograph of fragment 3a.

The analytical work reported in the Appendix owes much to the efforts of Miss H. J. B. Hatcher, who was largely responsible for setting up the Fitch Laboratory's atomic absorption spectrometer during her tenure of a British Academy Research Fellowship in 1982–3. We thank Miss E. Louka for much assistance with the analyses.

Abbreviations in addition to those in standard use

FM = Furumark, Motif Number, MP (see below), 236 ff.

FS = Furumark, Shape Number, MP (see below), 585 ff.

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

Slenczka = Slenczka, E., Figürlich bemalte mykenische Keramik aus Tiryns, Tiryns VII (Mainz am Rhein 1974)Google Scholar

Vermeule and Karageorghis = E. Vermeule and V. Karageorghis,

Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (Cambridge, Mass., and London 1982).Google Scholar

1 For Mycenaean Thebes, see most recently Demakopoulou, K. and Konsola, D., Archaeological Museum of Thebes (Athens 1981). 18 ff., 93f. (bibl.)Google Scholar; Simpson, R. Hope and Dickinson, O. T. P. K.A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age. I. The Mainland and the Islands SIMA 52 (1979) 244f.Google Scholar; Catling, H. W., Cherry, J. F., Jones, R. E., Killen, J. T., BSA 75 (1980) 95ffGoogle Scholar; Sherratt, E. S., BSA 75 (1980) 184, 201 f.Google Scholar

2 For the Linear B tablets from Thebes, see Chadwick, J., Minos 10 (1970) 115 ff.Google Scholar, and apud Spyropoulos, Th. G., The Thebes Tablets II, Minos Suppl. 4 (1975) 85 ff.Google Scholar; Godart, L. and Sacconi, A., Les tablettes en Linéaire B de Thèbes, Incunabula graeca 71 (Roma 1978).Google Scholar

3 The others are: (1) Keramopoulos, A., AE 1930, 35 ff.Google Scholar, and Symeonoglou, S., Kadmeia I. Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece, SIMA 34 (1973) 91 n. 401Google Scholar; (2) Symeonoglou, ibid. 63ff.

4 Demakopoulou, K., AAA 7 (1974) 162ff.Google Scholar, and ADelt 29 B2 (1973–4) 430 ff. See also Demakopoulou and Konsola, loc. cit. (n. 1) 24, 56. For a definition of LH IIIB1 pottery, based on study of settlement material from Mycenae, see French, E., BSA 61 (1966) 216ff.Google Scholar, and 62 (1967) 149ff.; Wardle, K. A., BSA 64 (1969) 261 ff., and 68 (1973) 297ff., 304ff.Google Scholar; also Sherratt loc. cit. (n. 1) 184f.

5 For pictorial kraters with panel decoration, see e.g. Crouwel, , BABesch 47 (1972) 14ff.Google Scholar with nn. 10, 13 (refs.).

6 Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. XIII.28 (amphoroid krater from Ugarit-Ras Shamra, see below, n. 10), XI.14, 15 (two fragmentary LH IIIB deep-bowl kraters from Tiryns), XI. 11 (sherd from Mycenae: horse?).

7 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. IX. 47 (neckless krater, from Attica?).

8 For a convenient series of illustrations, see Slenczka pls. 10–22.

9 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. VI.60; cf. no. XI.36 (krater fragment from Athens with remains of what is probably a horse in a panel).

10 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XIII.28.

11 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XI.17 (interpreted, probably incorrectly, as charioteer holding reins; see Slenczka s.v. no. 155A).

12 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XI. 8.

13 For illustrations see among others Slenczka pls. 42.3, 43.1, 3–4, 44.2, also no. 115A with pl. 2.1 and Beilage 1.

14 Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. V.48 and 74 (bulls), V.27 (griffin), V.60 and XI.70 (deer), XI.78 (dog).

15 See Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. XI.13 (Mycenaean jar), X.28 (Athens), XI.14 (Tiryns), XI.21 (Tiryns), XI.40 (Perati), XII.42 (Dodecanese), XIII.28 (Ugarit-Ras Shamra).

16 For fish in Mycenaean vase-painting see, apart from MP and Vermeule and Karageorghis, esp. Benson, , AJA 72 (1968) 204ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buchholz, H. G., Jöhrens, G., Maull, I., Jagd und Fischfang, Arch-Hom Kap. I, Bd. 2 (Göttingen 1973) 146Google Scholar ff.

17 See Vermeule and Karageorghis e.g. nos. V. 130 (Cyprus), V.131 (Ugarit-Ras Shamra), IX.115 (Spata, Attica), IX.120 (Klauss, Achaea).

18 For kraters with fish in panels, see Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. V.127 (Enkomi), X.96 (Argos), X.97 (Athens); see also X.87 (stirrup-jar frg., Mycenae), XII.40 (stirrup-jar, Kos).

19 See the amphoroid krater from Ugarit-Ras Shamra, Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XIII.28.

20 Vermeule and Karageorghis V.43 (deep-bowl krater with bull and fish, Enkomi), XII.42 (jar with horses and fish, Dodecanese), XIII.28 (amphoroid krater with goats and fish, on either side of a ‘horse-tamer’, Ugarit-Ros Shamra; cf. V.42 (amphoroid krater from Klavdia, Cyprus, showing a bull with a fish between its lowered head and the baseline).

21 See Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. V.60 (Aradippo, Cyprus), XI.70–1 (Mycenae), XI.80 (Pylos), XIII.1 (Ankhiale, Cilicia), XIII.27 (Ugarit-Ras Shamra).

22 See Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. XI.91 (LH IIIC pyxis, Lefkandi), IX.48 LH IIIB frg. of closed vessel (Tiryns); Catling, H. W. in Stèlè. Memoriam Volume for N. Kontoleon (Athens 1979) 440ff.Google Scholar with pl. 205 (LH IIIB krater frg., Menelaion).

23 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XI.13.

24 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. IX.71.

25 Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. XI.13 (the Mycenae jar, already referred to in nn. 15, 23), XI.2, 7, 30, 59, IX.6, X.23.

26 See Slenzcka loc. cit. (n. 8).

27 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. IX.10 (horse's tail similarly rendered with strands of hair).

28 Kilian, K., AM 95 (1960) 22, 24 with pl. 9.2.Google Scholar

29 Kilian, loc. cit. 21 ff. with pls. 9.1, 10 and figs. 1–2; Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XI.19.1.

30 Crouwel, , Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Amsterdam 1981) no. V. 13 with pl. 52.Google Scholar

31 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. XI.13.

32 For birds on Mycenaean vases see, apart from MP and Vermeule and Karageorghis, Benson, J. L., JNES 20 (1961) 73 ff.Google Scholar and Horse, Bird and Man (Amherst 1970) ch. III with pl. xxiv; also Slenczka pls. 23–33.

33 For reverted heads, see list in Benson, , JNES 20 (1961) 82 f.Google Scholar; add Slenczka no. 144.

34 For chalices, see, apart from MP, esp. Karageorghis, , BSA 52 (1957) 38 ff.Google Scholar, and Nouveaux documents pour l'étude du bronze récentà Chypre (Paris 1965) 208f.: Hiller, S., ‘Levanto-mykenische Kelche. Zur Herkunft der Gefässform’, RDAC 1978, 91–102.Google Scholar

35 Spyropoulos, , AAA 3 (1970) 328f.Google Scholar with fig. 4 (chamber-tomb at Kallithea, Boeotia); Blegen, C. W. in The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenica iii (Princeton 1973) 93f.Google Scholar with fig. 174.1 (Pylos, tholos tomb iii); Hiller. loc. cit. 101; nos. C6–7.

36 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. V.97; Hiller, loc. cit. 101 no. C11; Karageorghis, loc. cit. (n. 34) pl. 8a.

37 Wardle, , BSA 68 (1973) 298Google Scholar, 304, 311 with table, fig. 4; French, E., BSA 64 (1969) 87.Google Scholar

38 Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. XII.13–15 (Rhodes; birds), XII.II (?Rhodes; goats), V.34 (Kourion; men), V.87 (Kition; bull), VIII.27 (Delphi; birds; probably incorrectly identified as krater).

39 Cf. the rendering of what remains of (probably) horses'legs on a krater fragment from Mycenae, above n. 27.

40 See esp. Karageorghis, , Nouveaux documents 220, and AA 1967, 162ff.Google Scholar; also comments by Rutter, J., The Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC Periods at Korakou and Gonia in the Corinthia (doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1974) 345f.Google Scholar Pictorial exx. are listed by Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. V.91–5 (bull protomes), 107 (goats), 116–24 and 126 (birds), 133–9 and 141–2 (fish).

41 See MP 636, s.v. FS 296 (Berbati, Delphi). Add e.g. Verdelis, N., French, E. and French, D., ADelt 20, A (1965) 148Google Scholar, 152 with fig. 6: 2–3; Grossmann, P. and Schäfer, J. in Tiryns VIII (Mainz am Rhein 1975) 79Google Scholar nos. 168–9 with fig. 31 and pl. 55; Chr. Podzuweit, AA 1981, 198 with fig. 51 (all from Tiryns); French, E., BSA 64 (1969) 75Google Scholar with fig. 10: 6–14 (Mycenae); Rutter, loc. cit. 338f. nos. 14–15 with fig. 126: 6–7, also 345f. (Korakou).

42 Vermeule and Karageorghis IX.25.1. (bull-protomes) and 108 (birds) = Slenczka nos. 145–6 with fig. 23.2, 1 (profile drawings).

43 Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. IX.78 (Mycenae), 95 (Prosymna), 120 (Klauss in Achaea) = Tzavella, G., AE 1960, 136ff.Google Scholar with fig. 1; E. Protonariou-Deilaki, ibid. 132f. no. 21, with pl. 15; Papadopoulos, T. J., Mycenaean Achaea, SIMA 55, 1–2 (1979) 120f.Google Scholar with figs. 183, 272.

44 Vermeule and Karageorghis nos. V. 107 (from Kition region?) and 123 (Enkomi); Karageorghis, , Excavations at Kition I. The Tombs (Nicosia 1974) 30Google Scholar, 39 no. 186 with pl. CXXXII.

45 For somewhat similar birds, see Vermeule and Karageorghis e.g. VIII. 14 (neckless krater from Mycenae, attributed to same painter as IV.6, an amphoroid krater from Enkomi), IX.89 (rhyton, Attica), IV.7, 40–5 (amphoroid kraters, Cyprus); Slenczka no. 235 (? krater frg., Argolid).

46 See attempts made by Benton, S., JHS 81 (1961) 44 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 See French, E., BSA 60 (1965) 172, 177Google Scholar (LH IIIA2), and BSA 61 (1967) 223, 225 with fig. 1, 17a (LH IIIB1). There are no close parallels among LH IIIB2 Unvoluted Flowers, see French, , BSA 64 (1969) 77Google Scholar with pl. 18a; Wardle, , BSA 68 (1973) 308f.Google Scholar with fig. 7.

48 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. VII.5.

49 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. VII.K; Spyropoulos, , ADelt 24, B1 (1969) 183 with pl. 193a.Google Scholar

50 Vermeule and Karageorghis no. VIII.29; Faraklas, N., ADelt 23, B1 (1968) 211 with pl. 161aGoogle Scholar, 2nd from right.

51 Vermeule and Karageorghis VII.30–1, see also pp. 84 (s.v. VII.30), 177 (painter 29).

52 Faraklas, loc. cit. 211 with pl. 161a, 2nd from left.

53 Spyropoulos, loc. cit. (n. 2) 42 with photo 106c.

54 Spyropoulos, loc. cit. (n. 2) 42 with photo 108.

55 See Vermeule and Karageorghis esp. 411 ff. (site index) and Slenczka. The material from Berbati was seen by Crouwel thanks to the kindness of Å. Åkerström, who is publishing it.

56 This is well illustrated by the material from recent excavations in the Citadel House area at Mycenae and the Lower Citadel at Tiryns; the pictorial pottery among it is currently being prepared for publication by Crouwel and W. Güntner respectively.

57 See Vermeule and Karageorghis and Slenczka. The same is true for the new material from the Citadel House area at Mycenae referred to in n. 56.

58 For chalices see above, nn. 34–6.

59 See esp. Sjöqvist, E., Problems in the Late Cypriote Bronze Age (Stockholm 1940) 92ff.Google Scholar; MP 431 ff., 462 ff.; Karageorghis, Nouveaux documents 201 ff.; Sheratt, loc. cit. (n. 1) 195ff. (cf. 196 with n. 77, where she argues for manufacture of chalices in Cyprus, as does Hiller, , RDAC 1978, 91 ff.Google Scholar)

60 See esp. Immerwahr, S. A., AJA 49 (1945) 554ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dikaios, P., Enkomi Excavations 1948–1958, i (Mainz am Rhein 1969) 249ff.Google Scholar; Benson, J. L., Bamboula at Kourion (Philadelphia 1972) 107ff.Google Scholar; also Slenczka 195ff.

61 See above, n. 38.

62 For these bowls, see above nn. 40–2.

63 Quoted from Sherratt, loc. cit. (n. 1) 197, who favours manufacture in Cyprus throughout (cf. 196 with n. 77). For the mass-produced bowls in Cyprus, see especially Karageorghis, Nouveaux documents 177 ff.

64 As for n. 57.

65 For some probably local idiosyncrasies among the non-pictorial LH IIIB pottery from Thebes and Boeotia in general, see Sherratt, loc. cit. (n. 1) 185; Symeonoglou loc. cit. (n. 3) esp. 32 ff.; Cf. also Mountjoy, P. A., Mycenaean Pottery from Orchomenos, Eutresis and other Boeotian Sites. Orchomenos V (Munich 1983) 112.Google Scholar

66 Some fifty examples of PS have been analysed chemically, all but a few at the RLAHA (Catling, and Millett, , BSA 60 (1965) 212–24Google Scholar and Anson, , RDAC (1980) 109–27Google Scholar). The results are treated in detail by the writer and especially Catling in Jones, Greek and Cypriot pottery: a Review of Scientific Studies (in press), Chapter 7.

67 Thebes: 19 samples of decorated LH IIIB wares from the palace archives and vicinity. Mycenae: 19 samples of decorated sherds from the Lion Gate deposit mainly of LH IIIA-B date. Both groups have previously been analysed by OES in the Fitch Laboratory (see, for example, Catling et al, op. cit. n. 1, Table 4 and 111).

68 Comparison with the compositions of PS previously analysed by OES should not be made until the relationship between data determined by the two techniques, OES and AAS, has been established. This matter, which has already been explored by the RLAHA (see Hatcher, et al., Archaeometry 22 (2) (1980) 142–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Appendix), will be reported by the Fitch Laboratory in a forthcoming paper describing its full analytical procedure.

69 See Hughes, et al., Archaeometry 18 (1) (1976) 31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Op. cit. (n. 68).

71 The Na contents are not reported here.

72 One sample is removed from the Mycenae group, since its composition is clearly foreign to the Argolid; it is probably West Cretan.

73 See Jones, op. cit. (n. 66), Chapter 3, B.

74 The RLAHA has analysed material from Thebes, Kalami, Pyrgos, Arma, Eutresis, Gla, and Orchomenos; White has extended the coverage to Anthedon, Chalia, Dramesi, and Eleon, (White, S., ‘The provenance of Bronze Age Pottery from Central and Eastern Greece’ (unpublished) Ph.D. thesis, Bradford University (1981)Google Scholar). See Jones, op. cit. note 66, Chapter 3, A.

75 In the present context the similarity between central Cretan and Boeotian compositions is not a serious issue. The consequences have been more serious, however, in studies of pottery exchange on the mainland and Crete, e.g. of the inscribed stirrup-jars (Catling et al., op. cit. note 1).