PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The fifty-three sites in the central Mediterranean at which Mycenaean pottery has been found are situated in a large area encompassing the Italian peninsula and the two largest islands in the Mediterranean, Sicily and Sardinia (Map 10). Malta and the Aeolian islands are also included. In 1877, L. Mauceri described two amphoroid jars from a tomb near Syracuse which had been found in 1871, without knowing they were Mycenaean. P. Orsi discovered Mycenaean pottery on several Sicilian sites and commented on their historical significance. The large quantities of Late Helladic pottery in the upper stratum of the site at Scoglio del Tonno in Taranto (site no. 314), excavated by Quagliati in 1899-1900, made it clear that southern Italy had known important Mycenaean connections.Fimmen mentioned five sites in Sicily and three on the mainland where Mycenaean pottery had been found, while T.J. Dunbabin added another to both regions. According to Dunbabin, the ceramic evidence and that for the introduction of fibulae and a new type of tholos tomb pointed to the presence of permanent Mycenaean settlements on Sicily.

In the 1940s and 1950s L. Bernabò Brea and M. Cavalier started several important excavations on the Aeolian islands, north of Sicily. The Aegean pottery of Filicudi (site no. 321), Lipari (site no. 325) and Panarea (site no. 324) was discussed by Taylour in his overview of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. He stated that much of the Aegean pottery was early in comparison with most other sites: LH I and LH II wares are present at these islands in quantities that equal the LH IIIA and LH IIIB pottery. Taylour also discussed the Mycenaean pottery from Scoglio del Tonno (site no. 314), indicating stylistical affinities with the islands of Rhodes and Cyprus. The excavation of Porto Perone (site no. 313), also in the region of Taranto, did not only reassert the importance of this area in Mycenaean times. It also provided a better understanding of the stratigraphical sequences in which the Mycenaean pottery in Apulia occurred.

INTRODUCTION

The sites of Ras Shamra and Minet el-Beida are situated in the Syrian coastal plain, ca. 12 km north of the modern harbour town of Lattakia. Minet el-Beida is the name of a bay near which an urban zone has been excavated, less than a kilometre away from the tell of Ras Shamra, which is located somewhat inland. The sites have been excavated since 1928 by successive French missions, who have continued the research up to the present day. The site at Minet el-Beida was explored from 1929 to1935. The earliest habitation at the harbour town dates to the first phase of the Late Bronze Age. In contrast, the lowest levels from Ras Shamra are from the preceramic Neolithic and the site appears to have been inhabited continuously until its destruction and abandonment at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Epigraphic evidence has shown that Ras Shamra was the capital of ancient Ugarit.

The Late Bronze Age remains appear to have covered the whole tell of Ras Shamra, which encompasses about 26 ha., of which 1/6 has been excavated (Fig. 5.1). The excavated parts of the ancient city are generally referred to as if they constitute city areas. It must be understood, however, that the excavations have largely been conducted independent of the town's urban layout and that the areas represent archaeological trenches, rather than town quarters. The western part of the site is occupied by the vast royal palace, which contained ninety rooms and six courtyards. The palace was the only area at Ras Shamra that can be considered a specialised zone, designated for specific social groups and functions. The other excavation trenches have exposed tightly-knit urban zones, in which buildings meant for habitation were interspersed with shops, workshops and religious structures. Four buildings with cultic functions can be identified with certainty at Ras Shamra. However, it is clear that religious rites were practised outside structures with explicit cultic functions as well. Even though a site plan from Minet el-Beida has never been published, it is clear from the description by the excavators that tombs, houses, storehouses and workshops were discovered, as well as spaces designated to ritual practices.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

That Mycenaean pottery was very abundant in Cyprus was already realised by Furtwängler and Löschke at the end of the 19th century. They mentioned thirty-seven Mycenaean pots and three findspots, while stating that there were many more from the island, scattered over several collections. Furtwängler and Löschke noticed that in comparison to mainland Greece, chariot kraters and decorated flasks were more frequent in Cyprus. Differences in the corpus of Mycenaean pottery between Cyprus and mainland Greece were also noted by Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter, who argued for the production of Mycenaean pottery on the island itself. They were the first to make a distinction between genuine Mycenaean ware and local imitations on the basis of a description of fabrics. A distinction between Minoan, Cycladic and Helladic pottery in Cyprus was made in 1926 by Gjerstad, who stated that already during the LC I period pots produced on the Greek mainland exceeded those from Crete or the Aegean islands. He also reported that the number of Aegean finds in Cyprus was well over a thousand, while Fimmen was able to list twenty findspots of Mycenaean pottery on the island.

In the 1930s the first three volumes of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition were published. Among the sites discussed, Enkomi (site no. 56), where the Swedes had excavated part of the necropolis is especially important. In 1951, Frank Stubbings emphasized that the differences between Mycenaean pottery from Cyprus and mainland Greece was one of repertoire only. In his view, technique, shape and decoration all pointed to manufacture on mainland Greece. Stubbing's work is also important because he showed a difference in the distribution of Mycenaean pottery on Cyprus between LH IIIA2 and LH IIIB. In comparison with the relative homogeneity of LH IIIA2 pottery, Stubbings noted more local imitations of the LH IIIB style and a growing number of local peculiarities in shape and decoration, coupled with some differences in the texture of the clay. In his view, these changes testified to the LH IIIB pottery being imported not only from the Peloponnese, but also from peripheral areas of the Mycenaean region, such as Rhodes.

Scientific analysis of the composition of Late Helladic ware on Cyprus had already been carried out in the 1940s.

INTRODUCTION

The distribution of Mycenaean pottery in Italy has been subdivided by Lucia Vagnetti into three broad chronological periods: LH I-LH II, LH IIIA-LH IIIB and LH IIIB-LH IIIC. Even though all three sites which have been discussed in the preceeding chapters cover more than one of these periods, the Mycenaean pottery at each of them is concentrated in specific periods. Most of the Mycenaean pottery at Lipari belongs to the early period (LH I-LH IIIA1); at Thapsos most Aegean vessels can be assigned a LH IIIA2-LH IIIB date, while Broglio yielded predominantly Mycenaean material from LH IIIB and later. The differences and similarities between these sites, therefore, may be the result of chronological developments. They may also be caused by the different nature of the archaeological remains at these three sites.

MYCENAEAN REPERTOIRE

The large quantities of Mycenaean pottery at Lipari and Broglio are paralleled only at a few other sites in the central Mediterranean. More than 340 Mycenaean sherds have been published from the island of Vivara (site no. 342), while the excavations at Scoglio del Tonno in Taranto (site no. 314) produced more than 150 Mycenaean finds. In Nuraghe Antigori (site no. 348), where Bronze Age levels have been reached in a limited number of rooms, more than forty Mycenaean finds were made, but over 100 Mycenaean sherds were found in a dump of clandestine excavators. Two trenches of limited extent at Termitito (site no. 316) yielded more than forty Mycenaean sherds. The latest Mycenaean find on Vivara dates to LH IIIA1 and the sites on this island should be grouped with Lipari in Vagnetti's first phase of the import of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. Scoglio del Tonno, instead, has produced substantial amounts of Aegean pottery in LH IIIA style and later, and this site belongs to Vagnetti's second and third phases. As in Broglio di Trebisacce, most Mycenaean finds at Termitito and Nuraghe Antigori are in LH IIIB and LH IIIC style, and these sites belong to the third period. Obviously, in each chronological phase of the Mycenaean contacts with Italy, only very few sites imported large quantities of this material.

INTRODUCTION

In the central part of Cyprus, the Mesaoria plain is bordered on its southern side by limestone hills. Athienou is situated in the foothills, in close proximity of both the central plain and mining districts such as Troulli or Sha. The site of Bamboulari tis Koukouninas is situated on a natural hillock, which rises some 2 m above its surroundings. It covers some 2500 sqm which have been excavated down to virgin soil for more than 90% (Fig. 11.1). The lowest archaeological layers which have been attested during these excavations have been assigned to the transitional period MC III-LC I. From then on, the site was continually occupied until the first part of LC III.

The Late Bronze Age remains have been discovered in three strata (strata IV-II). In stratum IV (MC III-LC I), only a few deep and shallow pits were discovered; they did not contain any Mycenaean pottery. Some of the remains in stratum III may have an LC I date, but the majority date to LC II. Architectural remains belonging to this phase have been found in the north-western part of the site only (Fig. 11.1). One building has been discovered with a large room, possessing a plaster floor. At least two other rooms, also with a plaster floor, belonged to this building as well. South of these three rooms, a courtyard has been discovered. Three pits dug were dug in the pavement of the courtyard. Directly east of the courtyard, there were three deep, cylindrical pits; a group of pits further east were more shallow. During LC III, the building was enlarged with several rooms in the eastern part of the site. Other constructions, mainly to do with metal working, also date to this period.

The total number of miniature juglets which have been found in stratum III at Athienou- Bamboulari tis Koukouninas has been estimated at 10,000. Consequently, the site has been interpreted as a sanctuary, which formed a regional centre in networks of production and exchange. Associated with the cultic activities was metal production, as is indicated by copper ore and nodules. No other settlement remains have been discovered in the vicinity of the site, but the nearby cemetery reportedly has Late Bronze Age graves. It is unclear who controlled the sanctuary.

INTRODUCTION

I argued in the first chapter to this book, that supra-regional exchange in the eastern Mediterranean was complex and conducted on various social levels. Many groups of people were involved in these exchanges, among whom were palace-based traders and independent merchants. Considering the complexity of supra-regional trade, the question of who exchanged and transported the Mycenaean ceramic vessels is not the right one to ask. Rather, we should investigate the interest of particular groups in the distribution of Mycenaean pottery in the Mediterranean.

The motivations which constituted the rationale behind Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean probably ranged from the purely diplomatic to the purely commercial, while different actors may not have had the same motivations at various points in the exchange networks. Since Mycenaean pots probably travelled through various modes of exchange before being deposited in the archaeological record, it is useless to ask about the type of exchange or the specific mechanisms of which these vessels have been part. Instead, it seems relevant to investigate the role of the Mycenaean pots in comparison to other trade goods.

ROLE OF THE CYPRIOTS

The large quantities of Mycenaean pots in Cyprus, the size of which is small in comparison which such vast areas as Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt and the central Mediterranean, indicates that the island played a special role with regard to the distribution of Mycenaean pots in the Mediterranean. Such a special role is emphasised by the observation that in the Levant and Egypt, Cypriot and Mycenaean pots are often found together. Cyprus had a long tradition of pottery export to the Levant and Egypt and it seems logical to assume that the Mycenaean pots were supplemented to an already existing international circulation of Cypriot ceramics.

During the Late Bronze Age, a complex urbanised society developed in Cyprus which was related to the exploitation of copper resources for external exchange. The importance of copper production and of international trade for the development of complex societies in Cyprus gave items relating to these activities a special significance.

INTRODUCTION

The detailed contextual analyses of the Mycenaean pottery at Ugarit, Hazor and Deir ‘Alla enable a discussion of the use and appreciation of Mycenaean pottery in the Levant in general. The evidence from other find spots of Mycenaean pottery in the Levant will be discussed here in order to check how representative the conclusions reached for Ugarit, Hazor and Deir ‘Alla are. Before discussing the social groups in the Levant who used Mycenaean pottery, their appreciation of different parts of this class of material and its social significance, I will briefly comment on the repertoire of Mycenaean pots and figurines itself.

MYCENAEAN REPERTOIRE

From the preceding chapters it has become clear that Ugarit has yielded a wider repertoire of Mycenaean pottery than Hazor and Deir ‘Alla. The large quantity of Mycenaean vessels at Ugarit is paralleled only at other coastal cities. From Tell Abu Hawam (site no. 175) some 700 Mycenaean finds have been reported. Excavations in a very limited area at Sarepta (site no. 162) produced some 130 Mycenaean finds, while a nearby tomb had earlier yielded another 67 Mycenaean vessels. The variety of Mycenaean vessel types at Ugarit is paralleled only at Tell Abu Hawam, where a similar range of storage and dinner vessels have been found, as well as rhyta and Mycenaean figurines. Another similarity between these two sites is the predominance of dinner vessels. Ashdod (site no. 222), also a coastal settlement, is the only other site in the Levant with a majority of Mycenaean dinner vessels. At all other sites storage vessels are more frequent. This is also the case at Sarepta, which has yielded a great quantity of stirrup jars in particular. A conical rhyton, a wide range of cups and bowls, as well as female, bovine and chariot figurines testify to the varied character of the Mycenaean repertoire at Sarepta.

It appears that the repertoire of Mycenaean vessels and figurines is generally larger and more varied at coastal centres than at inland sites. Such a distribution pattern has been explained by suggesting a model of the circulation of Mycenaean pottery involving ‘ports of trade’.

INTRODUCTION

Lipari is the largest of the seven islands in the Aeolian archipelago. On its south-eastern coast, the acropolis, nowadays called il Castello or Cittáde rises to a height of almost 44 m. The archaeological site is situated on top of the acropolis, which is also the historical centre of the modern town (Fig. 15.1). Excavations were conducted at the site in the 1950s and 1960s. They have revealed continuous habitation at the acropolis from the Early Bronze Age until the present day. During this long period, settlement at the acropolis was continually related to the plain of contrada Diana below the acropolis, where settlement structures and graves have also been found. The archaeological strata in the plain that have produced the most extensive remains are precisely those with less finds on the acropolis; the same is true the other way around.

In the main excavation area a sequence of four Bronze Age layers has been distinguished below a thick fill with Bronze Age and Greek finds. The earliest habitation at the acropolis took place during an advanced phase of the Capo Graziano culture of the Early Bronze Age. Remains of this early habitation phase (ca. 1600-1400 BC) have been found in the main excavation area, as well as in the majority of trenches elsewhere on the acropolis. It is therefore likely that the settlement occupied the whole surface of the acropolis. Some twenty architectural structures of the Capo Graziano period have been found in the main excavation area (Fig. 15.3). Most of these huts are fairly small, some 4.5 x 3 m, and oval in shape. They appear to have been situated in concentrations of five to six structures, which suggests an important role for kinship groups in the society. Burials dating to the Capo Graziano period have been discovered at contrada Diana; they involve cremation and secondary burial in large pithoi. The material culture of the Capo Graziano phase distinguishes itself from that of the Italian mainland, as well as from that of Sicily, even though some imports from both areas have been found. In fact, the practice of cremation is very similar to practices at Malta and the island of Ognina near Syracuse.