M. Benzi - G. Graziadio the Last Mycenaen in Italy. Late LHIIIC Pottery From Punta Meliso Leuca 0001

STUDI MICENEIED EOEO-ANATOLICI

FASCICOLO XXXVIII (1996)

IISTITUTI EDITORIALI E POLIGRAFICI INTERNAZIONALI®

ROMA, 1996

THE LAST MYCENAEANS IN ITALY? *LATE LHIIIC POTTERY FROM PUNTA MELISO, LEUCA.

by MARIO BENZIand GIAMPAOLOGRAZIADIOwith an Appendix by GIOVANNIBOSCHIAN

Alla memoria di Giuliano Cremonesi

Punta Meliso is one of two small headlands jutting out of Capo SantaMaria di Leuca, the eastemmost point of the Salentine peninsula in Apulia.Here late professor G. Cremonesi and his team based in Lecce brought tolight remains of settlements dating from the local "Età del Bronzo Recenteand Finale" (hereafter LBA and FBA).

Scanty remains of FBA occupation overlying a fortified LBA settlementwere first (1973) discovered on the top terrace, on which stands the modemsanctuary of Santa Maria in Finibus Terrae l. Along with local ware, fiveunstratified Mycenaean sherds were found, the most diagnostic being twosherds from deep bowls dating from either IIIB or early IIIC (Benzi 1982,61 pl. X: 3,5).

Later on (1976-78, 1984) further excavations were carried out on a lower

* We wish to express our thanks to A. M. Orlando and E. Ingravallo for their help andsupport during our visit to Lecce University in 1990.We are very grateful to L. Vagnetti whoread and thoroughly commented on the draft manuscript. We also thank R. Guglielminowho provided information on unpublished Mycenaean material from Roca Vecchia (Lecce).The excavation plan was carried out by A. Guercia, Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali, Univer-sità di Lecce; M. Epifani, Dipartimento di Scienze Archeologiche, Università di Pisa, carriedout pottery drawings.

Some of the vases here discussed are illustrated on the catalogue of the exhibition «Ar-cheologia dei Messapi», Lecce 7 October 1990 - 7january 1991 (Benzi, Graziadio 1990); apreliminary account was given at the II Congresso di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli 14-20 Oc-tober 1991 (Benzi, Graziadio 1996).

l Cremonesi 1978, 27-43. For other preliminary accounts, see D'Andria 1978, 88-90;Orlando 1990; Cremonesi 1991, 355-58.

96 Mario Benzi - Giampaolo Graziadio

"rs

,.

re

""

,.

,. ,"'

30

3.

""

,",

~"

Punta Meliso+

,,,

+ +'

,+

",

,e

,•.L- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~J_ ~

Fig. l - PIan of the excavation at Punta Meliso. A: Capanna l; B: Capanna 2;C: Capanna 3; D: silo; E; potsherd pavement; 0: findspots of Mycenaean pottery.

The last Mycenaeans in Italy? 97

terrace, lyìng some 12 m. above sea-level (fig. 1). Here three large shaftswere found, most likely the lower part of partly underground huts: they arereferred to by the excavators as Capanna 1,2 (both some 2.50 m. wide and0.50 m. deep) and 3 (6.40/4.70 wide and 1.50 deep). A further smaller shaft(1.75 m. wide and 1 m. deep) - tentatively identified by the excavator as asilo - and a potsherd floor were discovered in the northeastem area of theterrace. The earliest pottery from the site was associated with the floor andcan be assigned to LBA. The pottery recovered frorn the shafts includes avariety of local "impasto", fine ware of the so-called Iapygian Protogeomet-ric class - both assigned to FBA - and a substantial number of Mycenaeansherds. Apparently the site was disturbed since joining Mycenaean sherdswere found on different levels in the shaft fills.

Nearly all the Mycenaean sherds (ca. 90%) come from the largest shaft(Capanna 3), a few from Capanna 2 and the silo; none is apparently re-ported from Capanna 1. Four strata have been identified in the fill of Ca-panna 3: Stratum a (level 1), Stratum b (levels 2-5), Stratum c (levels 6-8),Stratum d (level 9). Most of joining sherds come from level 9 where 15% ofthe Mycenaean pottery has been found. Some 300 Mycenaean sherds wererecovered (including the joining ones), an impressive number on paper.However, it has to be said from the outset that most of them are undiagnos-tic, being exceedingly small and badly wom. This, however, does not de-tract from the importance of these finds, no doubt the most homogeneousand substantial group of late LHIIIC pottery found in Italy to date.

The Finds

PMl. Belly-handled amphora (or collar-necked jar); figs. 2,5. From Capanna 3 (levels 4,5, 6, 7A and 7B).

Fine day lOYR 7/3, very pale brown to 6/3, pale brown with some large, white calcareousgrits and mica. Semilustrous paint lOR 412, dark reddish brown to 4/3, dark brown. Fourteensherds mended into four non-joining fragrnents. H. (est.) 0.36; max. diamo (est.) 0.31. Pre-served: composite profile from below neck to lower body. A lug on shoulder. Groups offringed semicirdes in the shoulder zone. Solidly painted body; in reserved handle zone wavyline. FS 58 or FS 63. FM 43: p, Isolated semicircles. FM 53, Wavy Line.

Benzi, Graziadio 1990, 17 no. 46; Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1525 no. 4, pl. I:A.

PM2. Jug; figs. 2, 5. From Capanna 3 (level 9). .Fine day lOYR 712, light gray to 7/3, very pale brown with fme and medium brown grits and

mica. Paint and surface slightly wom. Matt black paint. Many sherds mended into a singlefragment. Max. preso H. 0.116. Mouth diamo 0.141. Preserved: profile from rim to point ofmaximum diameter. Low neck with concave-splaying profile; flattened handle with low cen-trai rib. Neck painted solid in and out. Necklace pattem round neck base; wavy line

PM3


'"\ "-" -, "'L......••--" 0

",\"

'----1----'\ I /"

\ 1 I, II 1 I: l \I I ,I l "--"" <,

II

I /" I /L 1 ~

PM1

,,

PM2 PM4

Fig. 2 - Scale 1:3 except PM1 (1:6).

The last Mycenaeans in ltaly? 99

wavy line on shoulder. Vertically banded handle. See FS 106/110. FM 72: 12, Tassel pattem.,FM 53, Wavy Line.

Benzi, Graziadio 1990, 17 no. 47; Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1525 no. 5, pl. I:B.

PM3. Cylindrical neck; fig. 2. From Capanna 3 (levels 7 and 8).Fine clay 7.5YR 7/4, pink to 6/4, light brown with mica. Semilustrous paint 2.5YR 5/8, red.

Mended from two sherds in a large fragment, plus a non-joining sherd. H. 0.092; mouthdiamo(est.)0.14. Concave-splaying profile; handle attachment from below rimoLarge band atrimo FS 128 or FS 70.

Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1525, pl. I:D.

PM4. Cylindrical neck; figs. 2, 5. From Capanna 3 (levels 8-9).Fine clay 10YR 7/3 to 7/4, verypale brown with a fair number of white calcareous grits and

mica. Matt black paint. Five sherds mended in a large fragment. 2/3 preserved. H. 0.08;mouth diamo0.16. Concave-splaying profile with short sloping lip. On exterior painted solid;on the interior band inside lip.

Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1525, pl. I:E.

PM5. Neck fragment; fig. 3. From Capanna 3 (level 9).Fine day 7.5YR 6/4, light brown with a fair number of brown grits and mica. Matt paint,

black to 7.5 5/6 and 5/8, strong brown. Mended from four sherds. H. 0.07; w. 0.084; mouthdiamo(est.)0.13. Similar in shape to PM4. On exterior painted solid; on the interior narrowband inside the lip.

PM6. Neck fragment; fig. 3. From Capanna 3 (level 3):Fine clay 7.5YR 6/4, light brown with a fair number of brown and white calcareous grits.

Much worn black paint. Mended from five sherds. H. 0.03; W. 0.089; mouth diamo(est.)0.15.Burnt possibly after vase was broken. Flaring rim with flat lip. Painted solid in and out. On lipgroups of vertical traits.

PM7. Body sherd; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (levels 7B and 8).Fine clay 2.5Y 8/2 to 7/2, light gray with a fair number of white calcareous grits and mica.

Matt black paint. Mended from two sherds. H. 0.07; W. 0.041. Group of fringed sernicircles.In spite of similar decoration, not assignable to PMl. FM 43: p, Isolated semicircles.

PM8. Body sherd; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 9B).Fine clay lOYR 6/6, brownish yellow to 8/6 yellowish brown with a large number of white

calcareous and black grits, and mica. Thin, flaking away slip on outer surface 2.5Y 8/2, white.Worn matt black paint. Mended from two sherds. H. 0.110; W. 0.053. From a vase of largesize. Fainty traces of tassel pattern (?). FM 72, Tassel pattern.

PM9. Body sherd; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 9).Fine day 10YR 8/3 to 7/3, verypale brown with mica and straw. Worn matt black paint. H.

0.05; W. 0.038. Horizontal wavy line. FM 53, Wavy line.

PMIO. Body sherd; fig. 6. From NP 32-34 (level 20).Fine clay 10YR 7/4, verypale brown with white calcareous grits and mica. Worn matt black

paint. H. 0.05; W. 0.04. Tassel Pattem (?). FM 72, Tassel pattern.


I

PM5

PM6 PMll

t>.\ " ,\ ' I I

\ ',)', I

\ '\\\\

/.

""""'-,""""'\

""\ '\,,\"

-,, I

/ II / I

_ r'/I

I/

I/

/I

//

II,

PM14

PM~ PMVFig. 3 - Scale 1:3 except PM14 (1:6).


PMl1. Jug; fig. 3. From Capanna 3 (levels 8/9 and 9).Misfired. Semifine clay with some white calcareous grits 2.5YR N/4, dark gray to N/3, very

dark gray at core; 2.5YR 4/4, reddish brown to 5YR 2.512, dark reddish brown near base on sur-face; porous and crumbling fabric with many craks due to misfiring. Seven sherds mendedinto five non-joining fragments. Preserved: a) base and portion of lower body (H. 0.042; basediamo 0.075); b) body sherd from point of maximum diameter (H. 0.04; W. 0.038); c) bodysherd from point of maximum diameter with stumpf of handle (H. 0.049; W. 0.042); d-e) twonon-joining body sherds cannot be certainly placed (H. 0.02; W. 0.018/H. 0.02; W. 0.01). Ver-tical tripartite handle. Raised base. Plain.

PM12. Vertical handle with round section; fig. 6. From NP 32-34 (leve l 20).Fine day 10YR 7/3, very pale brown with some white calcareous grits and mica. Matt black

paint. Single fragment. H. 0.038; W. 0.008. Vertical stripes down the edges connected by hori-zontal cross bars.

PM13. Body sherd; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 7B).Fine clay 2.5Y 712, light gray with some white calcareous and dark brown grits and mica.

Matt black paint. H. 0.02; W. 0.028. Traces of an unidentified fringed motif.

PM14. Krater; figs. 3, 5. From Capanna 3 (levels 5, 6, 7A and B, 9A).Fine clay lOYR 7/3, very pale brown with some white calcareous grits and mica. Paint and

surface slightly worn. Matt black and lOR 3/6, dark red paint. Mended from seven sherds intothree large non-joining fragments. H. (est.) 0.41; mouth diamo (est.) 0.45; base diamo (est.)0.13. Preserved: profile from rim to upper body, plus discannected body sherd and lowerbody with base. Incurving upper profile with squared lip; plastic band below rim on exteriordecorated with diagonal incisions. Low ring base with rounded pro file. Monochrome paintedinterior; on exterior probably deep rim band, patterned handle zone, lower body and footsolidly painted. In handle zone triglyphs filled with vertical zig-zag and wavy lines; on oneside part of a triangular motif in full paint. FS 282. FM 61, Zig<Jlg. 18-19. FM 53, Wavy Line.FM 75, Panelled Patterns.

Benzi, Graziadio 1990, 18 no. 48; Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1524 no. l, pl. I:C.

PM15. Krater; rim fragment; fig. 3. From Capanna 3 (levels 3 and 6).Fine clay 10YR 7/4, very pale brown with some calcareous grits and mica. Paint and surface

very worn: traces of 2.5YR 4/8, red on exterior and black paint on interior. Large rim frag-ment mended from two sherds. H. 0.06; W. 0.115; mouth diamo (est.) 0.48/52. Incurving up-per profile with squared lip; plastic band below rim on exterior decarated with diagonal inci-sions. FS 282.

PM16. Krater; rim fragment; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 8).Fine clay lOYR 7/3 to 7/4, very pale brown. Matt black paint. H. 0.034; W. 0.066. Squared

lip. Monochrome painted interior; on exterior deep rim band; oblique strokes on lip.

PM17. Krater; rim fragment; fig. 3. From Capanna 3 (level 3).Fine clay lOYR 7/3, very pale broton to 5YR 7/8, reddish broum at care with few white grits

and mica. 2.5YR 4/8 redpaint. H. 0.065; W. 0.09; mouth diamo (est.) 0.4l. Squared lip. On ex-terior deep rim band; narrower rim band on interior.


PM18. Krater; body fragment; fig. 4. From Capanna 3 (leve l 4).Fine clay lOYR 7/3, very pale brown with some white calcareous grits and mica. Slightly

worn, matt black paint. H. 0.060; w. 0.066. Monochrome painted interior; on exteriortriglyph filled with vertical wavy lines; on one side part of a triangular motif in full paint. Per-haps belonging to the same vessel as PM14, but slightly different in profile.

PM19. Deep bowl; figs. 4, 5. From Capanna 3 (levels 8-9 and 9).Fine day 7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow (fracture}, lOYR 7/3 very pale brown (surface] with few

white calcareous grits and mica. Black matt paint with 2.5YR 5/8, red patches. Mended frommany joining sherds. H. 0.111/109; mouth diamo 0.141; base diamo 0.063. Preserved: fullprofile, but large parts of body missing. Strongly incurving upper profile with flaring rimoRing base. Monochrome painted interior with reserved and dotted line at rim: exteriorpainted monochrome except for the bottom of the base and portions of body underneathhandles. Five holes due to ancient repair with lead clasps are preserved. FS 285.

Benzi, Graziadio 1990, 18 no. 49; Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1524 no. 2, pl. I:F.

PM20. Deep bowl; figs. 4, 5. From Capanna 3 (levels 6 and 9).Fine day lOYR 7/3, verypale brown with few white calcareous grits and mica. Black paint.

Mended from many sherds in a large body fragment plus a non-joining rim sherd; ca. half ofvas e preserved; base missing; fragmentary handle. H. 0.086; W. 0.113; mouth diamo 0.123.Preserved: profile from rim to lower body. Strongly incurving upper profile with flaring rimoRing base. Monochrome painted interior with reserved and dotted line at rim: exteriorpainted monochrome except for the underside of the handle and a portion of body under-neath handles. FS 285.

Benzi, Graziadio 1990, 18 no. 50.

PM21. Deep bowl; base; fig. 4. From Capanna 3 (level 9A).Fine day 7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow with some white calcareous grits and mica. Matt black

paint on the interior; 2.5YR 5/6, red with black patches on the exterior. H. 0.025; base diamo0.034. Ring base. Painted monochrome in and out. FS 284 or FS 285.

PM22. Stemmed bowl (or deep bowl); fig. 4. From Capanna 3 (levels 8B, 9 and9A).

Fine clay 5YR 6/6, reddish yellow (fracture); lOYR 8/3 to 7/3, verypale brown (surface) withsome white calcareous grits and mica. Matt 2.5YR 5/6, red paint on the interior; black withpatches lOR 3/3, dusky red and 2.5YR 5/8, red on the exterior. H. 0.04; W. 0.073; mouth diamo(estim.) 0.10. Mended from two sherds into a large bowl fragment plus a non-joining largerim sherd. Preserved: profile from rim to lower body. Incurving profile with flaring rimoMonochrome painted interior; on the exterior wavy band; extant lower part solidly painted.FS 306 or FS 285 (?). FM 53, Wavy Line.

Benzi, Graziadio 1990, 18 no. 51; Benzi, Graziadio 1996, 1524-25 no. 3 pl. I:G.

PM23. Deep bowl; rim fragment; fig. 4. From Capanna 3 (level 6).Fine day lOYR 7/4, very pale brown with few white calcareous grits and mica. Very worn

black decoration. H. 0.03; W. 0.05. Flaring rimo Painted monochrome in and out.

PM24. Deep bowl; rim fragment; fig. 4. From Capanna 3 (level 9).Fine day lOYR 7/3, very pale brown with few. white calcareous grits and mica. Very

worn decoration. Matt. 2.5YR 5/6, red paint. H. 0.053; W. 0.064. Incurving pro filewith flaring rimo Painted monochrome in and out.


PM18

PM19

,

~ •PM21 PM22 PM23

PM25PM24

Fig. 4 - Scale 1:3.


PM25. Deep bowl; body fragment; fig. 4. From Capanna 3 (level 7).Fine day lOYR 8/3, very pale brown with few white calcareous grits and mica. Black paint

with metallic shining on the interior, matt on the exterior. H. 0.032; w. 0.045. Monochromepainted interior; on the exterior cross-hatched lozenges in chain; extant lower part solidlypainted. FS 284 or FS 285. FM 73, Lozenge.

PM26. Deep bowl; body fragment; fig. 6. From NP 32-34 (level 16).Fine day lOYR 7/4, very pale brown with some white calcareous grits and mica. Black

semilustrous paint. H. 0.032; w. 0.05. Painted monochrome in and out.

PM27. Body fragment; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 9A).Fine clay 7.5YR 7/4, pink (fracture), lOYR 8/3, very pale brown (surface) with some white

calcareous grits and mica. Matt black paint. H. 0.029; w. 0.035. From an open vase (?). Re-served semicirdes on the exterior. FM 43, Concentrics Semicircles.

PM28. Body fragment; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 6).Fine day lOYR 8/3 to 7/3, very pale brown with mica. Slightly wom paint 5YR 4/6, yellow-

ish red: Well polished surface. H. 0.02; w. 0.015. From an open vase, possibly a deep bowl ofFS 284/285. On the exterior small portion of a triglyph with cross-hatched or zigzag fìlling.FM 75, Panelled Patterns.

PM29. Body fragment; fig. 6. From Capanna 3 (level 6).Fine day 7.5YR 7/4, pink with a few white calcareous grits and mica. Matt paint 2.5YR

5/6, red. H. 0.05; w. 0.03. From an open vase (?). On the exterior groups offringed semicides.FM 43:p, Isolated Semicircles.

As stated above, some 300 Mycenaean sherds have been recovered atPunta Meliso. Most of them are small undiagnostic body sherds both un-painted (most likely worn) and with monochrome and linear decoration. Itis hardly possible to tell how many vessels they may be referred to.

More diagnostic fragments include a number of neck and rim sherds (ca.20) (both monochrome and banded) from unidentifiable closed shapes:three banded (at base) neck sherds come from large closed shapes (belly-handled amphora, jug, hydria?); a monochrome neck sherd with fragmen-tary handle possibly from a small jug. Five base sherds, a large strap handleand a smaller handle with round section should also belong to openshapes.

Deep bowls are represented by two joining rim sherds, nine mostlymonochrome base sherds (one of which has a conical profile) and two hori-zontal round handles plus a few sherds of the same type. A large base frag-ment painted monochrome both in and out must be assigned to akrater.

With a few exception (two/three very small sherds which seem to be-long to a finer class) the Punta Meliso group is consistently homogeneous in


PM1

PM4

PM19

- - - --

PM14

PM20

Fig. 5 - Main pottery shapes from Punta Meliso.


fabric. Both the fragmentary material and the best preserved pieces aremade with the same fine, micaceous day (generally 10YR 7/3 to 7/4, verypale brown, and, more rarely 2.5 YR 6/8, light red) mixed with a fair numberof white calcareous grits and are painted in the same (mostly black) matt orsemilustrous paint. As we shall see below, this implies that the Mycenaeanpottery from Punta Meliso as well as similar pottery (of late LHIIIB and Ctypes) from other sites in Apulia was produced locally.

(M.B. - G.G.)

The Punta Meliso Group and LHIIIC Pottery from the Greek Mainland

As preserved PM1 may be either a collar-necked jar of FM 632 or abelly-handled amphora of FS 58. The latter, however, seems slightly prefer-able: the shoulder profile suggests a narrow neck rather than the relativelybroader neck commonly found on collar-necked jars; in addition no sherdsfrom collar necks have been found at Punta Meliso. The nipples or lugs onthe shoulder are common to both shapes.

The decorated shoulder zone is more common on collar-necked jarsbut, as we shall see below, the overall decorative scheme and the choice ofmotifs are better paralleled on belly-handled amphore.

PM 1 is dosely similar to belly-handled amphorae from Achaea, wherethe shape was extremely popular and the canonical two-handled type isfound alongside a local four-handled variant 3. Unlike their canonical FS58 counterparts from the Argolid, which are ovoid in shape (Wace 1921-23,pl. 9:b, Mycenae, Granary; Deshayes 1966, 66, 68-69, 182, DV 158, pl.XCI: 1, Argos, Deiras; Frodin, Persson 1938, 398 and fig. 260:8, Asine. Seealso Mountjoy 1986, 161, fig. 202), the belly-handled amphorae fromAchaea have a globular body (ranging in profile from globular-conical toglobular-biconical) and look like jars of FS 63 with a funnel- rather than acollar-shaped neck. Similar examples from Elis, Arcadia, Messenia and

2 This shape has been reeently diseussed by Iakovidis 1969-70, 205-206; Rutter 1974,341; Doh11973, 155-57; Podzuweit 1983,383; Mountjoy 1986,138 and fig. 169; 161-62 andfigs. 204-205; 184 and fig. 137.

3 Papadopoulos 1978-79,68-70, figs. 52-62 and 191-197; 70-71, figs. 63-65 and 198-200.See also Sehaehermeyr 1980, 171; Mountjoy 1990,267, fig. 24. Most belong to the RotbrauneHartware, a local class firstly identified at Aigeira, Deger-Ialkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, 409,411, 414.


PM7

PMlO

PM16

PM28

PM8

PM12

PM26

- -:=1

Fig. 6 - Sherd material from Punta Meliso.

PM9

PM13

PM27

PM29


Kephallenia 4 suggest that this type is peculiar to Achaea and the westernPeloponnese. Though most of the afore-mentioned examples come fromtombs, this was also a domestic shape. Several examples have been foundin LHIIIB and C settlement deposits at Theichos Dymaion, Aigeira, Myce-nae, Eutresis, Pylos and the Serraglio on Kos 5. The shape is a long livedane lasting to the end of LHIIIC and into the Submycenaean and Protogeo-metric periods (Styrenius 1967, passim).

Monochrome decoration with one or more reserved zones is seen allover the Mycenaean area from LHIIIC middle to the end of the period 6.

In the Argolid it occurs mainly on open shapes, while in Achaea, Elis,Messenia and Kephallenia is more commonly found on closed shapes, in-cluding belly-handled amphorae 7. In spite of this, belIy-handled am-phorae as well as colIar-necked jars 8 and other closed shapes with two re-served and patterned zones are something of a rarity. Parallels are seem-ingly restricted to an amphora from the Deiras cemetery at Argos dated toeither LHIIIC late or Submycenaean, a Submycenaean amphora from an-cient Elis and stirrup jars from near Patras - dated by Papadopoulos to Sub-mycenaean yet not included by Styrenius in his list of SM vessels fromAchaea - and from a LHIIIC late tomb at Ialysos 9.

4 Parlama 1971, pls. LA:d, LB; Parlama 1974, fig. 5; Schachermeyr 1980, 240, pl. 38:a-b, Agrapidochori; Parlama 1974, 38, no. 8, fig. 5:b, pl. 30:e, Kalosaka; 46 nos. 27-28 pls. 35:a-b; 36:a, Kavkania; 48, no. 33, pl. 37:e, Cheimadio. Unpublished examples from Palaiokastroin Arcadia are reported by Mountjoy 1990,267. Taylour 1973,237, pl. 292:15, Tomb K-2;Kourouniotis 1914, 106, fig. 9, Tragana. Marinatos 1932, pls. 9:144, 10:150.

5 See supra nt. 3 and Wace 1921-23, pl. 9:b, Mycenae, Granary; Deshayes 1966,66,68-69, 182, DV 158, pl. XCI: 1, Argos, Deiras; Frodin, Persson 1938, 398 and fig. 260:8, Asine.See also Mountjoy 1986, 161 and fig. 202; French 1967, 168, 172, fig. 14, LHIIIB; Goldmann1931, fig. 264, House V; Blegen, Rawson 1966, 385, Shape 49, figs. 373, 374; Morricone1972-73, 287, fig. 312.

6 For the current subdivisions for the LHIIIC period, see Mountjoy 1986, 134 (IIICearly) , 155 (IIIC middle), 181 (IIIC late) and Table Il; Mountjoy 1988,27, Table Il. See alsoRutter 1977; Podzuweit 1978; 1979; 1981; 1983.

7 Achaea: Papadopoulos 1978-79, 68, 70, figs. 192:b and 199:b, belly-handled ampho-rae; 73, fig. 204:b-d, stirrup jars; figs. 144:b; 145:c, e, straight-sided alabastra; figs. 154:a and246:b, juglet; 96, figs. 157:b, d, i; 158:e, f, h, and 250:c-e, amphoriskoi; Deger-jalkotzy, Al-mran-Stem 1987, fig. 22:4-5. Elis: Parlama 1971, pls. 32:a, 34:c, 35:a-b, Agrapidochori; Par-lama 1974, pl. 38:b, Keramidia. Messenia: Taylour 1973, 227, 228, fig. 292: 16. Kephallenia:see e.g. Kyparissis 1919, figs. 24: 1, 25: 1-2; 26: 1, Diakata; Marinatos 1932, pls. 6-8; 9: 142;10:148; 12:227, Lakkithra; Marinatos 1933, pls. 1: Bl, B9; 2:C3, C5, C8. On monochromepottery from Kephallenia, see Brodbeck-jucker 1986, 95 with nt. 496.

8 Marinatos 1932, pl. 9:142, monochrome with reserved shoulder zone.9 Argos: Deshayes 1966, 66, 68-69, 99 DV 158, pl. XCI: 1, dated by the excavator to the


Although no well stratified settlement deposits have been as yet fullypublished from Achaea (though two important sites have been excavated atTeichos Dymaion and Aigeira) and the western Peloponnese, preliminaryreports of the ceramic finds from the acropolis at Aigeira have shown thatin spite of a number of local peculiarities and the lack of some characteristictraits, the LHIIIC pottery at the site developed along the same basic lines asthat from the Argolid. As monochrome decoration with reserved zonesdoes not appear at Aigeira before LHIIIC middle lO, it seems unlikely that itwas adopted in the western Peloponnese earlier than in the Argolid andCorinthia. In fact most of the afore-mentioned vessels come from late con-texts and/ or show stylistically late traits.

A straight-sided alabastron with reserved shoulder zone from PylosTomb K-2 is attributed to the last burial by Taylour, who assignes the asso-ciated pottery (including a belly-handled amphora) to «an advanced LHIIIC style» (Taylour 1973, figs. 292:16; 293:4, 8).

From a chamber tomb at Agrapidochori in Elis come fourteen vases,including a belly-handled amphora, an amphoriskos, a straight-sidedalabastron and a stirrup jar with reserved shoulder zone. Though thegroup does not seem stylistically homogeneous, a straight-sided alabastronand a stirrup jar with Close Style influenced decoration must be assignedto LHIIIC advanced at the earliest. Other late stylistic traits includefringed and necklace patterns. The later is found on a vessel withreserved shoulder zone. The whole group is dated to LHIIIC: 1/2 bythe excavator but to middle IIIC by Schachermeyr, who remarks onthe absence of definitely late IIIC shapes and motifs such as lekythoi,neck-handled amphorae, fringed and cross-hatched triangles. He, however,assignes two vases with reserved shoulder zone to his «Zunschetuoare-and believes that they may belong to a later burial (Parlama 1971,58; Schachermeyr 1980, 240). Monochrome closed vases with reservedzone(s) have been scarcely found in the Argolid. A remarkable exceptionis a feeding bottle from Tiryns, which is regarded by Podzuweit asa rare example of Western Greek influence on the LHIIIC potteryof the Argolid. Coming from a LHIIIC late context the vase suggests

very end of LHIIIC, but to his Late Submycenaean B by Styrenius 1967, 131-32, fig. 49. Elis:Leon 1961-63, 53, fig. 31, assigned to his Early Submycenaean by Styrenius 1967, 131 anddescribed by Schachermeyr 1980, 241 as a late, clumsy derivative of the amphora of Acha-ean type. Patras: Papadopoulos 1978-79, figs. 95:a.b; 219:e. Ialysos: Benzi 1992,81, pls. 19:h;166:g, Tomb 16.

lO Deger:Jalkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, 419, LHIIIC middle vessels with unpatternedparts painted solid, 423, fig. 22:4-5, assigned to LHIIIC late.


a late dating for vases with similar decoration from Achaea and thewestern Peloponnese (Podzuweit 1981, 216-17, fig. 66).

Though found all over the Mycenaean area, the fringed semicircles (FM43) are very popular in Achaea, the western Peloponnese and to a lesser ex-tent Kephallenia. In Achaea this is favourite motif on belly-handled am-phorae (Papadopoulos 1978-79,69, 71, figs. 192:b; 193:a-b; 194:b; 195:1-5,9 etc.) and other closed shapes, including a group of characteristic stirrupjars with continuous banding down the body (Papadopoulos 1978-79, 76,77, figs. 212:c; 215:j-k; 216-217 etc.). The fringed version points to an ad-vanced to late stage of LHIIlC. At Aigeira such version is well attested inphase II, LHIIlC middle (Deger-Ialkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, 418). Stirrupjars with fringed semicircles come from a LHIIlC advanced deposit atTiryns and LHIlIC advanced to late tombs at Ialysos (Podzuweit 1983, 384-385, fig. 9; Benzi 1992, pls. 16:c-d; 58:c-d; 109:a-c; 161:e-f). Stirrup jars withcontinuous banding (yet with unfringed semicircles) - almost certainly im-ported from Achaea - come from LHIIlC late tombs at Argos (Mountjoy1990, 267-69, fig. 25). The semicircles on PMl compare particularly wellwith those on a juglet from Ayios Andreas (Ancient Pheia) in Elis dated toeither LHIIlC late or Submycenaean (Desborough 1964, 91; Styrenius1967, 139; Parlama 1974, 47, 52, pl. 37: c.; Schachermeyr 1980, 243, pl. 50:i; Hope Simpson 1981, 153).

The wavy line (FM 53) is a common motif in the handle zone of bellyamphorae. A large broad version - sometimes reduplicated - is found onamphorae from Achaea, the Argolid and Attica, and the Aegean islands ll.

Other closed vessels - mainly stirrup jars and amphoriskoi - with a wavyline encased in a reserved body zone come from Kephallenia, Elis andAchaea, the Argolid and the Aegean islands 12. All the listed examplesrange in date from advanced to late LHIIlC. Concentric semicircles andwavy line are still combined on Submycenaean belly amphorae and otherclosed shapes (Mountjoy 1986, 195 and figs. 259, 260; Styrenius 1967, figs.25-26; 29-32). The narrow wiggly line on PMl is closely paralleled in thebody zone of a four-handled amphora from Achaea and is often found on

11 Achaea: Papadopoulos 1978-79, 69, figs. 60:d; 197:2. Argolid: see supra nt. 5, Argosand Asine. Attica: Iakovidis 1969-70,263, fig. 114:590, Perati. Naxos: Kardara 1977, pl. 46:c.Kalymnos: Forsdyke 1925, A. 1023.

12 Marinatos 1932, pls, 7:80, 85; 10:150; Podzuweit 1983, 386, nt. 224; Papadopoulos1978-79, 79-80, figs. 95:a-b; 219:e; 202: 14; Mastrokostas 1965, pl. 175:a, Teichos Dymaion,possibly the same as Podzuweit 1983, 386, nt. 223. Podzuweit 1983, 386 and fig. 13:7,386, nt.221, Tiryns and Argos; Rutter 1979, fig. 6:92, Corinth; Benzi 1992, 98, pl. 166:g,Ialysos.


LHIIIC late deep bowls (Papadopoulos 1978-79,69 figs. 59:a; 19l:a; 193:a;197: l; Mountjoy 1986, 183 and fig. 254:5, 8).

In comparison with standard LHIIIC one-handled jugs, PM2 is an un-canonical piece. With respect to size it should be assigned to FS 106 or FS110 yet its low, wide neck and large ribbon handle are not found on canoni-cal FS 106/ Il O jugs, which are usualIy provided with talI neck and handlewith round or oval section (Mountjoy 1986, 143, figs. 175-176; 165, fig. 209;185, fig. 240). The necklace pattem (FM 72) around the neck base is a LH-IIIC advanced to late feature 13, which is still found on Submycenaeanclosed shapes (Mountjoy 1986, 195, fig. 258:11; Styrenius 1967, figs. 26, 29,31); the wiggly line (FM 53) on the shoulder is similar to that on PM1 dis-cussed above.

It is not possible to tell whether PM3 belongs to an hydria of FS 128,which was in use throughout the LHIIIC, or a neck-handled amphora of FS70.

Neck fragments PM4 and PM5 with concave-splaying profile and shortsloping lip are likely to belong to belly-handled amphorae of the same typeas PMl.

The thin-walled mouth sherd PM6 with flat lip is unusual and cannot beassigned to any canonical LHIIIC shape. It is worth noting that, in spite v cthe late dating of this group, the characteristic holIow lip increasingly foundon LHIIIC advanced and late closed shapes is conspicuously absent.

The misfired sherds PM11 are puzzling. They may be attributed to amedium size jug, but the shape cannot be identified with any certainty be-cause of their fragmentary condition. The tripartite handle is a surprisingfeature since such handles occur rarely in Mycenaean pottery; bipartite andtripartite handles also occur on Italian Grey Ware bowls 14. Two examplesfrom Kephallenia deserve a special mention (Marinatos 1932, 35, fig. 35;pls. 9:139, 10:148). This vase has been regarded as «Mycenaean» for twomain reasons: a) it is wheel-made, b) in spite of unsuccessful firing has a

13 Podzuweit 1983, 390; Mountjoy 1986, 160 and fig. 200:27; 184 and fig. 235:21. Forthis motif onjugs, Iakovidis 1969-70,227-30, fig. 92 (Mountjoy 1986, fig. 209); Benzi 1975, pl.3:45, Salamis; id. 1992, 50, 417, Kameiros.

14 On strainer jugs (Benzi 1992, 60, pIs. 38:h; 70:i) and stirrup jars (Benzi 1992, 80, pIs.56: a-b; 101:b). Tripartite basket handIes are found on trays of FS 322 (Mountjoy 1986, 180,fig. 234; Benzi 1992, 157, pl. 38:p, with further references); bipartite handIes occur someti-mes on straight-sided alabastra (Benzi 1992, 41, pls. 60:b; 109:2). For a tripartite handIe onan Aegean-type vesseI from Broglio, see: Vagnetti 1984 a, 178 no. 90 pl. 46:10; for bipartiteor tripartite handIes in Grey Ware, see Saflund 1939,474 fig. 14; Lo Porto 1964, 196, 197 no.6 fig. 15:10; Belardelli 1984, 137 no. 14, pl. 31:1; Belardelli 1994, 341 fig. 124:8, 342.


good «Mycenaean» polishing. Thin seetion analysis, however, has shownthat in terms of clay texture PMll belongs to the class of loeal "impasto"ware (see Appendix p. 129). Thus, it is hard to tell whether PMll is theproduet of a loeal potter experimenting with the Myeenaean teehnique orthe produet of a Myeenaean potter (see conclusions below) using loeal «im-pasto» clay. If the former is aeeepted, then PM11 would be a highly inter-esting example of the adoption of Myeenaean teehnique by a loealeraftsman.

Krater sherds PM 14-18 are no doubt the most striking finds in thisgroup. They belong to the type with squared rim, whieh on the Greek main-land first1y oeeurs in LHIIIC advaneed 15. Even more surprising is the plas-tie band with incised rope-patterns deeoration below the rim of PM14 andPM15. This is a highly distinetive feature seareely, if ever, found beyond theborders of the Myeenaean area 16. Kraters with plain or ineised plastiebands (from one up to three 17) and elaborate deeoration oeeur in devel-oped and advaneed LHIIIC deposits at Tiryns and Lefkandi Phase 2 (Kilian1978,460, fig. 16; Podzuweit 1979,430 and fig. 48; Podzuweit 1981,215, fig.48; Podzuweit 1983, 362 and fig. 2:10; Popham, Milburn 1971, 340, pls.53:6; 54:6) and are stilI found in late LHIIIC deposits at Tiryns and theearly Protogeometrie period 18. Most eome from a relatively small area in-duding the Argolid and Corinthia, the fountain deposit on the Aeropolis atAthens and Lefkandi 19. Sueh kraters seem at present seareely representedin Aehaea and the western Peloponnese but a few examples from Aigeiraphase II (LHIIIC middle) and, quite unexpeetedly, from Lakkithra onKephallenia are a warning against ex silentio arguments 20.

Though no traees of paint are preserved, the rim was probably painted

15 Mountjoy 1986, 174-75, fig. 225 assignes such kraters to Rutter Phase 4b.16 A solitary example comes from Troy VI, Podzuweit 1983, 362, nt. 22.17 According to Rutter 1977, 6 and Podzuweit 1983, 362 the plastic decoration was bor-

rowed from the so-called «Barbarian Ware». For a recent discussion of the whole problem ofthe «Barbarian Ware» see Rutter 1990.

18 Podzuweit 1983,380-81 and fig. 15:13. On PG kraters the plastic decoration survivesas a simple band without notches, see e.g. Heurtley 1932-33,45-46, pl. 5:56-61, Ithaca; Krai-ker, Kììbler 1939, 127, 154, pls, 50, 51.

19 Kilian 1978, 460, fig. 16; Podzuweit 1979, 430 and fig. 48; Podzuweit 1981, 215, fig.48; Podzuweit 1983, 362 and fig. 2:10; Popham, Milbum 1971,340, pls. 53:6; 54:6. Also seePapadopoulos 1978-79, figs. 95:a, b; 219:c (Achaea); Mountjoy 1986, 174-75, fig. 225:1(Mycenae), 2-3; Podzuweit 1983, 380 nt. 167, Argos; Rutter 1979,361,366 and figs. 2:28; 4:6;Broneer 1939, 353 and figs. 25:g, h; 27:a-f; 36:b.

20 Degerjalkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, 419, fig. 19:3, Aigeira phase II (LHIIIC mìddle);Brodbeckjucker 1986, 96 (Marinatos 1932, pl. 4:9). See also a krater with a painted rope pat-


on the exterior to just below the plastic band as it is usually the case on suchkraters. The lower body was most likely painted over. Kraters withmonochrome lower body are relatively common on Kephallenia (Kyparis-sis 1919, figs. 17-20, Diakata; Marinatos 1932, pls. 4:5-5a, 6; 5:12-14; 9:138-138a; 11:154, 156, 157, Lakkithra) and occur, though to a lesser extent, inAchaia, the Argolid and Corinthia, where they are found in LHIIIC middleto late contexts 21.

The reserved handle zone of PM14 is decorated with an elaborate tri-glyph pattern. The filling motif of the centertr) panel (FM 61: 18-19) is arectilinear version of the concentric arc pattern, a motif of Minoan origin(FM 44: 8, lO), which is frequently found on Close Style and other vesselsdating from middle and even late LHIIIC 22. AlI over the Mycenaean areastraight-lined versions are a favourite body zone motif on closed vessels in-fluenced to a greater or lesser degree by the Close Style and dating fromLHIIIC advanced on 23. In the western Peloponnese it occurs on a numberof vessels of various shapes from Messenia, Elis, and Achaea while onKephallenia there is as yet only one example of an earlier type 24. Straight-lined versions occur as a trilyph filling motif on middle and late LHIIIC

tern below the lip, Brodbeck-jucker 1986, 96 (Marinatos 1933, 83, fig. 29:A8-9, Meta.xata).For PG kraters with plastic decoration from Ithaca, see supra nt. 18.

21 Deger-Ialkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987,419, fig. 17, Aigeira phase II; Mastrokostas 1964,65, pl. 64:a; Papadopoulos 1978-79, 108, Teichos Dymaion. For an example from Delphi,Schachermeyr 1980, pl. 55:c. Mountjoy 1986, fig. 224:1, Mycenae; Rutter 1979,361-62, fig.4:8, Corinth. This sharp imbalance may well be due to the fact that on Kephallenia kraterswere commonly placed in tombs whereas in other areas this was a mainly domestic shapeand is often found in much fragmentary conditions.

22 Furumark 1944, 214-15; Wace 1921-23, pl. 9:b; Schachermeyr 1980, pl. 8:c, Myce-nae; Frodin, Persson 1938, fig. 237:28, Asine; Mountjoy 1986, figs. 200:11; 220:1; 235:6; Pa-padopoulos 1978-79,69, 102, figs. 55:a; 196:15, 16, 250:d; 257:b, Achaea;]acob-Felsch 1987,45, fig. 8, on a stiITUPjar from Kalapodi, possibly an import from Achaea; Broneer 1939, fig.71, Athens, Acropolis; Benzi 1992, 98, Ialysos.

23 See e.g. Podzuweit 1983, fig. 5:9, Tiryns, Frodin, Persson 1938, fig. 269:5, 7 and Furu-mark 1944,215, fig. 6:6, Asine; Mountjoy 1986, fig. 216:6, Argolid; Mountjoy 1988, fig. 4:GR106, Kerameikos LHIlIC late; Benzi 1992, pl. 109:c, Ialysos. Also as a filling motif on Octo-pus stirrup jars, Mountjoy 1986, fig. 216:3, Perati.

24 Taylour 1973, 234, figs. 292:9; 293:5, Tomb K-2, Schachermeyr 1980, pl. 15, on theshoulder of the well known straight-sided alabastron from Tragana. Parlama 1974, figs. 6, 8:P2023. A related version is found on a LHIlIB rounded alabastron from an earlier, displacedburial in the same tomb; Parlama 1971, pl. L:b. Papadopoulos 1978-79, 71, 80, 102, figs.65:5; 204:d; 213:e; 227:27-28; 257:b; Deger-Ialkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, figs. 17 (as a fillingmotìf on a krater with antithetic loop pattern, see also Schachermeyr 1980, figs. 32:b, 80:a),19:2, Aigeira phase II. Brodbeck-jucker 1986, 57-59, fig. 13, pl. 12:37-38, for this variant, seeFurumark 1944, 215.


kraters from the Argolid, Corinthia, and the Aegean islands 25. In the west-ern Peloponnese similar versions are found on a krater from Ramovouni, astemmed krater and a kylix from Pylos Tomb K-2, and a belly-handled am-phora from Chalandritsa in Achaea (Schachermeyr 1980, 117, pl. 14:c;Taylour 1973, 229-230, fig. 290:la-b, 2a-b; Papadopoulos 1978-79, figs. 199:c; 200:9). A vertical version is painted on a wheel-made bull figurine withlavish, Close Style inspired decoration from the Amyklaion in Laconia (Di-makopoulou 1982, 57-60, r1. 27). No triglyph with such filling is so farknown from Kephallenia 2 .

The vertical wavy lines trigIyphs on PM14 and PM18 compare well withthose on kraters from Kephallenia, Teichos Dymaion (both with mono-chrome lower body), Aigeira phase II (LHIIlC middle) and the above men-tioned belly-handled amphora from Chalandritsa, on which are combinedwith the same triglyph motifs as on PM 14 27. Vertical wavy lines, thoughnot arranged in panels, are still found on Submycenaean vases and «Ztoi-schetuuare» from central and western Greece 28. The solid paint motifs ap-plied to the right side of the panels on PM14 and PM18 are likely to be«butterfly motifs» to be compared with those on a LHIIlC middle kraterfrom Iria in the Argolid, which are surprisingly similar to some Protogeo-metric versions 29. Open diagonal patterns (FM 55) occur ,!-S panel fillingmotifs on kraters from Kephallenia and Teichos Dymaion 30, but the solidpainted version is more likely connected with the reserved sernicircles pat-

25 Frodìn, Persson 1938, fig. 207:6; Furumark 1944, 215, fig. 6:4; Santillo-Frizell 1986,76, figs. 16:135; 58:c, Asine; Mountjoy 1986, fig. 225:4; Rutter 1974, 192, fig. 171, Korakou.A stylistically earlier variant occurs on a LHIIIC early deep bowl from Tiryns, Podzuweit1978, fig. 29:10. Also Mountjoy 1988, fig. 4:CR 106, on the handle of a LHIIIC late stirrupjar from the Kerameikos. Morricone 1972-73, 370 and fig. 355:a (?), Kos.

26 This may be a matter of negative evidence since the two above-mentioned vases fromPylos have dose stylistic links with Kephallenia and according to Schacherrneyr could welloriginate from the same workshop as some kraters and kylikes from the Lakkithra cemetery,Schachermeyr 1980, 116. See, however, the more cautious position of Brodbeck-jucker 1986,101-102.

27 Marinatos 1932, pl. 5:12; Mastrokostas 1964, 65, pl. 64:a; Papadopoulos 1978-79,108. Schacherrneyr 1979, 157, fig. 40; Deger-jalkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, 418; Papadopou-los 1978-79, figs. 199:c; 200:9. See also Mastrokostas 1965, pls. 167:b; 173:c, TeichosDymaion; Parlama 1974, fig. 8:4, Agrapidochori.

28 Mountjoy 1986, 195, figs. 258:5; 267; Mountjoy 1988, figs. 5-6. See e.g. Schachermeyr1980, 244, fig. 74:a (panelled), Ithaca; 254, pl. 52:a, Aetolia; 260, pl. 54:h, Delphi.

29 Dèihl 1973, 131-32,fig. 3, pl. 60:1. For PC examples, see e.g. Schachermeyr 1980, 244,fig. 74:b, Ithaca; pl. 52:c, Lefkandi.

30 Marinatos 1932, pls. 5:12; 10:149; Mastrokostas 1964, 65, pl. 64:a; Papadopoulos1978-79, 108, possibly an import from Kephallenia.


terns FM 43:39, 40, which occur on a deep bowl from Mycenae and kratersfrom Kephallenia, Korakou, and Corinth (the latters dating from LHIIICmiddle to late) and other shapes (Forsdyke 1925, A 1075.10, fig. 286; Ky-parissis 1919, 103, fig. 18; Rutter 1974, 192, fig. 17; Rutter 1979, fig. 4:7. Seealso Furumark 1944, 215-16, fig. 7; Schachermeyr 1980, figs. 31 :b;46-47).

The closing shape and strongly flaring rim of PM19 and PM20 are wellparalleled on LHIIIC middle and late deep bowls (Mountjoy 1986, figs.228-31, 254). The reserved and dotted line inside the rim is clearly relatedto rim decoration schemes found on deep bowls from LHIIIC middle andlate deposits in the Argolid, Corinthia, and at Lefkandi 31. At Tirynsmonochrome deep bowls with reserved interior band make their appear-ance in LHIIIC developed while the reserved and dotted rim decorationdoes not become fashionable until LHIIIC advanced; both are still found inLHIIIC late (Podzuweit 1983,368, fig. 12:11; 371, fig. 13:8; 374, figs. 4:8;10:8-9; 12:5, 7).

Deep bowls with reserved rim are relatively rare west of the Argolid: afew dotted rim sherds come from Teichos Dymaion and deep bowls withreserved line inside the rim come from Aigeira phase II, LHIIIC middle(Mastrokostas 1965, pl. 163:a; Papadopoulos 1978-79, 112; Deger-Ialkotzy1987,3; Deger-Ialkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987,418, fig. 18:1), but none is re-ported from Kephallenia. On Ithaca a reserved interior line is common onhigh-footed kantharoi, a shape peculiar to this island (Benton 1938-39, Il,pl. 6). The rivet holes on PM19 show that this vase had been carefully re-stored, most likely with lead clasps.

The painting of the extant lower part of deep bowl PM25 suggeststhat the decoration was encased in a reserved zone. The horizontallozenge chain is relatively common on LHIIIB deep bowls but in LHIIICis found on closed rather than open shapes 32. A few LHIIIC deepbowls decorated with concentric lozenges in chain come from Tirynsand Teichos Dymaion; hatched and crass-hatched lozenges are found

31 See Mountjoy 1986, fig. 166:26; 160, fig. 200:28; Wace 1921-23, pls. 7:b; l1:m, n,Mycenae, Granary; Rutter 1974,225,310-11, fig, 99:6, 11, 12, Korakou; Popham, Milburn1971, 340, figs. 4:3, 5; 7:l, Letkandi phases 2a, 2b, 3. For closed vessels with reserved anddotted or barred line inside the rim, see Podzuweit 1983, 372, fig. 5:8, Tiryns; Rutter 1979,fig. 3:8, Corinth; Schachermeyr 1980, pl. 55:c, Delphi; Benzi 1992, pl. 17l:a, m, Ia-Iysos.

32 LHIIIB bowls: French 1969,81, pl. 19: b, 2; Wardle 1973, fig. 18:154, Mycenae; Ger-cke, Hiesel 1975, 12, pl. 7:2; 17, fig. 4:6, pl. 19:4,Tiryns; Mastrokostas 1965, pl. 163:a; Papa-dopoulos 1978-79, 113. LHIIIC: Mountjoy 1986, 137, fig. 166:26; 160, fig. 200:28.


kraters from the Argolid, Corinthia, and the Aegean islands 25. In the west-ern Peloponnese similar versions are found on a krater from Ramovouni, astemmed krater and a kylix from Pylos Tomb K-2, and a belly-handled am-phora from Chalandritsa in Achaea (Schachermeyr 1980, 117, pl. 14:c;Taylour 1973,229-230, fig. 290:la-b, 2a-b; Papadopoulos 1978-79, figs. 199:c; 200:9). A vertical version is painted on a wheel-made bull figurine withlavish, Close Style inspired decoration from the Amyklaion in Laconia (Di-makopoulou 1982, 57-60, r1. 27). No trigIyph with such filling is so farknown from Kephallenia 2 •

The vertical wavy lines trigIyphs on PM14 and PM18 compare well withthose on kraters from Kephallenia, Teichos Dymaion (both with mono-chrome lower body), Aigeira phase II (LHIIIC middle) and the above men-tioned belly-handled amphora from Chalandritsa, on which are combinedwith the same trigIyph motifs as on PM 14 27. Vertical wavy lines, thoughnot arranged in panels, are stilI found on Submycenaean vases and «Ztoi-schenware» from central and western Greece 28. The solid paint motifs ap-plied to the right side of the panels on PM14 and PM18 are likely to be«butterfly motifs» to be compared with those on a LHIIIC middle kraterfrom Iria in the Argolid, which are surprisingIy similar to some Protogeo-metric versions 29. Open diagonal patterns (FM 55) occur as panel fillingmotifs on kraters from Kephallenia and Teichos Dymaion 30, but the solidpainted version is more likely connected with the reserved semicircles pat-

25 Frodin, Persson 1938, fig. 207:6; Furumark 1944, 215, fig. 6:4; Santillo-Frizell 1986,76, figs. 16:135; 58:c, Asine; Mountjoy 1986, fig. 225:4; Rutter 1974, 192, fig. 171, Korakou.A stylistically earlier variant occurs on a LHIIIC early deep bowl from Tiryns, Podzuweit1978, fig. 29:10. Also Mountjoy 1988, fig. 4:GR 106, on the handle of a LHIIIC late stirrupjar from the Kerameikos. Morricone 1972-73, 370 and fig. 355:a (?), Kos.

26 This may be a matter of negative evidence since the two above-mentioned vases fromPylos have dose stylistic links with Kephallenia and according to Schachermeyr could welloriginate from the same workshop as some kraters and kylikes from the Lakkithra cemetery,Schachermeyr 1980, 116. See, however, the more cautious position of Brodbeck-jucker 1986,101-102.

27 Marinatos 1932, pl. 5:12; Mastrokostas 1964, 65, pl. 64:a; Papadopoulos 1978-79,108. Schachermeyr 1979, 157, fig. 40; Deger-jalkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987, 418; Papadopou-los 1978-79, figs. 199:c; 200:9. See also Mastrokostas 1965, pls. 167:b; 173:c, TeichosDymaion; Parlama 1974, fig. 8:4, Agrapidochori.

28 Mountjoy 1986, 195, figs. 258:5; 267; Mountjoy 1988, figs. 5-6. See e.g. Schachermeyr1980, 244, fig. 74:a (panelled), Ithaca; 254, pl. 52:a, Aetolia; 260, pl. 54:h, Delphi.

29 Dohl 1973, 131-32,fig. 3, pl. 60:1. For PG examples, see e.g. Schachermeyr 1980, 244,fig. 74:b, Ithaca; pl. 52:c, Lefkandi.

30 Marinatos 1932, pls. 5:12; lO:149; Mastrokostas 1964, 65, pl. 64:a; Papadopoulos1978-79, 108, possibly an import from Kephallenia.


terns FM 43:39, 40, which occur on a deep bowl from Mycenae and kratersfrom Kephallenia, Korakou, and Corinth (the latters dating from LHIIICmiddle to late) and other shapes (Forsdyke 1925, A 1075.10, fig. 286; Ky-parissis 1919, 103, fig. 18; Rutter 1974, 192, fig. 17; Rutter 1979, fig. 4:7. Seealso Furumark 1944, 215-16, fig. 7; Schachermeyr 1980, figs. 31:b;46-47).

The closing shape and strongly flaring rim of PM19 and PM20 are welIparalleled on LHIIIC middle and late deep bowls (Mountjoy 1986, figs.228-31, 254). The reserved and dotted line inside the rim is clearly relatedto rim decoration schemes found on deep bowls from LHIIIC middle andlate deposits in the Argolid, Corinthia, and at Lefkandi 31. At Tirynsmonochrome deep bowls with reserved interior band make their appear-ance in LHIIIC developed while the reserved and dotted rim decorationdoes not become fashionable until LHIIIC advanced; both are stilI found inLHIIIC late (Podzuweit 1983, 368, fig. 12:11; 371, fig. 13:8; 374, figs. 4:8;10:8-9; 12:5, 7).

Deep bowls with reserved rim are relatively rare west of the Argolid: afew dotted rim sherds come from Teichos Dymaion and deep bowls withreserved line inside the rim come from Aigeira phase II, LHIIIC middle(Mastrokostas 1965, pl. 163:a; Papadopoulos 1978-79, 112; Deger-Ialkotzy1987,3; Deger-Ialkotzy, Almran-Stern 1987,418, fig. 18:1), but none is re-ported from Kephallenia. On Ithaca a reserved interior line is common onhigh-footed kantharoi, a shape peculiar to this island (Benton 1938-39, Il,pl. 6). The rivet holes on PM19 show that this vase had been carefulIy re-stored, most likely with lead clasps,

The painting of the extant lower part of deep bowl PM25 suggeststhat the decoration was encased in a reserved zone. The horizontallozenge chain is relatively common on LHIIIB deep bowls but in LHIIICis found on closed rather than open shapes 32. A few LHIIIC deepbowls decorated with concentric lozenges in chain come from Tirynsand Teichos Dymaion; hatched and cross-hatched lozenges are found

31 See Mountjoy 1986, fig. 166:26; 160, fig. 200:28; Wace 1921-23, pls. 7:b; l1:m, n,Mycenae, Granary; Rutter 1974,225,310-11, fig, 99:6, 11, 12, Korakou; Popham, Milburn1971,340, figs. 4:3, 5; 7:1, Lefkandi phases 2a, 2b, 3. For closed vessels with reserved anddotted or barred line inside the rim, see Podzuweit 1983, 372, fig. 5:8, Tiryns; Rutter 1979,fig. 3:8, Corinth; Schachermeyr 1980, pl. 55:c, Delphi; Benzi 1992, pl. 171:a, m, Ia-Iysos.

32 LHIIIB bowls: French 1969,81, pl. 19: b, 2; Wardle 1973, fig. 18:154,Mycenae; Ger-cke, Hiesel 1975, 12, pl. 7:2; 17, fig. 4:6, pl. 19:4, Tiryns; Mastrokostas 1965, pl. 163:a; Papa-dopoulos 1978-79, 113. LHIIIC: Mountjoy 1986, 137, fig. 166:26; 160, fig. 200:28.


on a krater from Kephallenia, bowls and high-footed kantharoi fromIthaca 33.

On ground of profile PM22 can be assigned to a stemmed rather than adeep bowl; the lower portion of the vase was most likely painted over. Theoverall decorative scheme is uncanonical. As a rule, on patterned stemmedbowl the upper part is taken up by the decoration, but the rim is alwayspainted or banded. The wiggly zonal version of FM 53 is similar to those onPMl and PM2. In LHIIIC body sherds from stemmed bowl may be COn-fused with those of the deep bowl, which no doubt accounts for the scarcityof the former in LHIIIC settlement deposits 34. This is a rare but not un-known shape in Western Greece. A monochrome example from TeichosDymaion - similar in profile to PM22 - is dated by Papadopoulos to LHIIIC late; others come from tombs at Pylos and Kephallenia 35.

(M.B.)

The Punta Meliso Group and LHIIIC Pottery ftom other sites in Italy

In comparison with LHIIIC finds from other sites in Italy 36, the PuntaMeliso group stands out in terms of both the sheer amount of pottery recov-ered and its stylistic features 37. In fact, any marked distinction between

33 Podzuweit 1979, 418, fig. 39:1, Mastrokostas 1964,65, pl. 65a; Marinatos 1932, tav.4:5a; Benton 1938-39, 11, 12, 14, pl. 7:32, 61. Also Benzi 1992, 151, Ialysos.

34 Indeed, no stemmed bowl from LHIIIC middle and late is illustrated by Mountjoy1986 nor by Podzuweit in his detailed surveys of the LHIIIC pottery from Tiryns.

35 Papadopoulos 1978-79, 115-16, figs. 178:e; 268:a. For an earlier example from Tei-chos Dymaion, ibid., fig. 178:f. Taylour 1973, pl. 292: lO; Marinatos 1932, pls. 5:14;11:156.

36 For distribution see Bietti Sestieri 1988,27 fig. 4, based on charts by Vagnetti 1982 a,35 fig. 5; Vagnetti 1986,8-9. Also see Smith 1988, 124 fig. 20, but finds from Talamone (no.45), Manaccora (no. 12), Campidoglio d'Aquino (no. 36), Pozzomaggiore (no. 57), Nastasi diTertenia (no. 61), Orosei (no. 74), Tharros (no. 75), Barumini (no. 73), Punta della Penna (14no. 18, 81), Serra Orlando (109-110no. 90), Sarrok (16 no. 60, 99) are of uncertain chrono-logy or must be rejected at ali. More recent LHIII B/C finds are reported from Villa Bartolo-mea (Salzani 1988), Casale Nuovo (Angle, Zarattini 1987;Jones, Vagnetti 1992, 235;Jones,Vagnetti 1993, 201, 211-13 fig. 4:6), Torre Mordillo (Ridgway 1988-89, 146 fig. 23), Nora(Rossignoli et al. 1994,227), Coppa Nevigata (Belardelli 1993),Torre Guaceto (Franco 1991-92, 508), Scalo di Fumo (Lo Porto 1990; Lo Porto 1991, 389) and Otranto (Orlando 1994,229).

37 Cfr. the amount of Aegean and/or Aegean-type pottery so far recovered at each siteas reported by Smith 1987, 14-17.The computation is, of course, of indicative value and very


pottery of LHIIIB and C date is hardly traceable in Italy (Vagnetti 1993,151) in generaI and in Apulia in particular (Vagnetti 1991, 371). Well-grounded doubts have been raised on the chronology of some finds gener-ally ascribed to LHIIIC (French 1985, 297-98). In addition, the stratigra-phies at several Apulian sites are of problematic interpretation 38 and mayneed revision 39. As a result, apart from Scoglio del Tonno 40, characteristicpottery of the middle/late phases is remarkably rare, even though it isworth reminding a LHIIIC late stirrup jar, said to be from Campania, whichhas been recently studied by Mountjoy (1993).

No belly amphora of FS 58 comparable to PM1 has been found so far inItaly, even if some sherds from Apulia have been tentatively ascribed tothis shape 41. Apart from a few examples probably of LHIIIC middle/latedate 42, Aegean-type amphorae from Broglio di Trebisacce are dose to Mi-noan prototypes and may be earlier 43. As to the collared jar FS 63, a num-

approximate, especially for major sites. At Scoglio del Tonno c. 800 sherds were found accor-ding to T. Smith, while 205 vases have been listed by E. Fisher, along with a large number ofunpublished sherds (Fisher 1988, 47 and list of pottery on pages 200-204); «less than 300sherds- are reported from Porto Perone/Satyrion by T. Smith, while E. Fisher (1988, 29) andR. Holloway (1981, 91 nt. 73) refer to over 330. As far as Broglio di Trebisacce is concerned,the Aegean imports and Aegean-type pottery so far recovered amount to 647 (Vagnetti, Pa-nichelli 1994, 412).

38 Such is the case of Scoglio del Tonno: Fisher 1988, 23-25.39 See the case of Porto Perone/Satyrion: ibid. 29, 30; Vagnetti 1991,373; Vagnetti, Pa-

nichelli 1994, 408, 413. Also see Fisher 1988, 19 nt. 39.40 Only a part of the 33 LHIIIC vases listed by Taylour (Smith 1987, 125), however,

may be assigned to the LHIIIC middle-Iate horizon, including the well-known «OctopusStyle» stirrup jars (Taylour 1958, 108 nos. 114, 115 pl. 14:12, 13, 14; Biancofiore 1967, pl.XXIII: 114, 115; Fisher 1988, 70-71, 128, 173 pl. 5, with refs.; Benzi, Graziadio 1982,29). Ad-ditional evidence for LHIIIC pottery is due to E. Fisher, who has also pointed out that someAegean imports belong to «the very latest part of LHIIIC» (Fisher 1988, 121-22).

41 In addition to possible influence of FS 58 belly amphora on local Sicilian vases(Taylour 1958, 74) see: ibid. 103 n. 96 (Biancofiore 1967, pl. Il: 101; Fisher 1988,53,56,59no. 36 fig. 8, large ovoid jar); Taylour 1958, 106-107no. 109; 107no. 110; 111no. 125 (Fisher1988, 72-73no. 79 (FS58 or 63); Biancofiore 1967,pl. XIX: 85 (Fisher 1988, 73 no. 94 fig. 16,FS 58), Scoglio del Tonno. Also see Taylour 1958, 149 no. 22 (Sub-mycenaean and/or local);Torre Castelluccia; Lo Porto 1964,220 fig. 41 (but cfr. Vagnetti 1979,540 and nt. 8), Saturo;Belardelli 1993, 349 fig. l, Coppa Nevigata.

42 Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994, 390 nos. 133, 134 pl. 79:13, 5; 408, for discussion and otherLHIIIC examples.

43 For a full discussion on Broglio amphorae, see Vagnetti 1984 b, 189-91;Vagnetti, Pa-nichelli 1994, 402-403, shape 13 fig. 132:3; 407; also see French 1985, 298. In particular seeVagnetti 1982 a, 111-12no. 17 pls. XXXV:9; XXXVII:4 (for archaeometric analyses, seeJo-nes 1986,210 table l); Vagnetti 1984 a, 166, 182 no. 6 pls. 41:4; 47:5; Vagnetti 1984 b, 173-


ber of sherds tentatively ascribed to this shape can hardly be evaluated be-cause of their fragmentary condition 44. Isolated semicircles are relativelywell attested on Mycenaean imports and Aegean-type pottery, but no pub-lished example has a fringed outer edge 45. The wavy-line motif, thoughcommon at several sites, is never found in a reserved zone 46.

Aegean-type jugs of LHIIIB-C and IIIC date are relatively common in

74, 191 no. 15 pl. 49:3; Vagnetti 1986, 62 and nt. 28, 68 fig. 1:2; Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994,398, 407 and nt. 63.

44 Scoglio del Tonno: Taylour 1958, 107 no. 111; 111 no. 125; Biancofiore 1967, pl.XXXV:n, e (Fisher 1988, 73, 74, 76 nos. 89, 90 fig. 16); Porto Perone: Lo Porto 1963,341 no.28; Saturo: Lo Porto 1964,200 no. 4 fig. 19:6; 202 sub nos. 11-15; 203 no. 4 fig. 20:4; 204 subnos. Il-58; Scalo di Fumo: Lo Porto 1990, 226 nos. 34, 35 figs. 9, lO. However, most of themare of uncertain identification.

45 Cf. Taylour 1980, 813 no. 289 pl, CCXLV:8, probably with FM 43/d; Vagnetti 1982a, 135 no. 23 pl. XLV:4. For other isolated semicircles, similar to FM 43/43, see Taylour1980, no. 283, pls. CCXLV:5; CCXLVI: l, FS 59?, Lipari. Coppa Nevigata: Puglisi 1982,49no. l, a-e, pl. VIII, l-e, (Aegean-type jug?), 50 no. 6 pl. IX:2; Cassano et al. 1987, 179 fig. 89,pl. XII:B, C; Fisher 1988, 171. Torre Castelluccia: Taylour 1958, 150 no. 30 pl. 15:14 (Bian-cofiore 1967, pl. XXVI:202; Fisher 1988, 154-55 no. 245 fig. 18; 156). Torre Guaceto: Franco1991-92,508, surface find, with a motif related to FM 43: 34-35. Termitito: De Siena 1986,53fig. 19, connected with trigliph decoration; for other patterns with isolated sernicircles, in the«Termitito Style» see Vagnetti,jones 1988,341 fig. 2:3, 4, 5; 338. Broglio di Trebisacce: Va-gnetti 1982 a, pl, XXXVI:1; Vagnetti 1986, 177 no. 25 pls. 48:2; 57:1; Vagnetti, Panichelli1994, 403 fig. 132:4. Fondo Paviani: Vagnetti 1982 a, 208 no. l pls. LXXVI: 3, LXXVII:3.Antigori: Vagnetti,jones 1988,342 fig. 3:1, 6, 7 (?); Ferrarese Ceruti et al. 1987, 16 fig. 2.4:6,18 fig. 2.6. Isolated semicircles may also be part of the decoration on a LHIIIC sherd fromNorthern Italy: Salzani 1988, 262 fig. lO [for possible connections with South Italian fabrics,also see jones, Vagnetti 1991, 139 with refs.). For Achaean parallels, also see Fisher 1988,156-57. Note that such a motive was also adopted for painted decoration on the «CeramicaGrigia»: Belardelli 1994, 277 pl. 57:35, 313 fig. 107:7, 315.

A few unpublished sherds from Roca Vecchia (Lecce), however, are decorated with iso-lated semicircles with fringed outer edge, providing the sole parallels in Italy (information byR. Guglielmino).

46 Porto Perone: Lo Porto 1963,341 nos. 32-36, FS 216 cups; 342:1, fig. 55:2, smalljugs.Saturo: Lo Porto 1964, 199 no. l fig. 17 (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXX: 247; Fisher 1988, 146,147 no. 239, FS 109, maybe local). Scoglio del Tonno: Taylour 1958, 116 no. 153 (Bianco-fiore 1967, pl. XXIV: 164; Fisher 1988, 103-104, no. 158 fig. 26, basin FS 294); Biancofìore1967, pl. XXV: 175 (Fisher 1988, 103-104 no. 159 fig. 26 basin FS 294). Coppa Nevigata: Fi-sher 1988, fig. 42 no. 269 (closed shape); Belardelli 1993, 349 fig. 1:10, 13. Lipari: Taylour1958,42 no. 109 pl. 6:23, krater FS 282 (Taylour 1980,813 no. 287, pl. CCXLV:6). Polla:D'Agostino 1982, 158-59 pl. LVI: l, identified as FS 217. Termitito: De Siena 1982, 78 no. 5pl. XXIV: 2 Qug?);De Siena 1986, 52 fig. 14 (lid). Antigori: Ferrarese Ceruti 1982, 172 no. 4pl. LXIII:4, open shape; 174 no. 18 pl. LXIV:6; Vagnetti, jones 1988, 342 fig. 3:2, 8. Forwavy line decoration at Broglio also see Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994, 405 fig. 134:FM 53; 406with refs.


Italy 47 and include some examples from Apulia which have been assignedto the middle/late phases of LHIIIC 48; none of them, however, has amonochrome neck combined with «necklace pattern» and «wavy Iine» de-coration. Unlike the wavy line, the «necklace pattern» is an altogether raremotif in Italy 49.

If PM3 is an hydria of FS 128, the shape might compare with anexample from Porto Perone (Quagliati excavations) 50. In the other case,i.e. a neck-handled amphora of FS 70, apart from a few from Apulia notillustrated 51, the shape might be paralleled by some fragmentary exam-ples from Scoglio del Tonno which have been assigned to LHIIIC late 52.

An amphora sherd from an Ausonio I context (Capanna ~ 4)

47 E.g. Termitito: De Siena 1982, 77-78 no. l pl. XXV: l, FS 115; 80 no. 14 pl. XIX: l, FS106/128 (for chemical analysis, see]ones 1986,210 table l; Vagnetti,]ones 1988,343-44);82-83 no. 27 pl. XXII: l, FS 107-110 (cf. Vagnetti, ]ones 1988, 338). Torre Castelluccia:Taylour 1958, 149-50 no. 28 pl. 15:15 (Biancofiore 1967,55 no. 199 pl. XXVI); 150-51 no. 13pl. 15:2 (Biancofiore 1967, 55 no. 187 pl. XVIII; cf. Vagnetti 1979, 547 nt. 44). Toppo Da-guzzo: Cipolloni Sampò 1982, 102 no. 2 pl. XXXIX: 1. Antigori: Ferrarese Ceruti 1982, 174nos. 17, 18 pl. LXIV: 56; Ferrarese Ceruti 1983,200 no. 6 fig. 8:8; Ferrarese Ceruti 1986, 187no. 3 fig. 8:3; (for scientific analyses, see]ones, Day 1987,257-69). Coppa Nevigata: Belar-delli 1993, 349 fig. 1:3(?).

48 Porto Perone: Lo Porto 1963,340 no. 9,341 nos. 29, 53; 360 fig. 69:9 (but cf. Taylour1958, 141 no. 16, Geometric), also see, ibid., 339 nos. 22-23, 88, FS 107, apparently earlier inthe LHIIIC horizon. Saturo: Lo Porto 1964; 202 no. lO. A medium size example FS 110 wasalso found by Quagliati at Porto Pero ne and may be contemporary (Taylour 1958, 138 no. 2;Lo Porto 1963,359, fig. 69:8). Such may also be the case of smaller examples: Lo Porto 1963,342 nos. 1,2 fig. 55:2, l; cf. Kilian 1983,67 nt. 68, LHIIIC late. Also see Lo Porto 1964, 199no. l fig. 17 (Biancofiore 1967,57 no. 247 pl. XXX; Fisher 1988, l46-47 no. 239, FS 109); cf.Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 66, LHIIIC middle. Torre Castelluccia: Biancofiore 1967, 55 no. 186 pl.XVIII.

49 The sole parallel is provided by the fringe painted on a collar-necked jar FS 63 fromScoglio del Tonno (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXXV:n; Fisher 1988, 73, 74, 76 no. 89 fig.16).

50 Lo Porto 1964, 20 1:a, fig. 19:1. A handle sherd was tentatively assigned to this shapeas well, but is was not published in detail (ibid., 210:b).

51 Lo Porto 1963, 343 sub nos. 11-28, reported as FS 69 and ascribed to the «LHIIIC:2(Submycenaean)» periodo

52 CVA Italia, fase. 18, 858-6 (Taylour 1958, 107-108 no. 112), with stemmed spiral pat-tern; Taylour 1958, 111 no. 124, with spiral decoration; Biancofiore 1967, pls. XXXV: d, e, l;XIX:86 (also see Fisher 1988, 73, 74 nos. 81, 82, 85, 86, 95 figs. 15, 16; for amphorae of diffe-rent shape see ibid. 73; for chronology see ibid. 76). A large common ware amphora fromPorto Perone (Bìancofìore 1967, pl. XXVIII: 221) has been identified as a LMIIIB import(Fisher 1982, 133, 134, 136 no. 217).


at Lipari was also ascribed to LHIIIC middle by K. Kilian 53.

Both the neck fragments PM4 and PM5 are monochrome outside, a fea-ture seemingly rare in Italy 54.

In view of the rarity of the shape outside the Mycenaean world, it ishardly surprising that no krater comparable with PM14 and PM15 has beenfound in Italy so far. Several FS 282 kraters of LHIIIC date, however, havebeen identified. Apart from specimens earlier or difficult to date pre-cisely 55, finds from Scoglio del Tonno include an example with a decora-tion comparable with «Close Style» (LHIIIC middle) 56. Two fragmentarykraters probably of shape FS 282 from Grotta San Martino may be of Apu-lian manufacture on account of their micaceous fabric 57. A fewmonochrome sherds with reserved bands from Porto Perone have beensupposedly referred to FS 282 and assigned to LHIIIC middle on ground ofassociated pottery 58; other kraters with monochrome interior and lineardecoration outside the rim may be even later (LHIIIC late) 59. Some krater

53 Taylour 1980, 811 no. 269 pl. CXCI:e. (for ehronology see Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 67).Another amphora is probably earlier, LHIIIB? (Taylour 1980,811, no. 270 pl. CXCI:b). Ae-gean-type pottery of LHIIIB-C date also includes a fragrnentary amphora (?) from Milena(La Rosa 1982, 128-29 pl. XLII:6; La Rosa 1986, 81, 84 figs. 2, 9; for seientifie analyses seeJones, Vagnetti 1991, 135), but it ean not be ruled out the possibility that it was a jug.

54 For vessels of LHIIIC date with monoehrome neek, see: De Siena 1982,82-83 no. 27pl. XXII: 1, FS 107-110 from Termitito; Lo Porto 1963,341 no. 27, identified as FS 38, but un-published, from Porto Perone.

55 Taylour 1958, 115 no. 149 pl. 14:16, «Sub-mycenaean and/or local- (Bianeofiore1967, pl. XXXV:a; Fisher 1988,93, 95 no. 140 fig. 22); Taylour 1958, 115 no. 150 fig. 13 (Fi-sher 1988, 93, 97 no. 142 fig. 23, with Kephallenian parallels); Taylour 1958, 102 no. 92 pl.13:1, 2, LHIIIB or C (Bianeofiore 1967, pl. XXIV: 160; Gorgoglione 1982, pls. XIII:6;XIV:5; Fisher 1988,93 no. 139); Taylour 1958, 113 no. 135, 13:10, LHIIIC; 118 no. 160 pl.14:18, Sub-myeenaean and/or loeal (Bianeofiore 1967, pl. XI:136, 138; Fisher 1988,93 no.141 fig. 22); Taylour 1958,96-97 no. 68 pl. 15:8, LHIIIB (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXVI:185;Fisher 1988, 93, 95 no. 143 fig. 23). For a diseussion on kraters from Scoglio del Tonno seeFisher 1988, 91-101; also see Bianeofiore 1967, 78-79.

56 Taylour 1958, 109 no. 117 pl. 13:14 (Biancofiore 1967,78 pl. XXIV: 163; Fisher 1988,94 no. 150 fig. 24). For other fragrnentary LHIIIC FS 282 (?) kraters, see: Taylour 1958, 109no. 118 pl. 13:15 (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XIII:52; Fisher 1988, no. 151 fig. 24); Taylour 1958,109-110 no. 119 (Fisher 1988, 101 no. 155 fig. 25); Taylour 1958, 110 no. 120.

57 Bianeofiore 1967, 59, 78 nos. 274, 275, 276 pl. XXXIII; Fisher 1988, 168 nos. 262,263 (for the possible Apulian origin of the Avetrana material ibid. 169).

58 Lo Porto 1963,341 no. 42, from «stratum a» levels reported as overlaying floor depo-sits. For parallels between earlier «Stratum a» material and LHIIIC middle pottery see Kilian1983, 67 nt. 66.

59 Lo Porto 1963,343 nos. 7,9 fig. 55:8, 9, dated to LHIIIC 2, Submyeenaean, and LHIIIC late by Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 68. Also see Lo Porto 1963, 343, sub nos. 11-28.


sherds from Saturo, originally assigned to «LHIIIC1b> and «LHIIIC2 (Sub-mycenaean)», have been attributed to the LHIIIC middle/late horizon 60.

However, some doubts can be raised on the precise chronology of these de-posits (Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994, 408, 413). The fragmentary state of thepottery from Porto Perone, and mostly its micaceous fabric, hamper anyconfident attribution to specific Myceanean shapes 61. The same is true ofthe bulk of pottery from Saturo, characterized by the micaceous «bright or-ange, soft, sparkling day which is found frequently in Apulia and seems souncharacteristic of Mycenaean pottery» 62. The attribution to FS 282 ofsome sherds from Torre Castelluccia ascribed to LHIIIC late is not unani-mous and they may well be regarded as local products 63.

Outside Apulia, three fragmentary kraters from Ausonio II contextsat Lipari may be rougWy contemporary with Punta Meliso pottery 6\while a monochrome example from an Ausonio I level is probablya little earlier 65. Large open shapes from other sites such as Termitito,Broglio di Trebisacce and Montedoro di Eboli are part of the Aegean-typepottery related to LHIIIB-C prototypes 66, and several examples with

60 Lo Porto 1964,202 subnos. 11-15 (LHIIICI4 from Stratum D; 203 no. 3 fig. 20:3; 204no. 6 fig. 20:6, referred to FS 282 or FS 279; 204 sub nos. 11-58, related to FS 282/285 from«Stratum d»; Biancofiore 1967, 106 nt. 2, pl. XXXVII:o?). For parallels between earlierexamples from «Stratum f» and LHIIIC middle, see Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 66. For parallels be-tween «Stratum d» and LHIIIC late, see ibid. 67 nt. 68.

61 Fisher 1988, 132-33, 144. For micaceous appearance of all the pieces, excepting thestirrug jar and the coarse ware amphora, see ibid., 137, 143.

lbid. 147, referring to no. 189, but micaceous day is typical of nearly all the potteryfrom the site (ibid. 144, 151 nt. 20).

63 Taylour 1958, 145 no. 2 pl. 15:5 (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXVI:193; Fisher 1988, 155,156 no. 249 fig. 38, regarded as a dosed shape}; 149 no. 28 pl. 15:15, dosed shape (Bianco-fiore 1967,55 pl, XXVI, 199; Fisher 1988, 162-63,no. 256 fig. 41, regarded as FS 282); Fisher1988, 162-63 no. 257 fig. 41. For chronology and possible local origin, see Fisher 1988,166-67.

64 Taylour 1958,42 no. 109 pl. 6:23 (Taylour 1980,813 no. 287 pl. CCXLV:6), decora-ted with FM 53/25, Wavy line, horizontal bands and a motif belonging to the triglyph or pa-nel category, FM 75/9 and 20, and dated to LHIIIC late by Kilian 1983,67 nt. 68, and fig. 2.For other examples with panel decoration, see Taylour 1958, 41-42 nos. 108-109, 110 pl.6:22,25,24 (Taylour 1980,813 nos. 287-88, 228 pls. CCXLV:6, 7, 11; CCXLVI:2; Vagnetti1982 a, 135 no. 27 pl. XLV:5). <

65 Taylour 1980,811 no. 268 pl. CXCl:d, ascribed to LHIIIB(?), but cf. Kilian 1983,67nts. 66, 67, and figs. 1, 2, SHIIIC Entwickelt.

66 De Siena 1982, 82 no. 26 pl. XXVI:2, Termitito. Vagnetti 1982 b, 104 no. 22:a, b pl.25:6,8; Vagnetti 1984a, no. 20 pl, 41:3,182 (Vagnetti 1982 a, 112no. 19pl. XXXVI:6;Jones


sherds from Saturo, originally assigned to «LHIIICI b> and «LHIIIC2 (Sub-mycenaean)», have been attributed to the LHIIIC middle/late horizon 60.

However, some doubts can be raised on the precise chronology of these de-posits (Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994, 408, 413). The fragmentary state of thepottery from Porto Perone, and mostly its micaceous fabric, hamper anyconfident attribution to specific Myceanean shapes 61. The same is true ofthe bulk of pottery from Saturo, characterized by the micaceous «bright or-ange, soft, sparkling clay which is found frequently in Apulia and seems souncharacteristic of Mycenaean pottery» 62. The attribution to FS 282 ofsome sherds from Torre Castelluccia ascribed to LHIIIC late is not unani-mous and they may well be regarded as local products 63.

Outside Apulia, three fragmentary kraters from Ausonio II contextsat Lipari may be roughly contemporary with Punta Meliso pottery 6\while a monochrome example from an Ausonio I level is probablya little earlier 65. Large open shapes from other sites such as Termitito,Broglio di Trebisacce and Montedoro di Eboli are part of the Aegean-typepottery related to LHIIIB-C prototypes 66, and several examples with

60 Lo Porto 1964,202 sub nos. 11-15 (LHIIICI4 from Stratum D; 203 no. 3 fig. 20:3; 204no. 6 fig. 20:6, referred to FS 282 or FS 279; 204 sub nos. 11-58, related to FS 282/285 from«Stratum d»; Biancofiore 1967, 106 nt. 2, pl. XXXVII:o?). For parallels between earlierexamples from «Stratum f» and LHIIIC middle, see Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 66. For parallels be-tween «Straturn d» and LHIIIC late, see ibid. 67 nt. 68.

61 Fisher 1988, 132-33, 144. For micaceous appearance of all the pieces, excepting thestirrug jar and the coarse ware amphora, see ibid., 137, 143.

Ibid. 147, referring to no. 189, but micaceous day is typical of nearly all the potteryfrom the site (ibid. 144, 151 nt. 20).

63 Taylour 1958, 145 no. 2 pl. 15:5 (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXVI: 193; Fisher 1988, 155,156 no. 249 fig. 38, regarded as a dosed shape); 149 no. 28 pl. 15:15, dosed shape (Bianco-fiore 1967,55 pl. XXVI, 199; Fisher 1988, 162-63, no. 256 fig. 41, regarded as FS 282); Fisher1988, 162-63 no. 257 fig. 41. Far chronology and possible locaI origin, see Fisher 1988,166-67.

64 Taylour 1958, 42 no. 109 pl. 6:23 (Taylour 1980, 813 no. 287 pl. CCXLV:6), decora-ted with FM 53/25, Wavy line, horizontal bands and a motif belonging to the triglyph or pa-nel category, FM 75/9 and 20, and dated to LHIIIC late by Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 68, and fig. 2.For other examples with panel decoration, see Taylour 1958, 41-42 nos. 108-109, 110 pl.6:22,25,24 (Taylour 1980, 813 nos. 287-88, 228 pls. CCXLV:6, 7, 11; CCXLVI:2; Vagnetti1982 a, 135 no. 27 pl. XLV:5).

65 Taylour 1980, 811 no. 268 pl. CXCI:d, ascribed to LHIIIB(?), but cf. Kilian 1983, 67nts. 66, 67, and figs. 1, 2, SHIIIC Entwickelt.

66 De Siena 1982, 82 no. 26 pl. XXVI:2, Termitito. Vagnetti 1982 b, 104 no. 22:a, b pl.25:6,8; Vagnetti 1984 a, no. 20 pl. 41:3, 182 (Vagnetti 1982 a, 112 no. 19 pl. XXXVl:6;Jones

•


a flat rim from Nuraghe Antigori were probably produced under theinfluence of LHIIIC kraters 67.

As to the decoration of PM14 and PM15, no cIose parallel can be foundin Italy. The triglyph pattern with a wavy border (FM 65:9) on a deep bowlfrom Termitito is quite different in both style and size from the elaboratetriglyph and triangle decoration on PM14 and PM18 68. The same is true ofsome panelled patterns filled with vertical wavy lines 69.

The deep bowl is the LHIIIC open shape most commonly found inltaly. Some finds from Apulia may be roughly contemporary with thosefrom Punta Meliso. This is the case of a FS 285 bowl with spiral decorationassigned to LHIIIC middle 70 as well as of other supposedly LHIIIC late ex-

1986, 207, 210 table 1, Aegean-type), Broglio; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1986, 178 fig. 7,Montedoro.

67 See, e.g., Ferrare se Ceruti 1982, 172 nos. 1-4, pl. LXIII:I-4; 174 no. 19 pl, LXN:8;174-75 no. 20, pl. LXV:l; 175 no. 22 pl. LXV:3 (for scientific analyses, see]ones 1986,210table 1,214 table 3, South Sardinia; Vagnetti,]ones 1988,342,345 table 1:1); Ferrare se Ce-ruti 1983, 199 no. 3 fig. 8.5; 200 no. 5 fig. 8:7 (Aegean imports and Aegean-type vases); Ferra-rese Ceruti 1986, 186-87 no. 5 fig. 7:4; 187 no. 1 (vano q) fig. 8:1. For a discussion on kratersfrom Antigori also see French 1985,298; Ferrarese Ceruti et al 1987, 19, for FS 284-85 proto-types; ]ones, Day 1987, 267 table 14.1 (scientific analysis).

68 De Siena 1982, 78 no. 2 pl. XXV:2, ascribed to LHIIIB.69 Taylour 1958,43 no. 114 pl. 6:29 (Taylour 1980,814 no. 293 pl. CCXLIV:3), «possi-

bly Submycenaean» from Lipari; De Siena 1982, 78 no. 2, pl. XXV:2, FS 284-285, LHIIIB,78 no. 6 pl. XXV:6, FS 285, LHIIIC; De Siena 1986, 45. For zig-zag pattem (horizontal) seeCiongoli 1986,22 fig. 3, Parabita (Lecce). Isolated groups of ondulating verticallines are usedfor decoration of Aegean-type pottery: e.g. De Siena 1982, 77-78 no. 1 pl. XXV:l, closedshape; 82 no. 23 pl. XXVI:5, deep bowl of LHIIIB date?; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1982, 161no. 5 pl. LVII:5, closed shape ofLHIIIC date. For LHIIIC examples from Scoglio del Tonnosee Biancofiore 1967, pl. XIX:85 (Fisher 1988, 74 no. 94 fig. 16); Biancofiore 1967, pl.XXXV:l (Fisher 1988, 74 no. 86 fig. 15).

70 Lo Porto 1963, 340 no. 7 fig. 54: 12 (Biancofiore 1967, no. 235 pl. XXIX; Fisher 1988,138, 139-40 no. 224); for chronology see Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 66, LHIIIC middle. For othersherds, mostly with linear decoration, referred to FS 284/285, but regarded as a little earlier,see Lo Porto 1963, 339 nos. 7, 13-21, 47-48, 51, 56, 73, no. 75 pl. 45: 10; 340 no. 4 fig. 54:9(Biancofiore 1967,57 no. 241 pl. XXIX; Fisher 1988, 139 no. 222 fig. 34, FS 284). Also see LoPorto 1963, 338 no. 2 fig. 54:2, dubiously identified as FS 284/285 (Biancofiore 1967, 57 no.233 pl. XXIX), but cf. Fisher 1988, no. 226 fig. 34, cup of FS 215 or FS 216. Other fragmen-tary bowls with wavy lines or linear decoration have not been published in detail: Lo Porto1963, 341 no. 41, FS 284-285?, monochrome with a reserve bandi ibid., 341 nos. 47-51, 55.Some unpublished monochrome bowls similar to the Punta Meliso examples have beenfound at Roca Vecchia (inforrnation by R. Guglielmino); for other unpublished vases also seesupra nt. 45.


amples from Porto Perone 71; a deep bowl with panelled decoration fromSaturo is regarded as later than LHIIIC early period 72. In the light of theabove discussion, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that all these exam-ples are local products. The same may be true of other Apulian deepbowls 73.

Outside Apulia, some examples from Ausonio I contexts at Lipari, in-cluding two body sherds with monochrome painted interior and exterior,may be of somewhat earlier dating 7\ but a later (Ausonio II) deep bowlwith isolated semicircles may be roughly contemporary with Punta Melisospecimens 75. The bulk of fragmentary examples lacking diagnostic featuresor showing local peculiarities from other sites in Southem Italy and Sar-dinia cannot be dated with any certainty 76. It should, however, be pointedout that the shape was also adopted in «Ceramica Grigia» production(Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994,408-409; Belardelli 1994,288-89 nos. 7-9, fig. 91,315).

71 Lo Porto 1963,342-43 nos. 3, 5 fig. 55:5, 6, assigned to LHIIIC:2 (Submycenaean) bythe excavator and to SHIIIC Spat by Kilian 1983, 67 nt. 68.

72 10 Porto 1964, 202 no. 8 fig. 18:8, FS 284 (Biancofiore 1967, 58 no. 264 pl. XXXI).Other examples are possibly earlier: Lo Porto 1964, 199-200 no. 2 fig. 18:3 (Biancofiore1967, 57 pl. XXX:248; Fisher 1988 no. 240 fig. 37); Fisher 1988, 147-48 nos. 242, 243 fig. 37.For problems conceming the chronology of Saturo deposits, however, see Vagnetti, Pani-chelli 1994, 408, 413.

73 Avetrana: Biancofiore 1967, 78 pl. XXXIII:278, 280 (Fisher 1988, 169 no. 264, pro-bably FS 284); Torre Castelluccia: Taylour 1958, 145 no. 3, 149 no. 23 pl. 15:9, 16 (Bianco-fiore 1967, 78 pl. XXVI nos. 200, 204; Fisher 1988, 164-65 nos. 258, 259 fig. 41). Also seeTaylour 1958, 147 no. 14 pl. 15:lO, interpreted as a kylix (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXVI:97),but cf. Fisher 1988, 164, 166 no. 260 fig. 41, identified as a FS 285 deep bowl. Coppa Nevi-gata: Belardelli, 1993,347 fig. 1:1,2.

74 For the monochrome examples: Taylour 1980,811 no. 271, pl. CXCI:e, no. 272, lateLHIIIB (Vagnetti 1982 a, 135 no. 25:a-b, LHIIIB-C). For other deep bowls: Taylour 1980,812 no. 280 pl. CXCI:j, LHIIIB or C (Vagnetti 1982 a, 135 no. 23 pl. XLV:4, LHIIIC); 811no. 273 pl. CXCI:i. For parallels between Ausonio I and Kilian's SHIIIC middle see supra nt.70.

75 Taylour 1980, 813 no. 289 pl. CCXLV:8. For chronology see supra nt. 64.76 Cipolloni Sampò 1982, 102 no. l pl. XXXIX:2, Toppo Daguzzo; De Siena 1982, 78

nos. 2, 6 pl. XXV: 2, 6; 79 no. 8 pl. XXVI: l; 81 no. 19 pl. XXVI:3; 81 no. 20 pl. XXI:l (DeSiena 1986, 45, 46, 51 figs. 9, lO), Termitito; Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994,401 fig. 131:1,2,3,with refs., 407, Broglio; Ridgway 1988-1989, 146 fig. 23, Torre Mordillo; Schnapp-Gourbeil-lon 1982, 162 nos. 8, 9, Il, pl. LVII:8, 9, Il, Montedoro di Eboli; Ferrarese Ceruti 1982, 172no. 4 pl. LXIII:4 (Ferrarese Ceruti et al 1987, 17, 18 fig. 2.6:1-5; Vagnetti,jones 1988,342fig. 3:3, 4); 174 nos. 14,15 pl. LXIV:3, 7 (Jones 1986,210 table 1,214 table 3; Vagnetti,jones1988,345 table l); Ferrarese Ceruti 1983, 197 no. 2, 199 no. 4 fig. 8:2, 6;jones Day 1987,267table 14.1; Vagnetti, jones 1988, 343 fig. 3:2, 4, Antigori.


If PM22 is a stemmed bowl, the shape is paralleled at Porto Peronewhere a monochrome example is reported (Fisher 1988, 139 no. 221).

The monochrome .deep bowls PM 19-21,23, 24, and probably PM 26are paralleled by two examples from earlier contexts at Lipari 77. As statedabove, the wavy band decoration on PM 22 is relatively common at Italiansites both on closed and open shapes 78. The preserved decoration of PM 25is unparalleled in Italy so far, although the lozenge motif both in chain andisolated is found on Aegean-type pottery from Termitito and Sar-dinia 79.

The poorly preserved decoration on PM 27 (FM 43) and PM 28 (FM75:23) is unparalleled in Apulia 80.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above survey is that canonical (interms of Mycenaean Mainland production) pottery of LHIIIC middle andlate is scarcely represented in Southern Italy. In fact, with the sole excep-

77 See supra nt. 74. A fragmentary open? vase of uncertain chronology from Lipari alsohas monochrome outer surface (Taylour 1980, 814 no. 302/306 pl. CXCII:~. In addition tothe above mentioned stemmed bowl (Fisher 1988, 139 no. 221), a monochrome sherd with areserved band is also reported from Porto Perone, but no other detail is known (see supra nt.70).

78 See supra nt. 46. For deep bowls see Vagnetti 1984 b, 173 no. 13 pls. 45:7; 57:4; 191nt. 19 with refs., related to Minoan pottery; Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994, 382, 396 no. 85 pl.75:12; 389, 397 no. 109 pl. 78:3, Broglio; Lo Porto 1963, 343:5, fig. 55:5, assigned toLHIIIC:2 (Submycenaean) by the excavator; ibid. 341 nos. 37-39, from «LHIIIC: l l con-texts», Porto Perone. Ferrarese Ceruti 1982, 174 no. 15 pl. LXIV:7, Antigori.

79 For the chain of lozenges, see Ferrarese Ceruti 1982, 175 no. 22 pl. LXV:3 (?);Ferra-rese Ceruti et al. 1987, 16 fig. 2.4:6, Antigori; De Siena 1982, 79 no. 8 pl. XXVI: l (deepbowl); De Siena 1983, pl. IV, low (carinated cup), Terrnitito. Isolated lozenges are painted ona LHIIIC stirrup jar from Scoglio del Tonno (Taylour 1958, 112 no. 127 pl. 13:Il, maybe oflocal manufacture; also see Biancofiore 1967, pl. VIII: 129;XI: 127; Fisher 1988, 70, 72 no. 70fig. 14, possibly of Achaean origin). There is also a set of concentric diamonds on the shoul-der zone of a jar from Torre Castelluccia (Taylour 1958, 146 no. lO pl. 15:4; also see Bianco-fiore 1967, pl. XXVI: 192; Fisher 1988, 153, 155, 156 no. 247 fig. 38, with Achaean parallels).The decoration of a sherd from Broglio may also include a lozenge motive, but with concen-trics arcs as a filling (Vagnetti, Panichelli 1994, 389-90 no. 120 pl. 78:13; 397).

80 Cf., in fact, Taylour 1958, no. 127; Taylour 1958, 117 no. 158 (Biancofiore 1967, pl.XVIII:184; Fisher 1988, 73, 74 no. 83 fig. 15), pendant sernicircles; 118 no. 165 pl. 14:19,Protogeometric (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XLI:e; Fisher 1988, 73, 74, 76 no. 96 fig. 16, Protogeo-metric), Scoglio del Tonno; Lo Porto 1964, 202 no. 7 fig. 18:7 (Biancofiore 1967, pl. XXXI:263; Fisher 1988, 144, 145 no. 235 fig. 36, identified as spirals lined with two straight parallellines); 203 no. 4 fig. 20:4, Saturo; Taylour 1958, 146 no. 6; 147 no. 12, Torre Castelluccia.Also see Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1986, 178 no. 7 fig. 7, Montedoro; Ferrarese Ceruti 1986,186-85no. 5 fig. 7:4, krater from Antigori (Aegean-type example; also seeJones, Day 1987,267 table 14.1), See, however, Taylour 1980, 813 no. 289 pl. CCXLV:8, badly preservedopen vase (deep bowl?) from an Ausonio II context at Lipari.


tion of the ubiquitous deep bowl, the shapes found at Punta Meliso arescarcely if ever represented at other sites. As to decoration, parallels are re-stricted to a few motifs and are far from dose; monochrome decoration, soprominent at Punta Meliso is conspicuously rare 81. In terms of fabric, how-ever, the Punta Meliso pottery has dose links with Aegean-type potteryfrom many sites from Apulia.

In the light of recent archaeometric analyses, it is now safe that a largeamount of wheel-made «figulina» ware in Italy, induding ~ottery of LHIIICdate, must be regarded as a local Aegean-type product 2. It is also clearthat this large-scale production did not begin before LHIIIB (Vagnetti1994,147, 151;Jones, Vagnetti 1991, 128). On ground ofvisual characteris-tics, this seems also the case of a good deal of pottery of LHIIIC date fromApulia, despite the fact that archaeometric data so far available are notplentiful83 and a large percentage (at least 80%) of all the Aegean vasesfrom the region has been regarded as imported (Fisher 1988, 175). In 1958Lord W. Taylour already suggested that the vases with micaceous clay fromsome Apulian sites might be regarded as local products «particularly if thedecoration was eccentric or debased» (Taylour 1958, 164; Benzi, Graziadio,1996, 1527). In addition to vases from Coppa Nevigata recently published(Beiardelli 1993), Aegean-type pottery of possible Apulian origin was dis-cussed by E. Fisher not many years ago. She reported different varieties ofthis micaceous clay with a powdery feel to its surface, i.e. dark buff (1OYR8/3 and lOYR 7/4, very pale brown), sometimes tinged with a greenish colour(5Y 7/4, pale yellow), and bright orange in colour (2.5YR 6/8, light red or5YR 6/8, reddish yellow). A few vases with these characteristics were foundat Scoglio del Tonno (Fisher 1988,56,59 nos. 38, 39, 42; 89-91 no. 118), butthey more frequently occur at other sites such as Porto Perone/Satyrion,Torre Castelluccia, Avetrana and Coppa Nevigata (Fisher 1988, 133, 143-44, 147, 150-51; 157, 164, 167; 169; 40 nt. 40, re~ectively). In spite of someapparent resemblances with Kephallenian clay 8 , she seems to be inclinedto suggest a local origin, pointing out the visual affinities with micaceousday of many South-Italian Protogeometric vases (Fisher 1988, 147, 167,176-77). This seems to be confirmed by preliminary archaeometric research

81 In addition to the parallels here discussed also see recent unpublished finds fromApulia, supra nts. 45, 70.

82 For up-to-date discussions, with references to the previous accounts, see Vagnetti1994;Jones et al. 1994.

83 Jones 1986,211 table 1.5;Jones, Vagnetti 1991, 132;Vagnetti 1994,44-45, and tableon p. 48. Also see Smith 1987, 19 table 3, 22-23. Cf., however, Jones 1993, esp. 132.

84 Fisher 1988, 151 nt. 20. Also see supra nts. 61-63.

126 Mario Benzi - Giampaolo Graziadio'

which shows that Mycenaean pottery from Porto Perone and Saturo is «al-most all consistently local» 85. The large majority of pottery from PuntaMeliso here considered was made of a pale brown (lOYR 7/3 to 7/4) mica-ceous clay corrispondent in colours and powdery feel to the varieties dis-cussed by E. Fisher and to a few sherds recently found at Otranto 86. It isalso visualIy similar in colour, grits, mica and powdery feel to the IapygianProtogeometric pottery from the same contexts.

(G.G.)

Conclusions

A number of similarities in fabric (day and grits) between local waresand Mycenaean pottery suggests that the Mycenaean pottery at the site wasproduced locally. Such conclusion based on visual inspection is supportedby the results of thin-sectìon analyses of Mycenaean, «Iapygian Protogeo-metric» and local «impasto» samples (see Appendix below). This comes asno surprise in view of the increasing evidence for production of Aegean-type pottery at many sites in southern Italy in LHIIIB and C (see above).Unlike other groups from Italian sites, however, the pottery from PuntaMeliso cannot be described as «provincial Mycenaean». As the above stylis-tic survey has shown, this group is up to date with LHIIIC Mainland pro-duction and has dose links with local styles of Western Greece in generaIand of AchaealElis in particular, but the lack of distinctive connections withthe late Mycenaean pottery from Kephallenia and Ithaca must be empha-sized, since links with these islands have been noticed at other sites in Apu-lia 87. Although ceramic connections between Apulia and Achaea havebeen pointed out previously, in no case are such links so consistently evi-dent as at Punta Meliso. In this respect this group is unique among LHIIICpottery groups from Italy.

As a consequence, it is likely that the Mycenaean pottery from PuntaMeliso was produced in Apulia, possibly at the site itself, by a Mycenaeanpotter (potters?), so providing evidence for the establishment in Apulia of asmall group of Mycenaean refugees, which is in keeping with recent assess-

85 Jones 1993, 132.86 Orlando 1994, 229 (Mycenaean sherds assigned to advanced LHIIIC and compared

with Punta Meliso material).87 Fisher 1988, passim. Note, however, the differences between Kephallenian pottery

and Aegean-type vases from ltaly, Jones, Vagnetti 1991, 135-36.


ments of Italiani Aegean relations after the collapse of the Mycenaeanpalace system. Since the Mycenaean influence at the site was apparentlyshort-timed and restricted to pottery, it seems likely that the newcomerswere few and merged quickly into local culture and society.

Coming now to dating, the above stylistic analysis consistently suggeststhat the group is late in LHIIIC. With the exception of a very few sherds(PM 28 and some uncatalogued sherds) which may be earlier, all the pot-tery can be dated to LHIIIC advanced to late. Although a number of fea-tures can be dated to either phase, the extensive use of solid painting andreserved zones as well as motifs such as fringed semicircles and wavy bandencased in a narrow reserved zone point to a dating not earlier than LHIIIClate.

The absolute chronology of LHIIIC is a notoriously thorny affair, sincefixed points are hard to identify and correlations are made difficult by thedevelopment of many regional styles and the vagaries of Egyptian absolutechronology for Dinasty XX, which provides the essential basis for datingLHIIIC. LHIIIC early is now currently taken to begin ca. 1190/85; LHIIICmiddle ca. 1150/40. This is the last Bronze Age absolute dating based onrelatively safe cross-connections between the Egyptian and Aegean se-quences (LHIIIC middle pottery found at Beth Shan in a context linkedwith the reign of Ramses VI (1143-1136) and Close Style influenced Philis-tine pottery). Hereafter absolute dating is a matter for speculation and per-sonal view. Though there is still considerable disagreement among scholars,the end of LHIIIC is now generalIy dated towards the middle of the 11thcentury or even later, with LHIIIC late beginning around 1070 and Sub-mycenaean lasting to the last quarter of the 11th century (ca. 1020/1000),which implies a considerable lowering of the beginning of the Protogeomet-ric in Athens 88. Such absolute chronology, however, applies mainly tosome key areas such as the Argolid, Attica and Euboea, but cannot yet beapplied to western Greece where the Mycenaean tradition is likely to havelasted much longer.

According to T. Papadopoulos and other scholars, the end of LHIIIC inAchaea is contemporary with the early Protogeometric phase in Atticareaching down to the end of the Il th century and even later if the above

88 For recent discussions of LHIIIC absolute chronology, see Warren, Hankey 1989,158-69; Vanschoonwinkel 1991, 220-233. LHIIIC late and Submycenaean are dated byMountjoy 1988,26 and Table II ca. 1070-1020/1000 (LHIIIC late 1070-1050/30);such latedating is regarded as reasonable by Hankey 1988.

128 Giovanni Boschian

mentioned lowering of Protogeometric is accepted 89. This has some bear-ing on the dating of Punta Meliso group, which has dose links with LHIIICpottery of western Greece.

In spite of so many difficulties, if we accept ca. 1070 as the beginning ofLHIIIC late and if we take into account that LHIIIC middle stylistic traitsare still detectable in the Punta Meliso group, a tentative dating to the sec-ond quarter of the Il th century seems reasonable, though admitting that inthe present scenario of uncertainty both earlier and even later datings can-not be ruled out.

Mario BenriDipartimento di Scienze ArcheologicheVia Galvani, 11-56100 Pisa

Giampaolo GraziadiaDipartimento di Scienze ArcheologicheVia Galvani, 11-56100 Pisa

APPENDIX

Thin-section Analyses oJ local and Mycenaean Sherds

Twelve sherds from the Punta Meliso assemblage have been observed in thinsection by standard polarizing micrascope: four Mycenaean sherds (samples nos. 1-4 = PM15, PM17, PM23 and PM24), two Iapygian Protogeometric sherds fromlarge size containers (sample no. 5 = LPM 3 DI, level 2; sample no. 6 = LPM 3, DIlevel 6), two Iapygian Protogeometric sherds from small size containers (sample no.7 = LPM 3 DI, level 2; sample no. 8 = LPM 3 8, level 8), the misfired jug PM11(= sample no. 9), three «impasto» sherds (sample no. lO = LPM 3 E, level 8; sampleno. Il = LPM 3 G, level 9 a; sample no. 12 = LPM 3 DI, level 6).

The method for soil thin section description proposed by Bullock et al. 1985 hasbeen applied as no standard descriptive criteri a are available far pottery (Arias,Boschian, in press). It must be pointed out that such a small number of thin sectionsis not a statistically reliable sample; moreover the standard-size thin section itselfmay not be a representative sarnple of the whole vessel when the pastes are not ho-mogeneous or if the temper grainsize is very coarse. Nevertheless the fairly good

89 Papadopoulos 1978-9, 184-85. See also Vermeule 1960, 18; Snodgrass 1971,399; De-ger:Jalkotzy 1987, 4-5.


homogeneity within the classes that have been found suggests that the results maybe regarded as trustworthy.

The Punta Meliso pottery can be divided into two main groups following theirtextural and mineral characters; these characters are rather homogeneous withinthe classes.

The first group (fig. 7:a, b, d, e) includes samples of Mycenaean pottery (nos. 1,2, 3, 4) and Iapygian Protogeometric pottery (nos. 5, 6, 7, 8). AlI these are made upof fine-grained pastes and the temper grainsize falls into the silt/fìne sand-gradeclasse s, with a few medium sand elements in some samples (nos. 1, 8). The moststriking property of this class is the abundance of the micaceous component (biotiteand some muscovite, fig. 7:e); nevertheless these flakes can hardly be identified bynaked eye as they are very small and thin. In fact they seldom overcome the veryfine sand size.

Moreover common quartz, frequent plagioclase and K-feldspar and a few chertcan always be found in the temper. These quartz and felspar grains are angular orsubangular (fig. 7:a, b, d, e), the chert is always rounded or subrounded.

Calcite is always present as micrite aggregates of same size of the silicate grainsof the temper. Its percentage in the pastes of this group is not constant; it may rangebetween 5 and 15-20%, being absent only in sample no. 4 (fig. 7:b). In only one case(sample no. 5, fig. 7:d) sparite has been found: large medium sand! very coarse-sand monocrystalline (euhedral or subhedral) grains or polychristalline aggregatesare dominant. This is in disagreement with the almost constant quantity of silicatetemper that ranges from 12 to 18%. Planctonic foraminifera and fragments of ma-rine shells are common.

The birefringence of the groundmass is always very low, with a stipple speckledb-fabric; in some cases it is amorphous.

These pastes are rather compact, with a few complex shape voids and smallpores.

The second group (samples nos. 9, lO, Il, and 12) is made up of unrefinedpastes with coarser texture. The temper grainsize ranges between the silt and thefine or coarse sand-grade classes, but the very coarse sand grains are frequent. Itspercentage ranges from 18 to 30%.

The basic mìneral components are dominant quartz, common K-feldspar, and afew plagioclase; very few small pyroxene grains and muscovite flakes are present;biotite is absent. The shape of the quartz and feldspar grains is strongly variable;they are mainly angular or subangular, but subrounded and even rounded grainsmay be common (fig. 7:c, D; the pyroxene grains are always angular.

Several types of aggregates are associated to the silicate fraction of the temper.The most common are concretions of amorphous Fe/Mn-oxydes, concentric (pyso-lites, fig. 7:c) or structureless (sample no. 9); they sometimes have a silicate skeletonwhose mineral components are the same as in the ceramic paste (nos. lO, 12; fig.7:D. Pedorelicts are also frequent among the aggregates: they are mainly made upof clay, with rather high birefringence and cross striated b-fabric; a few quartz orfeldspar skeleton grains may be present (nos. 11, 12). All these aggregates arecoarse and their shape is rounded or subrounded.


Fig. 7 - Thin sections: Mycenaean pottery (a, b), misfired piece (c), IapygianProtogeometric (d, e) and impasto ioare (f).a = sample no. 3 (PM23); XPL. Fine texture. The greyish grains are mainly micriteaggregates. Frame width: 3 mm.b = sample no. 4 (PM24): XPL. Fine texture. Calcite is absent. Temper is mainly madeup of quartz and feldspar. Frame width: 3 mm.c = sample no. 6 (PMll): PPL. Large concentric nodule ofFe/Mnoxydes. Some quartzgrains are rounded. Frame width: 3 mm.d = sample no. 5 (LPM DI level Z): PPL. Fine texture. Coarse euhedral or subhedralsparite grains are common. Frame width: 3 mm.e = sample no. 13 (LPM DI level 6): PPL. Fine texture. Calcite is absent. Muscoviteand biotite flakes can be observed at higher magnification. Frame width: l mm.f= sample no. 12 (LPM DI level ò): PPL. Coarse texture. Temper is mainlymade upof angular to subrounded quartz and feldspar grains. One coarse nodule of Fe/Mnoxydes can be observed near the left side. Frame width: 3 mm.


Micrite and sparite are rather scarce. The former can be found in subrounded orsubangular grains, not larger than the medium sand (nos. 9, lO).The latter makesup subhedral or euhedral crystals ranging between the medium and the coarse sandgrade (nos. lO, Il, 12).

The birefringence is usually higher than in the other group and the groundmassis more dearly stipple-speckled, with common large patches of unistrial b-fabric. Inonly one case (sample no. 9) the groundmass is amorphous.

The ceramic body is always cut by thin shrinkage cracks, subparallel to the ves-sel walls.

A red band decoration can often be easily observed in thin section. It is a thinlayer (about 30-50 um thick) almost entirely made up of amorphous iron oxydes,sometimes with traces of day which gives the layer a low birefringence with unis-trial b-fabric, parallel to the vessel surface. The limit between the pictoriallayer andthe ceramic body is sharp and smooth. The pigment grainsize is very fine (amount5-10 um) and thus the single grains cannot be easily observed by standard micro-scope. A very low birefringence or amorphous surface layer (100-150um thick) hasbeen detected in several samples; it can be observed also where the pictorial film ispresent.

A few preliminary hypotheses about the provenance of the raw material can beinferred. In fact the data conceming the composition of the pastes can only givesome hints about the main geological and mineralogical characteristics of the par-ent rock; any condusion about the location of the formation can be inferred only ifa sound knowledge of the mìneralogìcal properties of the formation is achieved.Moreover published archaeometric data are few and exdusively deal with sitesrather far from Leuca (Vagnetti 1994,47-48 table l;Jones et al. 1994).Nevertheless,marked differences between figulina and impasto wares are also dearly apparentfrom scientific analyses on Bronze Age, Protogeometric and Geometric potteryfrom Coppa Nevigata (Foggia),where, however, Italo-Mycenaean pottery and Pro-togeometric/Geometric wares do not overlap in terms of elements in trace (Boccuc-cia et al. 1995,86);figulina of Mycenaean influence has also been regarded as a pos-sible import from another place (Amadori et al. 1995, 46 nt. 8, 50, 51).

The first group of Leuca, which is figulina-like, has some characteristics that re-semble the late Pliocene-Quatemary silicodastic formations of the Bradanic trench;these formations crop out along the Adriatic side of Apulia, with a few outcrops inthe Salento area. Such deposits are rather well known and even at present they areexploited in brick industry (Dondi et al. 1992);however their basic mìneral compo-nents have only been qualitatively described. They are apparently rich in angularand subangular quartz and feldspar of the silt-size dasses and mica.

The samples of this group have been compared with Neolithic figulina-likepastes from Grotta delle Veneri near Parabita (Boschian, unpublished data).Such a test is acceptable inasmuch as Grotta delle Veneri is very dose toa clay formation which is the southemmost one in the Salento area. As theNeolithic pottery is supposed to be a local manufacture it may be inferredthat its pastes are made up of local day. In fact the compositions are almostthe same, though coarser calcite is apparently more common in the Neolithic


one; nevertheless the Leuca pastes are apparently richer in biotite, which insome samples is strikingly dominant.

The pastes of the second group are rich in pedorelicts that testify to a pedoge-netic origin of the day. The Fe/Mn-oxydes pisolites and concretions are very com-mon in terra rossa-like soils, which are very common in Southern Apulia. Coarserounded quartz and feldspar grains may be present in these soils as an aeolian inputoriginated from the deflaction of sea-shores and dunes; neverthless they are some-what more common than in the soils. Therefore it may be inferred that they wereintentionally added to the paste as a temper to balance the lack of silt-sizegrains.

Giovanni BoschianDipartimento di Scienze ArcheologicheVia Galvani, 11-56100 Pisa

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMAnORIL., DI PILLOM., FRATINIF., LEVI S.T., and PECCHIONIE. 1995. The BronzeAge Pottery of Coppa Nevigata (FG-Italy): Raw Materials and Production, inVendrell-Saz M., Pradell T., Molera i Maite GarciaJ. (eds.) Estudios sobre ceràmicaantigua, Barcelona, 45-51.

ANGLEM. and ZARATTINIA. 1987. L'insediamento protostorico di Casale Nuovo,Q,uaderni del Centro di Studio per l'Archeologia Etrusco-italica 14 (Archeologia LazialeVIII), 250-52.

ARrAsC. and BOSCHIANG. (in press). Scheda descrittiva degli impasti ceramici e suainforrnatizzazione. II Giornata di Studi «Le Scienze della Terra e l'Archeometrio»,Savona, February 1996.

BALMUTHM.S. (ed.) 1987. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 111 Nuragic Sardinia and theMycenaean World, BAR 387, Oxford.

BELARDELLIC. 1984. La ceramica grigia, in R. Peroni (ed.), Nuove ricerche sulla prato-storia della Sibaritide, Roma, 124-56.

BELARDELLIC. 1993. Aegean-type Pottery from Coppa Nevigata, Apulia, in Zernerand Winder (eds.) 1993, 352-74.

BELARDELLIC. 1994. La ceramica grigia, in Peroni and Trucco (eds.) 1994,265-346.

BENTON S. 1938-39. Excavations in Ithaca III: The Cave at Polis, BSA 39,1-16.

BENZIM. 1975. Ceramica Micenea in Attica, Milano.BENZIM. 1982. Leuca (Lecce), in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a, 6l.BENZIM. 1992. Rodi e la Civiltà Micenea, Roma.BENZIM. and GRAZIADIOG. 1982. Note sulla provenienza delle ceramiche egee rin-

venute in Italia meridionale, in Gualandi M.L., Massei L., Settis S. (eds.),


AllAPXAI. Nuove ricerche e studi sulla Magna Grecia e la Sicilia antica in onore diPaolo Enrico Arias, Pisa, 19-33.

BENZIM. and GRAZIADIOG. 1990. S. Maria di Leuca - Punta Meliso. Ceramica mice-nea, in D'Andria (ed.) 1990, 17-18.

BENZI M. and GRAZIADIOG. 1996. Late Mycenaean Pottery from Punta Meliso(Santa Maria di Leuca), in Atti del «Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Mi-cenologia», Roma, 1523-28.

BIANCOFIOREF. 1967. Civiltà micenea nell'Italia meridionale, Roma.BIETII SESTIERIA.M. 1988. The «Mycenaean connectìon» and its Impact in the Cen-

tral Mediterranean Societies, Dialoghi di Archeologia, Terza Serie, Anno 6,23-51.

BLEGENC.W. and RAWSONM. 1966. The Palace ofNestor at Pylos in Western Messenia I:The Buildings and Their Contents, Princeton.

BOCCUCCIAP., DESOGUSP., FRATINIF., and LEVI S.T. 1995. Manifacturing Tech-niques, Raw Materials and Provenance of Italo-Mycenaean, Protogeometric andEarly Geometric of Southern Italy and Daunian Middle Geometric Pottery atCoppa Nevigata (Foggia Province, Italy), XIII-VIII Century B.C., in Fabbri B.(ed.), Fourth Euro-Ceramics, 74: The Cultural Ceramics Heritage, Faenza, 77-88.

BRODBECK:JUCKERS. 1986. Mykenische Funde von Kephallenia im archiiologischenMuseumNeuchàtel; Roma.

BRONEERO. 1939. A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis, Hesperia 8,317-433.

BULLOCKP., FEDEROFFP.,jONGERIUSN., STOOPSA, TURSINAG., BABELT. and U. 1985.Handbook far Soil Thin Section Description, W olvehampton.

CASSANOS.M., CAZZELLAA, MANFREDINIA and MOSCOLONIM. (eds.) 1987. CoppaNevigata e il suo territorio. Testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al Il Millennio,Roma.

CIONGOUG.P. 1986. Nuovi ritrovamenti a Parabita (Lecce), in Marazzi et al. 1986,21-22.

CIPOLLONISAMPÒM. 1982. Toppo Daguzzo (Rapolla, Potenza) in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982a, 99-102.

CREMONESIG. 1978. Il villaggio dell'Età del Bronzo del Santuario di S. Maria diLeuca, in Leuca, Galatina, 27-43.

CREMONESIG. 1991. Insediamento e territorio nell'estremo Sud del Salento durantela Tarda Età del Bronzo, in Atti del XXX Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,Taranto, 353-62.

D'AGOSTINO B. 1982. Grotta di Polla (Salerno), in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a, 155-59.

D'ANDRIA F. 1978. Grotta Porcinara. Appendice n. 2: Punta Meliso, in Leuca,Galatina, 88-90.

D'ANDRIA F. (ed.) 1990. Archeologia dei Messapi, Bari.DEGER:JALKOTZYS. 1987. Zum Ende der mykenischen Zeit in Achaia, in Forschungen

zur iigiiischen Vorgeschichte.Das Ende der mykenischen Welt, K61n, 1-5.DEGER:JALKOTZYS. and ALMRAN-STERNE. 1987. Zur mykenischen Keramik von


Aigeira, in. W. Alzinger et al., Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Phelloéin Achaia I: Die mykenische Siedlung, Klio 67, 391-457.

DESBOROUGHV. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, Oxford.DESHAYESJ. 1966. Argos. Les Fouilles de la Deiras, Paris.DE SIENAA. 1982. Termitito (Montalbano Ionico, Matera), in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a,

69-83.DE SIENAA. 1983. Termitito. Campagna di scavo 1982, in Atti del XXII Convegno di

Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 125-31.DE SIENAA. 1986. Termitito, in Marazzi et al. 1986, 41-54.DIMAKOPOULOUK. 1982. To Mykinaiko Iero sto Amyklaio kai i IIIC periodos sti Lakonia,

Athens.DOHL H. 1973. lria. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1939, in Tiryns. Forschungen

und Berichte VI, Mainz am Rhein 1973, 127-94.DONDI M., FABBRIB. and LAVIANOR. 1992. Characteristics of the Clays Utilized in

the Brick Industry in Apulia and Basilicata (Southem Italy), Miner. Petrog. Acta,XXXV-a, 181-91.

FERRARESECERUTIM.L. 1982. Il complesso nuragico di Antigori (Sarroch, Cagliari),in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a, 167-76.

FERRARESECERUTIM.L. 1983. Antigori: La Torre F del complesso nuragico di Anti-gori (Sarroch, Cagliari). Nota preliminare in Atti del XXII Convegno di Studi sullaMagna Grecia, Taranto, 125-31.

FERRARESECERUTIM.L. 1986. I vani c, p, q del complesso nuragico di Antigori (Sar-roch, Cagliari), in Marazzi et al. 1986, 183-92.

FERRARESECERUTIM.L., VAGNETTIL. and Lo SCHIAVOF. 1987. Minoici, Micenei eCiprioti in Sardegna alla luce delle più recenti scoperte, in Balmuth 1987,7-34.

FISHERE. 1985. The Trade Pattem of the Mycenaeans in Southem ltaly, AIA 89,330.

FISHERE.A. 1988. A Comparison o/ Mycenaean Pottery from Apulia with Mycenaean Pot-tery from Western Greece, Ph. D., University of Minnesota.

FORSDYKEEJ. 1925. Catalogue o/ the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum Li.Prehistoric Aegean Pottery, London.

FRANCOM.C. 1991-92. Rassegna di Archeologia lO, 508.FRENCHE. 1967. Pottery from LHIIIBI Destruction Contexts at Mycenae, BSA 62,

149-93.FRENCHE. 1969. A Group of Late Helladic IIIB2 Pottery from Mycenae, BSA 64,

71-93.FRENCHE. 1985. The Mycenaean Spectrum, in Malone C. and Stoddart S. (eds.),

Papers in Italian Archaeology IV. Part 111: Patterns in Protohistory, BAR 245, Oxford,295-303.

FRODINO. and PERSSONA.W. 1938. Asine. Results o/ the Swedish Excaoations 7922-7930, Stockholm.

FURUMARKA. 1944. The Mycenaean mc Pottery and Its Relation to Cypriote Fab-rics, Op. Arch. 3, 194-265.


GERCKEP. and W., HIESELG. 1975. Tiryns-Stadt 1971: Graben H, in Tiryns.Forschungen und Berichte VII!, Mainz am Rhein, 7-36.

GOLDMANNH. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge Mass.GORGOGLIONEM.A. 1982. Lo Scoglio del Tonno (Taranto). Nuovi restauri, in

Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a, 62-65.HANKEYV. 1988. Note on the Chronology of LHIIIC late and Submycenaean, AA,

33-37.HWRTLEYW.A. 1932-33. Excavations in Ithaca I: LHIII-Protogeometric Cairns at

Aetos, BSA 33, 22-65.HOLLOWAYR. 1981. Italy and the Aegean 3000-700 B.G., Louvain-Ia-Neuve, Provi-

dence.HOPESIMPSONR. 1981. Mycenaean Greece, Park Ridge.IAKOVIDISS. 1969-70. Perati. To Nekrotapheion I-Il!, Athens.JACOB-FELSCHM. 1987. Die Entwicklung der Keramik der Phase SH mc fort-

geschritten und spat anhand der Schichtenfolge von Kalapodi und ihre Relationzu vergleichbaren Fundkomplexen, in Forschungen rur agaischen Vorgeschichte.DasEnde der mykenischen Welt, Koln, 37-52.

JONESR.E. 1986. Chemical Analysis of Aegean-type Late Bronze Age PotteryFound in Italy, in Marazzi et al. 1986, 205-14.

JONESR.E. 1993. Laboratory Analyses of Aegean-type Late Bronze Age Pottery inItaly: Review and Future Prospects. Summary of a lecture held in Rome (15february 1993), SMEA XXXII, 131-34.

JONESR.E. and DAYP.M. 1987. Late Bronze Age Aegean and Cypriot-type Potteryon Sardinia; Identification of Imports and Local Imitations by Physico-ChemicalAnalysis, in Balmuth 1987, 257-69.

JONESR.E., LAzZARlNIL., MARIOTTINIM. and ORVINIE. 1994. Studio mineropetro-grafico e chimico di ceramiche protostoriche da Broglio di Trebisacce (Sibari), inPeroni and Trucco (eds.) 1994, 413-54.

JONESR.E. and VAGNETTIL. 1991. Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediter-ranean: Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research, in Gale N.H.(ed.), Bronre Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA XCII), jonsered, 127-47.

JONESR.E. and VAGNETTIL. 1992. Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediter-ranean; Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research (An Adden-dum), BSA 87, 231-35.

JONESR.E. and VAGNETTIL. 1993. Le ceramiche di tipo egeo, in M. Angle et al.,Prime testimonianze micenee nel Latium Vetus, La Parola del Passato CCLXX,211-13.

KARnARAC. 1977. Aplomata Naxou. Kinità Evrimata apo ton Taphon A k. B,Athens.

KILIANK. 1978. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1976. Bericht zu den Grabungen, AA,449-70.

KILIANK. 1983. Civiltà micenea in Grecia: nuovi aspetti storici ed interculturali. Attidel XXII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 53-95.

KOUROUNIOTISK. 1914. Pylou Messiniakis Tholotos Taphos, AE, 99-117.


KiwKER W. and KOBLERK. 1939. Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen I,Athens.

KYPARISSISN. 1919. Kephalleniaka, Deltion 5, 83-122.LA ROSAV. 1982. Milena (Agrigento), in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a, 127-29.LA ROSAV. 1986. Nuovi ritrovamenti e sopravvivenze egee nella Sicilia meri-

dionale, in Marazzi et al. 1986, 79-82.LEoNV. 1961-63. Zweiter vorlaufìger Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis.

Ost. Jahreshefie 46, Beiblatt, 33-58.Lo PORTOF.G. 1963. La stazione preistorica di Porto Perone, Notizie degli Scavi 88,

280-380.Lo PORTOF.G. 1964. Satyrion (Taranto). Scavi e ricerche nel luogo del più antico

insediamento laconico in Puglia, Notizie degli Scavi 89, 177-279.Lo PORTOF.G. 1986. Le importazioni micenee in Puglia: bilancio di un decennio di

studi, in Marazzi et al. 1986, 13-20.Lo PORTOF.G. 1990. L'insediamento protostorico di Scalo di Fumo, in D'Andria

(ed.) 1990, 221-32.Lo PORTOF.G. 1991. Insediamenti protostorici costieri del Salento, Atti del XXX

Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 381-91.MARAZZIM., TUSAS. and VAGNETTIL. (eds.) 1986. Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo.

Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica,Taranto.MARINATOSS. 1932. Ai Anaskaphai Goekoop en Kephallenia, AE, 1-47.MARINATOSS. 1933. Ai en Kephallenia Anaskaphai Goekoop, AE, 68-100.MASTROKOSTASE. 1964. Anaskaphi tou Teichous Dymaion, PAE, 60-67.MASTROKOSTASE. 1965. Anaskaphi tou Teichous Dymaion, PAE, 121-136.MORRICONEL. 1972-73. Coo: scavi e scoperte nel Serraglio e in località minori,

ASAA 51-52, 139-396.MOUNTJOYP.A. 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (SIMA

LXXIII), Goteborg.MOUNTJOYP.A. 1988. LHIIIC versus Submycenaean. The Kerameikos Pompeion

Cemetery Reviewed, Jd! 103, 1-37.MOUNTJOYP.A. 1990. Regional Mycenaean Pottery, BSA 85, 245-70.MOUNTJOYP.A. 1993. A Mycenaean Stirrup Jar from Campania, SMEA XXXI,

35-42.ORLANDOM.A. 1990. Santa Maria di Leuca. Punta Meliso, in D'Andria (ed.) 1990,

5-16.ORLANDOM.A. 1994. Otranto, i livelli dell'Età del Bronzo Finale del Cantiere

Mitello, Studi di Antichità 7, 208-34.PruSON HALLAGERB. 1985. Crete and Italy in the Late Bronze Age III Period, AJA

89, 293-305.PAPADOPOULOSTJ. 1978-79. Mycenaean Achaea, (SIMA LV), Lund.PARLAMAL. 1971. Thalamoeides Taphos para to Agrapidochori Eleias, AE,

Chronika, 52-60.PARLAMAL. 1974. Mykenaika Eleias, Deltion 29, A', 25-59.PERONIR. and TRUCCOF. (eds.) 1994. Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide, Taranto.


PODZUWEITC. 1978. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1976. Bericht zur spatrnykenischenKeramik, AA, 471-98.

PODZUWEITC. 1979. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1977. Bericht zur spatmykenischenKeramik, AA, 412-40.

PODZUWEITC. 1981. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978-1979. Bericht zur spatmykeni-schen Keramik, AA, 194-220.

PODZUWEITC. 1983. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1981. Bericht zur spatrnykenischenKeramik, AA, 359-402.

POPHAMM.R. and MILBURNE. 1971. LHIIIC Pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi), ASummary, BSA 66, 333-52.

PUGLISIS.M. 1982. Coppa Nevigata (Manfredonia, Foggia) in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982 a,45-51.

RIDGWAYD. 1988-89. Archaeology in Sardinia and South Italy, 1983-1988, AR,130-47.

ROSSIGNOLIC., LACHINM.T. and BULLOS. 1994. Lo scavo. Area D (Macellum), inNora II!, Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Cagliari Il, 225-30.

RUTTERJ.B. 1974. The Late Helladic IlIB and IIIC Periods at Korakou and Gonia in theCorinthia, Ann Arbor.

RUTIERJ.B. 1977. LHIIIC Pottery and Some Historical Implications, in Davis E.N.(ed.), Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece, New York, 1-20.

RUTIERJ.B. 1979. The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth, Hesperia 48, 348-392.RUTIERJ.B. 1990. Some Comments on Interpreting the Dark-Surfaced Handmade

Burnished Pottery of the 13th and 12th Century BC Aegean, JMA 3, 29-49.SÀFLUNDG. 1939. Punta del Tonno, in L1pU')'I.HX, Studies in Honour of M. P. Nilsson,

Lund, 458-90.SALZANIL. 1988. Villabartolomea, Fabbrica dei Soci, Quaderni di Archeologia del

Veneto, IV, 262-63.SANTILLO-FRIZELLB. 1986. Asine 11:3. Results oJ the Excavations East oJ the Acropolis

1970-1974. The Late and Final Mycenaean Periods (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska In-stitutet i Athen, 4°, XXIV:3), Stockholm.

SCHACHERMEYRF. 1979. Die mykenische Zeit und die Gesittung von Thera, Wien.SCHACHERMEYRF. 1980. Die Agiiische Friihzeit IV. Griechenland im Zeitalter der Wan-

derungen. Vom Ende der mykenischen Ara bis auJ die Dorier, Wien.SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLONA. 1982. Montedoro di Eboli (Salerno), in Vagnetti (ed.) 1982

a, 160-63.SCHNAPP-GOURBEILLONA. 1986. Ceramica di tipo miceneo a Montedoro di Eboli, in

Marazzi et al. 1986, 175-82.SMITHT.R. 1987. Mycenaean Trade and lnteraction in the West Central Mediterranean

1600-1000 B.G., (Bar 371) Oxford.SNODGRASSA.M. 1971. The Dark Age oJ Greece, Edinburgh.STYRENIUSC.G. 1967. Submycenaean Studies, Lund.TAYLOURW. 1958. Mycenaean Pottery in ltaly and Adjacent Areas, Cambridge.TAYLOURW. 1973. Chamber Tomb K-2, in Blegen C.W. and Rawson M. et al., The

Palace oJ Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia II!, Princeton, 224-37.


TAYLOURW. 1980. Aegean Sherds Found at Lipari, in Bernabò-Brea L. and Cava-lier M., Meligunìs-Lipara IV, Palermo, 793-817.

VAGNETIIL. 1979. Il Bronzo Finale in Puglia nei suoi rapporti con il Mediterraneoorientale, Atti della XXI Riunione Scientifica: Il Bronzo Finale in Italia, Firenze,537-49.

VAGNETIIL. (ed.) 1982 a. Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo. Nuovi documenti.Taranto.

VAGNETIIL. 1982 b. Ceramica micenea dipinta dell'Età del Bronzo, in Bergonzi G.et al., Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide, 2, Napoli, 99-133.

VAGNETIIL. 1984 a. Ceramica micenea e ceramica dipinta dell'età del bronzo, inPeroni R. (ed.), Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide 3, Roma, 164-84.

VAGNETIIL. 1984 b. Ceramica di importazione egea e ceramica dipinta dell'età delbronzo, in R. Peroni (ed.), Nuove Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide, Roma,169-96.

VAGNETIIL. 1986. L'Occidente: introduzione alle relazioni documentarie, inMarazzi et al. 1986, 7-11.

VAGNETIIL. 1991. Aspetti della presenza micenea nel Sud-Est Italiano, in Atti delXXX Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 363-81.

VAGNETIIL. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study, in Zemer andWinder (eds.) 1993, 143-54.

VAGNETIIL. 1994. Ceramiche protostoriche del Mediterraneo: il contributo del-l'archeometria nei circuiti di scambio tra l'Italia e l'Egeo, in Burragato F.,Grubessi O., Lazzarini L. (eds.), 1st European Workshop on Archaeological Ceramics,Roma, 43-53.

VAGNETIIL. and JONESR. 1988. Towards the Identification of Local MycenaeanPottery in Italy, in French E.E. and Wardle K.A., Problems in Greek Prehistory,Bristol, 335-48.

VAGNETIIL. and PANICHELLIS. 1994. Ceramica egea importata e di produzionelo-cale, in Peroni and Trucco (eds.) 1994, 373-413.

VANSCHOONWINKELJ. 1991. L'Égée et la Méditerranée orientale à la fin du deuxième mil-lénaire (Archaeologia Transatlantica IX), Louvain-la-Neuve.

VERMEULEE.T. 1960. The Mycenaeans in Achaia, AJA 64, 1-21.WACEAJ.B. 1921-23. Excavations at Mycenae, BSA 21-23, 1-434.WAROLEK.A. 1973. A Group of Late Helladic IIIB2 Pottery from within the Citadel

at Mycenae, BSA 68, 297-342.WARRENP. and HANKEYV. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol.ZERNERC. and P., WINDERJ.(eds.) 1993, Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean

Bronze Age 1939-1989, Amsterdam.

Date post:	22-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	judexathanasios718
View:	46 times
Download:	0 times

M. Benzi - G. Graziadio the Last Mycenaen in Italy. Late LHIIIC Pottery From Punta Meliso Leuca 0001

Documents