Lh Iiialh Iiia

1

1

LH/LM IIIA

1

1

1

LH IIIA2

1

1

LH/LM IIIA2-IIIB

1

2

LH/LM IIIB

12

1

19

1

LH/LM IIIB-IIIC

22

24

3

1

1

LH IIIC

6

14

3

Total

165

2

4

4

148

18

3

2

3

3

Table 17.3

date

B

B west

D

D east

D south

D west

Total

imported local

imported local

imported local

imported local

imported local

imported local

fragments

7

CO 2

135 2

33

1

39 4

238

amphora

2

21

2

3

12 3

37

collar-necked jar

1

1

2

3

3

10

alabastron

1

1

stirrup jar

1

3

1

11

5

jar

1

1

2

1

12

4

jug

1

1

2

amphoroid krater

1

1

krater or bowl

1

1

conical cup

1

1

carinated cup

3

1

4

shallow cup

1

1

cup

3

3

6

kylix

1

1

mug

3

1

4

bowl or cup

11

3

1

4

deep bowl

3

8

3

5

19

bowl

1

1

Table 17.4

of Aegean-type pottery at Broglio di Trebisacce had already begun at an early stage. The other finds in Middle Bronze Age contexts (cat. nos. 1012, 1204, 1236 and 1237) testify to the same practice.

The fragmentary nature of many of the Aegean-type finds, as well as the fact that ceramic styles of vessels produced in Italy may not always reflect Aegean styles directly, argue for some caution in applying a chronology to this pottery.34 Yet, the stylistical chronology appears to follow the stratigraphy at Broglio quite consistently, with LH IIIB finds concentrated in the Late Bronze Age and LH IIIC, which begins during the LBA, continuing into the Final Bronze Age. The LH IIIA fragment decorated with a wavy line (cat. no. 5), which has been found in the complesso a monte, may be evidence of use for a substantial period of time. However, its small size argues for caution in this respect. The rela-

34 Vagnetti & Panichelli 1994, 408.

site area

unknown

coarse ware

plain

linear

patterned

B

2

13

2

B west

1

14

12

D

3

6

7

121

53

D east

3

5

21

19

D south

1

D west

3

1

3

32

30

Total

9

7

18

202

Table 17.5

tive scarcity of clear LH IIIB finds in contexts dating to the later phase of the Late Bronze Age or the Final Bronze Age suggests that such pottery was not used for a long period of time.

The small size of the Aegean-type sherds at Broglio does not allow the majority of finds to be assigned to specific vessel types. Moreover, in several of the 110 cases where a pot shape has been suggested, the classification should be considered tentative. Nevertheless, it is clear from Table 17.4 that only a limited ceramic repertoire has been discovered at Broglio, with slightly more storage than dinner vessels.35 Imported Mycenaean vessels are mostly of storage type with the exception of one cup or bowl (cat. no. 6). This is different for the locally made repertoire, among which there is a substantial proportion of dinner vessels. This suggests that the range of production by the local manufacturers was not determined by the Aegean pottery arriving at Broglio, but by a wider repertoire. This, in my opinion, reinforces the hypothesis that itinerant craftsmen were to some degree responsible for the production of Aegean-type pottery at Broglio.

A second observation to be made on the basis of Table 17.4 is that Aegean type storage vessels appear to be more widely distributed than dinner vessels. Twenty four Aegean-type dinner vessels have been found in area D, of which eighteen can directly be associated with the complesso a monte. In addition, nine Mycenaean finds were discovered in levels contemporary to this complex in area D west. Even though the large number of fragments argues for caution, it appears that Aegean-type dinner vessels were concentrated in the central habitation building, implying that the inhabitants associated to this structure made more extensive use of this ceramic class than other groups in the town.

The fragmentary nature of many of the Mycenaean finds casts doubts on the classification of decorational types and different kinds of ware, which is presented in Table 17.5. Many of the small plain sherds or those with linear decoration may have belonged to vessels that were more elaborately decorated and the apparent predominance of linear decoration is probably emphasised by these conditions. It is clear that only a few coarse ware vessels have been found, one of which is an imported stirrup jar (cat. no. 12). All other Aegean-type coarse ware finds are fragments of locally made closed vessel types, possibly including jars meant for transportation.36 Five of these (cat. nos. 1027, 1037-140) have

In the cases of many fragments, it was possible to indicate whether they derived from closed or open pot shapes. In total, a number of 223 closed shapes have been discovered, against 78 open vessels. Even though we must allow for closed dinner vessels (i.e. jugs), the predominance of storage pottery may have been even more marked. 36 Cat. nos. 1018, 1027, 1037-1040

Fig 17.2 Broglio di Trebisacce: Mycenaean pottery in the complesso a monte

been found in the complesso a monte, while another (cat. no. 1018) came from the topsoil above this structure. The imported stirrup jar derived from an LBA surface in area D west, close to the central building. It seems, therefore, that such coarse ware vessels were restricted to this structure.

Among the imported pottery, seven finds (cat. nos. 1, 3-8) have a patterned decoration, while a fragment of a jar is decorated with a line only. Considering the high number of linear decorated sherds among the pottery of local manufacture, it would seem as if the imported vessels were generally more elaborately decorated than the Mycenaean-type pottery made at Broglio.37 In any case, the spatial distribution of linear sherds and those decorated with geometric and floral motifs as indicated in Table 17.5 shows that the use of Aegean-type pottery was not restricted on the basis of its decoration.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment