Lh Iiiblh Iiic

4

2

6

LH IIIC

5

Table 15.3

Such a concentration may be explained if we investigate the spatial distribution for the various stratigraphical phases (Table 15.2). It is evident that most Mycenaean finds from stratified contexts derive from Capo Graziano and Milazzese levels. The higher levels yielded far less Mycenaean finds. The northern part of the main excavation area, areas 3 and 4, have produced a relatively high number of Mycenaean finds from the Ausonio periods. It appears that the concentration of our finds in the southern part of the site has to do with the extent to which the Ausonio I and II levels have been excavated. These strata were not present in the south.23 In the northern area, however, they are well represented and at various places prevented investigation of lower levels. Even though we must acknowledge that the upper levels suffered worse damage through later activities, it is clear that the quantities of Mycenaean pottery imported at Lipari were larger in the Capo Graziano and Milazzese periods than later.

Taking into account stratigraphical variations, then, the Mycenaean pottery is fairly widely distributed in the excavation areas. A few concentrations, however, can be associated with structures or surfaces. In trench AO a concentration is visible in association with hut 8 III of the Capo Graziano period, in which twenty-one Mycenaean finds were made (cat nos. 173-193). In trench W, thirteen Mycenaean finds were associated with the annex of Milazzese structure g VI (cat nos. 91-103). In trench BM, twelve Mycenaean finds were found inside hut g XII of the same period (cat. nos. 155166), while ten additional finds were associated with a wall, the so-called dromos, of Ausonio I hut p IV (cat nos. 19-28). Such a distribution pattern suggests that Mycenaean pottery was not restricted to specific groups in the society of Lipari; it is possible, however, that some inhabitants made substantially more use of this material than others.

The occurrence of Aegean chronological styles in the successive archaeological strata at Lipari is indicated in Table 15.3. From these figures it is evident that pots in ceramic styles earlier than LH IIIA2 are more frequent than later Mycenaean finds. Indeed, LH IIIA2 finds are rather scarce at Lipari, even though we must allow for the high number of sherds which could not be assigned to a specific stylistic period. LH IIIB finds appear to be somewhat more frequent than those dating to LH IIIA2, but, given the difference in duration between these two periods, it can be concluded that the import of Mycenaean pottery at Lipari dropped sharply with the beginning of LH III.

Stratigraphically, the Mycenaean vessels from the earlier stylistic phases are concentrated in the Capo Graziano and Milazzese levels, while LH IIIA2 and LH IIIB finds occur from the Milazzese pe-

date area 1 area 2 area 3 area 4 trench AG trench AH-AH' trench F unknown

undatable

41

37

44

91

LH/LM I

3

7

8

LH/LM I-II

29

3

5

31

LH II

11

7

10

2

LH II-LH IIIA1

2

3

5

1

LH IIIA1

1

1

3

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment