The mycenaean pottery

In a wide array of publications, 1472 Mycenaean ceramic finds from Enkomi could be identified, in styles ranging from LH I to LH IIIB-LH IIIC; these are listed in Catalogue V.18 Six of these finds concern ceramic figurines, while there are 1466 pots or sherds thereof. The majority of the Mycenaean pots at Enkomi appears to originate in Greece. Nine out of eleven Mycenaean pictorial sherds analysed by Catling and Millett using OES did appear to have an origin in the Peloponnese.19 For two sherds an origin could not be established. An additional six pictorial fragments submitted to the OES technique appeared to derive from the Peloponnese.20 Twenty-one non-pictorial sherds analyzed by the same methodology had similar clay compositions.21 However, ten other sherds analysed by OES, which had been singled out as being possibly of local manufacture, could not be assigned to any identified composition group and may be of Cypriot manufacture.22 Another sherd (cat. no. 1442) ap-

11 Keswani 1989b, 62, 69.

12 Dikaios 1969, 22-23; Keswani 1996, 222.

13 Keswani 1989b, 68-69.

14 Knapp 1986a, 39-40; Muhly 1989, 302, 310.

15 Knapp 1986b; 1996a, 19-20.

16 Dikaios 1971, 881-887; Masson 1970; 1971a; 1971b; Palaima 1989.

17 R. Dussaud in Schaeffer 1952, 1-10; see also Hellbing 1979; Knapp 1996b.

18 This is considerably more than the 912 Mycenaean vessels from the same stylistic periods (excluding vessels in 'Rude' or 'Pastoral' style), which were presented by

Astrom (1972b, 289-382). The difference is largely due to a number of publications which have appeared after Astrom's report. Also, he assigned a number of vessels, in particular shallow cups (FS 220) and shallow bowls (FS 295-296) to his class of White Painted Wheel-made III Ware (Astrom 1972b, 276-289), which have been included by me.

19 Catling & Millett 1965, 215-219.

20 Anson 1980, 117.

21 Catling, Richards & Blin-Stoyle 1963, 103-109; Millett & Catling 1966, 93-94; Catling, Jones & Millet 1978, 72.

22 Catling, Richards & Blin-Stoyle 1963, 111; Catling, Jones & Millett 1978, 77.

peared to have a Cretan origin. Neutron Activation analyses carried out by F. Asaro and I. Perlman on sherds from Enkomi indicated that of sixteen LH IIIA finds from the site, about a quarter could safely be assigned an Argolid provenience.23 The remainder were slightly different, but it was thought that they were probably from the Aegean. The LH IIIB finds analysed by the same team showed a similar pattern, with a somewhat higher proportion of finds to be assigned to the Argolid. Sixteen LH IIIB shallow bowls, however, revealed compositions similar to vessels in 'Rude or Pastoral' style and were assigned a Cypriot origin. Whenever it was certain - on the basis of fabric and decorative style - that a vessel was of Cypriot manufacture, it has been excluded from the catalogue. In several cases, however, a Cypriot origin is possible, but not certain. Such vessels have been included. A few vessels - in particular large, coarse ware stirrup jars - may have a Cretan origin.24

It is certain that the 1472 items in Catalogue V do not represent all Mycenaean pottery that has been found at Enkomi. The Cypriot excavations carried out by Dikaios' team have been fully and superbly published and we may consider our dataset to be more or less complete for the areas investigated by it. The French campaigns however, have only been partially published. Schaeffer has described B√Ętiment 18 in considerable detail,25 while a number of tombs investigated by the French have also been fully published.26 Important contextual information is available through the publication of the non-ceramic settlement material in the Cyprus Museum and the Louvre.27 As to the rest, information concerning the French excavations is available through a number of preliminary reports and a few summarising overviews only. Since the French excavated the largest areas in the settlement, the incompleteness of the data from these excavations is a serious drawback. Even though the Swedish did not recognise the existence of the city in the same area as the tombs, the descriptions of the tomb inventories are remarkably complete. We may assume that our data-set for these tombs is more or less complete, even though many fragments probably were left out of the publications.28 The excavations conducted by Myres and Gunnis have not been published and any Mycenaean pottery found in these excavations is not included in Catalogue V. Not all tombs have been published from the British Museum expedition in 1896, nor have all objects from the published tombs been included in their description.29 Finally, of course, the area of Enkomi had been subject to tomb robbing for a long time. Surely some of the Mycenaean vessels listed by Astrom as without provenance came from Enkomi.30

The data presented in Catalogue V, therefore, is very unequal for different parts of the site of Enkomi. In particular, the evidence available from settlement areas is virtually limited to the areas excavated by the Cypriot team. The focus on tombs by the earlier expeditions has created a bias in favour of funerary evidence.

23 Asaro & Perlman 1973, 221.

24 On the origin of coarse ware stirrup jars, Haskell 1990; Day & Haskell 1993.

25 Schaeffer 1952, 238-317.

26 Johnstone 1971; Courtois 1981; Lagarce & Lagarce 1985.

27 Courtois 1984; Caubet, Courtois & Karageorghis

1987.

28 Mossberg (1975) and Andersson (1980) have published fragments from Swedish tombs 3, 5, 7, 11 and 18 which are now in the Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm. This implies that similar unpublished fragments exist for other Swedish tombs.

30 Astrom 1972b, 289-381.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment