Exports of Attic Protogeometric Pottery and Their Identification by Non-Analytical Means

Exports of Attic Protogeometric Pottery and Their Identification by Non-Analytical Means Author(s): R. W. V. Catling Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 93 (1998), pp. 365-378 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30103794 Accessed: 03/02/2010 09:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

EXPORTS OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION BY NON-ANALYTICAL MEANS' A FUNDAMENTALrequirement for archaeologists dealing with the masses of pottery generated

by excavation or survey in Greek lands is the existence of secure criteria for classificationand for the attribution of imported categories to their places of manufacture. This capacity has several obvious purposes and applications. For example, it is essential in quantifying the proportion of local and imported wares in any assemblageor in establishingthe distributionof

Permission to study the pottery from Asine in the Nauplion museum was given by the Ephoreia for Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in Nauplion. Thanks are due to the staffs of the ephoreia, in particular Ch. Lanara, and the museum, as well as to the Swedish Institute in Athens for their assistance in carrying out this work. I am also grateful to Dr E. French (former director) and Helen Clark at the British School for obtaining the necessary permit. Information about the Attic material from Isthmia was kindly provided by Dr C. Morgan in advance of its publication. I was able to study the PG material from Corinth with the assistance of N. K. Bookidis; reference to unpublished material is made with the permission of G.D.R. Sanders. The comments of two anonymous referees helped me to avoid some basic errors. Travel grants from the Craven Committee and the Committee for Archaeology (MeyersteinFund) in the University of Oxford made possible much of the researchpresented here. Abbreviations: Artifactand AssemblageC. Runnels, D. J. Pullen, and S. TheFindsfroma Regional Langdon (eds.),ArtifactandAssemblage. and Early Surveyof theSouthern Argolid,Greece,i: The Prehistoric IronAgePotteryandtheLithicArtifacts(Stanford,I995). AsineII, 4:1-3 B. Wells, AsineII. Resultsof the Excavations

IsthmiaVIII C. Morgan, IsthmiaVIII. TheMycenaean Settlement andEary IronAgeSanctuary (Princeton,forthcoming1998). IKNCJ.N. Coldstream and H. W. Catling (eds.), Knossos North Cemetery. Early GreekTombs(BSA Suppl. 28: London, 1996).

Kraiker, AiginaW. Kraiker, Aigina.Die Vasendes ro. bis 7. Jahrhundertsv. Chr.(Berlin, I951)

LandscapeArchaeology J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani, LandscapeArchaeologyas Long-TermHistory: NorthernKeosin the CycladicIslandsfrom EarliestSettlement until ModernTimes(Monumenta 16: Los Angeles, 1991). Archaeologica I M. R. Popham and L. H. Sackett, with P. G. LeJkandi I. The IronAge (BSA Suppl. 11: London, Themelis, LeJkandi 1979-80).

II:i R. W. V. Catling and I. S. Lemos, LefkandiII. LeJkandi The Protogeometric Buildingat Toumba.Part I, The Pottery(BSA Suppl. 22: London, 1990o).

III M. R. Popham with I. S. Lemos, LeJkandi III. LeJkandi TheEarlyIronAgeCemetery at Toumba (BSASuppl. 29: London,

1996).

Part I, The Tombs.Part 2, An Analysisof theSettlement. Part 3, Catalogue ofPotteryandotherArtefacts (Stockholm, 1976-83). BarbounaArea 2 I. and R. Hiagg (eds.), Excavationsin the

Lemos, Regional CharacteristicsI. S. Lemos, Regional Characteristics in the Protogeometric Period (D.Phil. thesis Oxford, 1988). Minotaurand Centaur D. Evely, I. S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt Studiesin theArchaeology (eds.),Minotaurand Centaur. of Creteand EuboeaPresented to MervynPopham(BAR International Series, 638: Oxford, 1996). PGP V R. d'A. Desborough, Protogeometric Pottery(Oxford,

BarbounaArea at Asine, 2. Finds from the Leventis Sector,1970-72

1952).

East of theAcropolis,1970o-1974. Fasc. 4, The Protogeometric Period.

(Uppsala, 1978) BMCV I:I E. J. Forsdyke,Catalogue of the GreekandEtruscan Vasesin the BritishMuseumI. Part I, Prehistoric AegeanPottery (London, 1925).

CGA P. Courbin, La Ciramiqueglomeitriquede l'Argolide (BEFAR,208: Paris, 1966). CorinthVII:I S. S. Weinberg, CorinthVII. Part I, The Geometric andOrientalizing Pottery(Cambridge,Mass., 1943). Fortetsa J. K. Brock, Fortetsa.Early GreekTombsnearKnossos (BSA Suppl. 2: Cambridge, 1957).

GreekCityto RomanColonyL. H. Sackett, Knossos.FromGreek MansionII City to RomanColony.Excavationsat the Unexplored (BSA Suppl. 21: London, 1992).

Roughand RockyPlace C. B. Mee and H. Forbes (eds.), A andSettlement RoughandRockyPlace:TheLandscape Historyof the MethanaPeninsula,Greece.Resultsof the MethanaSurveyProject sponsoredby the British Schoolat Athens and the Universityof Liverpool (Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies: Liverpool, 1997).

TheraII H. Dragendorff, TheraII. Therdische (Berlin, Griiber 1903).

Tiryns I A. Frickenhaus, W. Miller, and F. Oelmann, des InstitutsI (Athens, Tiryns.Die ErgebnissederAusgrabungen

1912).

Geschichte Walter, AginaH. Walter, Agina.Die archiologische einergriechischenInsel (Munich, 1993).

R.W.V. CATLING

366

a particularware; it can help to elucidate the external connections and cultural relations of a particular site, as well as its involvement in commercial activities; and it can determine the place of manufactureof unprovenancedpottery in museum collections, especially where this is disputed or cannot be satisfactorilydecided on stylistic grounds. Traditionally,attributionhas been largely based on stylistic features, usually a combination of shape and decorative treatment. For some of the more conspicuous classes of pottery, such as Protocorinthian and Corinthian, or Attic black and red-figure, such an approach is normally quite adequate. However, in dealing with plain, monochrome, or simply decorated pottery, which in most periods form a large proportion of the ceramics from excavated settlements and surveys, stylistic criteria usually cannot be applied; frequently such categories are neglected or largely ignored. Fabric, combined with surface appearance and paint, becomes the most important diagnostic tool for use on such otherwise intractablematerial. The main purpose of this article is to show how close attention to fabric provides a reliable means of identifying a particular ware, namely Attic Protogeometricfine-ware produced approximatelyfrom the late eleventh to the end of the tenth century. Attic Protogeometric pottery has been analysed and defined in terms of shapes and decorative style in previous studies but little attention has been given to the macroscopic characterizationof its fabric since Kraiker'sbrief account in publishing the Sub-Mycenaean and some of the PG graves in the Kerameikos.2Neither Desborough nor Smithson was much concerned with this aspect.3 Such neglect presumably results from the fact that the Attic PG style is so distinctive that reference to fabric has been considered superfluous,combined with an unstated assumption that the characteristicsof Attic fabric are too well known to require detailed description. While a fabric description is certainly no substitute for the experience gained from handling and examining the pottery itself, it should be an elementary feature in any pottery report or study of a regional style or workshop.Some of the problems arisingfrom this neglect are explored below. Until quite recently the quantity of Attic PG pottery found as imports at sites outside Attica was small, with the one exception of Aigina,4 and confusion over their identificationwas not an important issue. This situation changed with the excavations of the Early Iron Age cemeteries at Lefkandi and Knossos, both of which have yielded substantialamounts of Attic imports, predominantly of the LPG phase.5 In both cases programmes of chemical analysis were undertaken on a range of wares with the aim of discriminating between local and imported pottery. Material of suspected Attic origin was well represented and the results tended to confirm an Attic provenance for the pieces in question.6 At the same time, some archaeologistshave argued that the stylistic distinction between Attic and other regional PG

2 KerameikosI, 51-2, I1o. Kuibler had little to add in publishing the later Geometric and Archaic pottery: Kerameikos VI:2, I43-4. 3 PGP

19a;

Hesp. 30 (1961), 156. The same neglect

also

applies to the study of Attic Geometric pottery. Note the very brief remarks in R. S. Young, Late Geometric Gravesand a SeventhCenturyWell in the Agora(Hesp. Suppl. 2, 1939), 195 and E. T. H. Brann, The Athenian Agora VIII. Late Geometricand Protoattic Pottery (Princeton, 1962),

29.

4 Kraiker,who published the pottery from Aigina, was well equipped to recognize Attic pottery from his experience

gained in the Kerameikos.As already noted, he is one of few to have observed some of its cardinal features. 5 Lefkandi: Lefkandi I, 348-50; BSA 77 (I982), LeJkandiIII, pls 122-4; KNC 393-402.

233-4;

6 R. E. Jones, Greekand CypriotPottery:A Reviewof Scientific

Studies (Athens, 1986), 628-31; D.J. Liddy, 'A Chemical Study

of Decorated Iron Age Pottery from the Knossos North Cemetery' in KNC 465-514. The belly amphora (Toumba T.I4,I) which Desborough was unwilling to classify as Attic I, 350) is shown by chemical analysis to fall within (LeJkandi the Attic cluster. Autopsy shows it to contain the dark red grits diagnostic of Attic fabric.

EXPORTS

OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC

POTTERY

AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION

367

wares is less clear-cut at certain sites than previously thought. Without autopsy or detailed publication it is not always easy to decide whether this ambiguity arises from the misidentification of Attic imports when they occur, or reflects a more complex situation in which close imitations of Attic shapes and decorative conventions were produced side by side with pottery in a more readily identifiable local style. At most sites where Attic imports are found, such as Lefkandi and Knossos, there can be no possibility of such confusion. While Attic influences can be detected there are no imitations so close as to leave any doubt about their correct attribution.However, in several of the Cyclades (principallyNaxos) and at Asine in the Argolis, the coexistence of workshops producing PG pottery in different styles and fabrics has been alleged.7 Such a situation is certainly possible, especially where it can be clearly demonstrated in later periods, but remains rather surprising as early as the tenth century.In cases such as these, fabric is the critical factor in distinguishinga particularclass of pottery from its apparent imitations, especially if visible diagnostic attributes of the fabric exist. Furthermore, as long as these diagnostic criteria are generally accepted and applied, they provide a much simpler and cheaper method of determining the likely place of manufacture than the time-consuming and expensive scientific techniques applied in provenance studies. They have the additional advantage of discriminatingamong large bodies of material, whereas clay analysis, no matter by what technique, can realisticallybe applied only to a sample and is not always a practicableoption. In what follows the distinctivefeaturesof Attic PG fabric are describedand then applied to one of the ambiguous groups already mentioned. Anticipating somewhat its outcome, this experiment suggests that it might be successfullyapplied in distinguishingother wares without having to resortto chemical or petrographicanalysis,though unambiguousdiagnosticattributes cannot always be expected. As such it makes a strong argumentfor the treatmentof the visual features of fabric in a more systematic fashion than is often the case in studies of Aegean ceramics.8At the very least a general account is required,describingthe range of variabilityin the visible featuresof the clay matrix and the slips and paints that cover its surfaces,using where possible standardsfor variablessuch as colour and hardnessthat allow comparisonsto be made between pottery from differentsites. Detailed fabric descriptionsof individualpots or sherdsare generally of little use unless related to well-defined fabric groups. Such a procedure may be regardedas superfluouswhen dealing with some of the more distinctiveclasses of pottery,but it is essentialin the studyof the less diagnosticplain and painted wares. THE

FABRIC

OF ATTIC

PROTOGEOMETRIC

POTTERY

I have attempted to describe the characteristicfeatures of Attic PG wheelmade fabric in other contexts,9but it is worth giving a rather fuller account here.'0Attic PG pottery is made from fine, well-levigated clay, with a rather granular or sandy texture. Except in the largest

7 Naxos: V Lambrinoudakisin Les Cyclades. Matiriauxpour uneitudedeglographie historique (Paris, 1983) 166; N. Kourou in AncientGreekand RelatedPottery:Proceedings of the International VaseSymposium in Amsterdam, I2-I15April1984 (Allard Pierson Series, 5: Amsterdam, 1984) Io8, iiI and in F. Blondh andJ. Y. Perrault (eds.), Les Ateliersde potiersdans le mondegrecaux et classique(BCH Suppl., 23: Paris, archaique ipoquesghomitrique, 1992), I3I-3. For Asine see the following section.

8 Courbin gives an excellent account of the fabric of Argive EIA wares: CGA181-7, 283-8, 454-61. 9 BSA85 (1990),37; LeJkandi II:I, 86-7. ,o The standards employed here are those used in describing the fabric of Lefkandian PG pottery: LeJkandi II:I, 9. Stricter standardscould certainly be adopted, particularly in measuring the hardnessof the fired clay.

R.W.V. CATLING

368

examples, it fires evenly, usually medium-hard, and, unlike Lefkandian for example, in a narrow range of colours, from pale buff to light brown, sometimes with a pinkish tinge (Munsell 5YR7/6, 7.5YR 6-8/4-6, IOYR7/4, 8/4-6). Most distinctive and common to every example I have been able to examine are the dark red or brown inclusions, often very numerous." Their size varies from small to large, as angular grits and as flat, platey, or tabular fragments. They are frequently visible on the surface, even when painted. By their presence alone Attic PG pottery is easily recognized. Very fine mica is usually present, less often small calcareous inclusions and quartz; tiny, soft whitish and reddish specks with indistinct edges are also common. Spalling is frequent. The surface of the pot usually has a pale brown self-slip, sometimes with a polished appearance. Decoration is in evenly applied but poorly adhering lustrous black paint, sometimes with a metallic sheen. There is little colour variation resulting from uneven firing conditions and fire flashing; occasionally, patches of decoration are an oxidized reddish brown. Where the paint is fugitive, a greyish green shadow, blotched with pink, remains. Thinned paint is also used (particularly for wavy lines).

This description is applicable only to Attic PG pottery but it is worth observing that the characteristic dark red to brown inclusions continue to be found in Attic Geometric and at least some Archaic fine wares as late as the early sixth century. Without a more thorough

investigationit cannot be stated if they are present in all Geometric and early Archaic Attic pottery.' Although analysis has shown that the chemical composition of Attic pottery alters during the first half of the first millennium BC,'3the presence of the same inclusions indicates a measure of continuity in Attic ceramic technology during this period. The changes in chemical composition may be of minor significance and can be explained without recourse to major changes in the local potting tradition. If a critical moment of change is sought, it appears to occur with the appearance of the mature black-figured styles of the early sixth century. ATTIC

PROTOGEOMETRIC

IMPORTS

AT ASINE

IN THE ARGOLIS

In publishing the finds from the Protogeometric settlement horizons located east of the acropolis of Asine, Berit Wells identified as local products a large number of sherds with strong Attic affinities. While a few of these were admitted as possible imports, the common ancestry of Attic and Argive PG was thought to account for the resemblances.'4 However, to anyone familiar with Attic PG, this material appears from the illustrations to be stylistically indistinguishable from Attic pottery.'5 Unfortunately, the fabric of these sherds was at no point taken into consideration. The principal difficulty arising from Wells' identification is the assumed coexistence of two distinct local pottery styles at Asine, if not throughout the Argolis;

I, 51) noted these inclusions and " Kraiker (Kerameikos identified them as grog, though this has yet to be substantiated.They have also been noted by Coldstream in his brief remarkson the fabric of Attic PG and G imports in the North Cemetery at Knossos: KNC471. 12

Kraiker

(Kerameikos I, 51-2) noted

their continued

presence in Attic Geometric and Archaic pottery, excepting only the Middle Geometric phase. '3 'Neutron-Activation Study of Figurines, Pottery, and

WorkshopMaterials from the Athenian Agora, Greece', JFA (1983),55-69. The authors of this article pay no attention Io the visual characteristicsof the materials they analyse. to '4 AsineII, 4:2, 61 suggeststhat nos. 258-9 might be imports; p. 36 on common ancestry,pp. 120-3 on Attic influences. '5 It should be emphasized that my disagreement with Wells's interpretation is made possible by her exemplary publication of the pottery, which remains one of the few to deal with an EIA settlement assemblage.

EXPORTS

OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC

POTTERY

AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION

369

one resembling Attic, the other of local Argive origin showing little trace of Attic influence. Even though such a situation is conceivable, it is nevertheless curious. As such it seemed an ideal test case to evaluate the utility of fabric for the recognition of Attic PG exports and, more generally, the potential of using macroscopic characteristics to discriminate between wares of differentorigin.'6In 1990 I was able to examine a large number of the sherds of Attic style and to compare their fabric with those of clearlyArgive style. The resultswere clear-cut. Almost every sherd which had appeared from the illustrationsto be of Attic style is of the fabric described above for Attic PG, from which those of Argive style are easily distinguished.'7The presence or absence of the reddish inclusions is the single most diagnostic criterion. Those pieces identified as Attic are listed below, though it should be emphasized that this list is incomplete, as it was not possible to examine all the suspectedAttic imports in the time available. The numbers are those of Wells'scatalogue in AsineII, 4:3; the pottery from the old tombs is republishedas an appendix (pp. 283-8) to the same volume. Amphoras: 1-8, 11-13, 16, 18-20, 582 Oinochoes: 29-30, 32? Small Closed: 603

Craters:75-6, 608-9 Skyphoid craters: 99-1oo, Io9 Skyphoi:243, 245, 247, 251, 253-4, 258-61, 611ii?,652, 656

Cups: 363, 365? Other pieces not seen may be listed as suspectedimports: Skyphoid craters:83, 785, 795 Skyphoi: 240o-1, 651, 653 Cup: 361

One other likely Attic LPG import was found in the Barbouna area east of the acropolis. Skyphoid crater: BarbounaArea 2, 107 no. 59, figs. Ioo, lo2

Other Attic imports occur in the Asine cemetery, though these could only be viewed in the exhibition cases in the Nauplion museum. Jugs: Tomb PG 26 (Inv. 4226), Tomb 1970-15 (Inv. 70-4I)I8 Cups: Tomb PG 18 (Inv. 10381), Tomb PG 26 (Inv. 10380)

'6 The same criteria had previously been used to good effect in quantifying the Attic imports in the fill of the PG building at Toumba, Lefkandi (LeJkandi II:I, 89, I59 table i5) and in establishing the Attic origin of three pots in the museum of the British School at Athens, previously attributed to Corinth by Desborough on stylistic grounds (BSA85 (1990),38 nos. 5-7, 43-4). '7 The fabric of the Asine PG fine-wares seems typically to consist of well-levigated light brown clay, sometimes with a

reddish tinge, containing small to large white rounded inclusions. The paint varies in colour from black to brown to red, often crackled and with a streaky appearance. Sometimes the paint is fugitive. Many pieces have a metallic sheen. Courbin (CGA459) describes two types of fabric among the Geometric pottery from Asine, neither correspondingvery closely to ours. '~8Not seen by me. Published in AsineII, 4:i, I8, figs 23 and 33 d; the fabric appears from the descriptionto be Attic.

R.W.V. CATLING

370

Six of the sherds identified above as Attic were included by Wells in a small programme of analyses primarily concerned with technological matters.'9 Three (12, 363, 6o3), together with one typically Argive skyphos sherd (125), were attributed to a group (aI) tentatively suggested to comprise Attic imports.20 The others (8, 258, 259) were assigned to three other groups (aIII, aV, aVII). At first sight these results inspire little confidence in the identifications made above,

but there are good grounds for doubting their value in distinguishing provenance groups. Only two of the five methods employed (petrographic microscopy and chemical analysis) might be expected to differentiate between local and imported wares; the other three concern appearance and firing techniques."' However, petrographic analysis focused on technological matters, while chemical analysis was limited to measuring the calcium and iron contents. As a result the distinctions between the eight groups of fine wares are slight and largely determined by technical rather than compositional considerations. These analyses provide no basis for

distinguishingbetween local products and imports and it is unacceptable to argue from them that local manufacture is indicated, if not proven, for 259.22 If these conclusions are accepted, not only does the problem of the two ceramic styles

coexisting at Asine disappear but it also emerges that Attic PG pottery was imported in substantial quantities at Asine, perhaps in amounts similar to Lefkandi and Knossos. A wide range of shapes is represented, with a surprising proportion of large pots, both belly- and neckhandled amphoras, craters, and skyphoid craters (equivalent to Lefkandian crater-bowls). It is likely that they were imported in their own right as tableware whose high-quality potting and decoration were apparently as much appreciated then as now. Here, as at Lefkandi and Knossos, Attic imports easily outnumber the other suspected imports of uncertain origin. THE DISTRIBUTION

OF EXPORTED ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

Considering that the late eleventh and tenth centuries are conventionally regarded as an era when the Aegean was still afflicted by isolation and impoverishment, surprisingly little attention has been given to the evidence and significance of the export and import of pottery, a commodity of comparatively low value. There is an apparent assumption that trade was almost exclusively concerned with the acquisition of metals and luxury goods. A brief survey of the evidence for exports of Attic PG pottery alone indicates that such an assumption cannot be sustained.3 Whether or not these exchanges were conducted within the framework of the trade in metals and luxury items, it is legitimate to speculate that other perishable, low-value goods and commodities were also included.24 Before proceeding, it should be acknowledged that the export of Attic PG pottery is only the beginning of a longer story, which ideally should be followed over the ninth and eighth centuries, and that the division between the Protogeometric and Geometric periods is artificial in historical terms. Nevertheless, the restricted survey that follows is not without value in establishing the pattern of distribution that was built upon and developed in the following centuries.

'9AsineII, 4:2, 137-48. 2oIbid. 137-45. 2 Ibid. I37. No control groups were used for comparative purposes, furtherundermining the value of the results. 22 Ibid. 61. 23 Imports of Attic pottery at Knossos and Lefkandi from

the ioth to the 8th cent. are the subject of a study by J. N. Coldstream in MinotaurandCentaur,133-45. 24 See my comments

ibid. 129-30;

also Studia Troica, 8

(1998), forthcoming, concerning the PG amphoras circulating in central Greece and the northern Aegean, apparentlyused for the transportof bulk commodities.

EXPORTS

OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC

POTTERY

AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION

371

Such a survey reveals an interesting pattern in the distribution of exported Attic PG

pottery (see FIG. I). Generally, it is concentrated in the southern Aegean, with only a few outliers in central Greece and a single example in the northeast Aegean (Lesbos).25 With one exception (Vranezi in Boiotia), it is restricted to sites located on the coast or only just inland; the penetration of imported ceramics to inland sites was naturally restricted by the practical difficulties and expense of conveying such a fragile commodity over long distances by land. Notable concentrations of Attic imports occur at four, maybe five sites; Lefkandi, Kolona on Aigina, Asine and Knossos, and perhaps Grotta on Naxos. The fact that three of these (Lefkandi, Asine, and Knossos) are among the most thoroughly published EIA sites in the

Aegean, and the lack of quantifiable data for most other sites, makes it difficult to evaluate their significance. It poses the question whether this merely corresponds to our state of knowledge or is a true reflection of a past reality. My own impression is that the existing data provide a fairly reliable picture in outline but subject to considerable refinement in detail. Future publications and new discoveries will almost certainly add other sites to the four or five listed above. Negative evidence tends to confirm that Attic pottery was exported principally within the southern Aegean. It is absent from the published material at sites in central and northern Greece, notably Kalapodi in Phokis (an inland site) and Iolkos on the Pagasitic Gulf, as well as such richly furnished Thessalian cemeteries as Kapakli, Marmariani, and Velestino (ancient Pherai). It is found neither among the abundant material from uncontrolled excavation of the EIA cemeteries on Skyros,'6 nor, more surprisingly, at Chalkis from where a substantial amount of EIA pottery has now been reported. Its absence may also be noted among the well-published cemeteries of Kos and at the settlement of Nichoria in Messenia. Simultaneously, the material available from such unpublished sites as Argos, Tiryns, and Corinth suggests that in future they too will be recognized as having concentrations of Attic imports, comparable to Asine, if not Lefkandi and Knossos. Observing this distribution pattern is much easier than explaining the mechanisms and

contexts of the underlying exchanges and identifying the agents involved. In all likelihood it has no single or simple explanation but is the result of the activities of a variety of people operating in diverse contexts. There can be no simplistic assumption that direct links are

implied between Athens and the find-spots of Attic pottery, if a role is allowed for commercial entrepreneurs in the EIA, whether Greek, Cypriot, or Phoenician. Nevertheless, some suggestions may be ventured which at least might serve as hypotheses to be tested in future research. Beginning at Lefkandi, the only site north of Attica with an abundance of Attic imports, geographical proximity by itself does not provide a satisfactory explanation; their apparent absence at Chalkis suggests that other factors were more influential. Greater importance should probably be attached to Lefkandi's role as a centre of commerce, with links in central Greece (the so-called Thessalo-Euboian region) and the north and south Aegean, as well as in

25 It should be noted that chemical analysis indicates an Attic origin for one of the Sub-Mycenaean pots from Torone in Chalkidike:OJA15 (1996), I54-7 no. 5, fig. 6. 26 The one exception may be a LPG jug or large lekythos in the Goulandris museum, possibly of Attic manufacture.

There seems to be some doubt over its provenance: either Crete (Goulandris Collection, 191 no. 42) or Skyros (AncientGreek Art, 57, no. 57). Its fabric is considered to be Euboian and a likely import to Skyros from Lefkandi by I. Lemos in MinotaurandCentaur, I24 no. 5-

372

R.W.V. CATLING

the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus and Phoenicia).27 Not only would the local afflmuentdlite have provided a demand for high-quality Attic tablewares, but Lefkandi itself may have served the surrounding regions, including Attica, as a market for the exchange of goods deriving from these more distant parts. However, if Lefkandi did serve such a function, the conspicuous absence of Attic imports elsewhere in the Thessalo-Euboian region shows that it was not a channel for the distribution of Attic pottery there or elsewhere in the northern Aegean. As a corollary, it rather weakens any suggestion that Euboians might have been responsible for the distribution of Attic pottery in the southern Aegean, especially Crete.28 On Aigina, Attic pottery seems to have been the dominant ware, to the point that it must be doubtful if there was any production of fine PG tablewares on the island. Geographical proximity in this case is a more persuasive explanation and in the following centuries Aigina continued to rely on imports for the bulk of its fine wares.29 This concentration can be

dismissed in these terms, but it could be taken as an indicator that Aigina was already commercially active, perhaps functioning as a market within a more localized trading network than Lefkandi.so Archaeologically, Aiginetan trading activities are hard to identify even in the Archaic and early Classical periods when their commercial eminence is well attested. Beyond Aigina, Attic PG wares reached other coastal sites bordering the Saronic Gulf (Magoula on Methana), including the cult-place at Isthmia. Here the majority of Attic imports are reported to be cups and skyphoi, vessels appropriate for libations and feasting, though the commercial activities that may have accompanied the festivals at such important sanctuaries should not be overlooked. Isthmia is naturally associated with Corinth, whose links with regions bordering the Gulf of Corinth and, further afield, with northwest Greece and south Italy in the ninth and eighth centuries were perhaps already being forged. The Attic material which found its way to Delphi and perhaps Medeon could have been mediated by Corinthian hands.3s'The one Attic import to inland Boiotia (Vranezi) is more likely to have resulted from casual overland trade in perishable goods between the Kopaic region and Athens. The distribution of Attic pottery around the Saronic Gulf and its concentration on Aigina is likely to be connected with a similar distribution at maritime sites around the Argolic Gulf; at Sambariza in the southern Argolis, Asine, Tiryns and Argos (but none reaching as far inland as Mykenai). If Athenians or Argives were not directly involved in these exchanges, it is tempting to invoke the agency of the Aiginetans, especially as at least one imported Argive cup has been found there.32 It may also represent the continuity of relations between the two regions from the Late Bronze Age, especially during the twelfth and eleventh centuries. As already suggested, the concentration of Attic pottery at Asine, the only well-published EIA site in the Argolis, may turn out to be typical of other sites in the region, most importantly Argos.

The evidence for this role is summarized by M. R. Popham in G. R. Tsetskhladzeand E De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeologyof GreekColonization.Essays dedicatedto Sir John Boardman(Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 40. Oxford, 994), 11-34. While some of his assertions are open to criticism (cf. J. K. Papadopoulos in OJA 15 (1996), 151-81, esp. I52-9), the concentration of luxury goods from the eastern Mediterranean at Lefkandi is rightly emphasized. 28 Coldstream(n. 23), p. 142, considersthis possibilityin the context of Attic MG exports to the eastern Mediterranean. 27

29See S. P. Morris, The Black and WhiteStyle.Athensand Period(Yale Classical Monographs, 6: Aiginain theOrientalizing New Haven and London, 1984) 20-3. 30 For the nature and extent of Aiginetan commerce see Morris (n. 29) 92-1o3 and T.J. Figueira, Aegina.Societyand Politics(Salem, NH, 1981)230-86. 3'Corinthian contacts may have extended as far as Ithaka in the Ioth cent. An imported PG lekythos (most likely Attic or north-east Peloponnesian) shows that the region was not completely isolated from the Aegean: PGP 277, pl. 37, 84. 32 Kraiker, Aigina 25 no. 24, pl.

1.

EXPORTS

OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC

POTTERY

AND THEIR

IDENTIFICATION

373

If the Attic exports in the Saronic and Argolic Gulfs are rightly connected, with Aigina perhaps having a pivotal role in their distribution, there is nothing to suggest that this trade network extended any further. At present the long and inhospitable coast of the eastern Peloponnese, between the bay of Astros and Cape Malea, shows no sign of occupation in the PG period. Maritime traffic continuing beyond the southern Argolis is likely to have passed

through the Cyclades rather than along this notoriously difficultcoastline, particularlyif Crete and points further east were the final destination. The trade network serving the Saronic and Argolic Gulfs appears to have been more restricted in scope, with few signs of any involvement in the systems connecting the central Aegean with the eastern Mediterranean or, for that matter, with the northern Aegean. The temptation to see in these connections some sort of manifestation of the obscure Kalaurian amphictyony, uniting Athens, Aigina, Epidauros, Hermione, Nauplia, Prasiai and Boiotian Orchomenos in the cult of Poseidon on Kalauria, is hard to resist but, at present, impossible to substantiate.33 The Attic exports in the Cyclades are unlikely to be susceptible to a single explanation and until much fuller information becomes available, their quantity anyway remains uncertain. Geographical proximity is likely to be the reason for their occurrence on Keos, an island whose history has repeatedly been affected by this very factor. Athens' traditional role as metropolis of the Ionian Cyclades might be invoked for their presence on other islands. While

the occurrence of Attic imports on Ionian Samos might be used to substantiatesuch an idea, it fails to account for their presence on the Dorian islands of Melos and Thera. If the Panionian festivals on Delos were in existence as early as the tenth century, they might have provided the occasion for the dissemination of Attic pottery, along with the exchange of other goods. Alternatively or in parallel, they are explicable in terms of a trade route connecting Attica with Crete, among other things accounting for their presence on Melos and Thera. Whether or not they should be associated with the much smaller quantity of Euboian PG exports found in the Cyclades (Delos, Naxos, and Amorgos) and on Crete remains an open question. On Crete the focus for contact with the outside world was Knossos, where the vast proportion of imports in the PG period are concentrated. Connections with the eastern Mediterranean are apparent throughout the eleventh and tenth centuries, with eastern luxury objects occurring from the late tenth century, but the active participants in these maritime exchanges are less likely to have been Cretans than Cypriots or Phoenicians. Its strategic location on the most direct sea-route between the east and west Mediterranean may have caused Knossos, which perhaps enjoyed particularly close relations with these eastern traders, to develop as a market for goods (primarily metals and luxury items) from more distant regions, attracting in the process traders and goods from the central Aegean. In this case the abundance of Attic imports could be explained in terms similar to those suggested for Lefkandi. The small quantity of Euboian PG material at Knossos may be an inaccurate measure of the importance that Crete had for the Euboians in the procurement of these materials,34 though other evidence from Cyprus and Tyre suggests that they may also have supplied themselves by more direct means.

33 See Figueira (n. 30) 185-8. An early date for this association of cities has often been proposed; see R. M. Cook in PCPhS,n.s. 8 (1962), 21; GGP343; A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece(Edinburgh, 197I), 402.

34 Newly published finds suggest that the quantity of Euboian PG imports may previously have been underestimated: KNC II, 403; BSA 92 (i997), 235.

R.W.V.CATLING

374

Attic PG easily outnumbers the exports of pottery from any other region of the Aegean. The reason appears to be that Attic pottery was valued in its own right as high-quality tableware, appreciatedfor its technical excellence in potting and decoration. Small quantities of Attic pottery may have been carried as part of the mixed cargoes which probably typified EIA commercial practice, as a commodity for which there was a known and dependable market. The majority of these exports (notably at Knossos) can be attributed to the LPG phase (c.950-900), though significant numbers reached Lefkandi, Aigina and Asine earlier. The wide range of exported shapes, both large and small, and the variety of contexts (domestic, mortuary, religious) in which they occur are also noteworthy. By comparison, exports of Euboian pottery are uncommon35but more widespread, although other evidence indicates that Euboians took an active part in commerce. How Athens might have gained from these exchanges is not clear. The rarity of imported luxury objects in Attic PG contexts and the absence of a reciprocaltrade in ceramics may indicate that metals were their primary interest. It should be admitted that the underlying assumption in the preceding discussion has been that these exports are the consequence primarilyof commercial rather than social, colonial or even military activities. Non-commercial contexts may account for some of the more spectacularitems (e.g. the massive belly amphora from the PG building at Toumba36),possibly acquired through gift-exchange, and the 'sets' of Attic pottery (notably Lefkandi, Palia PerivoliaT.22 and Knossos, Tekke Tomb J), perhaps the property of Athenian immigrants or brides. However, these are likely to be special cases. While Attic imports tend to occur in clusters in mortuary contexts at Lefkandi and Knossos, perhaps associated with the burial of dlite members of the community, the same cannot be demonstrated for settlements. At the majority of sites, including Asine, too little of the settlements have been uncovered for spatial patterns to emerge. At Lefkandi, Attic imports are present in the fill of the great building at Toumba (an dlite context if ever there was one), but apparently absent from the very limited LPG horizons at Xeropolis. On Aigina and especially at Knossos (see below), they appear to be much more widely distributedin ordinary domestic contexts. When combined with their relative abundance and mostly utilitarian character,commerce suggests itself as the sim'plest explanation for their dissemination. A plea may be added as a postscript to this survey for closer attention on the part of excavators to the classification and quantification of the constituent wares in their ceramic assemblages,without which furtherprogressin the comprehension of the nature, intensity and geographical extent of EIA Aegean trade and the identity of its participants will not be possible. LIST

OF ATTIC

PROTOGEOMETRIC

EXPORTS

(FIG.

I)

The list that follows includes all the Attic exports of the Protogeometric period known to me, published and unpublished. Its principal shortcoming is that I have only been able to see a small proportion (from Lefkandi, Corinth and Asine, plus some exhibited pieces from Aigina, Argos and Keos). For the remainder I have had to rely on attributions by others or

35 Except on Skyros, where it is the predominant ware: OJA5 (1986),323-37.

36LeJkandi II:I, 88 no. 898.

EXPORTS

OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC

POTTERY

AND THEIR

IDENTIFICATION

375

OF DISTRIBUTION ATTICPROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERYEXPORTS

LESBOS

Ynjezi

Delphi

Lefkandi

'Medeo'i

EUBOIA Otogor

Athenw Corinth

Isthmiad AIGINA

Tiryngos Argos ert~sina

SAMOS KEgS

)Magoula LSimbariz

-ELOS PAROSJ

INAXOS SIPHNOS "AMORGOS MELOS

THERA

Knossos Kanli Kastelli CRETE

FIG. I Distribution of Attic Protogeometric pottery exports.

on stylistic criteria. It does not include the finds of Attic PG pottery at sites within the confines of Classical Attica, such as Eleusis and Thorikos. In the list is a number whose Attic origin is suspected but cannot be confirmed without reference to the fabric of the objects themselves; they have been marked as 'Attic?' This list is unlikely to be complete. Not only will some examples have escaped my notice but many others must be assumed to exist among the quantities of unpublished pottery from sites such as Argos, Tiryns, and Grotta on Naxos.

R.W.V.CATLING

376 SARONIC GULF

Aigina Kolona (Settlement, Sanctuary?and Tombs). Cups: Gr. II. Kraiker,Aigina23, no. 10, pl. I. MPG. Tomb. Walter,A'gina37 fig. 28. LPG. Sanctuary?Kraiker,Aigina24, no. 22. Well. BCH 112(1988)625, fig. 19. LPG. Skyphoi:Settlement.AD 25 (1970)Chron. I37, pl. I06e. Well. BCH

112

(1988) 625, fig. 19. LPG.

Sanctuary?--many fragments. Kraiker, Aigina 24, no. 20. Krateriskos:Sanctuary?Kraiker,Aigina24, no. 20. Craters: Settlement. Kraiker,Aigina24, nos. 16-17, pl. B. Settlement. AD 25 (1970)Chron. I37, pl. I06 d. Sanctuary?Kraiker,Aigina24, nos. 13-15. Belly Amphora: Settlement. Kraiker,Aigina23, no. I, pl. 3. MPG.

Amphoras: Settlement. Kraiker,Aigina23, no. 2. Sanctuary?14 sherds. Kraiker,Aigina23, no. 3. Jugs: Gr. I. Kraiker,Aigina23, nos. 7-8, pl. 1.MPG. Gr. II. Kraiker,Aigina24, no. 9, pl. 1.MPG. Tomb. Walter,Agina37 fig. 28. LPG. Settlement. Kraiker,Aigina23-4, nos. 4-5, 11-12. Sanctuary?2 sherds. Kraiker,Aigina23, no. 6. Well. BCH 112 (1988), 625, fig. 19. LPG. Lekythos:Tomb. Walter,Agina37 fig. 28. LPG. Aphaia (Sanctuary) Cup: A. Furtwangler,Aegina:Das HeiligtumderAphaia, pl. 125,47Methana Magoula (Settlement) Belly Amphora:RoughandRockyPlace57, fig. 11.53,3.

EUBOIA LeJkandi (Settlement and Cemeteries) Cups: Toumba T.39,I4,I6. BSA 77 (1982) 218, 233-4, III, pls 41, I22 d. LPG. pl. 18 = LeJkandi Toumba T.54,2. LeJkandi III, pls. 60, 122e.LPG. Toumba PG Building 894, 896-7. LefkandiII:I, 134, pls. 43, 50; 138 no. 6, pl. 81 a; 159 table 15. MPG. Skyphoi: Toumba T.39,Io,I7,19.

BSA 77 (1982) 218,

I, pls 41, 122 b. LPG. 235, pls. 18, 29 = LeJkandi Toumba PG Building 882-93, 895. LefkandiII:I, 134, pls. 43, 50; 138 no. II, pl. 81 a; 141 no. 3, pl. 8Ib; 159 table 15. MPG. Kantharoi: Toumba T.54,5-6. Lejfkandi III, pls 60, 122 a. LPG. Toumba Pyre 2,3. LeJkandi I, 349, pl. I90. LPG/EG. Kalathoi: Palia PerivoliaT.22, 24-5. LeJkandi I, pls 139, 212 a. LPG. Toumba T.57,2.LeJkandi III, pls 63, 123 d. LPG. Pyxides: Palia Perivolia T.22,2o-I. LejkandiI, 349, pls. 139, 212 a, 271 a. LPG. Toumba T.39,4. BSA77 (1982), 218, 235, fig. 7, pl. 18 = LeJkandi I, pls 41, lo9. LPG. Toumba T.46,8. Lejfkandi III, pl. 52. LPG. Toumba III, pl. 65. LPG. Lejkandi T.59,I7. Toumba T.63,8. LeJkandi III, pl. 68. LPG. Toumba Pyre 2,4. LeJkandi I, 349, pl. 190. LPG/EG.

Belly Amphoras: Toumba T.I4,I. LefkandiI, pls 175, 260 a. LPG. Toumba PG Building 898. LeJkandi II:1, 135, pls 44, 80. MPG. Neck Amphora: Toumba T.48,7. LeJkandi III, pls 55, 124 b. LPG. Large Closed Shapes: Toumba PG Building 900-2. LeJkandi II:I, 135,pl. 43; 159 table 15. EPG-MPG. Oinochoes: Palia PerivoliaT.22,7,9. LeJkandi I, 349-50, pls 138, 140, 212 b, 271 c. LPG. Toumba T.48,8. LeJkandi III, pl. 55. LPG. Toumba T.55,2. Lefkandi III, pls 61, I24 a. LPG/EG. Toumba PG Building 899. LeJkandi II:I, 135, pl. 43. MPG. I, 350, pls 140, 212 Jug: Palia Perivolia T.22,5. LeJkandi b. LPG. I, 348, Amphoriskoi:Palia Perivolia T.22,I-3. LeJkandi pls 137,212 b, 27I b. LPG. Toumba Pyre 19,1.LeJkandi III, pls 89, 123 a. LPG. Medium Closed Shapes: Toumba PG Building. II:I, 159 table 15. MPG. LeJkandi III, pl. 69. LPG. Lekythoi:Toumba T.64,I. Lejkandi I, 349, Spherical Vase: Palia PerivoliaT.22,23. LeJkandi pls 137,212 b. LPG. Chest: Palia Perivolia T.22,4. LeJkandi I, 348, pls 137, 212a, 271 d. LPG.

BOIOTIA Oropos(Settlement) Skyphos:Unpublished. Lecture on new excavationsat Skala Oropou by A. Mazarakis-Ainianat Institute of Archaeology,London, I May 1997.LPG?

VraneziKopaidos(Tomb) Cup: AE 1985, 6i no. 5, fig. I, pl. 11. LPG.

EXPORTS OF ATTIC PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION

377

PHOKIS Delphi (Sanctuary) Skyphos:FouillesdeDelphesV, 137no. 25, fig. 516.

Medeon(Tomb) Oinochoe: C. Vatin, MidiondePhocide62, fig. 58. LPG (Attic?).

KORINTHIA Corinth(Settlement and Tombs) Skyphoi:C-69-I88, C-75-280, C-98-12 (unpublished) Crater:C-94-92 (unpublished).(Attic?) Oinochoes: Hesp.39 (I970) 17 no. 19 with n. 22. LPG. C-68-57 (unpublished)

Isthmia(Sanctuary) Cups: Hesp.61 (1992) 21 no. 6, pl. 8b. ?LPG.

IsthmiaVIII nos. 216-1I7,219 (IP 102I, 3360, 7935) plus many uncatalogued. LPG. Skyphoi:Hesp.61 (1992)22 no. 13, pl. 9 c. ?LPG. IsthmiaVIII no. 222 (IP 3059) plus uncatalogued examples. LPG. Crater:IsthmiaVIII no. 227 (IP 7932). LPG/EGI. Pyxis:IsthmiaVIII no. 208 (IP 3075). LPG. VIII no. 210(IP7452).LPG(Attic?). Neck-amphora: Isthmia Closed: IsthmiaVIII no. 209 (IP 7919).

ARGOLIS Argos Cups: Tomb. BCH78 (1954),177,fig. 34. Skyphoi:BCH 95 (I97i), 748, figs. 19-20. ?LPG. Oinochoe:T.I4/i, Inv.C.54. CGA66-7, pl. 148.LPG/EG.

Kantharos:Tomb. TirynsI, 153n. I, fig. 15.LPG (Attic?). Belly Amphora: Tomb Gr.1974/3. Lemos, Regional Characteristics, 214, pl. 22, 7. EPG. Oinochoe:Settlement.AAA7 (1974),22,fig.12. LPG(Attic?).

Tiryns(Settlement and Cemetery) Cups: Settlement. AA 1988, 242, fig. 6, 12. Tomb 8b. TirynsI, 152;cf. PGP ioi. Tomb. U. Jantzen, FiihrerdurchTiryns,156, fig. 65. Skyphoi: Settlement. BMCV I (I) 218 no. AII26, fig. 308. ?MPG. Tomb. TirynsI,152,pl. 16, 9. LPG (Attic?).

Asine (Settlement and Cemetery) See above Sambariza(Settlement) Cups: ArtifactandAssemblage, 207 no. 1028, figs. 52, 130. Skyphoi: Artifact and Assemblage, 206 nos. i1oi6, 1020, figs. 52, 130.

CYCLADES Keos Agia Eirene (Sanctuary). Cups: Hesp.33 (1964),333, pl. 63 c. ?LPG. Skyphoi:Hesp.33 (1964),333, pl. 63 a. MPG. Hesp.33 (I964), 333, pl. 63 b; Hesp.50 (1981),324, pl. 79 c. LPG. Ag. Ioannis Prodromos(Settlement). Skyphos:Landscape Archaeology, 95 no. 29-6, fig. 5.3; 245.

Siphnos

Skyphos:Unpublished surfacesherd. Unprovenanced (Tomb?). Krateriskos:CVAWiirzburgI, 11-12, pl. 4. LPG. Delos (Sanctuary and Cemetery) Skyphoi: Sanctuary? H. Gallet de Santerre, Dilos primitiveet archai'que, 209-16, pl. 29, 67 (2 upper sherds).(Attic?). Belly Amphora: Tomb. Dilos XVII, 49 no. 9, pl. 36.

Kastro (Settlement). Cup: BSA44 (i949), 42 no. 6, pl. 14, 2. Krateriskoi:BSA 44 (1949),40 nos. 2-3, pls. 12, 11; 13, 7-8. LPG.

Paros

Agios Andreas (Settlement). Krateriskos:PAEI980, 287, pl. 172'.LPG.

Koukounaries(Settlement). Flat-based Cup: PAE1979, 247, pl. i5i a. LPG/EG. Skyphoi:PAE1978, 202, pl. 140 b. LPG. PAE1979, 247, pl. 151a. LPG. Crater:PAEI979, 247, pl. I5I a. LPG (Attic?).

Melos ProphitisElias (Settlement/Sanctuary).

Paroikia(Settlement). Cup: AM 42-3 (1917-18),74. (Attic?). Skyphos:AM 42-3 (I917-18),75-6, fig. 83.

R.W.V. CATLING

378

Naxos Grotta-Aplomata(Settlement and Cemetery). Cups: Settlement.AA 1972,387, fig. 37, 67. Settlement? Lemos, RegionalCharacteristics ,130, pl. 61, 3-5. Skyphoi: Settlement. PAE1983, 304, pl. 2o00a. LPG. Settlement?Lemos,Regional 146,pl. 66. 4. Characteristics, Tombs. ASAA,n.s. 45 (1983), 123, figs. 7-9. LPG. Krateriskoi:Tomb.ASAAn.s. 45 (1983),123,fig. 9. LPG. Crater:Settlement?PAE'982, 255, pl. 158 /3. (Attic?). Belly Amphora: Tomb. ASAAn.s. 45 (1983), 121,fig. 3. ?MPG. Oinochoes: Tomb. PAE 1960, 259, pl. 195j. LPG (Attic?). Tomb. PAE1963, 154,pl. 136a. LPG (Attic?).

Tomb. PAE1984, 334, pl. I75P. LPG (Attic?). Jug: Tomb. PAEI984, 334, pl. 1757.LPG (Attic?). Lekythos:Unprovenanced. PGP75. (Attic?). Tomb. PAE1971,174,pl. 207 y MPG (Attic?). Medium Closed: Cemetery. ASAA,n.s. 45 (1983) III, fig. 7 top right. (Attic?). Amorgos Minoa (Settlement). Skyphos:PAEI988, I65-6, pl. I53. Thera(Cemetery) Krateriskos: TheraII, 30, fig. 81. LPG (LG burial in 8th-6th century tomb).

CRETE Knossos(Settlement and Cemeteries) Cups: Tekke T.J, 27, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44-5, 51, 54. KNC II, 401, fig. 66, pl. 66. LPG. Flat-based Cups: Tekke T.J, 28-30, 32-3, 39, 41, 43, 47-9. KNCII, 401, fig. 65, pls 65-6. LPG. Skyphoi:Settlement.BSA67 (1972)76 nos. 42, 45, pl. 19. Settlement. GreekCity to RomanColony43 nos. GB 43-4, pl. 61. LPG. Settlement. BSA 92 (1997)204 nos. A31-2, fig. 6, pl. 34f 208, nos. B44-7, pl. 36 b; no. C2o, pl. 36f FortetsaT.VI,58. Fortetsa13, pl. 7. LPG. FortetsaT.XI,I87. Fortetsa 21, pl. 12. LPG. TekkeTJ,15,22,50.KNCII, 400oo, fig.66, pls 64-6. LPG. North Cemetery T.2o7,6. IKNC II, 400, pl. 184. LPG. North CemeteryT.219,85.KNCII, 400, pl. 206. LPG. North Cemetery T.285,57,152.KNCII, 400, pls 223, 229. LPG. Kantharoi: Tekke TJ,56. KNCII, 400, fig. 66, pl. 66. LPG. North Cemetery T.285,I2I.

KNC II, 400, fig. 142, pl.

229. LPG. Kalathoi: North Cemetery T.2o7,4I-2. KNC II, 399, fig. 127,pl. 185. LPG. Tripod Cauldron: Tekke Tomb. BSA 58 (1963), 37 no. 18, pl. 12 b. Krateriskoi: Settlement. BSA 67 (1972), 73 nos. 41-2, pl. 17. LPG.

Settlement. GreekCitytoRomanColony76 no. GH 16, pl. 68. LPG. North Cemetery T.207,7. IKNCII, 398, fig. 124, pl. 184. LPG. Crater: Settlement. BSA67 (1972),43 no. 43, pl. 19. Settlement. BSA92 (i997), 208 no. B43, pl. 36 b. Pyxis: Tekke Tomb. BSA58 (1963),37 no. 17, fig. 8, pl. I2b. LPG. Belly Amphoras: Settlement. BSA 67 (1972,)77 no. 46, pl. 19. LPG/EG. North Cemetery T.I3,48. KNC II, 394-5, pl. 91. LPG/EG. North Cemetery T.219,89-9o. KNC II, 394-5, pl. 207. LPG/EG. Neck Amphora: North Cemetery T.285,I29. KNC II, 394, pl. 230. LPG. Shoulder-handled Amphora: Settlement. BSA 92 (1997),208, no. B42, fig. 8, pl. 36 b. LPG. Oinochoes: Settlement. BSA 67 (1972),70, no. 30, pl. i5. EPG-MPG. Tekke TJ,8. KNCII, 396, pl. 64. LPG. Tekke T.0,7. KNCII, 397, fig. 70, pl. 73. LPG/EG. Amphoriskos (shoulder-handled): Tekke TJ,23. KNC II, 396, pl. 65. LPG. Kanli Kastelli(Tomb?) Skyphos:PGP247 n. i.

IONIA

AIOLIS

Samos

Lesbos

Pythagoreion (Settlement). Skyphoi:AD 22 (1967),Chron. 463, pl. 339 b.

Mytilene (Unprovenanced). Skyphos:PGP217.

Universityof Oxford

R.

W.

V CATLING