Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T06:46:31.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LEFKANDI PHASE I, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE POTTERY, ITS CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION, AND ITS ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2022

David French  and
Oliver Dickinson
Oliver Dickinson*
Affiliation:
Durham University
*
otpkdickinson@googlemail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to publish David French's manuscript on Lefkandi Phase I, in as close a form as possible to what he wrote. Some changes have been necessary to improve the presentation of the material, to correct occasional errors, and to conform with BSA stylistic requirements. The material discussed is essentially that from the lowest levels of the ‘Deep Sounding’ in Trench CC. The discussion has four sections. The first section is a very brief comment on the stratigraphical data, including sections of the Lefkandi Phase I stratum in Trench CC and plans of the remains of sub-phases. The second section is the core of the paper, a general account of the pottery, listing wares and shapes identifiable, which demonstrates that it contains a little material from periods certain or likely to be earlier than Phase I (Final Neolithic, Early Helladic I and Early Helladic II), also later strays, but essentially belongs to a range of wares that have clear West Anatolian links, although it cannot be linked exclusively with any individual Anatolian site or region. The third section lists the small finds from the stratum, with catalogue entries on the most significant, including a seal impression on a probable pithos rim fragment. Finally, the fourth section sums up views on the classification of the pottery, its chronological relationship with the Early Helladic sequence, its cultural relationship with West Anatolian material, and the question of how an essentially Anatolian style of pottery came to be locally produced in Euboea, with a range of references to comparable material from other Aegean sites.

Λευκαντί Φάση Ι, με ιδιαίτερη αναφορά στην κεραμική, τη χρονολογική της θέση και τις ανατολιακές συνδέσεις της

Ο σκοπός αυτού του άρθρου είναι η δημοσίευση του δοκιμίου του David French σχετικά με τη φάση Λευκαντί Ι, σε μια μορφή όσο το δυνατόν πιο πιστή προς το πρωτότυπο. Μερικές αλλαγές ήταν απαραίτητες για να βελτιωθεί η παρουσίαση του υλικού και να συμβαδίσει με τις στυλιστικές προδιαγραφές του BSA. Το υλικό που παρουσιάζεται ουσιαστικά προέρχεται από τα χαμηλότερα επίπεδα της “Βαθιάς Τάφρου” στην Τομή CC. Η συζήτηση περιλαμβάνει τέσσερα τμήματα. Το πρώτο τμήμα είναι ένα πολύ σύντομο σχόλιο για τα στρωματογραφικά δεδομένα, συμπεριλαμβανομένων τμημάτων του στρώματος Lefkandi Phase I στην Τομή CC και σχεδίων των καταλοίπων των διαφόρων χρονολογικών επιμέρους φάσεων. Το δεύτερο τμήμα είναι ο πυρήνας του άρθρου, ένας γενικός απολογισμός της κεραμικής, που απαριθμεί τους ρυθμούς και τα σχήματα που μπορούν να αναγνωρισθούν και αποδεικνύει ότι περιέχει λίγο υλικό σίγουρα ή πιθανόν πρωιμότερο χρονολογικά από τη Φάση Ι (Τελική Νεολιθική, Πρωτοελλαδική Ι, και Πρωτοελλαδική II), αλλά επίσης και μεταγενέστερο υλικό που έχει παρεισφρήσει. Ουσιαστικά το υλικό αυτό ανήκει σε μια σειρά κεραμικών ρυθμών που σαφώς συνδέονται με τη Δυτική Ανατολία, αν και δεν μπορεί να συσχετισθεί αποκλειστικά με οποιαδήποτε μεμονωμένη θέση ή περιοχή της Ανατολίας. Στο τρίτο τμήμα παρατίθενται τα μικροευρήματα από το στρώμα, με εγγραφές καταλόγου για τα πιο σημαντικά, οι οποίες περιλαμβάνουν ένα αποτύπωμα σφραγίδας σε ένα πιθανό θραύσμα χείλους πίθου. Τέλος, το τέταρτο τμήμα συνοψίζει τις απόψεις για την ταξινόμηση της κεραμικής, τη χρονολογική της σχέση με την ακολουθία της Πρωτοελλαδικής περιόδου, την πολιτιστική της σχέση με το υλικό της Δυτικής Ανατολίας, και το ερώτημα για το πώς μια κεραμική που από άποψη τεχνοτροπίας ουσιαστικά προσιδιάζει στην Ανατολία δημιουργήθηκε τοπικά στην Εύβοια, με μια σειρά από αναφορές σε συγκρίσιμο υλικό από άλλες αιγαιακές θέσεις

Μετάφραση: Γ. Φλούδα

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 118 , December 2023 , pp. 1 - 75
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Council, British School at Athens

INTRODUCTION: THE BACKGROUND TO THE PUBLICATION (O.D.)

In 2002, as a newly appointed member of the Lefkandi Subcommittee, I agreed to take on the responsibility of negotiating with various specialists over their production of texts which they had agreed with Mervyn Popham to publish, on various parts of the pre-LH IIIC material from Lefkandi: Xeropolis. In 2003, a project to incorporate these into a Lefkandi V was developed. It would be inappropriate to give a detailed account of the development and ultimate frustration of this project, but in the course of it I formed a good working relationship with David French, which resulted in his presentation of a completed text on Lefkandi Phase I in 2010. Editorial work on this and discussion between us continued until late 2014, but ceased as his health worsened. Other difficulties led to the Lefkandi Subcommittee's decision in 2018 to abandon the Lefkandi V project, and I accepted responsibility for editing David French's manuscript for publication as a BSA article. Commitments and health problems of my own have caused further delay, but here, finally, it is.

It must be emphasised that this cannot be considered a final publication of the material. Rather, at its centre is a detailed general account of the pottery; this contains no breakdown by percentages of wares or quantities of individual shapes, and no catalogue of individual pieces, but gives a detailed analysis of the range of wares and shapes. This is introduced by a few comments on the stratigraphy and structures in Trench CC, the source of almost all the material, and is complemented by information on the relatively few small finds from this trench. Finally, there is a discussion of the place of ‘Lefkandi I’ pottery in the Aegean prehistoric sequence and its links with western Anatolia. Much more might be said now on this topic, in the light of more recent discoveries at various Aegean sites, particularly in the Cyclades, where the closely comparable Kastri Group of pottery has been widely found, but also in central Greece and on Aigina, and close study of the pottery has added much to our knowledge of the techniques used in making it (see Supplementary References). But David was the first to recognise the Anatolian nature of the ‘Lefkandi I’ pottery, which has become such an important factor in our appreciation of developments in the later Early Bronze Age in the Aegean. It does not seem proper to attempt to rewrite his account in the light of more recent discoveries and discussion, and his opinion still deserves attention as that of an expert on the Anatolian material that was available to him at the time.

In the course of preparing a version that fitted BSA requirements I have had to make various textual changes and, with the help of other scholars (see Acknowledgements), have made improvements in illustrations and enhanced the account of small finds. I have also included some footnotes (these are prefaced by the initials O.D.; those without preface are David's original footnotes). No changes have been made to David's analysis and discussion of the stratigraphy and pottery.

PREFACE

In November 1996, when not only my passport, camera, money and valuables but also, more importantly, the first draft of my text on Lefkandi Phase I (along with precious documentation and original records from other research projects in Greece and Turkey) was stolen, I lost the notes made in the Museum of Eretria and the summaries which I had compiled on the basis of those notes. The pottery text which follows has been compiled not from my written account of the sherds as examined but from the drawings made at that time and the descriptions which accompany those drawings. The original, full text was not wholly irrecoverable, however; although the first three sections were completely lost, the remaining three survived intact in a preliminary, hand-written version. This text, therefore, is a composite of two halves.

I was not present for any season of the excavations at Lefkandi. My involvement came about after a visit to the site and to the excavators in the summer of 1966. During the course of that visit Mervyn Popham and Hugh Sackett invited me to publish the pottery of the earliest phase (Lefkandi I, as it came to be known), because of my interest in the archaeology of Asia Minor and my dogmatic assertion, made on that occasion, that the sherds presented for my perusal were not Helladic nor Cycladic nor Minoan but, in a broad sense, Aegean, specifically West Anatolian.

My basic opinion on the material of Lefkandi Phase I has not changed but, with time, I have changed the thematic emphasis somewhat, from a narrow examination of origins to a broader account of contexts. From this study it has been my hope to find explanations, not necessarily conclusive, for the curiosity of Anatolian pottery in a non-Anatolian location. In the distillation and citation of the relevant sources I am aware of my shortcomings: whatever may be my regret, I must necessarily admit that, with the passage of time and as the focus of my archaeological researches became ever more distant from the west coast of Asia Minor, I no longer commanded the literature in the field of Aegean archaeology. Without doubt the magnitude of my debt to the overviews of Jack Davis and Jeremy Rutter will be apparent to all those with a knowledge of the subject.

In preparing my preliminary notes for this preface, I have, perhaps knowingly, worn a hair shirt of my own making and stood, as it were, in the snow of rightful criticism. There is rarely excuse for extreme tardiness of publication; here I can offer none. Despite pressing and urgent pleas from Mervyn Popham and Hugh Sackett, I was unable to complete the necessary writing. In particular I am aware that I failed Mervyn Popham; I can now make amends to Hugh Sackett alone [O.D.: sadly, Hugh Sackett died 12 April 2020]. I do so with deepest regret for my sins of omission and commission.

The text here was substantially complete in December 2010. Since that date changes have continued to be made in the text, in consultation with Oliver Dickinson, until July 2014.

INTRODUCTION

I was not a member of the Lefkandi team and, therefore, not present during the excavation (in 1966 and 1969) of the trenches from which was recovered the pottery published here – in particular, Trenches CC, B and X (for the location of these trenches, see the Plan, Fig. 1). In outlining the recorded stratigraphy and structures, therefore, it is not possible for me to draw on personal experience or insight. The late Cressida Ridley described for me the procedures adopted in the excavation, the techniques of recovery, and the sequence of soil-units, walls and features, and the letters and numbers attached to them. In truth the section here on the structures and stratigraphy is entirely her contribution. The description of the walls and floors, the interpretation of the Lefkandi I stratigraphy and the list of batch-numbers given to the features and soil-units are based on the written notes which she provided. These notes are now preserved in the Lefkandi Archive.Footnote 1

Fig. 1.

Plan of site: location of trenches CC, B and X (based on Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 2, fig. 1). Scale: 1:2500.

In Ankara the plans and sections of Trench CC were redrawn from the illustrations and profiles that had been made on site. A much reduced version of the N section of Trench CC was published in the preliminary report (Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 6, fig. 6, originally drawn by Cressida Ridley and Roger Howell; Fig. 2); this, and the other profiles, together with plans of the structures, were redrawn by Benni Claasz Coockson in Ankara and by Brian Williams in the UK. The illustrations of these, both plans and sections, have been adjusted to a uniform scale of 1:50.

Fig. 2.

Trench CC: north profile (at the end of the 1966 season) (based on Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 6, fig. 6, revised by Y. Galanakis). Scale 1:40.

Largely owing to my lack of first-hand, personal experience with the excavations, I have attempted to present a report on the structures, stratigraphy, pottery and objects of Lefkandi I in a format and a manner as strictly direct and impersonal as possible. In doing so, I have separated, as far as has been feasible, report from speculation. The position of the latter is indicated, in the text, under the appropriate heading.

STRUCTURES AND STRATIGRAPHY

Material of Phase I was found in three trenches, the trial trenches B and X, excavated respectively in 1964 and 1965, and Trench CC.Footnote 2 Trench CC was mainly excavated in 1966 under the supervision of the late Cressida Ridley; in 1969, excavation of its lowest levels was completed under the supervision of Roger Howell [O.D.: see Popham in Fraser Reference Fraser1970, 8 for brief comments]. I have retained the isolation of five structural sub-phases as defined by Ridley and Howell – 1 (the earliest) to 5 (the latest) – which together constitute the earliest occupation level in Trench CC at Lefkandi. Collectively they are designated Lefkandi Phase I. In the account which follows the sub-phases are numbered as follows: I.1 (the earliest), I.2A, I.2B, I.3, I.4, I.5 (the latest).

The plans and sections (Figs 3–8) are based on the information, in the form of written notes, drawings and diagrams, supplied to me by Cressida Ridley. I have not consulted the excavation notebooks; I am, therefore, unable to describe in detail the nature of the soil deposits. Such details as are given here are based on the summary and handwritten notes prepared for me by Cressida Ridley as a guide to the phasing and pottery analysis. These notes are now held in the Lefkandi Archive stored in the British School at Athens.Footnote 3

Fig. 3.

Trench CC: North, East, South and West sections. Scale 1:50.

Fig. 4.

Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 1: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Fig. 5.

Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 2A: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Fig. 6.

Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 2B: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Fig. 7.

Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 3: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Fig. 8.

Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 4: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

For the earliest occupation on the site, see Table 1, Miscellaneous (6), residual Final Neolithic sherds in Trenches CC and X. For post-Neolithic occupation on the site, see Table 1, Miscellaneous (6), sherd evidence for EH I and EH II.

Table 1.

LK I pottery wares: a synopsis.

In the preliminary report Popham and Howell wrote on the structures of Lefkandi Phase I as follows:

Several building periods were recognised in the very earliest levels, two being separate and of differing plan, but the size of the sounding at this stage makes it unlikely that any clear idea of the architecture will emerge. There was at least one level marked by signs of burning, suggesting a catastrophe, but there was no deposit of vases to support this conclusion. (Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 6)

Even in the limited area of Trench CC it is evident that on this, the north-eastern, side of the site there is a not inconsiderable series of structures and floors associated with the structures. There is no evidence either for an internal variation, or for an internal development, of house forms. The structures were built on high, substantial stone foundations according to a rectilinear or rectangular plan. On the foundations there was a superstructure of mudbrick. There is no suggestion (though the surviving evidence is meagre) of curvilinear walls that might belong to apsidal houses.

Lefkandi is certainly a large site, comparable in size (c. 490 × 140 m) and in location on the sea-shore with Poliochni and other sites in the Aegean. Unlike Poliochni, however, Lefkandi has not been extensively excavated. As a consequence it may be reasonably assumed that occupation areas on the site differed according to period. In Trench CC, there are no levels of demonstrably earlier periods, and except for a handful of sherds there is no evidence of occupation in the Final Neolithic, EH I or EH II periods. It is, of course, possible that the occupation layers of these periods were removed for the construction of the Lefkandi Phase I settlement.

Broadly speaking, Lefkandi in Phase I does not differ from other sites on both sides of the Aegean. The structures, both in technique of construction and in form of plan, reflect an indigenous tradition prevailing both in Southern Greece as a whole and on the Aegean coast of Western Anatolia.

The presence of bronze objects in Lefkandi Phase I is perhaps not surprising and is not necessarily a reflection of material wealth. On the other hand, a seal impression, though perhaps not from a ‘pure’ Lefkandi I deposit, can be attributed with some probability to Lefkandi Phase I. The object is of more than intrinsic interest in the context of related material at other sites: it introduces a social aspect. Here at Lefkandi the fragment bearing a seal impression comes most probably from a pottery vessel (? pithos) stamped before firing. Although the decorative use of an impression on a hearth surround can find parallels in the Early Bronze Age of the Aegean, there is the strongest probability that the seal impression indicates certification – perhaps of ownership, perhaps of materials or contents or both – of an unusual container.

THE POTTERY

[O.D.: It is clear from David's account in the Preface that this account of the pottery is a reconstruction of what he originally wrote, which was lost along with his detailed notes on the material. It is not clear whether he ever intended his account to include a discussion of the development of the pottery through the sub-phases of Phase I occupation that he identified, or to make detailed references to Figs 14–31, which show all the sherds from Trench CC that he studied. In the text that I received there is no trace of these, although there are references to illustrated pieces in several of the Tables (especially on Table 2, to show the range of shapes identified); but the illustrated pottery is primarily grouped by its stratigraphical origin in the succession of sub-phases, not by the wares into which it is divided, although such information is given on the figures themselves and in the captions (N.B. that on the figures and in the captions b. stands for burnished and unb. for unburnished; other abbreviations should be self-explanatory). Following the main group of figures, Figs 32–3 show material from Trench B, Fig. 34 shows identified Final Neolithic material, Fig. 35 illustrates examples of the pieces classified as Miscellaneous, and Figs 36–7 two individual pieces of pottery from Trench CC, apparently the only photos that David found. To provide more links between the account of the pottery wares and the figures, more references to the illustrated material and some general comments have been provided in square brackets below.]

Table 2.

List of shapes, names and descriptions (Figs 10, 11, 12 and 13).

Apart from general considerations – the originality of the pottery finds, the location of the site, the light shed on third-millennium archaeology – Lefkandi in its first phase of occupation illuminates the pottery developments on Euboea, particularly the EH II–Lefkandi I–EH III transitions in the late third millennium BC.

On the Lefkandi site there is evidence of possible early occupation, so-called Final Neolithic (also known as the North Slope phase or the Kephala phase). There is also some slight evidence of an EH I and EH II presence.

The nature of this evidence for Final Neolithic, EH I and EH II is tenuous – entirely sherds, some really quite small. The value of such material has been, and is currently, under review. For all that the sherds are welcome (‘better than nothing’), questions remain:

  1. (1) What value do they have for the stratigraphic sequence of occupation at Lefkandi?

  2. (2) How is one to assess their value in terms of chronological accuracy? Are they strays? Intrusive or residual?

The possible difficulties in the explanation and interpretation of individual sherds, whether intrusive or residual, are further increased when the chronology of the main bulk of Lefkandi Phase I pottery is examined in relation to the Early Helladic sequences in Attica and in Central and Southern Greece, to the Early Bronze Age in Thessaly and to the Early Cycladic in the Cyclades.

The following account emphasises discrimination over speculation. This treatment follows from a deliberate and chosen approach, to evaluate first the nature of the evidence and then the reliability or status of the data. At the centre of my treatment of the Lefkandi Phase I pottery is the problem: what is stratified and what is not? I suggest that much of our chronological reconstruction is a matter of choice between conflicting pieces of evidence.

If we look beyond the subject of whether stray sherds are residual or not, there is a clear need to offer a graded assessment of all pottery and, indeed, other evidence. In a word – to mutilate one of Sir Mortimer Wheeler's more splendid aphorisms – we need more than nebulous sherd-attributions, we need pots on floors.

The excavators themselves, Mervyn Popham and Hugh Sackett, gave a not dissimilar evaluation. They summarised the nature of the pottery in Phase I as follows:

In any case, the pottery is more or less uniform in these levels. A change first occurs in a stratum overlying part of a room containing a cooking platform and large pieces of pithos lying on a floor. The mud brick walls had collapsed into it either after a destruction or after its abandonment. It is in this room that Grey Minyan first appears in any significant context; eight sherds were found, five of which were rather primitive in their technique. But over 80% of the recognisable sherds above the floor and all the sherds from the make-up of the floor itself are characteristic of Phase I. It, therefore, seems probable that the Grey Minyan and other Phase 2 type sherds are part of a fill used to level the area, which could not be isolated in excavation. The possibility of a transitional phase must, however, remain. (Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 8)

They emphasised the absence of complete pots in situ: ‘… there was no deposit of vases …’.

The study of the Lefkandi Phase I (LK I) pottery is, therefore, a study of recovered sherds, not of complete pots, or of groups of complete pots, in situ. Nevertheless, the intention here is to define, or attempt to define, the assemblage of (locally manufactured?) pottery on the basis (1) of recognition of known wares (both on and outside Euboea) and (2) of recurring combinations of wares and shapes among the sherds as recovered.

Study programme

A first study of the pottery material from Trenches CC, B and X was made in June 1967 in the Eretria Museum (for the location of the trenches, see Fig. 1, slightly adapted from the site-plan published in the preliminary report by Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 2, fig. 1 [O.D.: this version of the plan has been improved by Dr Yannis Galanakis]). The results of this first study provided the basis for the preliminary report (Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 8). Subsequent study-sessions took place in April–May 1969, November 1972, April–May 1973 and May 1974.

All collected sherds were examined. Selection for illustration in this report was made from those sherds on which the rim profile survived. All the material is preserved in wooden boxes stored in the apotheke of the Eretria Museum. Most sherds were marked with black ink and the markings then coated with a thin layer of PVA. Illustrated sherds are stored separately from the non-illustrated and are marked with the published figure number.

The notes which follow were made at the time when the pottery was first studied and drawn, in June 1967. A few changes were made to the wording and terminology at later dates, during subsequent sessions (1969–74) in the museum storeroom.

Terminology

The terminology employed in the description of surface treatments is given here in summary form; it is based on the definitions advanced by Carol Zerner (Reference Zerner, Taylour† and Janko2008, 178).

Slip

A clay-based colour, applied before firing to the surface by brush, cloth vel sim., but not by dipping or immersing.

Wash or Coat

A pigment without a clay base, applied to the surface as above before firing.

Burnishing

The process whereby, before firing, the surface of a leather-hard vessel was impacted. If the marks of the tool used for this process are not obscured by repeated and intensive action, they will leave a trail of lines, a result nicknamed ‘bone’ or ‘scribble’ burnish. When the burnishing is carefully executed, the effect is to remove the traces of the tool-marks and thereby to leave a smooth surface, often described in archaeological literature as ‘polished’. (In the figure captions, burnished sherds are marked as b., unburnished as unb.).

Smearing

A Wash or Coat so perfunctorily, and often thinly, applied that traces of the potter's hand-movement are apparent, while simultaneously, by a thinning effect at the end of each movement, extensive patches are left bald and uncovered.

Scoring

A treatment whereby a multi-toothed comb or similar instrument was dragged (randomly?) over the surface, external and/or internal, of the vessel. The trails left by the teeth are thus called ‘scoring’ marks (for illustrations of scoring, see Fig. 36, a bowl, profile shown in Fig. 31:1, and Fig. 37, a jug).

Smoothing or Wiping

The process whereby a potter will ‘finish’ a vessel by wiping the surface with a clay slurry or simply with water on the hand or on a water-soaked cloth.

Paring

The technique of removing long, broad strips of surplus clay from the surface of a vessel with a broad, flat-edged tool.

Wheel-marks

The signs or marks of the operation whereby a potter will shape a vessel – on a swiftly or gently revolving or a slowly (?hand-)turned disk or table, i.e. the ‘wheel’ – with the fingers of the hand or with a flat or curved instrument. If the operation was carelessly or perfunctorily executed or if the potter did not smooth out the traces left by hand or by instrument, the surface, whether internal or external, of the vessel as fired will reveal the marks left behind on the pot as it turned on the ‘wheel’, hence wheel-marks.

On the issue of ‘handmade’ as opposed to ‘wheelmade’ techniques, the important work of Choleva (Reference Choleva2012, especially 343–4, 351–8) must now be taken into account. In the techniques for ‘hand-building’ she makes a fundamental distinction between hand-fashioned (the shape formed preliminarily from coils and finished on the wheel) and hand-thrown (the shape created on the wheel from a clay mass). The hand-fashioned coil process can produce lines (which reflect the coil joints), discontinuities on the surface and variation in the thickness of the vessel wall. Further, Choleva claims that surface striations do not reflect the main process of manufacture but the final shaping of the rim, or the final treatment of the surface on a wheel.

Revision of the descriptive categories employed here is clearly necessary. A fresh examination of the Lefkandi Phase I pottery would simultaneously validate – or, of course, invalidate – both the distinctions made by Choleva and the terminology outlined above.

Wares

A synopsis of the wares found in the LK I pottery assemblage is given on Table 1; it is complemented by a table of occurrences, Table 7.

As with the terminology outlined above, so here the ware descriptions given below are not ‘scientific’, in the sense that they are not based on technical examination and investigation carried out in laboratory conditions by a ceramic expert. They are a reduction or distillation, understood in traditional archaeology, of those characteristics and details which can be readily assembled from non-scientific observation.

Buff/Brown Unslipped (1)

Wheelmade. The colour results from the technique of firing, i.e. in a non-reducing kiln. The surface is usually of the same colour as the fired clay. No colouring was added (before firing) to the surface. The fabric has an appearance rougher than that of the Red and the Brown/Black wares, but the distinction is difficult to qualify without extensive use of thin sections. Tiny grit inclusions are visible, but the fabric could not be classified as coarse. The clay is micaceous.

[O.D.: To judge from the number of pieces illustrated, this was much the most common ware, used particularly for the wide range of bowls but also other shapes. Fig. 14 shows a particularly good range from Sub-Phase 1; cf. also Figs 17, 21, 25, and 28, from Sub-Phases 2A, 2B, 3, 3/4 and 4.]

Red Slipped (2a)

Wheelmade. The fabric is basically red (as the result of oxidisation during firing), i.e. there is a colour variation from pale red to pale brown and buff. The fabric is fine; inclusions observable to the naked eye are rare. The clay is micaceous.

[O.D.: This ware seems reasonably common. Good examples are particularly Figs 15:4–18 and 19:1–16, from Sub-Phases 1 and 2A. While bowls of various shapes are common, including shallow handled bowls (Fig. 10, Shape F9), cups of various types are well represented (cf. Fig. 12 for the range, including Troy Cups, often called ‘tankards’ in other sources; e.g. Figs 15:11, 16:5, 19:14–16, 20:2), and there are other shapes including one narrow jug-neck (Fig. 22:10). The Brown/Black Slipped variant (2b) seems to be much rarer but has a similar range, including a ‘Troy Cup’ (Fig. 16:5).]

Brown/Black Slipped (2b)

As above, Red Slipped. The distinction between Red Slipped (2a) and Brown/Black Slipped (2b) is not absolute; the two colourings can overlap on the same pot. There was probably an intention to produce different colours, but the proposition is difficult to demonstrate. The two wares are distinguished only by the relative intensity and spatial dominance of the surface colour, i.e. if there is a greater use of red than of brown or black, the ware is classified as Red Slipped (2a).

Dark Coated (3)

Not always certainly wheelmade. The colour of the fabric is pale, buff or cream. The core is uniform, i.e. there is no ‘sandwich’ effect whereby the outer layers are oxidised to a degree greater than is the inner core. There are observable black grit/stone inclusions. The fabric has a quality of lightness (in terms of weight) which is difficult to qualify but readily identified. The lightness may derive from a porosity of the fabric. Thin sections would establish the clay and firing characteristics. On the outer surface there is a dark colour-coat, which is the main feature of this ware. The coat is lustrous but not burnished. There are no precisely reconstructable shapes. The sherds all seem to come from footed containers (‘jars’), i.e. from closed vessels.

Perhaps not to be separated from Central Greek EH III ‘Ayia Marina’ Dark Wash Ware, but the fabric of the latter is observably different, a fine red core without the black grit/stone inclusions of Dark Coated Ware (3).

[O.D.: This does not seem to be at all well represented; Figs 20:4 and 31:2–3 are the only illustrated examples.]

Black/Grey-Black (4)

Not always certainly wheelmade. The clay is fired uniformly black or dark grey. The clay is fine – i.e. inclusions are not readily observable – but micaceous. The surface – usually the outer – was slipped and burnished. The colour undoubtedly results from the technique of firing in a reducing kiln. The non-slipped areas are dark grey; they were left unburnished.

[O.D.: This seems to be rare. The only illustrated examples, described as Black, are cups, Figs 20:3 and 23:17 from the main sequence and 32:7 and 33:7,16 from Trench B.]

Coarse (5)

Not always certainly wheelmade. The clay is micaceous. To it was added an observable quantity of grit/stone inclusions. Consequently the fabric is somewhat porous and granular, providing evidence for a deliberate technique whereby good quality, robust, porous containers were produced, probably for specific purposes such as water-storage. The stone/grit inclusions are easily recognisable, mostly > 1 mm, some > 5 mm. The clay was fired to a dark red, brown, deep buff, grey between brown or buff. Usually the surface was not treated with a wash or coat before firing; it can be lightly or heavily scored. Surface colours: dark buff, pale brown, red.

[O.D.: This seems as well represented as the Buff/Brown Unslipped ware, and has a wide variety of shapes, including many deep and heavy bowls and varieties of jar (e.g. Figs 20, 24, 27:4–13, and 29:2–11 from Sub-Phases 2A, 2B, 3 and 4).]

Miscellaneous (6)

[O.D.: A variety of individual pieces, including likely survivals from earlier phases of occupation and potential ‘imports’ contemporary with Phase I, are included under this heading. Some are shown in Figs 31, 33 and 35.]

Final Neolithic – Dark Burnished Ware (‘North Slope Ware’)

Defined in Central Greece at Eutresis by Caskey and Caskey (Reference Caskey and Caskey1960, 134) and by French (Reference French1972 [revised 1975], 22 and fig. 21:4 [Kastron], 5 [Skhimatari]), and now substantiated elsewhere. For Athens, see French (Reference French1964, 135) and Immerwahr (Reference Immerwahr1971, 9–10), now amplified elsewhere. For Euboea in general, see the account of Sampson (Reference Sampson1992), cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern1996, 292–3); for the cave of Tharrounia, see reports of Sampson (Reference Sampson1992; Reference Sampson1993a, especially pl. 29), and for additional details see Davis (Reference Davis2001, 35, quoted in its original Reference Davis1992 form by Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern1996, 292, 293 and fig. 21, which reproduces Sampson Reference Sampson1993a, pl. 29).

‘North Slope Ware’: a component of the ‘Attika-Kephala Culture’, defined by Renfrew (Reference Renfrew1972, 75–7); for the eponymous site, Kephala, see Coleman's (Reference Coleman1977) report, cited and quoted, with illustrations, by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern1996, 450–6), with an extensive bibliography on this and other sites of the ‘Attika-Kephala Culture’ in the Cyclades and on the mainland (Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern1996, 139–40, 154–5, 157–60). For a summary of Final Neolithic or ‘Endneolithikum’, see Douzougli (Reference Douzougli1998, 136, with bibliography).

EH I – Red/Brown Burnished Ware

Defined in Central Greece at Eutresis by Caskey and Caskey (Reference Caskey and Caskey1960, 155); noted and illustrated by French (Reference French1972 [revised 1975], 23 and fig. 21:6 [Skhimatari], 7–19 [Kastron]); substantiated elsewhere in Boeotia, on the coast and in the Copaic Basin (for Lithares, north of Thebes, see Tzavella-Evjen Reference Tzavella-Evjen1985, 22 and fig. 8).

For the Corinthian Gulf, see the account of Fossey (Reference Fossey1969), cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 156).

For sites of this period on Euboea, see the work carried out by Sampson and others (Sampson Reference Sampson1981; Sackett et al. Reference Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham1966), abridged by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 701–26).

EH II — EH Urfirnis Ware

Four sherds – listed in Table 7 – two of which are sauceboat fragments; one is illustrated here (Fig. 35:6).

Defined in Central Greece at Eutresis by Caskey and Caskey (Reference Caskey and Caskey1960, 139–40); noted in Central Greece and Euboea by French (Reference French1972 [revised 1975], 24 and fig. 10), citing Sackett et al. Reference Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham1966 and the British School at Athens sherd collection. Substantiated elsewhere in Central Greece and on Euboea; for brief details of occurrences of EH II pottery, see the resumé of results given by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 681–726).

Central Greek EH III – Patterned Light-on-Dark Ware (‘Ayia Marina’)

Defined in Central Greece at Orchomenos by Kunze (Reference Kunze1934, 12–18) and at Eutresis by Caskey and Caskey (Reference Caskey and Caskey1960, 158), and by French (Reference French1972 [revised 1975], 24). Substantiated elsewhere. Summarised by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 163–8).

Central Greek EH III – ‘Ayia Marina’ Dark-Wash Ware

Eight sherds – seven are fragments of ‘Humpen’, one of which is illustrated here (Fig. 35:11).

Elsewhere, French (Reference French1972 [revised 1975], 25), repeating Wace and Blegen (Reference Wace and Blegen1916–18, 178), has included this ware with Light-on-Dark Ayia Marina pottery as a non-patterned variation of the familiar patterned category. A notable shape in Dark-Wash Ware at Orchomenos is the ‘Humpe’; see illustrations given by Kunze (Reference Kunze1934, 31, pl. X:1–2; 33–5, pls XI:1–2,3a–4a and XII:Ayia Marina Light-on-Dark).

Thessalian (?) EB 3 (?) – Dark Burnished Ware

One sherd (Fig. 35:7) of a T-rim bowl. For the ware and shape at Argissa Magoula, see Hanschmann and Milojčić (Reference Hanschmann and Milojčić1976, 2 and Suppl. 16 nos 3–5: ‘Schalen mit verdickter Lippe (Typ A 6)’).

(?) – A grey burnished ware

Four sherds (Fig. 31:4–7). Wheelmade and burnished. Perhaps a variation of (1) Buff/Brown Unslipped ware, which these four sherds closely resemble in fabric. The shapes of the bowls repeat the plate/bowl types typical of (1) Buff/Brown Ware (Fig. 10:Types A and B).

(?) – A dark brown burnished ware

Two ‘Frying Pans’ (Fig. 31:14–15) and one Lid (Fig. 31:13). There is a second lid (Fig. 33:11) in a red ware, which may be a variation of the dark brown burnished ware cited here.

For a diagrammatic summary of these miscellaneous wares, see Table 5.

The context for these and other pottery wares, in the Prepalatial Early Bronze Age, is given – both in detail and with no little acuity – by Rutter (Reference Rutter2001, 113–16).

Shapes

For an illustration of the terminology which is used here in the description of rim profiles, see Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.

Rim profiles: Bowls. Scale 1:4.

For a diagrammatic illustration of the LK I pottery shapes, see Table 2,Footnote 4 and Figs 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Fig. 10.

Synopsis of pottery shapes: Shallow Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 11.

Synopsis of pottery shapes: Deep Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 12.

Synopsis of pottery shapes: Cups. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 13.

Synopsis of pottery shapes: Jars, jugs. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 14.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: Buff/Brown 1–8 unb., 9–18 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 15.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: 1–3 Buff/Brown scored, Red 4–6 unb. lustrous, 7–11 b. smooth, 12–18 b. scribble. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 16.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: 1–2 Red b. scribble, Brown/Black 3 unb., 4–5 b. scribble, Coarse 6–8 unb., 9–11 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 17.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: Buff/Brown 1–8 unb., 9 b. smooth, 10 b. scribble, 11–20 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 18.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: 1–11 Buff/Brown scored, 12–17 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 19.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: Red 1–4 unb., 5 b. smooth, 6–16 b. scribble, 17–18 Brown/Black unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 20.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: 1–2 Brown/Black unb., 3 Black b., 4 Dark Coated, Coarse 5–12 unb., 13 scored and b. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 21.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2B: Buff/Brown 1–6 unb., 7–19 scored, 20–21 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 22.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2B: Red 1–3 unb., 4–5 b. smooth, 6–10 b. scribble, Brown/Black 11 unb., 12–13 b. scribble, Coarse 14–15 unb., 16–20 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 23.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A/B: Buff/Brown 1–7 unb., 8 b. smooth, 9–13 scored, 14–15 Red b. scribble, 16 Brown/Black b. scribble, 17 Black b. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 24.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A/B: Coarse 1–2 unb., 3–9 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 25.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: Buff/Brown 1–2 unb., 3–12 b. (?)scribble. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 26.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: 1–7 Buff/Brown scored, Red 8–10 unb., 11–12 b. smooth, 13–17 b. scribble, 18–19 Brown/Black unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 27.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: Brown/Black 1–2 unb., 3 b. scribble, Coarse 4 unb., 5–13 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 28.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.4: Buff/Brown 1–11 unb., 12–13 b. (?)scribble, 14–15 scored, 16–20 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 29.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.4: 1 Brown/Black unb., Coarse 2–6 unb., 7–8 b. scribble, 9–11 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 30.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.5: 1–7 Buff/Brown unb., Red 10 unb., 11 b. scribble, 12–13 Brown/Black unb., Coarse 14–17 unb., 18 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 31.

Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.5: 1 Buff/Brown, Misc. 2–3 Dark Coated, 4–7 Grey, 8–11 Patterned, 12–15 Dark Brown. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 32.

Trench B, miscellaneous baskets: 1–4, 9–11, 15–16 Buff/Brown unb., 13–14 Red b., 5–6, 12 Brown/Black b. smooth, 7 Black b. smooth, 8 Coarse unb. matt. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 33.

Trench B, miscellaneous baskets: 4, 12, 14–15 Buff/Brown unb., 1–2, 5–6, 8–11, 13 Red b., 7, 16 Black b. smooth, 3 Coarse unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 34.

Trench CC, Sub-Phases I.1, 2A, 3 and 3/4, and II, and Trench X phase 3A: Neolithic 1–26. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 35.

Trench CC, Sub-Phases 1–5: 1–2 Neolithic(?), 3–6 EH I and II, 7–11 Misc., 12–16 Buff and Black. Scale 1:4, except 12–16 1:2.

Fig. 36.

Trench CC. Bowl. Scored Ware (= Ware 5) (profile Fig. 31:1).

Fig. 37.

Trench CC. Small Trefoil-mouth Jug. Coarse Ware (= Ware 5).

Bowls (Fine Ware, i.e. Wares 1–4)

  • Concave-sided (‘plates’) (Fig. 10:1–2) – Troy Shape A 1/2. The bulge in the profile, indicated and emphasised by Blegen (Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey, Rawson and Sperling1950, 225), is typical for this shape. The base is flat; the cut-off marks (the traces of the cutting string) are clearly visible. Wheelmade, in buff ware, the marks of the wheel movement being particularly visible on the internal surface.

  • Convex-sided, shallow (Fig. 10:3) – (?) subsumed in Troy shape A 1. On the convex-sided bowls the base was usually flat or sometimes raised (Figs 19:4 and 23:7).

  • Convex-sided, shallow, out-turned rim (Fig. 10:4) – (?) subsumed in Troy shape A 11; cf. the drawing (Fig. 42).

  • Convex-sided, shallow, carinated, out-turned rim (Fig. 10:5) – (?) subsumed in Troy shape A 21; cf. the drawing (Fig. 42).

  • Convex-sided, shallow, in-curved shoulder (Fig. 10:6) — Troy shape A 12. The shape at Troy can have a horizontal handle, but no bowls with handle have yet come to light at Lefkandi.

  • Globular, shallow (Fig. 10:8–9) – Troy shape A 16. As at Troy, this shape can have a (?) single, horizontal handle.

  • Globular, deep (Fig. 10:10) – not represented as such at Troy.

  • S-curve profile (‘Bass Bowl’) (Fig. 10:11) – not a Troy shape. No handles have been found at Lefkandi on this shape.

  • Globular, hole-mouth (Fig. 11:1–2) – not a Troy shape. The second example has an out-turned rim.

Bowls (Coarse Ware, i.e. Ware 5)

  • Convex, shallow (Fig. 11:3) – (?) subsumed in Troy shape A 1. The base may have been flat; on the other hand, a splaying ring base (Fig. 20:11) may belong to this shape.

  • Convex, deep (Fig. 11:4) – perhaps Troy shape C 21. The base may have been flat; equally, a splaying ring base (Fig. 20:10) may belong to this shape.

  • Globular, deep (Fig. 11:5–6) – perhaps similar to Troy shapes C 19 and C 21. One example (Fig. 11:5) certainly had a flat base; others may have had bases such as that illustrated (Fig. 20:11).

Cups (Fine Ware, i.e. Wares 1–4)

  • Lerna Cup (Fig. 12:3) – named after the example (in stone) found in an EH III context at Lerna (Caskey Reference Caskey1956, 164, fig. 4 and pl. 47). The base was flat. The shape is here restored with two handles after the original. The one-handled version seems, in general, to be rare. The Lerna Cup seemingly does not occur at Troy.

  • Deep Cup (Fig. 12:1) – with handles the shape would be a Lerna Cup. The base of the example illustrated (Fig. 12:1 = Fig. 19:14) would seem to have been flat. The shape is not found among the Troy material as published (Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey, Rawson and Sperling1950; Blegen, Caskey and Rawson Reference Blegen, Caskey and Rawson1951; cf. Figs 41 and 42).

  • Troy Cup (Fig. 12:4–7) – named from the Troy shape A 39 (with one handle) and A 43 with two handles). The base is flat. The handle is vertical, round and set in one of three positions: (1) from rim to base of neck, (2) from rim to mid-body, and (3) from base of the neck to mid-body. In the sherd material it is difficult to distinguish the two-handled from the one-handled variety of Troy Cup.

Jars (Fine Ware, i.e. Wares 1–4)

  • For the two Jar profiles illustrated (Figs 13:1,2) the closest Trojan shape would be C 11 or C 12, but on the Lefkandi examples the handles cannot be reconstructed with any certainty. The neck and rim on one Lefkandi example (Fig. 13:1) is straight; at Troy the rim is splayed.

Jar (Coarse Ware, i.e. Ware 5)

Jug (Fine Ware, i.e. Wares 1–4)

  • Beak-spouted (Fig. 13:3) – not recognised at Troy. Two fragments only (Figs 22:10 and 32:13) have been found at Lefkandi, where the cut-off version of a beak-spout (as at Manika, illustrated by Papavasileiou Reference Papavasileiou1910, pl. Z´ no. 2, pl. Θ´ nos 1 and 6, and Sampson Reference Sampson1985, figs 57 and 57a, pls 80–1) is not known at all.

Jug (Coarse Ware, i.e. Ware 5)

  • Small (Fig. 37; not illustrated in the Synopses of pottery shapes) – probably with a trefoil mouth.

[O.D.: Not examined by David; known only from a note (‘ … parts of a vase from CC 130’) and the photograph, taken by Mervyn Popham, December 1975].

Pot marks

The marking of pots by incision (pre-firing) is attested on a handful of sherds (Table 3). Mostly these are incomplete and cannot be confidently restored. Of the 21 recorded examples, all but one (a jar) are found on bowls. Ten of these occur in Buff/Brown ware; the best-preserved pot mark, however, is found on a bowl (Fig. 23:14) in a fine Red burnished ware. One pot mark was catalogued (LK/66/175); this example, which I have not examined, may be LK I.

Table 3.

Pot marks.

For pot marks in Lerna III, see the example published by Wiencke (Reference Wiencke2000, 2.625 and 633), and for pot marks in Lerna IV, see the account published by Rutter (Reference Rutter1995, 466–8); both are cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 376).

In the published account of incised decoration at Manika, no pot marks on bowls are cited by Sampson (Reference Sampson1988, 68). For incised decoration on a one-handled Troy Cup, see Sampson (Reference Sampson1985, 298 and pl. 85a; Reference Sampson1988, 68).

For a list of occurrences in Central and Southern Greece (in EH II) and in the Cyclades, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 376–7 with bibliography), and for Tiryns in particular see Dohl (Reference Dohl1978). An example comparable to the mark illustrated here (Fig. 23:14), has been found at Eretria (pers. comm. Sylvie Müller-Celka).

Residuals and intrusives

The significance of sherd material described as ‘stray’, ‘residual’ or ‘intrusive’ is broadly discussed above, in the Introduction to this chapter, and is further treated in detail under ‘The definition of LK I pottery’, with Tables 5, 6 and 7.

THE SMALL FINDS

For the small finds, see Table 4. The number of small objects found in the sub-phases of Lefkandi Phase I is not large. Nevertheless, at least one may be considered to be of some interest: see below, no. 11, a seal impression.

Table 4.

Small finds, Trench CC, David French's 2011 list.

Metal (Figs 38 and 39)

Fig. 38.

Trench CC. Metal objects: pin and dagger. Scale 1:2.

Fig. 39.

Trench CC. Metal objects: pin and needle. Scale 1:2.

Objects of Copper/Bronze

  1. 1. (LK/69/125) Bronze Dagger (Fig. 38:2)

    Found in CC Level 135 (26/6/69) on Floor XI at 1.10 N × 0.80 W (all measurements in metres unless otherwise stated), depth 2.80, in area marked as 1 (in circle) on the Plan (Fig. 4) and section (see Fig. 3: particularly W).

    Four joining fragments (some now missing) of a tanged bronze dagger; the tip is lost. Severe internal corrosion. L. 0.129; W. (shoulder) 0.024; Th. 0.02–03; (tang) c. 0.016, W. 0.010. The shape and section are given in the illustration (Fig. 38:2).

    In situ, therefore. Level 135 lies directly on the bedrock at the base of Trench CC; the location may be assigned to Sub-Phase 1.

    For similar daggers at Manika, see Papavasileiou (Reference Papavasileiou1910, 12 and fig. 13, Group Γ, Tomb 5) and Sampson (Reference Sampson1985, 305, 316, fig. 72:4, Tomb XXI).

  2. 2. (LK/66/127) Bronze Pin (Fig. 38:1)

    Found in CC Level 89, in area marked as 13 on the plan (Fig. 6) and section (Fig. 3:E).

    Near complete. The tip missing. Good condition, surface corroded. L. (extant) 0.078; D. c. 0.020–35. The shape and section are illustrated in the drawing (Fig. 38:1).

    Level 89 is the fill above the floor N of Wall H. The object may therefore be assigned to Sub-Phase 2B. There is a note, ‘? MH’, on the catalogue card.

  3. 3. (LK/69/126) Bronze Pin (Fig. 39:1)

    Recorded in the notebook for 26/6/69: ‘CC Level 144 at depth 2.90; 1.80 S x 3.40 E’, in area marked as 2 on the plan (Fig. 4) and section (Fig. 3:N and E).

    Near complete. Bent towards the point; tip missing. Good condition, surface corroded. L. (extant) 0.081; D. c. 0.010–15. The shape and section are illustrated in the drawing (Fig. 39:1).

    Not in situ on a floor, but Level 144 lies directly on the bedrock at the base of Trench CC. The object may therefore be assigned to Sub-Phase 1.

  4. 4. (LK/69/130) Bronze Needle (Fig. 39:2)

    Recorded in the notebook for 24/6/69 as found in CC W Extension level 130, Room 12, at 2.20 × 0.60 E, depth 2.30, in area marked 12 on the plan (Fig. 6) and section (Fig. 3: particularly W).

    Near complete. Broken off near point. Eye at 0.015 from pointed head. Good condition; surface corroded. L. (extant) 0.081; D. 0.010–20. The shape and section are illustrated in the drawing (Fig. 39:2).

    Perhaps to be considered as in situ on a surface; the location may be assigned to Sub-Phase 2B.

For a summary of studies on metallurgy, especially copper and tin-bronze, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 398–434).

Stone

Chipped Stone Tools

Obsidian and Chert [O.D.: see Table 4 for all obsidian finds in the Lefkandi Phase I levels]Footnote 5

  1. 1. Obsidian Blade

    Mentioned in the notebook for 26/6/69: ‘Level 134, a succession of layer-cake floors (Levels 131, 133, 134, 135; #5174, 5175, 5177, 5179). Floor IX Room 14 (in centre of trench between Walls af and ag)’ (the area 4–6 on the plan [Fig. 5], and sections [Fig. 3:particularly W]).

    Perhaps to be considered as in situ on a surface; the location may be assigned to Sub-Phase 2A or 2B.

  2. 2. Obsidian Blade

    Mentioned in the notebook for 26/6/69: ‘In Room 14 (between Walls af and ag)’ (the area 4–6 on the plan [Fig. 5] and sections [Fig. 3:particularly W]).

    Perhaps to be considered as in situ on a surface; the location may be assigned to Sub-Phase 2A.

  3. 3. Obsidian Blade

    Mentioned in the notebook for 2/7/69: ‘In Level 144 (under Level 142) is a thin floor level’, the area 2–3 on the plan (Fig. 4) and section (Fig. 3:E), ‘with (Small Find) 5 A complete bronze needle’ (‘Objects of Copper/Bronze, no. 2’, above).

    Perhaps to be considered as in situ on a surface; the location may be assigned to Sub-Phase 1.

  4. 4. ‘Chalcedony’ Blade

    Found in level 126 of Lefkandi Phase I.3/4.

    For a summary of studies on obsidian, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 381–9).

Ground Stone Tools

Pounder

  1. 1. No description.

    Found in Level 143 of Sub-Phase 1.

Polished Tool

  1. 1. No description.

    Found in Level 141 of Sub-Phase 2A.

Bone

Bone Tools

  1. 1. (LK/66/180) Spatula.

    Found in Level 92 of Sub-Phase 2A.

  2. 2. Worked bone (possibly from a bird).

    Found in Level 133B of Sub-Phase 2B.

  3. 3. Worked bone.

    Found in Level 134 of Sub-Phase 2B.

  4. 4. Worked bone (possibly from a bird).

    Found in Level 143 of Sub-Phase 1.

Shell

Worked Shell?

  1. 1. No description.

    Found in Level 135 (basket 5173) of Sub-Phase 2A.

  2. 2. No description.

    Found in Level 142 of Sub-Phase 1.

Clay

Figurines?

  1. 1. A fragment which was possibly the leg of an animal figurine.

    Found in Level 132–133A of Sub-Phase 2A.

  2. 2. A fragment which was possibly the leg of an animal figurine.

    Found in Level 119–126 of Sub-Phase 3.

It is unclear from the catalogue descriptions and sketches whether or not these two objects are from animal figurines.

Oliver Dickinson (pers. comm.) pointed out to me that human figurines are not at all common in EH II–III (cf. Rutter Reference Rutter2001, 117). On clay figurines of animals, which are more numerous, he referred me to the comments of Rutter (Reference Rutter2001, 117–19 with n. 91, referring to a possibly EH II anthropomorphic foot from the Argolid) and Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 310, pl. 10b (animal), and 324–5 with references to excavated finds [human]). Both cite the ox (?) figurine found at Nemea and the accompanying discussion (Pullen Reference Pullen1992).

Seal Impression

(LK/69/7) Seal Impression on Clay (Fig. 40).

Fig. 40.

Trench CC. Seal impression. Images courtesy of the CMS Archive.

Fig. 41.

Shapes of Troy II pottery (from Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey, Rawson and Sperling1950, fig. 370a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Fig. 42.

Shapes of Troy III pottery (from Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey and Rawson1951, fig. 59a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Found in Level 118, which may be assigned to Sub-Phase 5, the latest.

‘LK/69/7 CC Level 118 #5034. On an object of coarse grey to brown clay, gritty; top, bottom and one side unbroken; (impression) diam. 0.030; (object) l. 0.055; wi. 0.037; th. 0.030.’

‘Very probably from EB II hearth rim, and in the same stylistic series as the Kea, Syros, Lerna materials’ (catalogue description and notes by John Younger).

Published: CMS V, no. 423.

Smooth surface on top (= the impressed surface), broken below. The design of the impression is classified as an ‘intricate loop pattern’, a type found at Lerna and elsewhere (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 44). The CMS entry differs markedly from Younger's description, in stating that this is an ‘Abdruck auf dem Rand eines dicken Gefässrandes’. The profile of the fragment is not conclusive: pithos or hearth? Here it is interpreted as a fragment from an EB II pithos rather than from a hearth.

For an in-depth study on the subject of EH II seals and seal impressions on the Greek mainland, see Krzyszkowska (Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 36–56); for a summary of studies on seals and seal impressions, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 435–49). For seal impressions at Lerna, the best-known examples, see Heath (Reference Heath1958), later Wiencke (Reference Wiencke1969, Reference Wiencke and Pini1975, Reference Wiencke2000), cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 440–43, with list of occurrences, and pl. 28), and Krzyszkowska (Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 46–52). At Lerna seals, many probably of metal (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 40–2), were used to make impressions on the unbaked clay closures of vessels, baskets, and chests or storeroom doors; the best-known group of the resulting sealings is from the House of the Tiles, the central structure on the site in its final stage. The Lefkandi seal impression resembles these and the great majority of other EH sealings and seal impressions in its shape and has many parallels for its design, but the rare impressions made directly on vessels are normally found on the shoulder or handle (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 52); however, another impression on a pithos rim has been found, also in Euboea, at Yialtra (CMS V, no. 202; Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 45).

The Lefkandi seal impression may perhaps be later than those at Lerna and elsewhere. It has been suggested to me that the seal used to make the impression survived from an earlier phase and was thus in use for a length of time after its manufacture; on ‘strays’ from a preceding period and ‘time travellers’, see Krzyszkowska (Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 56).

For an association/correlation between EH II seals and EH II sites, cf. the distribution of EH II Urfirnis sauceboats (indicated on the map published by Renfrew Reference Renfrew1972, 396–7, fig. 18:12, which isolates sauceboats of the Korakou culture, i.e. EH II).

LEFKANDI PHASE I: DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

Discussion here is confined to two topics: (1) the definition of the LK I pottery assemblage and (2) the chronology of LK I pottery and the significance of its occurrence on Euboea.

The method employed here to define the LK I pottery assemblage is at once simplistic and selective. It is based on my own personal experience, idiosyncratic perhaps, of third-millennium wares in the Aegean and Western Anatolia. I attempt firstly to identify specific Anatolian elements and then, if possible, to indicate the probable sources of these elements. In a word, the method is an exercise in the separation of Anatolian elements in an Aegean pottery assemblage.

On the other hand, whatever the result of this typological separation, the chronology of Lefkandi Phase I – that is to say, the chronological separation into contemporary and non-contemporary elements – ultimately comes down to two related questions:

  • – to what point or period in the pottery sequences on the Greek Mainland, and

  • – to what point or period in the pottery sequences of Western Anatolia, is the pottery to be assigned?

In order to meet these two questions it is first necessary to consider the significance – not only for the definition of the LK I pottery assemblage, but also for its chronology – of known pottery wares present as sherds, whether rare or common, among the material recovered from the soil and rubble deposits of Lefkandi Phase I.

The definition of LK I pottery

Whatever excavators may think of their site or of their digging techniques, sherds generate problems. There must always be some form of contamination. Even if an ancient site was occupied only for a short time, there is always the possibility of lateral or vertical movement of soil-deposits through the cutting of foundation trenches, the in-filling of hollows or holes, the levelling of irregular features, the digging of refuse pits, in short from all manner of human on-site activity. One practice alone, for which there are specific examples from other sites, may account for synchronic and diachronic contamination, namely, the manufacture of mudbrick. According to location and circumstance, mudbrick may include whatever material is present at the place of manufacture. If broken pottery is deliberately included in the mudbrick for the purpose of bonding and cohesion, the resulting product will include whatever sherds came to hand. Naturally, these may be earlier in date: they may also be near-contemporary. Any unintentional inclusion would produce the same result. The activity of burrowing animals increases the possibility of admixture.

In a word, I view sherds as potentially mendacious. Only the presence of complete pots in situ on floors associated with the walls of a structure or structures allows a realistic definition of pottery assemblages and their internal, stratigraphic (and possibly their external, non-local) relationships.

Despite the severity – even simplistic severity – of this approach in other areas of research (on sites in Turkey, cf. French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997, 592), in the matter of the definition or of the chronology of Lefkandi Phase I pottery I have been most reluctant to give importance or emphasis to sherds. Nevertheless, in the absence, at Lefkandi, of complete pots in situ, there is, ironically, no other remedy but to consult the sherd material. How then is one to isolate the Anatolian from the non-Anatolian? Herein lies the core problem: what is the role of the recognisable sherd? Once the latter is isolated, does the remaining material represent a separate element/component in the assemblage as a whole?

My principal objective is to establish an identity for the ceramic material of Lefkandi Phase I. I attempt to do so by isolating the elements of the pottery assemblage of which the principal features have long been recognised as ‘Anatolian’ or, to put the converse, not demonstrably indigenous, i.e. Helladic.

In the search for a definition of the pottery assemblage to be assigned to Phase I of occupation, there are two possible approaches to the problem of contamination:

  1. (a) to claim a contemporary but non-local source for allegedly contaminating material,

  2. (b) to claim an older (or, indeed, later) date for alleged contaminants.

Those pieces – here (b) – which are demonstrably earlier or later, i.e. diachronic contaminants, are easier to define than the material – here (a) – from contemporary or near-contemporary external sources.

Under (b) I have included material categorised here as earlier, i.e. residual:

  1. (1) the Final Neolithic,

  2. (2) the EH I,

and material identified here as later, i.e. intrusive:

  1. (3) the MH Grey Minyan,

  2. (4) the MH Yellow Minyan,

  3. (5) the Mycenaean and/or Geometric,

  4. (6) the Classical Black Glaze.

The reasons for the division into residual and intrusive are as follows.

Firstly, residual wares (Final Neolithic, EH I) are handmade (hence earlier); LK I wares are wheelmade. Neither ware is securely stratified, by a sequence of whole pots on floors, below LK I pottery on any Euboean site. At Tharrounia, a mixture of LH and EH overlay Late Neolithic.Footnote 6 Nevertheless the two wares (Final Neolithic and EH I) are demonstrably earlier than EH II in Central Greece (e.g. Caskey and Caskey Reference Caskey and Caskey1960, 161, on Eutresis).

Secondly, later, intrusive wares (MH, Mycenaean, Geometric and Classical) are well known and at Lefkandi itself are found in structures stratified above Lefkandi Phase I.

Under (a) I have placed:

  1. (7) the EH II Urfirnis pottery of Southern and Central Greece,

  2. (8) the EH III Patterned pottery of Southern Greece (Dark-on-Light ware) and of Central Greece (Light-on-Dark ware).

The EH wares in (a) may be earlier than, contemporary with, or later than LK I pottery. In effect, the relationship between LK I, on the one hand, and the EH sequence, on the other, lies firmly at the heart of the two themes, the definition and the chronology of LK I.

Thus, by an approach which is simultaneously both exclusive and inclusive, it is possible to advance a definition of the LK I pottery assemblage. The definition is based

  1. (1) on the pre-eminence, in the sherd material, of one physical feature, namely, the surface traces which can be recognised as the marks of a potter's wheel,

and then

  1. (2) on a synthesis of shared characteristics, namely, of shapes (Table 2), especially the open bowls (Fig. 10:1–7), and specific wares (Table 1).

Presence/absence, however, may not always be significant. It is possible that at least one shape (the beaked jug) is somewhat under-represented in the sherd material. In essence, therefore, the LK I pottery assemblage comprises:

The assemblage consisting of these shapes and wares is displayed in two Tables (2 and 7), and illustrated in the Synopses (Figs 10, 11, 12 and 13). All else, in particular (3) the Dark Coated, (4) Black/Grey-Black and (6) Miscellaneous Wares, has been excluded.

The LK I pottery assemblage is simple, basic and limited; it is, above all, the pottery of a settlement, i.e. domestic. There are five elements, presumably serving differing requirements:

The distinction between pottery found in tombs and pottery from a settlement is best documented at Manika; see below.

As defined here, the LK I pottery assemblage seems to be wholly Anatolian, appearing fully formed and developed, somewhat like Athena from Zeus's head. This interpretation thus leads on to questions of origins and chronology.

Lefkandi Phase I pottery: the Anatolian component

Individual shapes and wares found in Lefkandi Phase I can also be found in the pottery assemblages of third-millennium Western Anatolia, in particular at Troy and at Beycesultan. Both excavations have provided evidence of stratified occupation; both have produced EBA pottery in quantity. Wares occurring in Lefkandi Phase I can be found in Troy II and III, even Black/Grey-Black (in Troy II); LK I shapes can also be found in Troy II and III. To these two sites Liman Tepe may soon be added (cf. Table 9).

No one site or area in Western Anatolia – on the coast, in the inland plains or in the uplands – produces a pottery assemblage which displays an exact fit with the LK I assemblage.

In Western Anatolia there are distinctions between coastal and inland areas and between highland and lowland, as follows:

An outline of the differing EBA pottery assemblages in the areas designated above is given elsewhere (French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997).

Inland sites (other than Beycesultan) have been excluded, e.g. Demirci Hüyük near Eskișehir (Korfmann Reference Korfmann1983–8). Other inland sites, currently under excavation, are not discussed here. Key EBA sites in the coastal areas of Western Anatolia are briefly described elsewhere (French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997). Sites on the offshore islands, Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb Reference Lamb1936) and Emborio on Chios (Hood Reference Hood1981–2), are excluded on the grounds that little or no middle to late EBA pottery, contemporary with Troy II or III, was found. Only at the excavations under the Heraion on Samos has material of Western Anatolian middle to late EBA been recovered in quantity (see Milojčić Reference Milojčić1961; Isler Reference Isler1973). In the Marmaris–Fethiye area (no. 4, above) some EBA tomb pottery, perhaps EB 3, has come to light (French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997, 586 and fig. 12). It does not resemble the classic EB 3 wheelmade red ware, best known from Beycesultan levels XII–VI (Lloyd and Mellaart Reference Lloyd and Mellaart1962, sheets 6–7); the published synopsis of EB 3 pottery is reproduced here (Fig. 49).

On the whole, in the lowland coastal areas (nos 1–4, above), sites thought to be contemporary with Troy II and Troy III–V are hard to define on the ground, and surface sherds of Troy II can be confused with Troy III–V.

The material from the Heraion on Samos was published by Milojčić.Footnote 7 The pottery is an irredeemably mixed assemblage of wares (from the EBA into the second millennium BC); some part, however, does reflect the EB 3 wares known at Beycesultan (cf. the comments of Milojčić Reference Milojčić1961, 38ff., pls 41, 45 and 47; Maran Reference Maran1998, 2, 420).

Troy II and Troy III–V

The pottery assemblages of Troy II and Troy III–V are varied and complex. The published synopses of pottery shapes in these periods are given here (Figs 41 and 42). It should be noted that the distinctions between Troy I and Troy II are much more evident than between Troy II and Troy III–V – a reason, perhaps, for the difficulty in assigning surface sherds, and hence the identification of sites of the Troy II period.

A comparison between the shapes of Troy II and III and Lefkandi I is illustrated below (Table 8).

Note the following:

Troy shapes (Troy II and III–V) not found at Lefkandi or very rare:

  • depas (A 45)

  • tripod feet

  • handled cups and bowls (A 26, 27)

  • face pots (C 30)

  • lids (D 7, 13)

  • jugs

Conversely:

LK I shapes not found at Troy II and III–V, though known elsewhere:

  • Lerna Cup

Podzuweit (Reference Podzuweit1979, 106) affirms that the double-handled tankard does not occur at Troy before Troy III.

Summary

No one site or area in Western Anatolia produces a pottery assemblage which displays an exact fit with LK I. In other words, there is no one source, whether site or area, for the LK I pottery assemblage.

If, therefore, the LK I assemblage does not replicate any of the pottery groups in the Western Anatolian areas listed above, how was the limited range of Western Anatolian techniques, wares and shapes selected for adoption in the kiln or workshop on Euboea? Herein lies a formidable enigma.

Lefkandi Phase I pottery: Final Neolithic, EH I and II, and EH III (Southern Greek) elements

As indicated above, I discount the presence of EH and MH sherds in the sub-phases of Lefkandi Phase I. It is clear, for example, that some Final Neolithic sherds were found to overlie the sub-phases in which EH II material occurred, and that later material – MH and Mycenaean/Geometric in I.1 – had penetrated to the lowest sub-phase, therefore, below Sub-Phase 2A, in which a sauceboat fragment (Fig. 35:6) was recovered. The distribution of residual and intrusive sherds of Final Neolithic, EH I and II and later periods is given in tabular form (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 5.

Lefkandi Phases I and II. Trenches CC and B. Residual, intrusive and non-local(?) sherds.

Table 6.

Lefkandi Phases I and II. Trenches I CC and X. Final Neolithic sherds.

Table 7.

Lefkandi Phase I. Trenches CC and B. Pottery wares: a synopsis of occurrences.

Table 8.

Troy II and III and Lefkandi I: a comparison of shapes.

For a survey of Neolithic and EH I sites on Euboea, see Sampson Reference Sampson1981.

For the location of the residual and intrusive sherds (illustrated, Figs 34 and 35) in the sub-phases of Lefkandi Phase I, see Table 5.

It is in these circumstances that relative chronology based on identifiable sherds, perhaps residual, perhaps intrusive, becomes an exercise in choice or selective judgement among conflicting possibilities.

EH II pottery has been found on numerous sites in Euboea, not least Eretria Magoula, Amarynthos (where the presence of EH II Urfirnis and LK I has been attested) and Eretria, in the neighbourhood of Lefkandi; references are given by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 717–20).

Lefkandi Phase I pottery: EH III (Central Greek) elements

The presence of Central Greek elements is based on the identification of a shape and ware known (for some time) at Orchomenos, the so-called ‘Humpe’. Pottery associated with this shape is illustrated here, Fig. 43 (adapted from the photographs published in Kunze Reference Kunze1934).

Fig. 43.

Shapes of EH III Orchomenos (from Kunze Reference Kunze1934, 10 – ‘Sherd House’).

LK I pottery: distribution

The knowledge of LK I wares and shapes and their distribution on Euboea has been vastly expanded, since the original survey (Sackett et al. Reference Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham1966), by Sampson (Reference Sampson1980; Reference Sampson1988) and others (Fig. 44). Outside Euboea, LK I wares and shapes have been identified in the neighbouring coastal and inland areas. For LK I wares at Pefkakia in Thessaly, see Maran (Reference Maran1992, 329–30) and Christmann (Reference Christmann1996, 289, pl. 64), cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 761, 763, pl. 55), reproduced here as Fig. 45. For LK I wares in Boeotia, and at Thebes in particular, see the accounts of Aravantinos (Reference Aravantinos2004) and Psaraki (Reference Psaraki2004).

Fig. 44.

Distribution map: sites with LK I pottery on Euboea.

Fig. 45.

LK I pottery at Pefkakia (Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, fig. 55 after Christmann Reference Christmann1996, pls 64:11, 68:3, 73:22, 78:5). Courtesy of Dr E. Alram and Prof. Dr J. Maran.

LK I pottery: occurrences and stratigraphy at Manika

The comparisons and contrasts, the similarities and differences, between Lefkandi and Manika are of profound importance for the understanding of the nature of the period represented by the LK I pottery assemblage.

In the conspectus of pottery found in the Manika tombs (Fig. 46), there is a perceptible difference between Lefkandi and Manika. This difference can be attributed to the distinction, much discussed elsewhere, particularly in later contexts such as Late Helladic, between tomb and settlement pottery (Christmann Reference Christmann1996, 293; Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 707). It is also notable that sauceboats occur very rarely in the Manika tombs. Here, Sampson dates the finds from the Ragia trenches to Manika I.Footnote 8 At Lefkandi the sauceboat is represented by a few sherds only. The repertoire of shapes in the Manika tombs is broad; in the Lefkandi settlement it is much narrower. The following shapes are common to both contexts (the Manika references are to Sampson Reference Sampson1988, fig. 91, reproduced by Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, as pl. 47, following 962, and here as Fig. 46, but this lacks 91.91):

Fig. 46.

Tomb pottery at Manika (from Sampson Reference Sampson1988, 64 and fig. 91). Courtesy of Prof. A. Sampson.

In broad terms of presence and absence, the Manika tomb pottery (of which Sampson Reference Sampson1988, fig. 91 is a synopsis) does not wholly coincide with the settlement pottery of Lefkandi. The restricted range of shapes at the settlement site of Lefkandi contrasts with the extended repertoire established for the tombs of Manika. It is perhaps an unnecessary contrast: no tombs have (yet) been discovered at Lefkandi. This lack of comparability requires confirmation from a detailed overview of the settlement pottery at Manika.

Nevertheless, the indication that EH II (‘late EH II’) pottery underlies LK I pottery at the settlement site of Manika (references in Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 704) is most clearly of fundamental significance (see below). The precise location of EH II sauceboats (apart from the tomb occurrences) is not clear from the published accounts. Sampson (Reference Sampson1985, 143) states that no complete examples of the sauceboat shape were found – sherds, therefore (but cf. above, Footnote n. 8, for at least one complete example from Tomb 155).

Relative chronology of LK I pottery: Anatolia

At the core of the LK I pottery assemblage are the wheelmade plates and bowls. I have assumed throughout that the technique and form point to a West Anatolian origin for these two shapes.

I have looked at the two possibilities for the introduction (at Lefkandi) of West Anatolian technique and shapes, either during the late third millennium (West Anatolian EB 3) or during Troy II. The former would impose an introduction (at Lefkandi) of wheelmade Anatolian pot-shapes during (West Anatolian) EB 3; the latter would suggest an introduction during West Anatolian EB 2, in or at the end of Troy II, the phase which precedes (West Anatolian) EB 3. It is after the end of Troy II – so the orthodox view – that, except for Cilicia, the rest of Western Anatolia outside the Troad receives the full impact of a wheelmade pottery fashioned in a new technique and in new shapes. Be it noted that wheelmade pottery (not necessarily imported) is present at the end of EB 2 at Beycesultan: Cilicia already had a wheelmade pottery assemblage before the influx of West Anatolian EB 3. The Cilician appearance of wheelmade pottery is a well-known crux in Anatolian chronology (cf. Mellink Reference Mellink and Ehrich1992, 216).

Three observations on the pottery of Troy and Beycesultan can be made:

  1. (1) Troy shapes and techniques appear in Beycesultan level XIII (levels XVI–XIII = EB 2; Fig. 48): wheelmade plates (Troy A 1) and ‘Troy Cups’ (Troy A 39/43), both rare.

  2. (2) The introduction of Troy II-type wheelmade pottery at Beycesultan at the end of EB 2, i.e. in level XIII, occurs before the beginning of EB 3 (level XII) and the massive introduction of wheelmade Red Wash and Burnished ware, the defining characteristic and feature of West Anatolian EB 3.

  3. (3) Similarly, the introduction of Troy II-type pottery and techniques – wheelmade plates and cups – at Lefkandi is partial. The full range of Troy II shapes was not adopted.

There is a chronological consequence of the above observations. It now becomes possible to suggest a significant relationship between Troy, Beycesultan and Lefkandi and to propose, as a working hypothesis, that the introduction of wheelmade pottery at Lefkandi was either roughly contemporary with or slightly later than its introduction at Beycesultan. In short, the following synchronism – late EB 2 (Beycesultan level XIII) and early Lefkandi Phase I = late Troy II/early Troy III – is an acceptable hypothesis.Footnote 9

For an early, ground-breaking survey of EBA pottery in the Aegean basin, and for ceramic change in particular, see Rutter (Reference Rutter1979). For a more recent wide-ranging discussion and in-depth study of relative and absolute chronology in the Aegean basin, with particular reference to radiocarbon and tree-ring analysis, see Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009) and her more recent discussion (Kouka Reference Kouka2013).Footnote 10

Relative chronology of LK I pottery: Central and Southern Greece

A choice must be made from the available possibilities. In discussing the relative chronologies of Central Greece, I tried (French Reference French1972 [revised 1975], ‘Chronology’) to present the imperative of choice among conflicting views and seemingly conflicting data. The same point, with particular regard for the relative chronology of Lefkandi Phase I, has been cogently argued and emphasised by Manning (Reference Manning1995, 51) in his admirable summary of the then existing data and opinions.

I here draw attention to three sites:

  1. (1) At Raphina pots (more or less complete) of EH II wares and styles were found by Theokharis (Reference Theokharis1952, 142 and figs 10ff.) alongside a cup of Anatolian shape (a Troy Cup) on the floor of House A. A selection of the pottery is re-illustrated here (Fig. 47). Not drawn for this illustration are: the ‘frying pan’, jug, jar, askos, large bowl (χύτρη), lid, spoon, and deep cup. No painted pots were present; two sherds were strays (Theokharis Reference Theokharis1952, 143). The plate can be seen as a handmade version of an Anatolian shape; it is in a common EH II ware (‘Plain Ware’). Two of the Raphina shapes are present in LK I, namely the bowl (no. 1) and the Troy Cup (no. 3).

  2. (2) At Thebes it is reported that ‘Anatolian’ pottery shapes, the Troy Cup and saucer, i.e. plate, occurred at the end of EH II and that EH III pottery of Ayia Marina style is absent. This pattern of occurrences resembles that of the sherd-assemblage at Lefkandi, where EH II and EH III are minimally present.

  3. (3) At Manika, EH II underlies LK I. It is not clear which phase is indicated, ‘Early’ (Sampson EH IIa) or ‘Late’ (Sampson EH IIb).Footnote 11 Indeed, is there such a thing as EH IIb at Manika? Are the distinctions at Manika based on sherds, not on groups of whole pots on floors?

Fig. 47.

Shapes of EH II Raphina (from Theokharis Reference Theokharis1952, 142ff. and figs 10ff.).

For Euboea, therefore, there are three possibilities:

  1. (1) that LK I wholly precedes the beginning of EH III in Southern Greece (as in Table 9).

  2. (2) that LK I is a group of pottery wares which, on Euboea, covers the transitional period from EH II to EH III in Southern Greece, that is to say, that LK I is contemporary, in part, with the end of EH II and the beginning of EH III in Southern (and Central) Greece. For its chronological relationships in Central and Southern Greece and the Cyclades, see Maran (Reference Maran1998, 2, 416, pls 80–1, of which the latter is reproduced here as Table 10); cf. also Christmann (Reference Christmann1996, 289–300) on LK I, Manika 3 (Sampson's terminology), Kythnos, Kastri on Syros and Palamari on Skyros.

  3. (3) that on the site LK I pottery replaces the wares of EH II and that in Euboea as a whole the LK I phase wholly postdates EH II.

Table 9.

Comparative chronology of Anatolia and the Aegean c. 3000–2000 BC (new version of Şahoǧlu Reference Şahoǧlu2005, fig. 3, courtesy of Prof. V. Şahoǧlu).

Table 10.

Comparative chronology of Aegean sites and regions, c. 4000–2000 BC (after Maran Reference Maran1998, pl. 81).

The third hypothesis has been discarded. Current opinion favours the first and second hypotheses, with a balance in favour of the second, a material test of which is provided by the data from Raphina and Thebes.

At Lefkandi, I have chosen not to issue a seemingly final assessment, which might then assume the status of dogma. An EH II Urfirnis sherd and Central Greek wares were found among the material recovered in the various phases (Fig. 35:6 [EH II] and 8–10 [Central Greek]). The sherds, then, are ambiguous: we need pots on floors.

Lefkandi Phase I and the introduction of ‘Anatolianising’ pottery: a summary

It is of the highest importance to recognise that analyses have indicated a result of crucial significance: the LK I pottery was produced from local clay(s), and presumably, therefore, the pottery was fired in local kilns, though none have been discovered (information supplied by Sackett, letter dated 02 April 2004). This information is reinforced by the work of Spencer (Reference Spencer, Philippa-Touchais, Touchais, Voutsaki and Wright2010, 672 and n. 8), who has determined that local clay(s) were used in the manufacture of EH III to MH II pottery at Lefkandi.

If the LK I pottery was locally produced (and exchanged on local networks), how and when did this move towards pottery of an Anatolian character take place?

It is proposed here that one or more workshops on Euboea adopted (and adapted) a simple range of Anatolian shapes and features for use and distribution in its/their surrounding region (Euboea, the east coasts of Boeotia and Attica). In other words, the LK I pottery found is the product of a local kiln where Anatolian fashions of production, surface technique and shape had been selectively adopted and adapted (a process here termed ‘Anatolianising’). The products of the workshop(s) were distributed essentially in the region of the kiln and more widely, in defined areas, in greater or lesser quantities; cf. the ‘Anatolianising’, but locally manufactured, EBA pottery on Keos (Wilson Reference Wilson1999).

It is difficult to determine one single source of inspiration for the ‘Anatolian’ pottery at Lefkandi. The basic elements of the LK I assemblage are found both in the Troad, specifically during Troy II, and throughout Western Anatolia. On present evidence there is no other area or region where the basic elements are found in overwhelming quantity before the general introduction of wheelmade red-wash wares, the hallmark of West Anatolian EB 3, i.e. the period of Troy III–V and Beycesultan XII–VI, unless one looks to Cilicia; for the wheelmade pottery in Tarsus EB 2, see Goldman (Reference Goldman1956, 132–3, 134 n. 3) and Mellink (Reference Mellink and Ehrich1965, 115; Reference Mellink and Ehrich1992, 216).

It is, of course, possible that there was an intermediary between Western Anatolia and Lefkandi, i.e. an east to west movement of pottery via networks in the Cyclades. Or possibly there was a direct contact between Western Anatolia and Lefkandi; cf. the reverse movement, west to east, as indicated by the presence of the EH II sauceboats found at Urla/Clazomenae – illustrated by Erkanal and Günel (Reference Erkanal and Günel1995, 313 and fig. 22), and discussed and illustrated by Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009, 146 and fig. 9) – and, indeed, at Troy (Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey, Rawson and Sperling1950, 193 and fig. 252:5[448], 193 and fig. 252:7[598], both in Troy I).Footnote 12 Note also the identification of a sauceboat spout at Thermi by Lamb (Reference Lamb1936, 90 and fig. 32:521).

As a model of interpretation, the concept of a population movement which introduced ‘Anatolian’ pottery to Euboea and elsewhere (for a summary of views, see Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 527–31; also Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 309–19) is here discounted.Footnote 13 A more complex mechanism is required as a vehicle for the appearance of ‘Anatolian’ pottery in Helladic contexts, a mechanism or process, moreover, which embraces other objective, artefactual materials such as metal. In this context, it is interesting to note the ‘convincing Anatolian parallels’ of the seal impression on a pottery container (a pithos) from northern Euboea (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 45).

For a brief summary of the interpretations based on the Lefkandi I pottery, with particular reference to population movements, see Rutter (Reference Rutter2001, 114 and n. 78).

The model preferred here – the selective adoption and adaptation, at localised centres of production, particularly on Euboea, of West Anatolian fashions in pottery – can be tested in Western Anatolia itself. It is significant that wheelmade pottery was found in pre-EB 3 contexts (level XIII) at Beycesultan. The simple range of wheelmade shapes, basically, plates and cups (illustrated here, Fig. 48:37–40), contrasts with the shapes and techniques of the handmade pottery (also illustrated in Fig. 48), which is dominant in the same context, i.e. levels XV–XIII (= Beycesultan EB 2). These basic shapes are exactly those which also appear at settlements and in tombs of the Greek mainland in EH II–III.

Fig. 48.

Shapes of Beycesultan EB 2 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart Reference Lloyd and Mellaart1962, sheet 5). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.

Fig. 49.

Shapes of Beycesultan EB 3 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart Reference Lloyd and Mellaart1962, sheet 6). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.

The question of relative chronology, however, will not go away, even if a mechanism for the adoption of ‘Anatolian’ pottery is understood.Footnote 14 No suggestion is made here. It seems preferable, on present evidence, to consider the possibility that the adoption was the result of a continuous but irregular, sporadic, piecemeal process – continuous, that is to say, over a period which could embrace one or more phases of EH, but irregular, sporadic and piecemeal on the basis of the number and location of occurrences, and in the sense that the adoption of ‘Anatolian’ pottery was not wholesale.

Post-scriptum

In the Forum ‘Minding the Gap’, recently published in AJA 117 (2013), 527–97, considerable attention was given to matters of chronology, with particular reference to the Cyclades in EC III. At the same time, attention was drawn to the origins of LK I pottery and to ‘Anatolianising’ and its manifestation in pottery assemblages in the Cyclades and on the Greek mainland (Davis Reference Davis2013; Pullen Reference Pullen2013). The description ‘Anatolianising’ can be used only in the broadest sense. The complexities and variations of EBA pottery in Western Turkey do not allow a single source for the ‘Anatolianising’ pottery – i.e. its shapes and wares – observed on Helladic sites: it is not clear whether the complexities and variations have been fully absorbed by those who refer to the term. This weakness is, in part, due to a lack of safe and reliable data.

For an example of a misconception with regard to Anatolian archaeology I would isolate the frequency of references to the period and pottery of Troy II and to the perceived pre-eminence of the site in Aegean archaeology. For all the urban status, not to mention the treasures, of Troy II, it can be readily seen that, in the immediate hinterland of the site and along the north-western coast south of Troy, there are few ceramic parallels to Troy II, that is to say, contemporary sites where the range and idiosyncracies of the pottery assemblage of Troy II are visibly and demonstrably replicated. Troy II does not stand as ‘representative for pottery’ in the coastal regions of Western Anatolia, still less for the inland areas behind the seaboard.

The complexity and variation of the pottery assemblages on the sites and in the regions of Western Anatolia were summarised by French (Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997), but have been discussed, more recently and more fully, by Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009; Reference Kouka2013).

On the problem of language as a hindrance to understanding, note the comments (Rutter Reference Rutter2013, 595) on the difficulty of publications in Turkish only.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (O.D.)

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr Ann French for her assiduous if, alas, unsuccessful searches of her father's study for a missing CD of illustrations in tif format, which did yield versions of two otherwise missing figures. I should record the outstanding contribution of Dr Yannis Galanakis to this publication, in the work that he put into very necessary improvements of David French's original illustrations. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Jerry Rutter for advice, especially on supplementary references. I am also particularly grateful to Dr Olga Krzkyszkowska for good advice and a superior illustration of the seal impression (Fig. 40), and to Prof. Dr Diamantis Panagiotopoulos of the Heidelberg Corpus of Minoan and Mycenaean Seals for permission to reproduce the images. David French supplied the originals of the figures, gathering versions of Figs 41, 42, 46, 47, 48 and 49, and Tables 9 and 10. I thank Prof. Dr Joseph Maran for providing an improved version of Table 10 and for giving permission to reproduce Fig. 45 (pottery from Pefkakia, ultimately from Christmann Reference Christmann1996); Prof. Adamantios Sampson for permission to reproduce Fig. 46 (pottery from Manika); Prof. Jack Davis for giving permission as Head of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, and Dr Carol Hershenson for guiding me through the formalities, for the reproduction of the images of pottery from Carl Blegen et al., Troy I and Troy II, in Figs 41 and 42; and Ms Gina Coulthard, Editor of Annual Publications, for giving the permission of the British Institute at Ankara for the reproduction of images of pottery from Seton Lloyd and James Mellaart, Beycesultan I, in Figs 48 and 49. Prof. Ourania Kouka was very helpful in the matter of tables that David French cited from her contribution to S.W. Manning and M. J. Bruce (eds), Tree-rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment (Oxford, 2009), and guided me to Prof. Vasıf Şahoǧlu, to whom I am greatly indebted for his taking the trouble to produce a new version of Table 9, originally published in his article in OJA 2005, and giving permission to reproduce it. Thanks are also due, on David French's behalf, to Benni Claasz Coockson of the British Institute in Ankara and to Brian Williams in the UK for producing revised versions of Figs 2–8 for his original work.

I am, finally, very grateful to my two reviewers for useful comment on the text and for spotting errors and uncorrected references that had escaped my notice, and to Dr Georgia Flouda for providing a translation of my abstract into Greek.

Footnotes

1 O.D.: this paragraph preserves the clearest reference to a detailed account of the structures and stratigraphy of the Phase 1 stratum in Trench CC, but, as will be evident below, no such account exists in the text that I received. It was presumably lost with the rest of the first draft in the robbery of November 1996. It is a matter of great regret to me that, having a series of plans and sections presented, I did not originally perceive that these were unaccompanied by any detailed discussion, and therefore did not bring the point to David's attention, being mainly concerned with his discussion of the pottery and its associations. See further below.

2 O.D.: Trial B contained 3 ‘EH III’ floor-levels, but David French makes no mention of this; he does, however, illustrate ‘Lefkandi I’ pottery from this trench, and include the Trench B evidence in Table 7 on the distribution of pottery wares. Evidence of food preparation, several obsidian flakes and blades, and one chert blade are reported (Evely Reference Evely2006, 97–8). He illustrates Final Neolithic pottery from Trench X and incorporates it in Table 6 in reference to the distribution of Final Neolithic pottery in Phases I and II. This trench is reported to contain steeply sloping wash deposits, the lowest being ‘EB III’, i.e. Lefkandi I, above which was an ‘EH III’ level, probably Lefkandi Phase II, and a level containing ‘MH I’ pottery (Evely Reference Evely2006, 135).

3 O.D.: as noted above, no details are given, and the penned annotations to the sides of the sections that indicate which features belonged to which sub-phase therefore remain totally unexplained. I have therefore decided, with the agreement of the Lefkandi Sub-Committee, to omit these sections and show only the master sections of Trench CC (Fig. 3) and the plans of all sub-phases (Figs 4–8) except I.5, which appears to be simply the level numbered 25 visible on the N and W master sections on Fig. 3. I have also omitted a repeated reference to Cressida Ridley's work on and interpretation of the sections; as stated in the Introduction, her notes are preserved in the Lefkandi Archive.

4 O.D.: in David French's version of this table, the column furthest to the right was headed ‘Original’, referring to the drawings of individual pieces used to exemplify the shapes; but the numbers used clearly came from an older numbering system (which sometimes survived into textual references also), presumably that of his original drawings, that he did not update in the table. Fortunately, the information he gives on sources made it possible to link his reconstructed shapes with the drawings in his figures and substitute the numbers used for the figures in this article, which I believe I have done accurately, correcting a minor error of numbering at the same time.

5 O.D.: this is a revised version of a file, ‘Catalogue 3. Small finds’, sent to me by David French in September 2011, which he did not incorporate in the final text. I have no information on how this file was compiled, but presume that the register of small finds was a major source, and David clearly consulted some of the excavators’ notebooks. Since it contains more information than is in David's final text, I felt that it should be published in some form, although I have made some alterations (abbreviations are expanded, 1969 Register numbers are added, and 66/127 is taken to be correct for a bronze pin, as given in David's final text, whereas it is entered as 66/176 on ‘Catalogue 3’). I am greatly indebted to Dr Yannis Galanakis for his help in producing a usable version of the original Adobe Acrobat file.

6 Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern1996, 289: ‘Unter einem gemischten Oberflächenstratum …’. She cites Sampson (Reference Sampson1992; Reference Sampson1993a) and earlier bibliography. Davis (Reference Davis2001, 35–6) gives a slightly different account of the stratigraphy and further details.

7 See Milojčić Reference Milojčić1961, 50, for a summary of the stratification. See now Kouka Reference Kouka2002, 285–94, pls 45–55, cited in Kouka Reference Kouka2013, 576, n. 60.

8 Sampson Reference Sampson1985, 29; see Reference Sampson1988, 31 and 125 fig. 71 on a complete sauceboat, 155.5812, from Tomb 155 along with two stone bowls and a bronze ‘handle’, and generally Reference Sampson1988, 64 on tombs, 124–5 on settlement. Sapouna-Sakellaraki (Reference Sapouna-Sakellaraki1993, 294) also refers to a sauceboat in a Manika settlement context, with LK I sherds. In general, see Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 711 n. 175.

9 For a bibliography and a tabular illustration of this chronology, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 198, with table 6 on unnumbered p. that would be 148) and Maran (Reference Maran1998, 2, pl. 81, reproduced here as Table 10).

10 O.D.: at this point David French cited tables from Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009), which he seems to have intended to be figures and which are generally relevant to the theme of relative and absolute chronology; these were respectively table 6, a calibrated sequence of West Anatolian EB radiocarbon dates, table 7, an absolute chronology of the EB Cyclades, table 8, a stratigraphic sequence for Liman Tepe, and table 9, a comprehensive chronological sequence over 3000–2000 BC for Anatolian and Aegean sites (shown here as Table 9). But he made no references to any in his text, and since only Table 9 can be found a place in his argument, I have decided to include it but exclude the rest.

11 For a summary of the work of Sampson and Sapouna-Sakellaraki at Manika, especially on the stratigraphy and terminology, see Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 204–5.

12 Seen 1960; see French Reference French1961, 118 and n. 50.

13 Cf. Dickinson Reference Dickinson1994, 107 (also pers. comm. 23 May 2011, that in his phrase ‘if not whole population groups’ he did not intend to deny the possibility of population migration but only to cite this idea as a more extreme explanation for the ‘Anatolianising’ phenomenon).

14 For a summary of earlier suggestions, see Sampson Reference Sampson, Werner, Zerner and Winder1993b. For ‘Anatolian Influence’, see Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 518–19, 527–31.

References

REFERENCES

Unpublished sourcesGoogle Scholar
French, D.H. 1972 (revised 1975). ‘Notes on prehistoric pottery groups from Central Greece’ (Athens) (privately circulated).Google Scholar
Published sourcesGoogle Scholar
Alram-Stern, E. 1996. Die Ägäische Frühzeit. 2nd Series. Forschungsbericht 1975–1993, vol. 1: Das Neolithikum in Griechenland (Vienna).Google Scholar
Alram-Stern, E. 2004. Die Ägäische Frühzeit. 2nd Series. Forschungsbericht 1975–2002, vol. 2.1–2: Das Frühbronzezeit in Griechenland (Vienna).Google Scholar
Aravantinos, V.L. 2004. ‘New evidence about the EH II period in Thebes: a new architectural complex and a group burial within the Kadmeia’, in Alram-Stern 2004, 1255–9.Google Scholar
Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J.L. and Rawson, M. 1951. Troy II. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Settlements, 2 vols (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J.L., Rawson, M. and Sperling, J. 1950. Troy I. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements, 2 vols (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Caskey, J.L. 1956. ‘Excavations at Lerna, 1955’, Hesperia 25, 147–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caskey, J.L. and Caskey, E.G. 1960. ‘The earliest settlements at Eutresis, supplementary excavations 1958’, Hesperia 29, 126–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choleva, M. 2012. ‘The first wheelmade pottery at Lerna: wheel-thrown or wheel-fashioned?’, Hesperia 81, 343–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christmann, E. 1996. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien, vol. 2: Die Frühe Bronzezeit auf der Pevkakia-Magula (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 29; Bonn).Google Scholar
Coleman, J.E. 1977. Keos I: Kephala (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Cullen, T. (ed.) 2001. Aegean Prehistory – A Review (AJA Suppl. 1; Boston, MA).Google Scholar
Davis, J.L. 1992. ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory I: the Islands of the Aegean’, AJA 96, 699–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.L. 2001. ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory I: the Islands of the Aegean’, in Cullen 2001, 19–76.Google Scholar
Davis, J.L. 2013. ‘“Minding the Gap”: a problem in East Mediterranean chronology, then and now’, AJA 117, 527–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, O. 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Dohl, H. 1978. ‘Bronzezeitliche Graffiti aus Tiryns I. Vor Brand eingekerbte und eingeritzte Zeichen’, Kadmos 17, 115–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douzougli, A.S. 1998. Άρια Αργολίδος. Χειροποιητή Κεραμική της Νεοτέρης Νεολιθικής και της Χαλκολιθικής Περιόδου – Aria Argolidos. Hand-made Pottery of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Period (Athens).Google Scholar
Erkanal, H. and Günel, S. 1995. ‘1994 Liman Tepe Kazıları’, XVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 305–27.Google Scholar
Evely, D. (ed.) 2006. Lefkandi IV. The Bronze Age. The Late Helladic III Settlement at Xeropolis (British School at Athens Supp. Vol. 39) (London).Google Scholar
Fossey, J.M. 1969. ‘The prehistoric settlement by Lake Vouliagmeni, Perachora’, BSA 64, 53–69.Google Scholar
Fraser, P.M. 1970. ‘Archaeology in Greece, 1969–70’, AR 16, 3–31.Google Scholar
French, D.H. 1961. ‘Late Chalcolithic pottery in north-west Turkey and the Aegean’, AnatSt 11, 99–141.Google Scholar
French, D.H. 1964. ‘Late Chalcolithic pottery in north-west Turkey and the Aegean. Additional notes’, AnatSt 14, 134–7.Google Scholar
French, D.H. 1997. ‘Early Bronze Age pottery in Western Anatolia. A summary 1970–1995’, in Doumas, Chr. G. and La Rosa, V. (eds), Η Πολιόχνη και η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Βόρειο Αιγαίο – Poliochni e l'antica età del bronzo nell'Egeo Settentrionale (Athens), 569–95.Google Scholar
Goldman, H. 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. 2 (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Hanschmann, E. and Milojčić, Vl. 1976. Argissa Magoula III: Die frühe und beginnende mittlere Bronzezeit I and II (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 14; Bonn).Google Scholar
Heath, M.C. 1958. ‘Early Helladic clay sealings from the House of Tiles at Lerna’, Hesperia 27, 81–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, M.S.F. 1981–2. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala, 2 vols (BSA Supp. Vols 15 and 16; London).Google Scholar
Immerwahr, S.A. 1971. The Athenian Agora, vol. 13. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Isler, H.P. 1973. ‘An Early Bronze Age settlement on Samos’, Archaeology 26, 170–5.Google Scholar
Korfmann, K.M. 1983–8. Demircihüyük: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978, 5 vols (Mainz).Google Scholar
Kouka, O. 2002. Siedlungsorganization in der Nord- und Ostägäis wahrend der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jt. vor Chr.) (Internationale Archäologie 48; Rahden).Google Scholar
Kouka, O. 2009. ‘Third millennium bc Aegean chronology: old and new data from the perspective of the third millennium ad’, in Manning, S.W. and Bruce, M.J. (eds), Tree-rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment (Oxford), 133–49.Google Scholar
Kouka, O. 2013. ‘“Minding the Gap”: against the gaps. The Early Bronze Age and the transition to the Middle Bronze Age in the northern and eastern Aegean/western Anatolia’, AJA 117, 569–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyszkowska, O. 2005. Aegean Seals: An Introduction (London).Google Scholar
Kunze, E. 1934. Orchomenos III: Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit (Munich).Google Scholar
Lamb, W. 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J. 1962. Beycesultan I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Occasional Publications 6; London).Google Scholar
Manning, S. 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age. Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History (Sheffield).Google Scholar
Maran, J. 1992. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien, vol. 3: Die mittlere Bronzezeit (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 30; Bonn).Google Scholar
Maran, J. 1998. Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer- und der frühen Bronzezeit (Bonn).Google Scholar
Mellink, M.J. 1965. ‘Anatolian chronology’, in Ehrich, R.W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 2nd edn (Chicago, IL and London), 101–31.Google Scholar
Mellink, M.J. 1992. ‘Anatolia’, in Ehrich, R.W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd edn (Chicago, IL and London) I, 207–20, and II, 171–84.Google Scholar
Milojčić, Vl. 1961. Samos I: Die prähistorische Siedlung unter dem Heraion: Grabung 1953 und 1955 (Bonn).Google Scholar
Papavasileiou, G. 1910. Περί των εν Ευβοίᾳ αρχαίων τάφων (Athens).Google Scholar
Podzuweit, Chr. 1979. Trojanische Gefässformen der Frühbronzezeit in Anatolien, der Agäis und angrenzender Gebiete. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Stratigraphie (Mainz).Google Scholar
Popham, M.R. and Sackett, L.H. (eds) 1968. Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea 1964–66 (London).Google Scholar
Psaraki, K. 2004. ‘A new EH II pottery assemblage from Thebes’, in Alram-Stern 2004, 1259–62.Google Scholar
Pullen, D.J. 1992. ‘Ox and plow in the Early Bronze Age Aegean’, AJA 96, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullen, D.J. 2013. ‘“Minding the Gap”: bridging the gaps in cultural change within the Early Bronze Age Aegean’, AJA 117, 545–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, A.C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium bc (London).Google Scholar
Rutter, J.B. 1979. Ceramic Change in the Aegean Early Bronze Age. The Kastri Group, Lefkandi I, and Lerna IV: A Theory Concerning the Origin of Early Helladic III Ceramics (UCLAPap 5) (Los Angeles, CA).Google Scholar
Rutter, J.B. 1995. Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid, vol. 3: The Pottery of Lerna IV (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Rutter, J.B. 2001. ‘The prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland’, in Cullen 2001, 95–147.Google Scholar
Rutter, J.B. 2013. ‘“Minding the Gap”: from filling archaeological gaps to accounting for cultural breaks: a 2013 perspective on a continuing story’, AJA 117, 593–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, L.H., Hankey, V., Howell, R.J., Jacobsen, T. and Popham, M.R. 1966. ‘Prehistoric Euboea: contributions towards a survey’, BSA 61, 31–112.Google Scholar
Şahoǧlu, V. 2005. ‘The Anatolian trade network and the Izmir region during the Early Bronze Age’, OJA 24, 339–61.Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1980. ‘Prehistoric sites and settlements in Euboea’, Arkheion Euboikon Meleton 23, 91–249.Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1981. The Neolithic and Early Helladic I in Euboea (Arkheion Euboikon Meleton Supp. 34; Athens).Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1985. Manika. An Early Helladic Town in Chalcis (Athens).Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1988. Manika II: An Early Helladic Settlement and Cemetery (Athens).Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1992. ‘Late Neolithic remains at Tharrounia, Euboea: a model for the seasonal use of settlements and caves’, BSA 87, 61–101.Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1993a. Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνίων. Το σπήλαιο, ο οικισμός και το νεκροταφείο (Athens).Google Scholar
Sampson, A. 1993b. ‘Manika and mainland Greece in Early Helladic III: ceramic evidence for relations with the Aegean and Anatolia’, in Werner, C., Zerner, P. and Winder, J. (eds), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1939–1989. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2–3, 1989 (Amsterdam), 159–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. 1993. “ΙΑ´ Εφορεία Προϊστορικών καί Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων, Aνασκαφικές Eργασίες”, ArchDelt 48 (B´ 1 Χρονικά), 293–5.Google Scholar
Spencer, L.C. 2010. ‘The regional specialization of ceramic production in the EH III through MH II period’, in Philippa-Touchais, A., Touchais, G., Voutsaki, S. and Wright, J. (eds), MESOHELLADIKA. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international organisé avec l'American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8–12 mars 2006 (BCH Suppl. 52; Athens), 669–81.Google Scholar
Theokharis, D.R. 1952. “Ανασκαφαί εν Αραφήνι”, Prakt, 129–51.Google Scholar
Tzavella-Evjen, H. 1985. Lithares. An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Boeotia (Los Angeles, CA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wace, A.J.B. and Blegen, C.W. 1916–18. ‘The Pre-Mycenaean pottery of the mainland’, BSA 22, 175–89.Google Scholar
Wiencke, M. 1969. ‘Further seals and sealings from Lerna’, Hesperia 38, 500–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiencke, M. 1975. ‘Lerna’, in Pini, I. (ed.), CMS V. Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen (Berlin), 28–114.Google Scholar
Wiencke, M. 2000. Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid IV. The Architecture, Stratification and Pottery of Lerna III, 2 parts (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Wilson, D.E. 1999. Keos IX. Ayia Irini: Periods I–III. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Settlements, part 1: The Pottery and Small Finds (Mainz).Google Scholar
Zerner, C. 2008. ‘The Middle Helladic wares from Late Helladic deposits and the potters’ marks’, in Taylour†, W.D. and Janko, J. (eds), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (BSA Supp. Vol. 44; London), 177–298.Google Scholar

SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCES (O.D.)

It has been suggested to me that it would be helpful to readers to provide some supplementary references that would update David French's coverage of the external links and chronological position of Lefkandi I pottery. I have chosen discussions that give a suitably broad view of the distribution of Lefkandi I pottery and its virtual twin in the Cyclades, the Kastri Group (to which David made surprisingly little reference), of their Anatolian connections, and related issues, with many references to previous discussion.Google Scholar
Berger, L. 2018. ‘Social change – cultural change – technological change: archaeological studies and scientific analyses of Early Aeginetan pottery’, in Alram-Stern, E. and Horejs, B. (eds), Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections between the Aegean and Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium bc (Oriental and European Archaeology Vol. 10; Vienna), 183–96.Google Scholar
Choleva, M. 2020. ‘Travelling with the potter's wheel in the Early Bronze Age Aegean’, BSA 115, 59–104.Google Scholar
Rutter, J.B. 2012. ‘Migrant drinking assemblages in Aegean Bronze Age settings’, in Maran, J. and Stockhammer, P.W. (eds), Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters (Oxford), 73–88.Google Scholar
Sotirakopoulou, P. 1993. ‘The chronology of the “Kastri Group” reconsidered’, BSA 88, 5–20.Google Scholar
Sotirakopoulou, P. 2016. The Pottery from Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice. The Excavations of 2006–2008, vol. 4 (Cambridge), especially chs 3 and 4, and pp. 371–3 (cf. also C. Renfrew's comments on 375).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Plan of site: location of trenches CC, B and X (based on Popham and Sackett 1968, 2, fig. 1). Scale: 1:2500.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Trench CC: north profile (at the end of the 1966 season) (based on Popham and Sackett 1968, 6, fig. 6, revised by Y. Galanakis). Scale 1:40.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Trench CC: North, East, South and West sections. Scale 1:50.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 1: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 2A: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 2B: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 3: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Trench CC, Phase I, Sub-Phase 4: plan of structures. Scale 1:50.

Figure 8

Table 1. LK I pottery wares: a synopsis.

Figure 9

Table 2. List of shapes, names and descriptions (Figs 10, 11, 12 and 13).

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Rim profiles: Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Shallow Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Figure 12

Fig. 11. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Deep Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Figure 13

Fig. 12. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Cups. Scale 1:4.

Figure 14

Fig. 13. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Jars, jugs. Scale 1:4.

Figure 15

Fig. 14. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: Buff/Brown 1–8 unb., 9–18 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 16

Fig. 15. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: 1–3 Buff/Brown scored, Red 4–6 unb. lustrous, 7–11 b. smooth, 12–18 b. scribble. Scale 1:4.

Figure 17

Fig. 16. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: 1–2 Red b. scribble, Brown/Black 3 unb., 4–5 b. scribble, Coarse 6–8 unb., 9–11 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 18

Fig. 17. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: Buff/Brown 1–8 unb., 9 b. smooth, 10 b. scribble, 11–20 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 19

Fig. 18. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: 1–11 Buff/Brown scored, 12–17 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Figure 20

Fig. 19. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: Red 1–4 unb., 5 b. smooth, 6–16 b. scribble, 17–18 Brown/Black unb. Scale 1:4.

Figure 21

Fig. 20. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: 1–2 Brown/Black unb., 3 Black b., 4 Dark Coated, Coarse 5–12 unb., 13 scored and b. Scale 1:4.

Figure 22

Fig. 21. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2B: Buff/Brown 1–6 unb., 7–19 scored, 20–21 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Figure 23

Fig. 22. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2B: Red 1–3 unb., 4–5 b. smooth, 6–10 b. scribble, Brown/Black 11 unb., 12–13 b. scribble, Coarse 14–15 unb., 16–20 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 24

Fig. 23. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A/B: Buff/Brown 1–7 unb., 8 b. smooth, 9–13 scored, 14–15 Red b. scribble, 16 Brown/Black b. scribble, 17 Black b. Scale 1:4.

Figure 25

Fig. 24. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A/B: Coarse 1–2 unb., 3–9 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 26

Fig. 25. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: Buff/Brown 1–2 unb., 3–12 b. (?)scribble. Scale 1:4.

Figure 27

Fig. 26. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: 1–7 Buff/Brown scored, Red 8–10 unb., 11–12 b. smooth, 13–17 b. scribble, 18–19 Brown/Black unb. Scale 1:4.

Figure 28

Fig. 27. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: Brown/Black 1–2 unb., 3 b. scribble, Coarse 4 unb., 5–13 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 29

Fig. 28. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.4: Buff/Brown 1–11 unb., 12–13 b. (?)scribble, 14–15 scored, 16–20 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Figure 30

Fig. 29. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.4: 1 Brown/Black unb., Coarse 2–6 unb., 7–8 b. scribble, 9–11 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 31

Fig. 30. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.5: 1–7 Buff/Brown unb., Red 10 unb., 11 b. scribble, 12–13 Brown/Black unb., Coarse 14–17 unb., 18 scored. Scale 1:4.

Figure 32

Fig. 31. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.5: 1 Buff/Brown, Misc. 2–3 Dark Coated, 4–7 Grey, 8–11 Patterned, 12–15 Dark Brown. Scale 1:4.

Figure 33

Fig. 32. Trench B, miscellaneous baskets: 1–4, 9–11, 15–16 Buff/Brown unb., 13–14 Red b., 5–6, 12 Brown/Black b. smooth, 7 Black b. smooth, 8 Coarse unb. matt. Scale 1:4.

Figure 34

Fig. 33. Trench B, miscellaneous baskets: 4, 12, 14–15 Buff/Brown unb., 1–2, 5–6, 8–11, 13 Red b., 7, 16 Black b. smooth, 3 Coarse unb. Scale 1:4.

Figure 35

Fig. 34. Trench CC, Sub-Phases I.1, 2A, 3 and 3/4, and II, and Trench X phase 3A: Neolithic 1–26. Scale 1:4.

Figure 36

Fig. 35. Trench CC, Sub-Phases 1–5: 1–2 Neolithic(?), 3–6 EH I and II, 7–11 Misc., 12–16 Buff and Black. Scale 1:4, except 12–16 1:2.

Figure 37

Fig. 36. Trench CC. Bowl. Scored Ware (= Ware 5) (profile Fig. 31:1).

Figure 38

Fig. 37. Trench CC. Small Trefoil-mouth Jug. Coarse Ware (= Ware 5).

Figure 39

Table 3. Pot marks.

Figure 40

Table 4. Small finds, Trench CC, David French's 2011 list.

Figure 41

Fig. 38. Trench CC. Metal objects: pin and dagger. Scale 1:2.

Figure 42

Fig. 39. Trench CC. Metal objects: pin and needle. Scale 1:2.

Figure 43

Fig. 40. Trench CC. Seal impression. Images courtesy of the CMS Archive.

Figure 44

Fig. 41. Shapes of Troy II pottery (from Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 370a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Figure 45

Fig. 42. Shapes of Troy III pottery (from Blegen et al. 1951, fig. 59a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Figure 46

Table 5. Lefkandi Phases I and II. Trenches CC and B. Residual, intrusive and non-local(?) sherds.

Figure 47

Table 6. Lefkandi Phases I and II. Trenches I CC and X. Final Neolithic sherds.

Figure 48

Table 7. Lefkandi Phase I. Trenches CC and B. Pottery wares: a synopsis of occurrences.

Figure 49

Table 8. Troy II and III and Lefkandi I: a comparison of shapes.

Figure 50

Fig. 43. Shapes of EH III Orchomenos (from Kunze 1934, 10 – ‘Sherd House’).

Figure 51

Fig. 44. Distribution map: sites with LK I pottery on Euboea.

Figure 52

Fig. 45. LK I pottery at Pefkakia (Alram-Stern 2004, fig. 55 after Christmann 1996, pls 64:11, 68:3, 73:22, 78:5). Courtesy of Dr E. Alram and Prof. Dr J. Maran.

Figure 53

Fig. 46. Tomb pottery at Manika (from Sampson 1988, 64 and fig. 91). Courtesy of Prof. A. Sampson.

Figure 54

Fig. 47. Shapes of EH II Raphina (from Theokharis 1952, 142ff. and figs 10ff.).

Figure 55

Table 9. Comparative chronology of Anatolia and the Aegean c. 3000–2000 BC (new version of Şahoǧlu 2005, fig. 3, courtesy of Prof. V. Şahoǧlu).

Figure 56

Table 10. Comparative chronology of Aegean sites and regions, c. 4000–2000 BC (after Maran 1998, pl. 81).

Figure 57

Fig. 48. Shapes of Beycesultan EB 2 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, sheet 5). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.

Figure 58

Fig. 49. Shapes of Beycesultan EB 3 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, sheet 6). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.