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

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

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.¹

Fig. 1. Plan of site: location of trenches CC, B and X (based on Popham and Sackett 1968, 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 1968, 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 1968, 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.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 1970, 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.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 1968, 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 1968, 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 1968, 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 1968, 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 (2008, 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 (2012, 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 (1960, 134) and by French (1972 [revised 1975], 22 and fig. 21:4 [Kastron], 5 [Skhimatari]), and now substantiated elsewhere. For Athens, see French (1964, 135) and Immerwahr (1971, 9–10), now amplified elsewhere. For Euboea in general, see the account of Sampson (1992), cited by Alram-Stern (1996, 292–3); for the cave of Tharrounia, see reports of Sampson (1992; 1993a, especially pl. 29), and for additional details see Davis (2001, 35, quoted in its original 1992 form by Alram-Stern 1996, 292, 293 and fig. 21, which reproduces Sampson 1993a, pl. 29).

‘North Slope Ware’: a component of the ‘Attika-Kephala Culture’, defined by Renfrew (1972, 75–7); for the eponymous site, Kephala, see Coleman's (1977) report, cited and quoted, with illustrations, by Alram-Stern (1996, 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 1996, 139–40, 154–5, 157–60). For a summary of Final Neolithic or ‘Endneolithikum’, see Douzougli (1998, 136, with bibliography).

EH I – Red/Brown Burnished Ware

Defined in Central Greece at Eutresis by Caskey and Caskey (1960, 155); noted and illustrated by French (1972 [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 1985, 22 and fig. 8).

For the Corinthian Gulf, see the account of Fossey (1969), cited by Alram-Stern (2004, 156).

For sites of this period on Euboea, see the work carried out by Sampson and others (Sampson 1981; Sackett et al. 1966), abridged by Alram-Stern (2004, 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 (1960, 139–40); noted in Central Greece and Euboea by French (1972 [revised 1975], 24 and fig. 10), citing Sackett et al. 1966 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 (2004, 681–726).

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

Defined in Central Greece at Orchomenos by Kunze (1934, 12–18) and at Eutresis by Caskey and Caskey (1960, 158), and by French (1972 [revised 1975], 24). Substantiated elsewhere. Summarised by Alram-Stern (2004, 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 (1972 [revised 1975], 25), repeating Wace and Blegen (1916–18, 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 (1934, 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 (1976, 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 (2001, 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 2,⁴ 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. 1950, 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 1956, 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. 1950; Blegen, Caskey and Rawson 1951; 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)

• Large (Fig. 13:4).

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 1910, pl. Z´ no. 2, pl. Θ´ nos 1 and 6, and Sampson 1985, 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 (2000, 2.625 and 633), and for pot marks in Lerna IV, see the account published by Rutter (1995, 466–8); both are cited by Alram-Stern (2004, 376).

In the published account of incised decoration at Manika, no pot marks on bowls are cited by Sampson (1988, 68). For incised decoration on a one-handled Troy Cup, see Sampson (1985, 298 and pl. 85a; 1988, 68).

For a list of occurrences in Central and Southern Greece (in EH II) and in the Cyclades, see Alram-Stern (2004, 376–7 with bibliography), and for Tiryns in particular see Dohl (1978). 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 (1910, 12 and fig. 13, Group Γ, Tomb 5) and Sampson (1985, 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 (2004, 398–434).

Stone

Chipped Stone Tools

Obsidian and Chert [O.D.: see Table 4 for all obsidian finds in the Lefkandi Phase I levels]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 (2004, 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 2001, 117). On clay figurines of animals, which are more numerous, he referred me to the comments of Rutter (2001, 117–19 with n. 91, referring to a possibly EH II anthropomorphic foot from the Argolid) and Alram-Stern (2004, 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 1992).

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. 1950, fig. 370a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Fig. 42. Shapes of Troy III pottery (from Blegen et al. 1951, 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 2005, 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 (2005, 36–56); for a summary of studies on seals and seal impressions, see Alram-Stern (2004, 435–49). For seal impressions at Lerna, the best-known examples, see Heath (1958), later Wiencke (1969, 1975, 2000), cited by Alram-Stern (2004, 440–43, with list of occurrences, and pl. 28), and Krzyszkowska (2005, 46–52). At Lerna seals, many probably of metal (Krzyszkowska 2005, 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 2005, 52); however, another impression on a pithos rim has been found, also in Euboea, at Yialtra (CMS V, no. 202; Krzyszkowska 2005, 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 (2005, 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 1972, 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 1997, 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.⁶ Nevertheless the two wares (Final Neolithic and EH I) are demonstrably earlier than EH II in Central Greece (e.g. Caskey and Caskey 1960, 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 1997).

Inland sites (other than Beycesultan) have been excluded, e.g. Demirci Hüyük near Eskișehir (Korfmann 1983–8). 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 1997). Sites on the offshore islands, Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb 1936) and Emborio on Chios (Hood 1981–2), 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 1961; Isler 1973). In the Marmaris–Fethiye area (no. 4, above) some EBA tomb pottery, perhaps EB 3, has come to light (French 1997, 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 1962, 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.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 1961, 38ff., pls 41, 45 and 47; Maran 1998, 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 (1979, 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 1981.

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 (2004, 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 1934).

Fig. 43. Shapes of EH III Orchomenos (from Kunze 1934, 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. 1966), by Sampson (1980; 1988) 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 (1992, 329–30) and Christmann (1996, 289, pl. 64), cited by Alram-Stern (2004, 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 (2004) and Psaraki (2004).

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

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.

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 1996, 293; Alram-Stern 2004, 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.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 1988, fig. 91, reproduced by Alram-Stern 2004, as pl. 47, following 962, and here as Fig. 46, but this lacks 91.91):

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

In broad terms of presence and absence, the Manika tomb pottery (of which Sampson 1988, 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 2004, 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 (1985, 143) states that no complete examples of the sauceboat shape were found – sherds, therefore (but cf. above, 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 1992, 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.⁹

For an early, ground-breaking survey of EBA pottery in the Aegean basin, and for ceramic change in particular, see Rutter (1979). 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 (2009) and her more recent discussion (Kouka 2013).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 1972 [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 (1995, 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 (1952, 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 1952, 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).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 1952, 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 (1998, 2, 416, pls 80–1, of which the latter is reproduced here as Table 10); cf. also Christmann (1996, 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 2005, fig. 3, courtesy of Prof. V. Şahoǧlu).

Table 10. Comparative chronology of Aegean sites and regions, c. 4000–2000 BC (after Maran 1998, 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 (2010, 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 1999).

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 (1956, 132–3, 134 n. 3) and Mellink (1965, 115; 1992, 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 (1995, 313 and fig. 22), and discussed and illustrated by Kouka (2009, 146 and fig. 9) – and, indeed, at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950, 193 and fig. 252:5[448], 193 and fig. 252:7[598], both in Troy I).¹² Note also the identification of a sauceboat spout at Thermi by Lamb (1936, 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 2004, 527–31; also Broodbank 2000, 309–19) is here discounted.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 2005, 45).

For a brief summary of the interpretations based on the Lefkandi I pottery, with particular reference to population movements, see Rutter (2001, 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 1962, sheet 5). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.

Fig. 49. Shapes of Beycesultan EB 3 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 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.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 2013; Pullen 2013). 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 (1997), but have been discussed, more recently and more fully, by Kouka (2009; 2013).

On the problem of language as a hindrance to understanding, note the comments (Rutter 2013, 595) on the difficulty of publications in Turkish only.