Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:37:24.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Provenance Studies of the LMIB/LHIIA Marine style

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

P.-A. Mountjoy ,
R. E. Jones  and
J. F. Cherry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The provenance of vessels of the Marine Style of LMIB from Crete and LHIIA from the Mainland remains an important unsolved problem. This article describes an attempt to discriminate between selected Mainland and Cretan specimens by multivariate analysis of the compositions of their fabrics determined by optical emission spectroscopy with the aim of determining whether the Mainland Marine Style pieces were indeed made on the Mainland, perhaps locally at their find spots, or were imported from Crete or the islands. Accordingly Marine Style sherds have been sampled from seven Mainland, two island, and two Cretan sites, together with a large number of definitively local sherds from each site to serve as a control over the characteristics of the local clays. A distribution map, Fig. 1, and a corpus, as complete as possible, defining and describing the motifs and shapes used in the Marine Style from the Mainland, Crete, and the islands as a whole is included below in order to provide an overview of the available information.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 73 , November 1978 , pp. 143 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a discussion of a central workshop for the Marine Style from Crete see BSA lxix (1974) 175 and n. 3 and 4.

2 The figures are uneven especially in the case of Zakro, Mycenae, and Kea where the material is still under study, the latter figures being taken only from those sherds photographed for the Kea record. Moreover, at the time of going to press, there are no figures available from the recent Canadian excavations at Kommos. The author (PAM) has had access to the kept sherds from all the Cretan sites listed (except Zakro and Kommos), from Aegina, Kythera and Melos and from Athens Acropolis, Eutresis, Korakou and Sparta and the lists are as complete as possible from these places.

3 BSA lxix (1974) 175–8.

4 Gournia pl. H.

5 BSA lix (1964) pl. 15.

6 PKU pl. 19a (listed under triton in TABLES 1–3). There are no examples so far from Crete with an open background.

7 Athens, PLATE 19(a), Thebes unpub., Prosymna pl. 7.

8 OA vi 159, T. L. Shear, A Land Called Crete 47–65.

9 Aigina IV. 1 pl. 18.196, JHS xxiv (1904) pl. 12.

10 BSA lxix (1974) 178 fig. 1. 1–2. From the Mainland there is also an example of octopus Type C and two of argonaut Type C in the Nauplia Museum Study Collection. They are not included in the statistics as the provenance, though Argive, is uncertain, the Study Collection being assembled from sherds muddled during the war. The author (PAM) was unaware of this when these three sherds were published, BSA lxix (1974) 178 fig. 1·3, fig. 2. 5–6, as being from Mycenae.

11 See n. 3.

12 OA vi 159, Furumark lists three features of Mainland argonauts which distinguish them, from Cretan ones: (a) unlike Minoan argonauts, the tentacles do not grow from the centre of the shell but from a stem, (b) the shell has a less curved outline, and (c) the striations do not radiate from the centre of the shell as on Cretan examples. However, there are only two vases from the Mainland with complete argonauts (Kakovatos PM IV 278 fig. 213, Vaphio JHS xxiv (1904) pl. 11) and such a small corpus cannot give an accurate plcture. In addition to this, the above distinctions do not seem to be supported by observation:

there is only one example to which (a) applies—on the Armant alabastron (P & C VI 925 fig. 485), if it is also taken as a Mainland vase, the tentacles grow one behind the other along the projection of the shell; on all other Mainland sherds they grow in the accepted Cretan manner. The outline of the shell (b) depends on whether the argonaut is of the sprawling or the compact type, and not on its place of origin, (c) There are very few examples on Crete of argonauts whose striations actually radiate from the centre of the shell (Zakros, Crete pl. 45); indeed, on every vase the shells are slightly different.

13 Aegina, Sieveking & Häckl no. 43a, AAA ix (1976) 86 fig. 1.

14 PKU pl. 20.

15 Goumia pl. H.

16 BSA lxvii (1972) pl. 36.

17 Nirou Chani AE (1922) 80 fig. 17.

18 Mallia EC xi frontisplece.

19 PKU 50 pl. 20.

20 Zakro JHS xxii (1902) pl. 12, PKU pl. 19a.

21 Pseira 29 fig. 10, Archaeology xxx (1977) 40 top left. Two jars from Pachyammos (Pachyammos pls. 9, 14) decorated with dolphins, one in light on dark and one in dark on light, are thought by M. Popham stylistically and archaeologically to be LMI (communication to the writer).

22 See AJA lxviii (1964) 350 for a discussion of the date of the basket vase.

23 PAE (1956) pl. 100a.

24 Gournia pl. H.

25 Prosymna 429 fig. 166 no. 1185.

26 Furumark calls it a sea-anemone MP 315 fig. 53 FM 27 but the stiff spikes of FM 27·5, 8, 10 are closer to an urchin's spines than to the fronds of an anemone.

27 Mallia EC xi pl. 53·3.

28 BSA lxii (1967) pl. 81c bottom centre.

29 Mallia EC xi pl. 62f.

30 P M IV 280 fig. 215.

31 Graef, Die Antike Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen vol. 1 no. 45.

32 Borda no. 166 pl. 31, top middle; Ayia Triadha Heraklion Museum Study Collection C2998 unpublished.

33 Ayia Triadha see n. 32 and C2999 Mon. Ant. xiii (1903) 66; Knossos T.Do.Ax. 87; Mallia, EC xi pl. 55Google Scholar; Phaistos Borda No. 165 pl. 32 (trefoil on base); Kea Hesperia xxxiii (1964) pl. 53a and two unpublished; Melos PLATE 20(d); Routsi, PAE (1956) pl. 100Google Scholarg (trefoil on base).

34 Sec n. 33, Mallia small, Kea large.

35 Mallia EC xi pl. 15·4, 5; Melos, BSA xvii (1910–1911) pl. 11Google Scholar; Kythera pl. 40 xi 136–9; Asine 412 fig. 270.2.

36 P & C VI 925 fig. 48. Vases with uncertain provenance are not included on the tables.

37 Antiquity xxxiv (1960) 266 fig. 1.

38 See n. 22.

39 Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 173 fig. 1.1Google Scholar; Mallia EC xi frontisplece; Pyrgos PLATE 20(e).

40 JHS xxiv (1904) pl. 12.

41 Knossos, PM IV 279 fig. 214Google Scholar; Mallia, EC ix 84 pl. 43Google Scholar; Pseira 32 fig. 13; Zakro, PAE 1962 pl. 152a and bGoogle Scholar and a third unpublished; Aigina IV. 1 pl. 14.161; Melos, BSA xvii (1910–1911) pl. 11.Google Scholar Two other examples (Kythera pl. 56 omega 249 and Berbati 26 fig. 11) are included with this shape although the bridged-spouts are not extant.

42 P & C VI 869 fig. 436.

43 Nirou Chani AE (1922) 20 fig. 17; Mallia M938 unpublished.

44 Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 173 fig. 1.2Google Scholar, 4 and three unpublished SM S.I.5, S.I.5, S.I.9; Mallia, EC xi pl. 62fGoogle Scholar and M2172 joining M2191 unpublished; Palaikastro, BSA lxv (1970) 231Google Scholar; Kythera pl. 32 lambda 11, pl. 33 mu 17–18; pl. 35 nu 3–5, 22, pl. 38 xi 27, 63, 69, 70, pl. 39 xi 101–2, pl. 53 omega no, 120, 133, 134, pl. 54 omega 151, pl. 85 Tomb N9; Aegina Sieveking & Häckl no. 43a 5 fig. 5; Kea, Hesperia xxxiii (1964) pl. 52aGoogle Scholar and one unpublished; Melos PLATE 19(c).

45 BSA lxix (1974) 178 fig. 1.3, fig. 2.6. See n. 10.

46 Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 173 fig. 1.3Google Scholar; Kythera pl. 39 xi 83, pl. 54 omega 172; Nichoria unpublished; Prosymna 429 fig. 166 no. 1115.

47 Knossos House of the Sanctuary PM IV 215 fig. 165; Palaikastro Heraklion Museum West Apotheke unpublished sherd; Zakro Crete pl. 45; Kea, Hesperia xli (1972) pl. 94Google Scholar; P & C VI 926 fig. 488.

48 P. M. Warren, Minoan Stone Vases 42.

49 Palaikastro PKU pl. 18a; Kea, Hesperia xli (1972) pl. 94.Google Scholar

50 Knossos PM 506 fig. 310b-c (AMO 1938.41), Antiquity xxxiv (1960) 269 fig. 3, SM P.1.1456 unpublished, AMO 1938.490 unpublished; Kea, Hesperia xli (1972) pl. 95 H.11.Google Scholar

51 PAE (1962) pl. 155.

52 Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 178 fig. 2.1.Google Scholar The context of this plece will shortly be published by M. Popham. Aigina IV. 1 pl. 8. 123; Kythera pl. 39 xi 109.

53 Kythera pl. 34 mu 48, pl. 55 omega 217–19. The last two examples are conical-plriform bases and probably belong to this shape. Melos, JHS xxiv (1904) pl. 12.Google Scholar

54 Kythera 133.

55 Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 173 fig. 1.5Google Scholar, Heraklion Museum East Apotheke Gamma 99 unpublished; Kythera pl. 38 xi 57, 59, pl. 53 omega 145, pl. 54 omega 151, 152; Mycenae, BMC 1.1 A772 131 fig. 174.Google Scholar

56 BSA xxv (1923–4) 310.

57 Knossos, AR (1961–1962) 28 fig. 36Google Scholar, PM IV 280 fig. 215, BSA lxii (1967) pl. 81a, top row fourth from left, bottom row last right and unpublished sherds single examples from MUM, HH, SM P.I.1427 and Heraklion Museum; Tylissos PM II 427 fig. 248; Zakro Crete pl. 43; Kea unpublished; Kythera pl. 40 xi 147, pl. 57 omega 273, BSA Study Collection FIG. 6.71; Kakovatos PM IV 278 fig. 213; Mycenae, BMC 1.1 133 A 772.2, 4Google Scholar; Prosymna pl. 7; Vaphio, JHS xxiv (1904) pl. 11.Google Scholar

58 CVA Fitzwilliam pl. IV. 58.

59 Ayia Triadha Heraklion Museum East Apotheke unpublished; Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 174 fig. 2.1Google Scholar, 2, FIG. 5.42, AMO 1938.530a and b, PM IV 360, and unpublished examples from SM A.II.12, C.V.I (two sherds), RRS, Heraklion Museum East Apotheke; Palaikastro PKU pl. 19a and b, pl. 20, 51 fig. 38, BMC I.I A 684 110 fig. 139, CVA Fitzwilliam pl. III, 30, Archaeometry viii (1965) pl. 18a. I, Heraklion Museum East Apotheke seventeen sherds unpublished; Zakros, , AJA lxxxi (1977) 559Google Scholar fig. 3 and two similar Heraklion Museum unpublished; Kea unpublished; Sparta Menelaion AR 1974–5, fig. 22.

60 Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 174 fig. 2.3Google Scholar; Palaikastro BMC 1.1 A650 Pl.9, PKU pl. 21,53 fig. 41, CVA Fitzuwilliam pl. 111. 31, AJA lxxxi (1977) 557 fig. I. and two similar Heraklion Museum C3393–4 unpublished, Heraklion Museum East Apotheke Box 58a seven sherds unpublished; Pseira 29 fig. 10, Archaeology xxx (1977) 40 top left, AAA ix (1976) 83 fig. 1; Trochali W., see n. 5; Zakros pl. on 110, AMO AE 785, AJA lxxxi (1977) 560 fig. 4; Kea unpublished; Naxos A A (1968) fig. 20.

61 AAA ix (1976) 83–6.

62 Feslos II 173, Borda no. 166 pl. 31 top middle.

63 Avia Triadha Heraklion Museum East Apotheke unublished; Gournia pl. H; Knossos, BSA lxix (1974) 174Google Scholar fig. 2·4, FIG. 5·50' TC unpublished; Palaikastro, BSA lxv (1970) pl. 56Google Scholar, CV A Fitzwilliam pl. IV. 61; Pseira, BSA lxvii (1972) pl. 36Google Scholar; Zakros pl. on 121; Aegina FIG. 5·23, 25, 26, 27, PLATE 19(b), Aigina IV. 1 pl. 19 no. 201 and one unpublished; Kea two unpublished; Kythera pl. 56 omega 223; Melos, BSA lxix (1974) pl. 26Google Scholar, FIG. 5·65, 178 fig. I.I, 2, FIG. 5.66; Athens PLATE 19(a); Thebes two unpublished.

64 Basle BSA lxvii (1972) pl. 37; Sieveking & Häckl no. 11a 2 fig. 3.

65 There is only one example of the triton (from Berbati unpublished).

66 The Kea material is under study and the exact number of Marine Style pleces not yet known but it is probably many more than the number quoted (communication from Professor J. Caskey).

67 BSA lviii (1963) 94–115.

68 Archaeometry xvi (1974) 153–87.

69 But an important exception pertains to Knossian pottery, at least of the LM IB period (vide infra). For a useful discussion of the errors associated with the ‘natural’ distribution in a pottery group, the sampling errors and their magnitude in relation to the analytical precision, see Bieber, et al. Archaeometry xviii (1976) 68–71.Google Scholar

70 All measurements are in centimetres. The first colour in each description refers to clay.

71 The drawings of these sherds are in the possession of the writer (PAM) not at Corinth.

72 See n. 68.

73 See n. 67, 97–99 for terminology.

74 Archaeometry xviii (1976) 59–74. Also Minos xv (1976) 68–80; Archaeometry xviii (1976) 51–8.

75 Using the ICL 1906S computer at Sheffield University and the CDC 7600 computer at Manchester University. For principal components and discriminant analyses, subprograms FACTOR and DISCRIMINANT of SPSS Mark 6 were used, as described in Nie, N. H.et al., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (second edition, 1975).Google Scholar The cluster analyses employed the group of programs called CLUSTAN 2A, an earlier version of which is described by D. Wishart, CLUSTAN IA User Manual (1969). Subsidiary programs for data transformation and computation of distance measures were written in FORTRAN by J. F. Cherry.

76 It should be noted that the data were first converted to logarithmic form, and standardized (by subtracting from each case the mean values for each element and dividing by the standard deviation). These are widely accepted transformations which improve the characteristics of multivariate data by eliminating the bias of elements with large standard deviations, by narrowing the range of concentration levels of different elements, and by moving the distribution of data values for each element into closer conformity with that of a normal, Gaussian curve. Cf. Archaeometry xviii (1976) 59–74; Archaeometry xix (1977) 33–43.

77 A straightforward exposition of this technique for archaeological readers is to be found in Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R., Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology (1975) 190–7Google Scholar; also useful is S. Daultrey, Principal Components Analysis (1976).

78 See generally B. Everitt, Cluster Analysis (1974).

79 The average-link method of cluster formation, claimed by Prag, A. J. N. W.et al., Archaeometry xvi (1974) 153–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Attas, M.et al., Archaeometry xix (1977) 33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as particularly effective with analytical data of this type, was found to be generally less satisfactory than the error-sum-of-squares method.

80 See Mather, P. M., Computational Methods of Multivariate Analysis in Physical Geography (1976) 420–59Google Scholar; Doran and Hodson (op. cit.) 209–13.

81 The discussion here refers to the position of samples in discriminant space, not to their raw scores in TABLES 4 and 5.

82 Archaeometry viii (1965) 24–5.

83 Ibid. xix (1977) 138–9.

84 Aigina IV. i pl. 19.198a and b.

85 H. W. Catling, A. Millett, and R. E. Jones, forthcoming article in RDAC.