Pottery groups from Mycenae: a summary

Abstract

The possibility of establishing the sequence and chronological development of Mycenaean pottery by excavation on a well-stratified site is remote. Remains of the Mycenaean period are, generally, found either on rocky outcrops or in the eroded upper levels of mounds which have been inhabited for many centuries, and there is, thus, little scope for true stratigraphic excavation. The very considerable quantity of Mycenaean pottery which has been discovered in the Mediterranean area and the studies of it which have been published in the last twenty-five years have produced the impression that Mycenaean pottery is ‘well known’. Indeed, such pottery is, on the whole, easily recognized but there is often great difficulty in dating it. Pottery from settlements has largely been neglected, on the grounds of its fragmentary condition, in favour of better-preserved examples from tombs. The result is that, in his volume dealing with chronology, Furumark was able to use, for the L.H. III period, only ten groups of pottery from domestic contexts. Moreover, if the student of today wishes to compare new material with these groups, he will find that the evidence from Mycenae (four of the ten groups) was almost completely lost during the war and that of the rest only the pottery from Athens and from Zygouries is available.

The Date of the Tomb of Clytemnestra

“…5; Mountjoy 1986, 91, 93, 205, table IV; 1993, 72). They were, however, a common feature of Late Helladic IIIB1 (Mountjoy 1986, 93, 117), being present in pottery groups throughout the period (for Mycenae see French 1963, 49; 1966; Wardle 1969; 1973, 304–7, 318; Mountjoy 1976). In fact, the introduction of the deep bowl is used to mark the division between Late Helladic IIIA2 and Late Helladic IIIB1 (French 1965, 159, 194; Mountjoy 1986, 67, 93).…”

“…The surface of hard tramped earth, particularly the part closest to curved wall α, was covered with a great mass of Mycenaean potsherds (Hood 1953a, 23; 1953b, 85; French 1963, 49; 1966, 217). This large deposit of pottery was only 0.20 m deep (French 1966, 217), but it did extend beyond the surface of beaten earth.…”

“…The majority of the sherds themselves come from kylikes (the Zygouries type and ones decorated with vertical whorl-shells), deep bowls (Group A), stemmed bowls and small stirrup jars (apparently globular and squat types). Only a few other shapes are represented (Hood 1953a, 23–4; 1953b, 85; French 1963, 49; 1966). The pottery recovered from trench IV in 1939 was of the same character (Wace 1953b).…”

“…Unfortunately, this statement cannot be verified now, because so many of the sherds, specifically all of the unpainted and most of the linear ones, have been thrown away. Originally, it was hoped that a number of pots could be reconstructed from the sherd material, but when this task was finally attempted only the painted sherds were left, and so, unsurprisingly, very few of the surviving fragments could be joined together (French 1963, 49 n. 71; 1966, 217). There is a possibility, then, that the deposit was nothing more than a mass of already broken ceramics.…”

“…The kept sherds from trenches III and IV were studied by Elizabeth French. She published a summary of her findings in 1963 and a full report in 1966 (French 1963; 1966). The deposit contained a few late intrusions, such as four Geometric sherds and one Late Helladic IIIC fragment, but the number is so small – just 10 sherds out of the 1,867 still remaining – that the deposit is regarded as a closed group (French 1963, 49; 1966, 217, 233).…”