Handmade Burnished Ware in Late Bronze Age Greece and its makers by Chloé Léa Romanos A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY VOLUME I: TEXT Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity The University of Birmingham February 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This study focuses on the idiosyncratic type of pottery called Handmade Burnished Ware (HBW) which appears in the Eastern Mediterranean and more particularly in the Mycenaean area during the 13th-12th centuries BC. It includes my own in corpore study of published and unpublished material from various sites in the Aegean region, as well as previously unstudied material from Mycenae itself. A major part of the study is devoted to a detailed definition of the chronological, geographical and depositional contexts of HBW, of its shapes and its varieties, in terms both of fabric and manufacture. This analysis was a necessary prerequisite to my goals of understanding the origin(s) and distribution of this pottery, of determining whether it is one ware or several similar ones and of understanding its role and significance in the social, economic and historical contexts in which it appeared. I conclude that this group of pottery is a cultural marker for the presence of a small foreign population who produced these vessels and were living amongst the local population already during the Mycenaean Palatial (LH IIIB) period but also in the following phase (LH IIIC), after the major destructions. The close relationship of this cultural marker, whether contextual, technological or in terms of origin, with several different types of artefacts linked to craft activities such as textile production or bronze-smithing, seems to point toward the interpretation of the occupation of the HBW makers as possible travelling artisans. i A mes grands-parents, Geneviève et Daniel Pastor, ii Acknowledgments Firstly, I am very grateful to my supervisor, Ken Wardle, for his constant help, advices and many discussions throughout my study and also to Diana Wardle, for her hospitality. The financial support of the School of Historical Studies, at the University of Birmingham is also gratefully acknowledged. I would like to thank both Elizabeth French and Ken Wardle very much for giving me permission to study and present unpublished material from Mycenae, as well as proving me with unpublished information and drafts of forthcoming WBM fascicules. Special thanks go to Elisabeth French for lending me some Mycenae Archive files to work on and for an inspiring conversation, interesting advices and to answer various questions throughout my work on the Mycenae material. I also want to gratefully acknowledge the British School of Athens, and in particular Mrs. Helen Clark, Vicki Tzavara and Tania Gerousi, for their kindness and help in organising my stays in Greece and with obtaining permissions to see the material from the various museums. I also thank the Corinth Museum and the American School of Classical Studies at Corinth and in particular Guy Sanders and Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst, as well as Jeremy Rutter, for permission to study material from Korakou and Corinth and for discussing some aspects of the material and for giving interesting advices on pottery manufacturing and analysis. Special thanks go to Ioulia and the staff at the hostel for their kindness and for making my stay there very agreeable. I also wish to thank the Mycenae Museum and its staff, for their friendliness and their help in making my study there so efficient. My thanks also go to Marion Dassis, for her hospitality during my stay in Mycenae, and interesting advices on things to see in the area. I would also like to thank Irene Lemos for permission to study material from Lefkandi, the Eretria museum staff for their help in finding the material, and the Ancient Agora Museum, in particular John Camp and Sylvie Dumont, for permission to study material there. My thanks also go to my second supervisor, Gillian Shepard, for useful comments and advices, to Evangelia Kiriatzi, of the Fitch Laboratory in Athens, for fruitful conversations and to Kim Shelton, for information on HBW from Mycenae. Je souhaite aussi remercier ma famille, pour leur soutien moral, et en particulier mon grand-père, Daniel Pastor, pour avoir éveillé ma curiosité pour l’histoire et l’archéologie et pour m’avoir encouragé à entreprendre cette thèse et aussi pour l’aide financière qu’il m’a apporté. Finally, I wish to thank Joe Tanner, for his moral support throughout my study, for encouraging me to follow this path and for going along with me to Greece. iii Contents VOLUME I: Text Abstract i Acknowledgment iii List of figures x List of abbreviations xiii Introduction 1 i. What is Handmade Burnished Ware? 1 i.i Historical context 1 i.ii General characterisation of HBW 5 i.iii Previous studies 7 ii. Aims and objectives of the present study 9 ii.i Problems of identification and definition of HBW 9 ii.ii The methodology reconsidered 12 ii.iii New HBW material: Mycenae 15 ii.iv HBW makers as foreign artisans: a working hypothesis 16 Chapter 1: Corpus characterisation and contextual analysis 18 1.1 Corpus characterisation 19 1.1.1 Mycenaean sites included in HBW debate 19 1.1.1.1 More than 100 specimens 20 1.1.1.2 Between 10 and 100 specimens 22 1.1.1.3 Less than 10 specimens 25 1.1.1.4 Lack of data 28 1.1.2 HBW outside the Mycenaean area? 30 1.1.2.1 Cyprus 31 1.1.2.2 Near East 31 1.1.2.3 Troy 33 1.1.3 Differentiating wares 36 1.1.3.1 EIA-related handmade pottery 37 1.1.3.2 Sardinian pottery 38 1.1.3.3 Handmade Burnished Ware 39 1.2 Issues associated with chronological aspects 41 1.2.1 Relative and absolute chronology 41 iv 1.2.2 Synchronisation between Aegean sites 42 1.2.3 Tiryns: Stratigraphy problems 45 1.2.4 Aigeira: the "Pre-Mycenaean phase" 46 1.2.5 Crete: earlier appearance? 46 1.2.6 Synchronisation with the Central Mediterranean 47 1.3 Analysis and interpretation of the find context of HBW 49 1.3.1 First appearance 49 1.3.2 Chronological and geographic evolution 49 1.3.3 HBW presence in Submycenaean period? 51 1.3.4 Quantitative evolution 52 1.3.5 Nature of the sites 53 1.3.6 Relation to Mycenaean habitation 53 1.3.7 Functional interpretation of the find context 54 1.4 Discussion 57 Chapter 2: Typology of shapes and comparative analyses 59 2.1 Methodology of shape classification 60 2.1.1 The criteria 60 2.1.1.1 Primary criteria 61 2.1.1.2 Secondary criteria 63 2.1.2 Defining types 64 2.2 Typology 66 2.2.1 HBW shapes 66 2.2.1.1 Type 1: Carinated vessels 66 2.2.1.2 Type 2: Cups 68 2.2.1.3 Type 3: Bowls 69 2.2.1.4 Type 4: Basins 71 2.2.1.5 Type 5: Buckets 71 2.2.1.6 Type 6: Wide-mouthed jars 73 2.2.1.7 Type 7: Collared jars 74 2.2.1.8 Type 8: Utensils 76 2.2.2 HBW decorations 78 2.2.3 Identifying vessel functions 81 2.2.4 Distributional analysis 85 2.3 Comparative analyses 90 2.3.1 Comparison with Mycenaean wares 90 2.3.1.1 HBW influenced by Mycenaean wares? 91 2.3.1.2 Mycenaean wares influenced by HBW? 94 2.3.1.3 Conclusion 99 2.3.2 Comparison with HBW from the Eastern Mediterranean 99 v 2.4 Origin(s) of HBW: previous theories and methodological considerations 103 2.4.1 Literature review 103 2.4.2 Methodological considerations 111 2.5 Discussion 114 Chapter 3: Fabric and manufacturing technology analysis 116 3.1 Literature review of HBW fabric studies 117 3.1.1 Forming and finishing 118 3.1.2 Fabric texture 122 3.1.3 Firing conditions 124 3.1.4 Intra-site variations of the fabric 126 3.2 Methodology for visual, petrographic and compositional analyses 128 3.2.1 Determination of research objectives 128 3.2.1.1 Origin of the raw material used 128 3.2.1.2 Characteristics of HBW fabric and potting techniques 129 3.2.1.3 Determination of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of HBW 130 3.2.1.4 Origin(s) of the manufacturing techniques used 130 3.2.2 Techniques and sampling for fabric analysis 131 3.2.2.1 Initial visual examination 133 3.2.2.2 Petrographic analyses 134 3.2.2.3 Compositional analyses 134 3.2.3 Presenting results and conclusions 137 3.3 Previous scientific analysis of HBW and comparative studies 138 3.3.1 HBW from Mycenaean sites 138 3.3.1.1 Mycenae 138 3.3.1.2 Lefkandi 140 3.3.1.3 Khania 141 3.3.1.4 Menelaion 141 3.3.1.5 Thebes 142 3.3.1.6 Aigeira 143 3.3.1.7 Conclusion 144 3.3.2 Comparisons with various handmade wares 146 3.3.2.1 HBW from Cyprus and Near East 147 3.3.2.2 Italian Impasto ware 149 3.4 Pilot study of HBW fabric 154 3.4.1 Objectives 154 3.4.2 Korakou HBW analysis 156 3.4.3 Comparison with the Atheninan Agora HBW 165 3.4.4 Comparison with Corinth handmade pottery 166 3.4.5 Lefkandi HBW analysis 169 vi 3.5 Discussion 172 Chapter 4: HBW from Mycenae 174 4.1 Methodology of research 176 4.1.1 Mycenae Archive notebooks 176 4.1.2 Excel files of Mycenae phasing and context 177 4.1.3 Wares count 178 4.1.4 Small finds associated 179 4.1.5 Published and unpublished data 179 4.2 Chronological and depositional analysis 181 4.2.1 Depositional context per period 182 4.2.1.1 LH IIIB period 182 4.2.1.2 LH IIIC period 186 4.2.2 Quantity and evolution 191 4.2.2.1 Proportion of present sample 192 4.2.2.2 Proportion of HBW in relation to the total quantity of pottery 193 4.2.2.3 Chronological evolution of HBW 194 4.2.2.4 Discussion 194 4.3 Typological analysis 196 4.3.1 Mycenae HBW shapes 197 4.3.1.1 Carinated vessels T1 197 4.3.1.2 Small vessels T2-T3 198 4.3.1.3 Basins T4 199 4.3.1.4 Buckets T5 200 4.3.1.5 Wide-mouthed jars T6 200 4.3.1.6 Collared jars T7 200 4.3.1.7 Utensils T8 202 4.3.2 Relation to pottery from Mycenae 202 4.3.3 Comparison with HBW from other sites 204 4.3.3.1 Shape variations 204 4.3.3.2 Proportion of shapes 205 4.3.3.3 Discussion 205 4.3.4 Chronological distribution 206 4.4 Preliminary fabric analysis 208 4.4.1 Observations related to the fabric used by the potters 209 4.4.2 Observations related to the firing conditions 211 4.4.3 Observations related to the quality of craftsmanship 213 4.4.4 Discussion and comparison 215 4.5 Discussion 218 vii Chapter 5: HBW makers as foreign artisans: a working hypothesis 220 5.1 HBW: a product of foreign population(s)? 221 5.1.1 Foreign versus local development 221 5.1.2 Theoretical considerations on models of migration 225 5.2 The identity of HBW makers: other characteristic products? 227 5.2.1 Theoretical considerations 227 5.2.2 Clay artefacts 228 5.2.2.1 Spindle whorls and beads 229 5.2.2.2 Figurines 233 5.2.2.3 Spools/loomweights 234 5.2.3 Metal and stone artefacts 235 5.2.3.1 Dress accessories 236 5.2.3.2 Tools 238 5.3 HBW makers: possible occupations 241 5.3.1 HBW makers: their place in the palatial economy and its aftermath 241 5.3.1.1 Mercenaries 244 5.3.1.2 Slaves 252 5.3.1.3 Artisans 248 5.3.1.4 The question of the status of artisans 249 5.3.2 HBW makers as specialised craftsmen? 251 5.3.2.1 Problem of identifying craft activities 251 5.3.2.2 Textile artisans 252 5.3.2.3 Bronzesmiths 253 5.4 Travelling artisans? 256 5.4.1 Theoretical models 256 5.4.2 A debated concept 257 5.4.3 Modes of transfer of metal artefacts: a preliminary study 260 5.5 Discussion 267 Chapter 6: Conclusion and further research 270 6.1 Summary of results 271 6.1.1 Methodology of HBW study 271 6.1.2 HBW intrinsic aspects 271 6.1.3 HBW extrinsic aspects 273 6.1.4 Problem of origin of HBW 274 6.1.5 The role of HBW makers 275 6.2 Suggestions for further research 277 6.2.1 Study and publication of Mycenae whole HBW corpus 277 viii