Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery: In the Levant, Cyprus and Italy. ca. 1600–1200 BC

450 Pages·2003·3.27 MB·English

by  Gert Jan van Wijngaarden

Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina i
Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery
in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600-1200 bc)
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina ii
This page intentionally left blank
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina iii
Use and Appreciation of
Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant,
1600-120o bc
Cyprus and Italy ( )
GERT JAN VAN WIJNGAARDEN
Amsterdam University Press
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina iv
This publication was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
This book meets the requirements of ISO 9706: 1994. Information and documentation -
Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence.
ISO 9706
Cover illustration: Design by Virna van Wijngaarden, adapted from Schaeffer 1949, 156-7, fig. 60.
Cover design: Kok Korpershoek, Amsterdam
Lay-out: Wouter Kool, Leiden
ISBN: 90 5356 482 9
NUR 682
ª Amsterdam University Press, 2002
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book
may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written per-
mission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina v
Contents
Preface vii
Part I Introduction
1. The Argument 1
2. Mycenaean Pottery in the Mediterranean 9
3. The archaeology of Trade and Consumption 23
Part II The Levant
4. Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant: Introduction 31
5. Ugarit 37
6. Hazor 75
7. Tell Deir ‘Alla 99
8. The Cultural Significance of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant 109
Part III Cyprus
9. Mycenaean Pottery in Cyprus: Introduction 125
10. Enkomi-Ayios Iakovos 129
11. Athienou-Bamboulari tis Koukouninas 161
12. Apliki-Karamallos 169
13. The Cultural Significance of Mycenaean Pottery in Cyprus 183
Part IV The central Mediterranean
14. Mycenaean Pottery in the Central Mediterranean: Introduction 203
15. Lipari 207
16. Thapsos 229
17. Broglio di Trebisacce 237
18. The Cultural significance of Mycenaean pottery in Italy 249
Part V Conclusions
19. Variations in the Cultural Significance of Mycenaean Pottery 261
20. The Role of Mycenaean Pottery in Mediterranean Exchange 275
Tables 281
Maps 301
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina vi
Catalogues
Catalogue I: Sites in the Mediterranean with Mycenaean pottery 323
Catalogue II: Mycenaean pottery at Ugarit 330
Catalogue III: Mycenaean pottery at Hazor 343
Catalogue IV: Mycenaean pottery at Deir ‘Alla 345
Catalogue V: Mycenaean pottery at Enkomi 346
Catalogue VI: Mycenaean pottery at Athienou 376
Catalogue VII: Mycenaean pottery at Apliki 377
Catalogue VIII: Mycenaean pottery at Lipari 379
Catalogue IX: Mycenaean pottery at Thapsos 386
Catalogue X: Mycenaean pottery at Broglio di Trebisacce 387
References 397
Index
Geographical names 433
Subjects 438
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina vii
preface
The present monograph is a revised version of a dissertation written for the department of Classical
Archaeology at the University of Amsterdam. The research was made possible by a generous scholar-
ship from the UTOPA foundation. I would like to express my gratitude to the director, Mr L.
Dijkman, for providing me with this opportunity and for his pleasant cooperation over the years. The
Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) made a travel grant available which allowed
me to visit many of the places mentioned in this volume. A publication grant, supplied by the same
organisation, made the publication of this book possible.
This study could not have been completed without the active support of a number of friends. Over
the years, Professor Joost Crouwel has read my work with alacrity and care. His detailed knowledge of
a range of archaeological topics, as well as his consistent emphasis on clarity have contributed greatly
to the results of my research. His academic rigour and in his enthusiasm have been a particular source
of inspiration.
In the initial phases of my research, the late Vronwy Hankey helped me define the directions and
the limitations of my research. My discussions with Vronwy provided an insight into the enormous
complexity of the field I was about to enter. I consider myself fortunate to have been one of the many
who were able to benefit from her kindness and expertise.
Dr Lucia Vagnetti kindly assisted me with the parts of this study that deal with the central
Mediterranean. She also pointed me in the right direction when I was in Italy. Similarly, Professor
Albert Leonard helped me with the sections on the Levant and Cyprus. I would like to express my
gratitude to both scholars for sharing their expertise and for taking the time to read lengthy instal-
ments.
A number of colleagues have discussed their work with me, shown me sites and material, and have
given their views on parts of my research. In particular, I would like to thank Dr P. Attema, Dr M.
Bettelli, Dr H. Catling, Dr N. Hirschfeld, Dr B. Kling, Dr G. van der Kooij, Dr S. Levi, Professor M.
Marazzi, Mr G. Matteo and Professor R. Peroni.
I would also like to thank Professor N. Roymans, who agreed to include this work in the Amster-
dam Archaeological Studies. In addition, the staff at Amsterdam University Press, particularly W. Poelstra
and J. Wagenaar, have assisted me in many ways.
Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to my parents, Corrie and Jan van Wijngaarden, and to my wife Virna.
Without their enduring encouragement and ceaseless support, this book would never have been com-
pleted.
vii
Wijngaarden -voorwerk 15-09-2002 22:29 Pagina ii
This page intentionally left blank
Wijngaarden 001-002 15-09-2002 22:31 Pagina 1
1 The argument
purpose of this study
In this book, I aim to investigate the variations in the cultural significance of the imported
Mycenaean pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and the central Mediterranean. Such pottery has been
widely distributed in almost the whole Mediterranean. This body of material constitutes one of the
archaeological sources by which to study relationships between the Aegean and other areas in the
Mediterranean. As such, it has served as evidence for Mycenaean colonisation and commercial pre-
eminence. The same body of evidence, however, has also been used to dismiss the importance of
long-distance trade for the Mycenaean world. In my opinion, such a variability of interpretations on
the basis of the same archaeological data has been possible because the role of Mycenaean pottery in
international exchange during the Late Bronze Age is not properly understood. That role is depen-
dant on the different patterns of consumption in the various areas where these ceramics have been
imported. The main purpose of this research is to identify and compare these patterns of consumption
for the three Mediterranean areas which have yielded the largest quantities of Mycenaean pots: the
Levant, Cyprus and the Italian area.
the aegean background
On the mainland of Greece, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, substantial changes are visible in
the archaeological record, which have to do with an increase in social complexity.1 The most obvious
examples of these changes are the Shaft-Graves in Mycenae, which are indicative of marked social
stratification.2 In the succeeding periods, increasing centralisation resulted in the development of the
Mycenaean palaces, of which those at Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos and Thebes are the most notable.3
These palaces can be understood as centres which managed to control and monopolise specific aspects
of society, such as the flow of goods and craft production, as well as military and various ceremonial
activities. Increasingly, however, it has become clear that the palaces were never able to control the
whole economy and it is likely that goods were produced and distributed outside the influence of the
palatial centres.4 The Mycenaean palaces were eventually all destroyed and not rebuilt.
Changes in the settlement pattern and material culture indicate that, from the beginning of the
Late Bronze Age onwards, the Argolid emerged as a leading centre in the development of Mycenaean
1 Dickinson 1977, 51-54; Dietz 1991, 325-326; Rutter Shelmerdine 1997, 557-563 (all with many references).
1993, 787-793. 4 Dickinson 1994, 81-83; Halstead 1992a, 72; 1992b,
2 Graziado 1991, 404; Tournavitou 1995, 119. 113-114; Gillis 1995; Galaty & Parkinson 1999, 6-8.
3 Kilian 1987, 203-217; 1988a; Barber 1992, 21-23;
1