¹ Cf., for example, G. E. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, 200; J. B. Rutter in E. N. Davis (ed.), Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece, 1.

² Analysis 521, 540; Op Arch iii (1944) 262.

³ LMS 2–4; Op Arch, The Greek Dark Ages 17f.

⁴ Chronology 101.

⁵ A Delt xx (1965) 137–53; BSA lxiv (1969) 71–93; BSA lxviii (1973) 297–348. A division into LH IIIB1 and LH 111B2 had already been suggested by Schachermeyr on the basis of the Tiryns material (AA 1962 222).

⁶ BSA lxiv (1969) 71.

⁷ BSA lxviii (1973) 298.

⁸ Cf. below, note 48.

⁹ Mykenische Zeit ch. IX. Much of the ground covered in the regional summaries which follow has also been dealt with by Schachermeyr. His conclusions are broadly similar to those reached here, though they differ slightly, particularly on the question of the extent and influence of the LH IIIB2 style, but also as regards the position in Cyprus.

Schachermeyr adopts a tripartite division of LH IIIB, on the basis of published pottery groups from Mycenae: Early IIIB, in which Zygouries kylikes and deep bowls with related decoration are the main characteristics; Middle IIIB, in which kylikes are fewer and deep bowls with open style decoration (leichter Stil) predominate; and Late IIIB in which open style deep bowls are accompanied by those with filled style decoration (schwerer Stil) and Rosette bowls. The first two phases are essentially sub-divisions of LH IIIB1, while the third corresponds to LH IIIB2. Historically, he argues that Early IIIB was a period when the Argolid exported a great deal of pottery to Cyprus in the form of the kylikes which predominate in this phase. During Middle IIIB the conquest of Cyprus and the expedition against Troy took place. In Late IIIB he concludes that the LH IIIB2 style was confined to the Argolid and, at most, Corinthia. The way in which the Late IIIB pottery in the rest of Greece differs from that of Middle IIIB remains uncertain, though he implies that certain features found over a wide area (motifs such as thick horizontal wavy bands, horizontal zigzags and isolated semicircle groups) show that this was a period of positive innovation which coincided with a time of great universal activity.

There are two main comments to be made concerning this view. First, though the division of LH IIIB1 into two phases may be justified on the evidence from Mycenae, the practical usefulness of such a division may be doubted, given the nature and quantity of LH IIIB pottery from other parts of Greece.

Secondly, it is difficult to agree with Schachermeyr's conclusion that, in pottery terms at least, Late IIIB was a period of great activity, outside the Argolid and those areas which were influenced by the LH IIIB2 style. The features which he singles out as evidence of positive innovation at this time (wavy lines and zigzags) can be seen, alternatively, as only two examples of the sort of simple horizontal motifs which continue directly from, or as simplified versions of, motifs found in the earlier LH IIIB repertoire (not always necessarily on deep bowls). Such horizontal motifs also occur in the Argolid at this time along with the “filled style”. (Cf. also note 88).

¹⁰ See below, note 92.

¹¹ For LH IIIB1, see BSA lxi (1966) 216–38; BSA lxii (1967) 149–93; BSA lxiv (1969) 261–97; BSA lxxi (1976) 77–111. The contents of this section are drawn from these articles.

¹² For LH IIIB2, see ADelt xx (1965) 137–53; BSA lxiv (1969) 71–93; BICS xxiv (1977) 136–7; BSA xviii (1973) 297–348.

¹³ For Asine see B. Frizell in I. and R. Hägg (ed.), Excavations in the Barbouna Area at Asine, fasc. 2 63–91; there are, however, no Rosette bowls illustrated among this material. For Midea, see Op Ath vii (1967) pls. I–III. For Iria, Tiryns VI pls. 61:4:U23. 63:1, 2. 4.

¹⁴ PAE 1965 121–36, Ergon 1966 156–65, BCH xci (1967) 666ff. (Teichos Dymaion); Mykenische Zeit 156f., AAA vii (1974) 157–62, AAA ix (1976) 162–5, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, Fremde Zuwanderer im spätmykenischen Griechenland (Aigeira).

¹⁵ Cf. EME 65 with refs.

¹⁶ I should like to thank Dr M. H. Wiener for confirming this impression on the basis of material seen by him in Patras Museum.

¹⁷ Cf. especially PAE 1965 130ff.

¹⁸ These features include monochrome carinated cups, as well as medium-band deep bowls with monochrome interiors. Cf. PAE 1965 132 no. P787, pl. 171:788. For early LH IIIC at Aigeira, cf. AAA ix (1976) 162 5 and Mykenische Zeit fig. 40.

¹⁹ Deger-Jalkotzy, op.cit. 9 note 4.

²⁰ Rutter, J. B., The Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC Periods at Korakou and Gonia (University of Pennsylvania Ph.D. 1974) 467.Google Scholar A deposit from the East Alley “can justifiably be labelled LH IIIB1 because of its striking resemblance to groups of this phase from Mycenae”; while Trench P phase 4 “clearly represents a later development closely comparable to the finds from Iria”. There is, however, very little stratified LH IIIB at all from the site. For Group B deep bowls see ibid. figs. 185, 191:4, 11; cf. also the “filled style” decoration on a stemmed bowl, fig. 3:11.

²¹ BSA xlii (1947) 71 (third phase), fig. 17:8. Hesperia viii (1939) figs. 35, 40, 42, 43, 47.

²² Iakovides, S., Perati III pl. 136.115Google Scholar; II 135 fig. 18:6 (on an amphoriskos). Some of the latter may, however, derive rather from the narrow triglyph and isolated semicircle patterns which appear on stemmed bowls in the Argolid by the end of LH IIIBl; cf. the example from Street, Thebes Pindarou (AAA vii (1974) 172 fig. 13).Google Scholar

²³ Cf., for example, BSA xlii (1947) 41 fig. 17 (Group A deep bowls), 32 type J (stemmed bowls).

²⁴ BSA xlii (1947) 33 fig. 14:C; classified by Furumark as shape number 283. For the possibility that these partly replaced kylikes as drinking vessels, see ibid. 37, 71.

²⁵ See also BSA xlii (1947) 10.

²⁶ EMF 118ff. with refs.; Mykenische Zeit 159ff. with refs.

²⁷ Symeonoglou, S., Kadmeia I (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 35) 21ff.Google Scholar figs. 29–33.

²⁸ AAA vii (1974) 162–71.

²⁹ Ergon 1960 38 fig. 52; LMS 121. Most of the rest of what little pottery has been illustrated from Gla, however, appears to be of LH IIIA or earlier LH IIIB date.

³⁰ AAA vii (1974) 313–24.

³¹ This group was assigned by Furumark (Op Arch iii (1944) 197) to early LH IIIC, but by Desborough (LMS 120) and French (D.H. French, Notes on Prehistoric Pottery Groups from Central Greece 39) to late LH IIIB In it a stemmed krater decorated with circumcurrent vertical whorl shells, and a miniature handmade vase of undifferentiable LH IIIB style, occur together with a lip-band cup of a type characteristic of early LH IIIC in Euboea and surrounding areas.

³² Cf., for example, material from the Ivory-pottery hoard at Thebes (Symeonoglou, op.cit. ch. 3): in particular, the liking for reserved body zone decoration on large stirrup-jars.

³³ Possible exceptions are Zygouries kylikes. Visual observation suggests that, in most places where they occur, they are of uniformly excellent fabric, pale buff in colour with a fine glossy surface finish, which often contrasts markedly with the fabrics with which they are found. The Zygouries kylix was almost certainly an inspiration, if not solely a product, of the Argive workshops. Central compositions have a long, if not continuous, history in the Argolid, ranging from the Ephyraean goblets of LH II to the Rosette bowls of LH IIIB2. See also note 55.

For LH IIIB vases of “provincial” appearance from Boeotia, cf., for example, AAA vii (1974) 162ff.; H. Goldman, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia fig. 260:5, 7; Symeonoglou, op.cit. fig. 35:11, 14 and passim; ADelt iii (1917) fig. 185.

³⁴ BSA lxvi (1971) 346 (Lefkandi). BSA xlvii (1952) 49–95 (Trypa-Vromousa). BSA lxi (1966) 33–112 (survey). Cf. also EMF 126ff. with refs.

³⁵ BSA lxi (1966) 105.

³⁶ LH IIIB1 features include deep bowls of Group A and kylikes with decorations such as circumcurrent whorl shells and flowers; stirrup-jars with narrow decorated body zone. Zygouries kylikes are also found, though more rarely: these are often of noticeably good fabric (cf. note 33). For Argive LH III2 features: BSA lxi (1966) figs. 25:15–17, 26:41, 42; BSA (1971) pl. 50:1, centre second from left.

³⁷ In the early phases of LH IHC at Lefkandi cups appear to be much more popular than in the contemporary pottery of the Argolid.

³⁸ BSA lxvi (1971) 346.

³⁹ Other features which look forward to the LH IIIC period include kraters with monochrome interiors, amphorae with slightly hollowed rims, and painted hydriae.

⁴⁰ These sites are Dritsa (Eleon), Dramesi, Aulis (Vlicha), Khalia and Mandraki (Anthedon): R. Hope Simpson, A Gazetteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites nos. 427, 432, 435–7. See D.H. French, op.cit. 40. Sherds from these sites are stored in the collection of the British School at Athens.

⁴¹ LMS 87ff.; EMF 92ff.; Mykenische Zeit 135ff. At neither the Menelaion nor Aghios Stephanos, however, does pottery of LH IIIB1 date appear to be plentiful (cf. Archaeological Reports 1976–77 32; BSA lxvii (1972) 268ff.).

⁴² Archaeological Reports 1974–75 15 and 1976–77 33 (LH IIIB2 in the rubbish tips at the north-east corner of Dawkins House, on the North Hill and on the Aetos Hill); Archaeological Reports 1977–78 31 (LH IIIB2 and early LH IIIC on Prophitis Elias and from the stone mound on Aetos Hill). For Rosette bowls see ibid. fig. 55. I should like to thank Dr Catling for information as to the character of the late LH IIIC pottery from his most recent excavations on the Aetos site, and of the LH IIIC which also appears to him, on a preliminary assessment, to compare well with early LH 111C pottery from the Argolid. I am extremely grateful to him for the opportunity to look at his records of the LH IIIB pottery from the rubbish tips at the north-east corner of Dawkins' House.

⁴³ See BSA lx (1965) 178, BSA lxi (1966) 226. Cf., however, ADelt xx (1965) fig. 4:2 (LH IIIB2 from Tiryns), Frizell in Hägg (eds.) op.cit. 83 no. 114 (from Asine), Rutter, op.cit. 129 fig. 36 (Korakou).

⁴⁴ BSA lxvii (1972) 270. There may also be a very little material of early LH IIIC date (loc.cit.).

⁴⁵ See BSA lxvii (1972) 270 on the use of monochrome inside vases during LH IIIB at this site.

⁴⁶ AJA lxiv (1960) 159.

⁴⁷ I am indebted to Dr E.B. French for drawing my attention to LH IIIB2 elements in the destruction pottery. Cf. also Schachermeyr (Mykenische Zeit 264) who speaks of imports from the Argolid. For Group B deep bowls: C.W. Biegen and M. Rawson, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Mcssenia I fig. 385.

⁴⁸ E.T. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age 207 sees the destruction of the palace as contemporary with that of the Granary at Mycenae. P. Warren in A.G. Sherratt (ed.), Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Archaeology ch. 19 dates it to LH IIIB1. Dr O. T. P. K. Dickinson (pers. comm.) has also suggested a date rather earlier in LH IIIB.

⁴⁹ Blegen and Rawson op.cit. 397 (monochrome kylikes) fig. 385 (monochrome deep bowls); ibid. 397f., C. W. Biegen et al., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia III 232 pl. 292:10 (monochrome interiors); Biegen and Rawson op.cit. fig. 385:677 (monochrome areas on a few vases and tongue-like pattern).

⁵⁰ Blegen and Rawson op.cit. fig. 379 (large pithoid jars).

⁵¹ For example, Biegen and Rawson op.cit. fig. 385:677. This may be what gives a few of them their (“degenerate”) LH IIIC appearance; cf. note 49 above. Tongue-like patterns of this sort are possibly debased derivatives of some of the stylised flower motifs of LH IIIB1 (cf. BSA lx (1965) 330).

⁵² Hesperia xli (1972) 259, pl. 50:a, Hesperia xliv (1975)

⁵³ Cf., however, note 48 above. For deep bowl decorations, see Hesperia xliv (1975) pl. 30:c; for similarities to Group B deep bowls, Hesperia xli (1972) pl. 50:b; for monochrome deep bowls and monochrome interiors, ibid. 259, 261, pl. 50:f.

⁵⁴ There are still, however, large numbers of unpainted pots, particularly kylikes and shallow angular bowls, from both Pylos and Nichoria.

⁵⁵ British School at Athens Museum, catalogued Melos/Paros/Naxos. Ashmolean Museum nos. AE 1850f, AE 2063, AE 2070, AE 2075. The Melian provenance of the Ashmolean fragments is, however, uncertain. They were among sherds thought to have been given to the Museum by Sir Arthur Evans at the beginning of the century, rediscovered in 1957–58 while the Museum Card Index was being compiled. With the exception of one stemmed bowl fragment, all were unlabelled, and their attribution to Melos seems to rest on their discovery, at the time of registration, in a box together with some labelled sherds from Phylakopl.

Like the Zygouries kylix, the Rosette bowl with its single central motif, probably represents a type of decorative scheme that was peculiarly popular in the Argolid. In the few cases where they occur outside the Argolid, their fabric, like that of the Zygouries kylikes, is often excellent, suggesting direct export rather than stylistic influence. Cf. also note 33 above.

⁵⁶ Hesperia xli (1972) pl. 97:18.

⁵⁷ These impressions are based on some of the material excavated in 1974–76, which I had the opportunity to see. It seemed to me then that, at least among pottery associated with the collapse of the fortification wall in the Shrine area (pl. 18b.c), evidence of the positive innovations which occur in the mid-LH IIIC period elsewhere in the Cyclades was lacking, and that the pottery remained overwhelmingly sub-LH IIIB or at most early LH IIIC, in style if not in date (cf. below, note 92). This view seemed consistent with much of the pottery illustrated from the early excavations of Phylakopi, (BSA lxix (1974) 1–53Google Scholar; Atkinson, T.D. et al., Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos: BSA xvii (1910–1911) 1–22Google Scholar; and in the National Museum, Athens). However, the date of the major collapse of the Shrine and fortification wall has since been placed far down in LH IIIC, towards the end of the twelfth century, at least partly on the basis of associated figurines (Antiquity lii (1978) 7–15). The pottery from the Shrine area has recently been studied in detail by Miss P.A. Mountjoy, and publication of this will provide complete and up to date evidence for its chronological range and development.

I am greatly indebted to Professor Renfrew for the opportunity to see the material from his excavations at Phylakopi during the first three seasons 1974–76.

⁵⁸ BSA xvii (1910–11) pl. XII:132.

⁵⁹ For the pottery from Koukounaries on Paros, dated by the excavator to the transition from LH IIIB to LH IIIC, see Ergon 1976 146–53 and 1977 144–53. The decoration of one of the vases illustrated (Ergon 1977 fig. 97), however, looks slightly later in appearance than much of the Phylakopi pottery.

For monochrome deep bowls and kylikes from Kea, see Hesperia xli (1972) 398–400, pl. 97:134; BSA li (1956) 32 (also from Siphnos). For recent LH IIIB from Siphnos, , ADelt xxv (1970) 431.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Analysis 541, Chronology 101, Op Arch iii (1944) 194–265 passim.

⁶¹ Kylix: FS257R. Stirrup-jars: FS 166R, 171 R. For flasks. cf. also MPL pl. V:6,7.

⁶² Examples listed by Furumark under FS 242, 283, 284 (one-handled). Cf. also MPL 13.

⁶³ LH IIIB1 motifs: for example, whorl shells (MPL pl. 111:9,10). Rhodian survivals: for example, FM 11:50 (papyrus), FM 18C:74–5 (naturalistic flowers), FM 21:12,13,16,19 (octopus). Cf. also MPL 14, pl. 111:3: Analysis300.

⁶⁴ Cf., for example, BMC I i pls. 8–9 for Zygouries kylix.

⁶⁵ For example, MPL pl. IV:7,12.

⁶⁶ Ann. N.S. xxvii–xxviii (1965–66) 299f.

⁶⁷ Ann. N.S. xxxiv–xxxv (1972–73) figs. 341–2.

⁶⁸ Ann. N.S. xxxiv–xxxv (1972–73) fig. 345 (“U’-pattern. quirk), fig. 346:a (simple triglyphs).

⁶⁹ Ann. N.S. xxvii–xxviii (1965–66) fig. 10 (he suggests that this vase may be an import); Ann. N.S. xxxiv–xxxv (1972–73) fig. 34S:c. See also French, E. B. in Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara 1973, 168Google Scholar on the absence of LH IIIB2 types in the Dodecanese.

⁷⁰ Wardle, K.A., The Greek Bronze Age West of the Pindus (unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of London 1972).Google Scholar

⁷¹ A Delt v (1915) fig. 29: Prokopala (stirrup-jar with body zone of horizontal wavy line; stemmed krater with running spiral decoration (FM 46:44); piriform jar with wave pattern). AE 1933 pl. 1: pit B2, fig. 20: pit B8: Metaxata Tomb B (piriform jar with scale pattern on the shoulder; stirrup-jar with zone of cable on the shoulder). Argostoli Museum, no. 16: Mazarakata G, Tomb 1 (piriform jar with multiple stems on the shoulder). Argostoli Museum, no. 1352: Lakkithra D (stirrup-jar with decoration of flowers on the shoulder).

⁷² Handmade pottery, which forms as much as 10% of the whole in the Kephallenian cemeteries, represents a long tradition on the island. It occurs, for instance, in the Kokkolata cist graves together with well made and well fired Middle Helladic pottery, and persists in those tombs which produce the latest Mycenaean pottery. Among the shapes found in tombs of LH IIIB date are several which are direct imitations of wheelmadc Mycenaean shapes. These include a rounded alabastron (Argostoli Museum, no. 527), a piriform jar (from Lakkithra D, Argostoli Museum, no. 1317) and a stirrup-jar (from Mazarakata G, 1, Argostoli Museum, no. 17).

⁷³ BSA lxviii (1973) 1–24; Lord William Taylour, Mycenaean Pottery in Italy.

⁷⁴ Analysts; MPL 37ff.; E. Sjöqvist, Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age; V. Karageorghis, Nouveaux Documents pour l'Etude du Bronze Récent à Chypre 201ff.

⁷⁵ Cf. Stubbings, F. H. in The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean (Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, Nicosia 1972) 207–12.Google Scholar For the analysis of pictorial vases from Cyprus, , BSA lx (1965) 212–24.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ For recent results of spectrographic analysis, see RDAC 1978 70·90. Cf. also Courtois, L., Description physicochimique de la céramique ancienne: la céramique de Chypre au Bronze Récent (University of Clermont, Ph.D. 1971)Google Scholar for the probability that some of the pottery was made on the island.

⁷⁷ For shapes particularly characteristic of the Levanto Helladic class, see Karageorghis loc. cit. Cf. also idem, Kition. Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus pl. 32, H-G. Buchholz and V. Karageorghis, Prehistoric Greece and Cyprus no. 1635 (stemmed chalices); MPL 39 fig. 8:k (angular jug with trefoil mouth, shallow bowls with strap or wishbone handles, some cup types). Chalices are known in Crete in the early part of the LM period and may originally have been derived from there, though, to date, there appears to be a gap between the latest Cretan examples and those of thirteenth century Cyprus. Alternatively, they may have been adapted from stone prototypes. For an equally possible oriental origin see Karageorghis op.cit. (note 74) 208. Some of the cup types noted by Stubbings almost certainly have Cretan origins. The shallow bowls, which though found on the Greek Mainland are much more typical of Cyprus than the Aegean, may derive, in some versions at least, from shapes found in native Cypriot wares; the angular jugs may have connections with certain Syrian types (cf. MPL 40f., Sjöqvist op.cit. 94, Karageorghis loc. cit.).

⁷⁸ Karageorghis, V., Excavations at Kition I pls. 119, 126, 189.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ MPL pl. IX:2.

⁸⁰ Cf. MPL pl. IX: 1 (Swedish Excavations).

⁸¹ For an example of the contrasts, compare Buchholz and Karageorghis op.cit. no. 1626 with no. 1644. Furumark (Analysis 465ff.) describes some of the motifs of the Rude Style kraters as rude and sketchy versions of the Mycenaean originals. For an appreciation of the style as a positive artistic achievement in its own right, see Karageorghis op.cit. (note 74) 231ff.

⁸² Cf. MPL 42. The clay is often noticeably rough on these and the paint dull. This phenomenon may well be related to the vases of Simple Style from Palestine and Syria described by Furumark (Chronology 116f.). The simple linear decoration found, for instance, on a piriform jar from Kouklia (Maier, F.G. in Praktika tou protou diethnous Kyprologikou Synedriou 1969 I pl. XIV:1)Google Scholar and on the bowl shapes of the very end of LC II from Kouklia-Mantissa (Karageorghis op.cit. 157ff.) is probably also evidence of the same sort of preference. Such decoration becomes a classic feature of Dec. LC III pottery.

⁸³ Cf. Buchholz and Karageorghis op. cit. no. 1641; Karageorghis, Kition Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus pl. 19 (upper burial level of Tomb 9).

⁸⁴ See Karageorghis op.cit. (note 74) 231 ff. for the appearance of the Rude Style in 1250–1240 B.C. Berbati, which may be considered as a possible source for imported pictorial kraters in Cyprus (cf. above, note 75), was probably abandoned in the mid-thirteenth century.

⁸⁵ Karageorghis op.cit. (note 78); op.cit. (note 83) pls. 19–21.

⁸⁶ Karageorghis, Kition. Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus pls. 37–40; Mykenische Zeit pls. 68–9.

⁸⁷ Cf. also Courtois, J.-C., in The Mycenaeans in the East Mediterranean (Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, Nicosia 1972) 137ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Schachermeyr (Mykenische Zeit chs. IX–X) singles out deep bowls decorated with horizontal zigzag (Zickzack Dekor) as a particularly significant innovation in Late IIIB, and suggests that their appearance in many areas, including Cyprus, is evidence of interconnections between those areas at this time. In the particular case of Cyprus, where there may be other reasons for supposing some external contact at the time of its appearance, this may well be true. More generally, however, this horizontal zigzag motif is merely one of a series of narrow horizontal patterns which include “N’ pattern, quirk, “U”-pattern etc. Such narrow horizontal motifs (including zigzag) are well attested in the LH IIIA2–IIIB1 decorative repertoire either on deep bowls or on other shapes, and they survive into late LH IIIB or beyond almost everywhere. Given the conditions of isolation, decline in quality of fabric and painting, restriction of the range of shapes and simplification of decoration which obtained in many areas in late LH IIIB, their survival as simple, easily executed motifs is not surprising. That such simple patterns might have spread by import or diffusion, while the more stylistically striking type features of Argive LH IIIB2 did not, seems unlikely.

⁸⁹ Furumark, (Op Ath vi (1965) 99–116)Google Scholar distinguished two vases from the earliest levels of the rebuilt city of Sinda as probable imports from Rhodes; affinities with the Dodecanese in the earliest levels of Enkomi Ilia are also noted by Dikaios (Enkomi. Excavations 1948–1958 271 and ch. II passim). Imports from Crete can be recognised in several of the LC II tombs at Kition (Karageorghis, , Excavations at Kition I 38–41Google Scholar), and Popham has suggested that, after the end of LH IIIB1 in the Argolid, Crete may have provided an alternative source of imported pottery to supplement the Cypriot produced Rude Style (M.R, Popham in The Relations between Cyprus and Crete c 2,000–500 B.C. (Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, Nicosia 1978) 178–91). He also suggests that the occasional use of monochrome in the interior of some vases found in Cyprus may be an indication of Cretan origin. I am indebted to Mr Popham for this information, and for his comments on the problems generally. See also J.-C. Courtois loc. cit. for connections between Cyprus and the Levantine coast at this time.

⁹⁰ The appearance of a few Rosette bowls among the Mycenaean pottery found at Troy and Tarsus (W. Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion 289; AS xxv (1975) 60 fig. 9; cf. also French, E.B. in Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology Ankara 1973 167)Google Scholar raises a rather different set of problems, since we are here dealing with sites which, essentially, lie outside the Mycenaean sphere proper. The question of the source of influence for the Mycenaean pottery at both these sites remains unanswered, but, in the case of the few Rosette bowls, it may be as Schachermeyr suggests (Mykenische Zeit 266) that these found their way direct from the Argolid. “Dort dürften sie einen besseren Markt gefunden zu haben als im Mutterland.” At Tarsus at least there are none of the Group B deep bowls or “filled style” patterns typical of LH IIIB2 in the Argolid, and it may be that some at least of the Tarsus Rosette bowls (see especially AS xxv (1975) 60 fig. 9:1315b) are significantly later in date and have no direct connection with LH IIIB2 Rosette bowls. For a deep bowl with Rosette decoration of mid-LH IIIC date, cf. Iakovides, Perati II fig. 85:239.

On Crete, a single example of a Group? deep bowl with “filled style” decoration is known from Knossos (M.R. Popham, The Last Days of the Palace at Knossos (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 5) pl. 8:c.d).

⁹¹ For the Argive preference for central compositions such as those found on Zygouries kylikes, see above, note 33. For the possibility that some of the pictorial kraters found in Cyprus were of Argive, or at least Peloponnesian origin, cf. above, p. 195, and note 75, though recent results of clay analysis suggest that compositional variations between sites in the Argolid, Corinthia, Laconia and Achaea are small (cf. RDAC 1978 70–90). Finally, there is Furumark's view of LH IIIB as the period of maximum Mycenaean expansion, with the Argolid as the political and cultural centre of the Aegean (cf. above p. 175 and note 2).

⁹² The useful label LH IIIB-C or sub LH IIIB is often used to describe pottery which, while retaining the formal and decorative repertoire characteristic of LH IIIB, also displays some features, such as an increased use of monochrome, which has in the past been thought of as characteristic of the LH IIIC period. Its use emphasises the present lack of a satisfactory definition of early LH IIIC which a) has widespread validity, b) is clearly distinguished from LH IIIB in a sufficiently wide range of stylistic features for the distinction to be immediately obvious, and c) not least, commands unanimous agreement. A certain amount of confusion arises from the use of stratigraphical rather than stylistic dividing lines for the distinction between the two periods, for instance at Mycenae where the destruction within the Citadel in LH IIIB2 has been chosen to mark the end of the LH IIIB period (cf. Rutter in E.N. Davis (ed.) Symposium on the Dark Ages in Greece 1), but where the pottery which immediately follows the destruction, though differing in some details, is both formally and stylistically very closely related to that which precedes it, and still includes the characteristic features of LH IIIB2 (cf. BSA lxviii (1973) 327–33). Only in later strata at Mycenae do sufficiently distinct, particularly formal, innovations appear to enable a more clear-cut distinction between LH IIIB and IIIC to be made (BSA lxviii (1973) 334L; cf. phase la at Lefltandi: BSA lxvi (1971) 333f).

An increased use of monochrome alone, in the absence of distinct formal or decorative innovations, is likely to be unreliable for period diagnosis over more than a restricted area (cf. AA 1969 135) particularly as its appearance may be as much a result of functional necessity as of aesthetic choice, though it is undoubtedly true that, during LH IIIC, monochrome decoration becomes more and more prevalent, culminating in the so-called Granary style (cf. Analysis 427f.). With particular reference to the problems of the Argive LH IIIB2 style, there is clear evidence that, in some areas at least, features like the greater use of monochrome and the simpler decoration derived from LH IIIB1 patterns which are also associated with an early stage of LH IIIC, coincide with the period of production of the LH IIIB2 type features in the Argolid, whether before or just after the main destructions at Mycenae and Tiryns. The indications so far that only certain areas received and adopted these type features suggest that, throughout the period during which these were in use in the Argolid, contacts between these areas and those which remained unaffected by the LH IIIB2 style must have been extremely limited.

⁹³ In this context, the similarity between the pottery from Teichos Dymaion and that of LH IIIB2 in the Argolid is perhaps surprising; and it seems reasonable to suggest that the two areas may have had some particularly close connection at the end of the thirteenth century. Such a connection has already been suggested by others for the advanced LH IIIC period, when the possibility of Argive refugees settling in Achaea has been raised (AJA lxiv (1960) 1–21; LMS 101). In late LH IIIB the similarities would perhaps be less noteworthy were it not for the evidence that in other parts of the Peloponnese—some geographically closer to the Argolid—the pottery at this time shows less evidence of contact with the Argolid. Teichos Dymaion was probably first fortified in the fourteenth century, but continued as a citadel of considerable size and strength in the thirteenth century at a time when the first signs of destruction and abandonment appear in the Argolid. Its position as an outlier of the LH IIIB2 style suggests that it may have had some special role in relation to the political, economic or even military life of the Argolid at that time. Any relationship observable in the LH IIIC period (particularly the earlier part of LH IIIC) between Achaea and the Argolid may have originated from this.