Study programme

A first study of the pottery material from Trenches CC, B and X was made in June 1967 in the Eretria Museum (for the location of the trenches, see Fig. 1, slightly adapted from the site-plan published in the preliminary report by Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 2, fig. 1 [O.D.: this version of the plan has been improved by Dr Yannis Galanakis]). The results of this first study provided the basis for the preliminary report (Popham and Sackett Reference Popham and Sackett1968, 8). Subsequent study-sessions took place in April–May 1969, November 1972, April–May 1973 and May 1974.

All collected sherds were examined. Selection for illustration in this report was made from those sherds on which the rim profile survived. All the material is preserved in wooden boxes stored in the apotheke of the Eretria Museum. Most sherds were marked with black ink and the markings then coated with a thin layer of PVA. Illustrated sherds are stored separately from the non-illustrated and are marked with the published figure number.

The notes which follow were made at the time when the pottery was first studied and drawn, in June 1967. A few changes were made to the wording and terminology at later dates, during subsequent sessions (1969–74) in the museum storeroom.

Terminology

The terminology employed in the description of surface treatments is given here in summary form; it is based on the definitions advanced by Carol Zerner (Reference Zerner, Taylour† and Janko2008, 178).

Wares

A synopsis of the wares found in the LK I pottery assemblage is given on Table 1; it is complemented by a table of occurrences, Table 7.

As with the terminology outlined above, so here the ware descriptions given below are not ‘scientific’, in the sense that they are not based on technical examination and investigation carried out in laboratory conditions by a ceramic expert. They are a reduction or distillation, understood in traditional archaeology, of those characteristics and details which can be readily assembled from non-scientific observation.

Shapes

For an illustration of the terminology which is used here in the description of rim profiles, see Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Rim profiles: Bowls. Scale 1:4.

For a diagrammatic illustration of the LK I pottery shapes, see Table 2,Footnote ⁴ and Figs 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Fig. 10. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Shallow Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 11. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Deep Bowls. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 12. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Cups. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 13. Synopsis of pottery shapes: Jars, jugs. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 14. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: Buff/Brown 1–8 unb., 9–18 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 15. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: 1–3 Buff/Brown scored, Red 4–6 unb. lustrous, 7–11 b. smooth, 12–18 b. scribble. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 16. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.1: 1–2 Red b. scribble, Brown/Black 3 unb., 4–5 b. scribble, Coarse 6–8 unb., 9–11 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 17. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: Buff/Brown 1–8 unb., 9 b. smooth, 10 b. scribble, 11–20 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 18. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: 1–11 Buff/Brown scored, 12–17 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 19. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: Red 1–4 unb., 5 b. smooth, 6–16 b. scribble, 17–18 Brown/Black unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 20. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A: 1–2 Brown/Black unb., 3 Black b., 4 Dark Coated, Coarse 5–12 unb., 13 scored and b. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 21. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2B: Buff/Brown 1–6 unb., 7–19 scored, 20–21 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 22. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2B: Red 1–3 unb., 4–5 b. smooth, 6–10 b. scribble, Brown/Black 11 unb., 12–13 b. scribble, Coarse 14–15 unb., 16–20 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 23. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A/B: Buff/Brown 1–7 unb., 8 b. smooth, 9–13 scored, 14–15 Red b. scribble, 16 Brown/Black b. scribble, 17 Black b. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 24. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.2A/B: Coarse 1–2 unb., 3–9 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 25. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: Buff/Brown 1–2 unb., 3–12 b. (?)scribble. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 26. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: 1–7 Buff/Brown scored, Red 8–10 unb., 11–12 b. smooth, 13–17 b. scribble, 18–19 Brown/Black unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 27. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.3, 3/4: Brown/Black 1–2 unb., 3 b. scribble, Coarse 4 unb., 5–13 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 28. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.4: Buff/Brown 1–11 unb., 12–13 b. (?)scribble, 14–15 scored, 16–20 Red unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 29. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.4: 1 Brown/Black unb., Coarse 2–6 unb., 7–8 b. scribble, 9–11 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 30. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.5: 1–7 Buff/Brown unb., Red 10 unb., 11 b. scribble, 12–13 Brown/Black unb., Coarse 14–17 unb., 18 scored. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 31. Trench CC, Sub-Phase I.5: 1 Buff/Brown, Misc. 2–3 Dark Coated, 4–7 Grey, 8–11 Patterned, 12–15 Dark Brown. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 32. Trench B, miscellaneous baskets: 1–4, 9–11, 15–16 Buff/Brown unb., 13–14 Red b., 5–6, 12 Brown/Black b. smooth, 7 Black b. smooth, 8 Coarse unb. matt. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 33. Trench B, miscellaneous baskets: 4, 12, 14–15 Buff/Brown unb., 1–2, 5–6, 8–11, 13 Red b., 7, 16 Black b. smooth, 3 Coarse unb. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 34. Trench CC, Sub-Phases I.1, 2A, 3 and 3/4, and II, and Trench X phase 3A: Neolithic 1–26. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 35. Trench CC, Sub-Phases 1–5: 1–2 Neolithic(?), 3–6 EH I and II, 7–11 Misc., 12–16 Buff and Black. Scale 1:4, except 12–16 1:2.

Fig. 36. Trench CC. Bowl. Scored Ware (= Ware 5) (profile Fig. 31:1).

Fig. 37. Trench CC. Small Trefoil-mouth Jug. Coarse Ware (= Ware 5).

Pot marks

The marking of pots by incision (pre-firing) is attested on a handful of sherds (Table 3). Mostly these are incomplete and cannot be confidently restored. Of the 21 recorded examples, all but one (a jar) are found on bowls. Ten of these occur in Buff/Brown ware; the best-preserved pot mark, however, is found on a bowl (Fig. 23:14) in a fine Red burnished ware. One pot mark was catalogued (LK/66/175); this example, which I have not examined, may be LK I.

Table 3. Pot marks.

For pot marks in Lerna III, see the example published by Wiencke (Reference Wiencke2000, 2.625 and 633), and for pot marks in Lerna IV, see the account published by Rutter (Reference Rutter1995, 466–8); both are cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 376).

In the published account of incised decoration at Manika, no pot marks on bowls are cited by Sampson (Reference Sampson1988, 68). For incised decoration on a one-handled Troy Cup, see Sampson (Reference Sampson1985, 298 and pl. 85a; Reference Sampson1988, 68).

For a list of occurrences in Central and Southern Greece (in EH II) and in the Cyclades, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 376–7 with bibliography), and for Tiryns in particular see Dohl (Reference Dohl1978). An example comparable to the mark illustrated here (Fig. 23:14), has been found at Eretria (pers. comm. Sylvie Müller-Celka).

Residuals and intrusives

The significance of sherd material described as ‘stray’, ‘residual’ or ‘intrusive’ is broadly discussed above, in the Introduction to this chapter, and is further treated in detail under ‘The definition of LK I pottery’, with Tables 5, 6 and 7.

Metal (Figs 38 and 39)

Fig. 38. Trench CC. Metal objects: pin and dagger. Scale 1:2.

Fig. 39. Trench CC. Metal objects: pin and needle. Scale 1:2.

Stone

Bone

Shell

Clay

Seal Impression

(LK/69/7) Seal Impression on Clay (Fig. 40).

Fig. 40. Trench CC. Seal impression. Images courtesy of the CMS Archive.

Fig. 41. Shapes of Troy II pottery (from Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey, Rawson and Sperling1950, fig. 370a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Fig. 42. Shapes of Troy III pottery (from Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey and Rawson1951, fig. 59a). Courtesy of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati.

Found in Level 118, which may be assigned to Sub-Phase 5, the latest.

‘LK/69/7 CC Level 118 #5034. On an object of coarse grey to brown clay, gritty; top, bottom and one side unbroken; (impression) diam. 0.030; (object) l. 0.055; wi. 0.037; th. 0.030.’

‘Very probably from EB II hearth rim, and in the same stylistic series as the Kea, Syros, Lerna materials’ (catalogue description and notes by John Younger).

Published: CMS V, no. 423.

Smooth surface on top (= the impressed surface), broken below. The design of the impression is classified as an ‘intricate loop pattern’, a type found at Lerna and elsewhere (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 44). The CMS entry differs markedly from Younger's description, in stating that this is an ‘Abdruck auf dem Rand eines dicken Gefässrandes’. The profile of the fragment is not conclusive: pithos or hearth? Here it is interpreted as a fragment from an EB II pithos rather than from a hearth.

For an in-depth study on the subject of EH II seals and seal impressions on the Greek mainland, see Krzyszkowska (Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 36–56); for a summary of studies on seals and seal impressions, see Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 435–49). For seal impressions at Lerna, the best-known examples, see Heath (Reference Heath1958), later Wiencke (Reference Wiencke1969, Reference Wiencke and Pini1975, Reference Wiencke2000), cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 440–43, with list of occurrences, and pl. 28), and Krzyszkowska (Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 46–52). At Lerna seals, many probably of metal (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 40–2), were used to make impressions on the unbaked clay closures of vessels, baskets, and chests or storeroom doors; the best-known group of the resulting sealings is from the House of the Tiles, the central structure on the site in its final stage. The Lefkandi seal impression resembles these and the great majority of other EH sealings and seal impressions in its shape and has many parallels for its design, but the rare impressions made directly on vessels are normally found on the shoulder or handle (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 52); however, another impression on a pithos rim has been found, also in Euboea, at Yialtra (CMS V, no. 202; Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 45).

The Lefkandi seal impression may perhaps be later than those at Lerna and elsewhere. It has been suggested to me that the seal used to make the impression survived from an earlier phase and was thus in use for a length of time after its manufacture; on ‘strays’ from a preceding period and ‘time travellers’, see Krzyszkowska (Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 56).

For an association/correlation between EH II seals and EH II sites, cf. the distribution of EH II Urfirnis sauceboats (indicated on the map published by Renfrew Reference Renfrew1972, 396–7, fig. 18:12, which isolates sauceboats of the Korakou culture, i.e. EH II).

The definition of LK I pottery

Whatever excavators may think of their site or of their digging techniques, sherds generate problems. There must always be some form of contamination. Even if an ancient site was occupied only for a short time, there is always the possibility of lateral or vertical movement of soil-deposits through the cutting of foundation trenches, the in-filling of hollows or holes, the levelling of irregular features, the digging of refuse pits, in short from all manner of human on-site activity. One practice alone, for which there are specific examples from other sites, may account for synchronic and diachronic contamination, namely, the manufacture of mudbrick. According to location and circumstance, mudbrick may include whatever material is present at the place of manufacture. If broken pottery is deliberately included in the mudbrick for the purpose of bonding and cohesion, the resulting product will include whatever sherds came to hand. Naturally, these may be earlier in date: they may also be near-contemporary. Any unintentional inclusion would produce the same result. The activity of burrowing animals increases the possibility of admixture.

In a word, I view sherds as potentially mendacious. Only the presence of complete pots in situ on floors associated with the walls of a structure or structures allows a realistic definition of pottery assemblages and their internal, stratigraphic (and possibly their external, non-local) relationships.

Despite the severity – even simplistic severity – of this approach in other areas of research (on sites in Turkey, cf. French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997, 592), in the matter of the definition or of the chronology of Lefkandi Phase I pottery I have been most reluctant to give importance or emphasis to sherds. Nevertheless, in the absence, at Lefkandi, of complete pots in situ, there is, ironically, no other remedy but to consult the sherd material. How then is one to isolate the Anatolian from the non-Anatolian? Herein lies the core problem: what is the role of the recognisable sherd? Once the latter is isolated, does the remaining material represent a separate element/component in the assemblage as a whole?

My principal objective is to establish an identity for the ceramic material of Lefkandi Phase I. I attempt to do so by isolating the elements of the pottery assemblage of which the principal features have long been recognised as ‘Anatolian’ or, to put the converse, not demonstrably indigenous, i.e. Helladic.

In the search for a definition of the pottery assemblage to be assigned to Phase I of occupation, there are two possible approaches to the problem of contamination:

1. (a) to claim a contemporary but non-local source for allegedly contaminating material,

2. (b) to claim an older (or, indeed, later) date for alleged contaminants.

Those pieces – here (b) – which are demonstrably earlier or later, i.e. diachronic contaminants, are easier to define than the material – here (a) – from contemporary or near-contemporary external sources.

Under (b) I have included material categorised here as earlier, i.e. residual:

1. (1) the Final Neolithic,

2. (2) the EH I,

and material identified here as later, i.e. intrusive:

1. (3) the MH Grey Minyan,

2. (4) the MH Yellow Minyan,

3. (5) the Mycenaean and/or Geometric,

4. (6) the Classical Black Glaze.

The reasons for the division into residual and intrusive are as follows.

Firstly, residual wares (Final Neolithic, EH I) are handmade (hence earlier); LK I wares are wheelmade. Neither ware is securely stratified, by a sequence of whole pots on floors, below LK I pottery on any Euboean site. At Tharrounia, a mixture of LH and EH overlay Late Neolithic.Footnote ⁶ Nevertheless the two wares (Final Neolithic and EH I) are demonstrably earlier than EH II in Central Greece (e.g. Caskey and Caskey Reference Caskey and Caskey1960, 161, on Eutresis).

Secondly, later, intrusive wares (MH, Mycenaean, Geometric and Classical) are well known and at Lefkandi itself are found in structures stratified above Lefkandi Phase I.

Under (a) I have placed:

1. (7) the EH II Urfirnis pottery of Southern and Central Greece,

2. (8) the EH III Patterned pottery of Southern Greece (Dark-on-Light ware) and of Central Greece (Light-on-Dark ware).

The EH wares in (a) may be earlier than, contemporary with, or later than LK I pottery. In effect, the relationship between LK I, on the one hand, and the EH sequence, on the other, lies firmly at the heart of the two themes, the definition and the chronology of LK I.

Thus, by an approach which is simultaneously both exclusive and inclusive, it is possible to advance a definition of the LK I pottery assemblage. The definition is based

1. (1) on the pre-eminence, in the sherd material, of one physical feature, namely, the surface traces which can be recognised as the marks of a potter's wheel,

and then

1. (2) on a synthesis of shared characteristics, namely, of shapes (Table 2), especially the open bowls (Fig. 10:1–7), and specific wares (Table 1).

Presence/absence, however, may not always be significant. It is possible that at least one shape (the beaked jug) is somewhat under-represented in the sherd material. In essence, therefore, the LK I pottery assemblage comprises:

The assemblage consisting of these shapes and wares is displayed in two Tables (2 and 7), and illustrated in the Synopses (Figs 10, 11, 12 and 13). All else, in particular (3) the Dark Coated, (4) Black/Grey-Black and (6) Miscellaneous Wares, has been excluded.

The LK I pottery assemblage is simple, basic and limited; it is, above all, the pottery of a settlement, i.e. domestic. There are five elements, presumably serving differing requirements:

The distinction between pottery found in tombs and pottery from a settlement is best documented at Manika; see below.

As defined here, the LK I pottery assemblage seems to be wholly Anatolian, appearing fully formed and developed, somewhat like Athena from Zeus's head. This interpretation thus leads on to questions of origins and chronology.

Lefkandi Phase I pottery: the Anatolian component

Individual shapes and wares found in Lefkandi Phase I can also be found in the pottery assemblages of third-millennium Western Anatolia, in particular at Troy and at Beycesultan. Both excavations have provided evidence of stratified occupation; both have produced EBA pottery in quantity. Wares occurring in Lefkandi Phase I can be found in Troy II and III, even Black/Grey-Black (in Troy II); LK I shapes can also be found in Troy II and III. To these two sites Liman Tepe may soon be added (cf. Table 9).

No one site or area in Western Anatolia – on the coast, in the inland plains or in the uplands – produces a pottery assemblage which displays an exact fit with the LK I assemblage.

In Western Anatolia there are distinctions between coastal and inland areas and between highland and lowland, as follows:

An outline of the differing EBA pottery assemblages in the areas designated above is given elsewhere (French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997).

Inland sites (other than Beycesultan) have been excluded, e.g. Demirci Hüyük near Eskișehir (Korfmann Reference Korfmann1983–8). Other inland sites, currently under excavation, are not discussed here. Key EBA sites in the coastal areas of Western Anatolia are briefly described elsewhere (French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997). Sites on the offshore islands, Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb Reference Lamb1936) and Emborio on Chios (Hood Reference Hood1981–2), are excluded on the grounds that little or no middle to late EBA pottery, contemporary with Troy II or III, was found. Only at the excavations under the Heraion on Samos has material of Western Anatolian middle to late EBA been recovered in quantity (see Milojčić Reference Milojčić1961; Isler Reference Isler1973). In the Marmaris–Fethiye area (no. 4, above) some EBA tomb pottery, perhaps EB 3, has come to light (French Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997, 586 and fig. 12). It does not resemble the classic EB 3 wheelmade red ware, best known from Beycesultan levels XII–VI (Lloyd and Mellaart Reference Lloyd and Mellaart1962, sheets 6–7); the published synopsis of EB 3 pottery is reproduced here (Fig. 49).

On the whole, in the lowland coastal areas (nos 1–4, above), sites thought to be contemporary with Troy II and Troy III–V are hard to define on the ground, and surface sherds of Troy II can be confused with Troy III–V.

The material from the Heraion on Samos was published by Milojčić.Footnote ⁷ The pottery is an irredeemably mixed assemblage of wares (from the EBA into the second millennium BC); some part, however, does reflect the EB 3 wares known at Beycesultan (cf. the comments of Milojčić Reference Milojčić1961, 38ff., pls 41, 45 and 47; Maran Reference Maran1998, 2, 420).

Lefkandi Phase I pottery: Final Neolithic, EH I and II, and EH III (Southern Greek) elements

As indicated above, I discount the presence of EH and MH sherds in the sub-phases of Lefkandi Phase I. It is clear, for example, that some Final Neolithic sherds were found to overlie the sub-phases in which EH II material occurred, and that later material – MH and Mycenaean/Geometric in I.1 – had penetrated to the lowest sub-phase, therefore, below Sub-Phase 2A, in which a sauceboat fragment (Fig. 35:6) was recovered. The distribution of residual and intrusive sherds of Final Neolithic, EH I and II and later periods is given in tabular form (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 5. Lefkandi Phases I and II. Trenches CC and B. Residual, intrusive and non-local(?) sherds.

Table 6. Lefkandi Phases I and II. Trenches I CC and X. Final Neolithic sherds.

Table 7. Lefkandi Phase I. Trenches CC and B. Pottery wares: a synopsis of occurrences.

Table 8. Troy II and III and Lefkandi I: a comparison of shapes.

For a survey of Neolithic and EH I sites on Euboea, see Sampson Reference Sampson1981.

For the location of the residual and intrusive sherds (illustrated, Figs 34 and 35) in the sub-phases of Lefkandi Phase I, see Table 5.

It is in these circumstances that relative chronology based on identifiable sherds, perhaps residual, perhaps intrusive, becomes an exercise in choice or selective judgement among conflicting possibilities.

EH II pottery has been found on numerous sites in Euboea, not least Eretria Magoula, Amarynthos (where the presence of EH II Urfirnis and LK I has been attested) and Eretria, in the neighbourhood of Lefkandi; references are given by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 717–20).

Lefkandi Phase I pottery: EH III (Central Greek) elements

The presence of Central Greek elements is based on the identification of a shape and ware known (for some time) at Orchomenos, the so-called ‘Humpe’. Pottery associated with this shape is illustrated here, Fig. 43 (adapted from the photographs published in Kunze Reference Kunze1934).

Fig. 43. Shapes of EH III Orchomenos (from Kunze Reference Kunze1934, 10 – ‘Sherd House’).

LK I pottery: distribution

The knowledge of LK I wares and shapes and their distribution on Euboea has been vastly expanded, since the original survey (Sackett et al. Reference Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham1966), by Sampson (Reference Sampson1980; Reference Sampson1988) and others (Fig. 44). Outside Euboea, LK I wares and shapes have been identified in the neighbouring coastal and inland areas. For LK I wares at Pefkakia in Thessaly, see Maran (Reference Maran1992, 329–30) and Christmann (Reference Christmann1996, 289, pl. 64), cited by Alram-Stern (Reference Alram-Stern2004, 761, 763, pl. 55), reproduced here as Fig. 45. For LK I wares in Boeotia, and at Thebes in particular, see the accounts of Aravantinos (Reference Aravantinos2004) and Psaraki (Reference Psaraki2004).

Fig. 44. Distribution map: sites with LK I pottery on Euboea.

Fig. 45. LK I pottery at Pefkakia (Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, fig. 55 after Christmann Reference Christmann1996, pls 64:11, 68:3, 73:22, 78:5). Courtesy of Dr E. Alram and Prof. Dr J. Maran.

LK I pottery: occurrences and stratigraphy at Manika

The comparisons and contrasts, the similarities and differences, between Lefkandi and Manika are of profound importance for the understanding of the nature of the period represented by the LK I pottery assemblage.

In the conspectus of pottery found in the Manika tombs (Fig. 46), there is a perceptible difference between Lefkandi and Manika. This difference can be attributed to the distinction, much discussed elsewhere, particularly in later contexts such as Late Helladic, between tomb and settlement pottery (Christmann Reference Christmann1996, 293; Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 707). It is also notable that sauceboats occur very rarely in the Manika tombs. Here, Sampson dates the finds from the Ragia trenches to Manika I.Footnote ⁸ At Lefkandi the sauceboat is represented by a few sherds only. The repertoire of shapes in the Manika tombs is broad; in the Lefkandi settlement it is much narrower. The following shapes are common to both contexts (the Manika references are to Sampson Reference Sampson1988, fig. 91, reproduced by Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, as pl. 47, following 962, and here as Fig. 46, but this lacks 91.91):

Fig. 46. Tomb pottery at Manika (from Sampson Reference Sampson1988, 64 and fig. 91). Courtesy of Prof. A. Sampson.

In broad terms of presence and absence, the Manika tomb pottery (of which Sampson Reference Sampson1988, fig. 91 is a synopsis) does not wholly coincide with the settlement pottery of Lefkandi. The restricted range of shapes at the settlement site of Lefkandi contrasts with the extended repertoire established for the tombs of Manika. It is perhaps an unnecessary contrast: no tombs have (yet) been discovered at Lefkandi. This lack of comparability requires confirmation from a detailed overview of the settlement pottery at Manika.

Nevertheless, the indication that EH II (‘late EH II’) pottery underlies LK I pottery at the settlement site of Manika (references in Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 704) is most clearly of fundamental significance (see below). The precise location of EH II sauceboats (apart from the tomb occurrences) is not clear from the published accounts. Sampson (Reference Sampson1985, 143) states that no complete examples of the sauceboat shape were found – sherds, therefore (but cf. above, Footnote n. 8, for at least one complete example from Tomb 155).

Relative chronology of LK I pottery: Anatolia

At the core of the LK I pottery assemblage are the wheelmade plates and bowls. I have assumed throughout that the technique and form point to a West Anatolian origin for these two shapes.

I have looked at the two possibilities for the introduction (at Lefkandi) of West Anatolian technique and shapes, either during the late third millennium (West Anatolian EB 3) or during Troy II. The former would impose an introduction (at Lefkandi) of wheelmade Anatolian pot-shapes during (West Anatolian) EB 3; the latter would suggest an introduction during West Anatolian EB 2, in or at the end of Troy II, the phase which precedes (West Anatolian) EB 3. It is after the end of Troy II – so the orthodox view – that, except for Cilicia, the rest of Western Anatolia outside the Troad receives the full impact of a wheelmade pottery fashioned in a new technique and in new shapes. Be it noted that wheelmade pottery (not necessarily imported) is present at the end of EB 2 at Beycesultan: Cilicia already had a wheelmade pottery assemblage before the influx of West Anatolian EB 3. The Cilician appearance of wheelmade pottery is a well-known crux in Anatolian chronology (cf. Mellink Reference Mellink and Ehrich1992, 216).

Three observations on the pottery of Troy and Beycesultan can be made:

1. (1) Troy shapes and techniques appear in Beycesultan level XIII (levels XVI–XIII = EB 2; Fig. 48): wheelmade plates (Troy A 1) and ‘Troy Cups’ (Troy A 39/43), both rare.

2. (2) The introduction of Troy II-type wheelmade pottery at Beycesultan at the end of EB 2, i.e. in level XIII, occurs before the beginning of EB 3 (level XII) and the massive introduction of wheelmade Red Wash and Burnished ware, the defining characteristic and feature of West Anatolian EB 3.

3. (3) Similarly, the introduction of Troy II-type pottery and techniques – wheelmade plates and cups – at Lefkandi is partial. The full range of Troy II shapes was not adopted.

There is a chronological consequence of the above observations. It now becomes possible to suggest a significant relationship between Troy, Beycesultan and Lefkandi and to propose, as a working hypothesis, that the introduction of wheelmade pottery at Lefkandi was either roughly contemporary with or slightly later than its introduction at Beycesultan. In short, the following synchronism – late EB 2 (Beycesultan level XIII) and early Lefkandi Phase I = late Troy II/early Troy III – is an acceptable hypothesis.Footnote ⁹

For an early, ground-breaking survey of EBA pottery in the Aegean basin, and for ceramic change in particular, see Rutter (Reference Rutter1979). For a more recent wide-ranging discussion and in-depth study of relative and absolute chronology in the Aegean basin, with particular reference to radiocarbon and tree-ring analysis, see Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009) and her more recent discussion (Kouka Reference Kouka2013).Footnote ¹⁰

Relative chronology of LK I pottery: Central and Southern Greece

A choice must be made from the available possibilities. In discussing the relative chronologies of Central Greece, I tried (French Reference French1972 [revised 1975], ‘Chronology’) to present the imperative of choice among conflicting views and seemingly conflicting data. The same point, with particular regard for the relative chronology of Lefkandi Phase I, has been cogently argued and emphasised by Manning (Reference Manning1995, 51) in his admirable summary of the then existing data and opinions.

I here draw attention to three sites:

1. (1) At Raphina pots (more or less complete) of EH II wares and styles were found by Theokharis (Reference Theokharis1952, 142 and figs 10ff.) alongside a cup of Anatolian shape (a Troy Cup) on the floor of House A. A selection of the pottery is re-illustrated here (Fig. 47). Not drawn for this illustration are: the ‘frying pan’, jug, jar, askos, large bowl (χύτρη), lid, spoon, and deep cup. No painted pots were present; two sherds were strays (Theokharis Reference Theokharis1952, 143). The plate can be seen as a handmade version of an Anatolian shape; it is in a common EH II ware (‘Plain Ware’). Two of the Raphina shapes are present in LK I, namely the bowl (no. 1) and the Troy Cup (no. 3).

2. (2) At Thebes it is reported that ‘Anatolian’ pottery shapes, the Troy Cup and saucer, i.e. plate, occurred at the end of EH II and that EH III pottery of Ayia Marina style is absent. This pattern of occurrences resembles that of the sherd-assemblage at Lefkandi, where EH II and EH III are minimally present.

3. (3) At Manika, EH II underlies LK I. It is not clear which phase is indicated, ‘Early’ (Sampson EH IIa) or ‘Late’ (Sampson EH IIb).Footnote ¹¹ Indeed, is there such a thing as EH IIb at Manika? Are the distinctions at Manika based on sherds, not on groups of whole pots on floors?

Fig. 47. Shapes of EH II Raphina (from Theokharis Reference Theokharis1952, 142ff. and figs 10ff.).

For Euboea, therefore, there are three possibilities:

1. (1) that LK I wholly precedes the beginning of EH III in Southern Greece (as in Table 9).

2. (2) that LK I is a group of pottery wares which, on Euboea, covers the transitional period from EH II to EH III in Southern Greece, that is to say, that LK I is contemporary, in part, with the end of EH II and the beginning of EH III in Southern (and Central) Greece. For its chronological relationships in Central and Southern Greece and the Cyclades, see Maran (Reference Maran1998, 2, 416, pls 80–1, of which the latter is reproduced here as Table 10); cf. also Christmann (Reference Christmann1996, 289–300) on LK I, Manika 3 (Sampson's terminology), Kythnos, Kastri on Syros and Palamari on Skyros.

3. (3) that on the site LK I pottery replaces the wares of EH II and that in Euboea as a whole the LK I phase wholly postdates EH II.

Table 9. Comparative chronology of Anatolia and the Aegean c. 3000–2000 BC (new version of Şahoǧlu Reference Şahoǧlu2005, fig. 3, courtesy of Prof. V. Şahoǧlu).

Table 10. Comparative chronology of Aegean sites and regions, c. 4000–2000 BC (after Maran Reference Maran1998, pl. 81).

The third hypothesis has been discarded. Current opinion favours the first and second hypotheses, with a balance in favour of the second, a material test of which is provided by the data from Raphina and Thebes.

At Lefkandi, I have chosen not to issue a seemingly final assessment, which might then assume the status of dogma. An EH II Urfirnis sherd and Central Greek wares were found among the material recovered in the various phases (Fig. 35:6 [EH II] and 8–10 [Central Greek]). The sherds, then, are ambiguous: we need pots on floors.

Lefkandi Phase I and the introduction of ‘Anatolianising’ pottery: a summary

It is of the highest importance to recognise that analyses have indicated a result of crucial significance: the LK I pottery was produced from local clay(s), and presumably, therefore, the pottery was fired in local kilns, though none have been discovered (information supplied by Sackett, letter dated 02 April 2004). This information is reinforced by the work of Spencer (Reference Spencer, Philippa-Touchais, Touchais, Voutsaki and Wright2010, 672 and n. 8), who has determined that local clay(s) were used in the manufacture of EH III to MH II pottery at Lefkandi.

If the LK I pottery was locally produced (and exchanged on local networks), how and when did this move towards pottery of an Anatolian character take place?

It is proposed here that one or more workshops on Euboea adopted (and adapted) a simple range of Anatolian shapes and features for use and distribution in its/their surrounding region (Euboea, the east coasts of Boeotia and Attica). In other words, the LK I pottery found is the product of a local kiln where Anatolian fashions of production, surface technique and shape had been selectively adopted and adapted (a process here termed ‘Anatolianising’). The products of the workshop(s) were distributed essentially in the region of the kiln and more widely, in defined areas, in greater or lesser quantities; cf. the ‘Anatolianising’, but locally manufactured, EBA pottery on Keos (Wilson Reference Wilson1999).

It is difficult to determine one single source of inspiration for the ‘Anatolian’ pottery at Lefkandi. The basic elements of the LK I assemblage are found both in the Troad, specifically during Troy II, and throughout Western Anatolia. On present evidence there is no other area or region where the basic elements are found in overwhelming quantity before the general introduction of wheelmade red-wash wares, the hallmark of West Anatolian EB 3, i.e. the period of Troy III–V and Beycesultan XII–VI, unless one looks to Cilicia; for the wheelmade pottery in Tarsus EB 2, see Goldman (Reference Goldman1956, 132–3, 134 n. 3) and Mellink (Reference Mellink and Ehrich1965, 115; Reference Mellink and Ehrich1992, 216).

It is, of course, possible that there was an intermediary between Western Anatolia and Lefkandi, i.e. an east to west movement of pottery via networks in the Cyclades. Or possibly there was a direct contact between Western Anatolia and Lefkandi; cf. the reverse movement, west to east, as indicated by the presence of the EH II sauceboats found at Urla/Clazomenae – illustrated by Erkanal and Günel (Reference Erkanal and Günel1995, 313 and fig. 22), and discussed and illustrated by Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009, 146 and fig. 9) – and, indeed, at Troy (Blegen et al. Reference Blegen, Caskey, Rawson and Sperling1950, 193 and fig. 252:5[448], 193 and fig. 252:7[598], both in Troy I).Footnote ¹² Note also the identification of a sauceboat spout at Thermi by Lamb (Reference Lamb1936, 90 and fig. 32:521).

As a model of interpretation, the concept of a population movement which introduced ‘Anatolian’ pottery to Euboea and elsewhere (for a summary of views, see Alram-Stern Reference Alram-Stern2004, 527–31; also Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 309–19) is here discounted.Footnote ¹³ A more complex mechanism is required as a vehicle for the appearance of ‘Anatolian’ pottery in Helladic contexts, a mechanism or process, moreover, which embraces other objective, artefactual materials such as metal. In this context, it is interesting to note the ‘convincing Anatolian parallels’ of the seal impression on a pottery container (a pithos) from northern Euboea (Krzyszkowska Reference Krzyszkowska2005, 45).

For a brief summary of the interpretations based on the Lefkandi I pottery, with particular reference to population movements, see Rutter (Reference Rutter2001, 114 and n. 78).

The model preferred here – the selective adoption and adaptation, at localised centres of production, particularly on Euboea, of West Anatolian fashions in pottery – can be tested in Western Anatolia itself. It is significant that wheelmade pottery was found in pre-EB 3 contexts (level XIII) at Beycesultan. The simple range of wheelmade shapes, basically, plates and cups (illustrated here, Fig. 48:37–40), contrasts with the shapes and techniques of the handmade pottery (also illustrated in Fig. 48), which is dominant in the same context, i.e. levels XV–XIII (= Beycesultan EB 2). These basic shapes are exactly those which also appear at settlements and in tombs of the Greek mainland in EH II–III.

Fig. 48. Shapes of Beycesultan EB 2 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart Reference Lloyd and Mellaart1962, sheet 5). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.

Fig. 49. Shapes of Beycesultan EB 3 pottery (from Lloyd and Mellaart Reference Lloyd and Mellaart1962, sheet 6). Courtesy of the British Institute at Ankara.

The question of relative chronology, however, will not go away, even if a mechanism for the adoption of ‘Anatolian’ pottery is understood.Footnote ¹⁴ No suggestion is made here. It seems preferable, on present evidence, to consider the possibility that the adoption was the result of a continuous but irregular, sporadic, piecemeal process – continuous, that is to say, over a period which could embrace one or more phases of EH, but irregular, sporadic and piecemeal on the basis of the number and location of occurrences, and in the sense that the adoption of ‘Anatolian’ pottery was not wholesale.

Post-scriptum

In the Forum ‘Minding the Gap’, recently published in AJA 117 (2013), 527–97, considerable attention was given to matters of chronology, with particular reference to the Cyclades in EC III. At the same time, attention was drawn to the origins of LK I pottery and to ‘Anatolianising’ and its manifestation in pottery assemblages in the Cyclades and on the Greek mainland (Davis Reference Davis2013; Pullen Reference Pullen2013). The description ‘Anatolianising’ can be used only in the broadest sense. The complexities and variations of EBA pottery in Western Turkey do not allow a single source for the ‘Anatolianising’ pottery – i.e. its shapes and wares – observed on Helladic sites: it is not clear whether the complexities and variations have been fully absorbed by those who refer to the term. This weakness is, in part, due to a lack of safe and reliable data.

For an example of a misconception with regard to Anatolian archaeology I would isolate the frequency of references to the period and pottery of Troy II and to the perceived pre-eminence of the site in Aegean archaeology. For all the urban status, not to mention the treasures, of Troy II, it can be readily seen that, in the immediate hinterland of the site and along the north-western coast south of Troy, there are few ceramic parallels to Troy II, that is to say, contemporary sites where the range and idiosyncracies of the pottery assemblage of Troy II are visibly and demonstrably replicated. Troy II does not stand as ‘representative for pottery’ in the coastal regions of Western Anatolia, still less for the inland areas behind the seaboard.

The complexity and variation of the pottery assemblages on the sites and in the regions of Western Anatolia were summarised by French (Reference French, Doumas and La Rosa1997), but have been discussed, more recently and more fully, by Kouka (Reference Kouka, Manning and Bruce2009; Reference Kouka2013).

On the problem of language as a hindrance to understanding, note the comments (Rutter Reference Rutter2013, 595) on the difficulty of publications in Turkish only.