This pdf of your paper in Exchange Networks and Local
Transformations belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and
it is their copyright.
As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it,
but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide
Web until three years from publication (February 2016), unless
the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you
have queries about this please contact the editorial department
at Oxbow Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com).
Exchange Networks
and Local Transformations
Interaction and local change in Europe and the
Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age
Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini
ISBN 978-1-84217-485-2
© OXBOW BOOKS
www.oxbowbooks.com
Contents
List of contributors....................................................................................................................................................... v
Abstracts ...................................................................................................................................................................... vii
Preface ...........................................................................................................................................................................xi
Introduction: Transcultural interaction and local transformations in Europe
and the Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age .............................................................................. 1
Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini
1. Theorising exchange and interaction during the Bronze Age. ........................................................................ 6
Kristian Kristiansen
2. ‘Peripheries versus core’: The integration of secondary states into the World System
of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East in the Late Bronze Age (1600–1200 BC) ..........................9
Nikolas Papadimitriou and Demetra Kriga
3. Aegean trade systems: Overview and observations on the Middle Bronze Age ........................................ 22
Maria Emanuela Alberti
4. The Minoans in the southeastern Aegean? The evidence from the ‘Serraglio’
on Kos and its signiicance .................................................................................................................................. 44
Salvatore Vitale and Teresa Hancock Vitale
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C ...................................................................................................................... 60
Francesco Iacono
6. Malta, Sicily, Aeolian Islands and southern Italy during the Bronze Age: The meaning
of a changing relationship ................................................................................................................................... 80
Alberto Cazzella and Giulia Recchia
7. External role in the social transformation of nuragic society? A case study from Sàrrala,
Eastern Sardinia, Middle Bronze to Early Iron Age ........................................................................................ 92
Luca Lai
8. Metalwork, rituals and the making of elite identity in central Italy
at the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition ............................................................................................................. 102
Cristiano Iaia
9. Indigenous political dynamics and identity from a comparative perspective: Etruria
and Latium vetus ................................................................................................................................................... 117
Francesca Fulminante and Simon Stoddart
Contents
10. Local and transcultural burial practices in Northern Europe in the Late Bronze Age:
Face, house and face/door urns ..............................................................................................................................134
Serena Sabatini
11. Migration, innovation and meaning: Sword depositions on Lolland, 1600–1100 BC ...................................146
Sophie Bergerbrant
12. Long and close distance trade and exchange beyond the Baltic Coast during the Early Iron Age ............156
Juta Kneisel
13. Ceramic technology and the materiality of Celtic graphitic potery................................................................169
Atila Kreiter, Szilvia Bartus-Szöllősi, Bernadet Bajnóczi, Izabella Azbej Havancsák, Mária Tóth
and György Szakmány
List of Contributors
Maria Emanuela Alberti
Department of Archaeology
University of Sheffield, UK
m.alberti@sheffield.ac.uk
Bernadett Bajnóczi
Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
bajnoczi@geochem.hu
Szilvia Bartus-Szöllősi
Institute of Archaeological Science
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary,
szolloszilva@gmail.com
Sophie Bergerbrant
Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
sophie.bergerbrant@ntnu.no
Alberto Cazzella
Department of Sciences of Antiquity
Rome University “La Sapienza”, Italy
a.cazzella@virgilio.it
Francesca Fulminante
Department of Archaeology
Cambridge University, UK
ff234@cam.ac.uk
Teresa Hancock Vitale
University of Toronto, Canada
teresa.hancock@utoronto.ca
Izabella Azbej Havancsák
Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
havancsaki@geochem.hu
Attila Kreiter
Hungarian National Museum, National Heritage
Protection Centre
Budapest, Hungary
atila.kreiter@mmm.mok.gov.hu
Demetra Kriga
College Year in Athens, Greece
mimikakri@gmail.com
Kristian Kristiansen
Department of Historical Studies
University of Göteborg, Sweden
kristian.kristiansen@archaeology.gu.se
Luca Lai
University of South Florida, USA
and University of Cagliarci, Italy
melisenda74@yahoo.it
Nikolas Papadimitriou
Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens, Greece
npapad@cycladic.gr
Giulia Recchia
Department of Human Sciences
University of Foggia, Italy
g.recchia@unifg.it
Serena Sabatini
Department of Historical Studies
University of Göteborg, Sweden
serena.sabatini@archaeology.gu.se
Simon Stoddart
Department of Archaeology
Cambridge University, UK
ss16@cam.ac.uk
Francesco Iacono
Ph.D. candidate, UCL, London, UK
francesco.iacono@googlemail.com
György Szakmány
Department of Petrology and Geochemistry
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
gyorgy.szakmany@geology.elte.hu
Cristiano Iaia
Heritage Department
University of Viterbo “La Tuscia”, Italy
cris.iaia@tiscali.it
Mária Tóth
Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
totyi@geochem.hu
Jutta Kneisel
Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Germany.
juta.kneisel@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Salvatore Vitale
Università della Calabria, Italy
s.vitale@arch.unipi.it
Preface
The idea of this volume matured gradually over time,
following a series of events. Originally, it was the aim
of the editors to promote a large project investigating
trade and exchange as a means for the development
and expansion of societies in Bronze Age and Iron Age
Europe and the Mediterranean. A convenient starting
discussion for this project took place at a relevant
session at the 14th annual meeting of the European
Association of Archaeologists in Malta (September
2008).1 The project has not yet materialized. However,
following the session in Malta there was general
agreement regarding the lack of comprehensive studies
on the reciprocal relations between exchange networks
and local transformations, particularly those focusing on
the later and their speciic dynamics. We decided then
to atempt to address this scientiic gap. With an eye to
our main areas and periods of interest (the Bronze and
Iron Ages in the Mediterranean and Europe) we felt
that such a study would beneit from including a large
number of regions and chronological horizons.
We also agreed on the potentially fruitful results that
could arise from overcoming the disciplinary barriers
which oten prevent dialogue between archaeologists
working in the Mediterranean and in continental
Europe. While this problem undoubtedly persists, the
channels of communication have been opened, and we
feel the present volume represents a signiicant step in
the right direction. Some of the articles in the volume
were writen by participants in the EAA session in
Malta 2008 while others were writen by scholars who
were subsequently invited by the editors.
During the long editing process2 we have had
support from several colleagues and friends. In
particular we wish to thank Kristian Kristiansen,
who also contributed to the volume, as well as Paola
Càssola Guida, Elisabeta Borgna, Renato Peroni and
Andrea Cardarelli. As far as the very conception of
this book is concerned, thanks must go to Anthony
Harding for the inspiring talk right ater the session
in Malta 2008. We are also grateful to the organisers of
the 14th annual meeting of the European Association
of Archaeologists in Malta, who made the session
possible. In addition, we wish to thank Göteborg
University and the Jubileumsfond for its generous
support. Of course we also extend warm thanks to all
of the contributors to this book – their collaboration
has been very stimulating in many ways. We wish
to also thank very much Kristin Bornholdt Collins
for considerably improving the language of the
introductorty parts of this volume. Finally, we would
like to thank the publisher Oxbow Books Ltd for
taking an interest in our work, and in particular Dr
Julie Gardiner and Samantha McLeod for help and
support with the publication.
Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini
2012
1
2
The original title of the session was: Exchange, interactions, conlicts and transformations: social and cultural changes in
Europe and the Mediterranean between the Bronze and Iron Ages.
The volume was completed at the beginning of 2011. Therefore, not all bibliographical references might be fully updated.
Both editors equally worked on the volume.
5
Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Francesco Iacono
Introduction
In the last decades Mediterranean archaeology has
changed dramatically questioning some of its most
basilar assumptions, as for instance the existence
of large scale migrations à la Childe and prehistoric
thalassocracies à la Evans. Yet despite this, when it
comes to the interpretation of large phenomena of
cultural change and interaction there are some axioms
laying at the very core of the discipline which remain
largely unnoticed and therefore almost completely
unchallenged.
The most persistent and influential among those
is undoubtedly that of directionality of culture
change, from East to West, from the civilized to the
uncivilized.
My aim in this contribution is to instil doubts about
the inescapability of this trend. Can cultural influence
travel the other way round?
In order to do that I will deal with an historical
context in which the South-East/North-West cultural
drit, as Andrew Sherrat (1997) named it, does not
really fit with archaeological data. I am referring to the
end of the palatial era and the post-palatial period in
Greece (LH III B–C), corresponding roughly to Recent
and Final Bronze Age in Italy and Bronze D and Halstat
A in the rest of Europe (Jung 2006, 216).
The title I choose evokes the well known Orientalizing period, a moment in which the cultural osmosis
between the Greek ‘West’ and the ‘East’ is said to be
at one of its higher point (Burkert 1992; Riva and
Vella 2006).
The hypothesis that I will provocatively try to
explore here by the means of a World System approach,
asserts that a similar phenomenon in terms of width
and strength of existing connections came about with
regions which were located westward and north
westward of the Aegean a few centuries before, in the
last part of Bronze Age.
I will try to show in this paper that after the
dissolution of mainland states a contraction occurred
in the sphere of cultural influence of the Mycenaean
‘core’, leaving room for a variety of formerly peripheral
elements to be accepted and become influential in
Greece.
World System Theory, concepts and
relationships
World System (WS) Theory has been already applied
by a number of scholars to the analysis of the Late
Bronze Age Mediterranean (see Kardulias 1996 with
previous bibliography). However I will not blindly
adopt the theory as it was developed by Wallerstein in
his first seminal work. It will be therefore necessary to
introduce some of the basic concepts and relationships
entailed by the approach adopted in this paper (Chase
Dunn and Hall 1993; Schneider 1977; A. Sherrat 1993;
Wallestein 1974). According to this perspective, the
traditional relationships of core and periphery are
defined by the relative level of capital accumulation,
with cores presenting larger amounts (whatever its
form) than peripheries (Frank 1993). These roles are of
course relational and the same socio-political entity (be
it a large polity, a hamlet or as far as the archaeological
phenomena are concerned a site) might be a core in
relation to some partners and a periphery vis-à-vis a
larger core.
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
61
As the kind of interaction detectable in the archaeological record always entails a flow of capital
(normally in the form of material cultural items), it is
possible to analyze in terms of WS dynamics aspects
which are oten considered extraneous to economic
interaction, such as diplomacy, political marriage
and git exchange (Chase Dunn and Hall 1993; 1997;
Wilkinson 1987).
Methodologically it can be argued that in peripheral
areas, privileged possession of material culture items
from the core was possibly crucial as it signalled
to the wider community the successfulness of local
elites in establishing relationships with powerful
partners. These items were then employed by elites
in the peripheries as prestige goods in processes
of competition over economic and political power.
Afterwards they would slowly penetrate in the
tissue of peripheral societies being adopted/imitated
among larger sectors of the population (Friedman and
Rowlands 1977; Veblen 1902).
Therefore, as a general criterion, it is possible
to suggest that the larger the number of artefacts
imported and/or imitated in a given area, the stronger
is the influence of the core.
Naturally enough, systems are never static but continuously remodel and renegotiate their relationships
creating cycles of growth and contraction which
occasionally end up in major crisis and/or collapse
(see Frank 1993; Hall and Turchin 2003; Tainter 1988).
As an outcome of these crises former core-periphery
relationship can be inverted producing an inversion
of cultural influence that can be detected in the
archaeological domain. This is possibly what happened
to the Minoan/Mycenaean heartland toward the end of
the palatial time. One aim of this paper will be that of
addressing the effect of this process in a world systemic
scale of analysis. In order to do that the first step to
be made is assessing the nature of the relationship
between the Aegean core and its western peripheries
before this major crisis.
Sestieri 1988; Vagneti 1983; 1999; Marazzi et al. 1986).
The areas that returned the largest amount of Aegean
materials are the Tyrrhenian, Sicily and, to a more
limited extent, the Ionian arc. Much less intense, albeit
already established, appear to have been interaction
with the Adriatic area both on the Balkan and on the
Italian side.1
In a more indirect fashion Mycenaean influence
has been linked to various developments like crat
production (introduction of new manufacturing
techniques and local imitations), architecture
and settlement patterns (MBA fortifications and
development of coastal sites in Southeastern Italy)
(Vagneti 1999; Levi 2004; Malone et al. 1994; contra
Cazzella and Moscoloni 1999).
Consumption paterns atested at a key context such
as Lipari (Fig. 5.1.2) suggest that, although Mycenaean
materials were not restricted to specific areas, some
households had a privileged access to foreign materials
(Wijnergaarden 2002, 224). Furthermore the use
of Mycenaean products as display items has been
recorded in funerary contexts in Sicily, for example
at Thapsos (Fig. 5.1.3) and in Southern Italy, at Torre
S. Sabina (Fig. 5.1.1). In general, it looks as if, at least
at some sites presenting the large concentrations of
Mycenaean material in their region and that probably
acting as main communication nodes with the Aegean
world, Mycenaean materials (or, as far as Italy and
Sicily are concerned, products contained by these
materials) played an active role in societies’ internal
competition.2
Overall it is possible to consider LH III A as the
moment of maximum expansion of the Mycenaean
core toward the Mediterranean.
No western elements and/or imports are atested in
the Aegean up to this time. As far as the archaeologically
detectable materials are concerned, the relationship
between the Aegean and the West seems to have been
a one-way one (S. Sherrat 1982; 1999; Vagneti 1983;
1999).
The Mycenaean WS and the West in LH I–III A
Western items in Aegean Bronze Age,
previous interpretations
I do not have enough space here to discuss in detail
the functioning of the Mycenaean core as regards to its
western peripheries during the formative and the early
palatial period, therefore the following discussion will
be unavoidably selective.
Excluding the scant evidence of indirect relation
offered by a few fragments discovered on the
southern coast of Spain (Vianello 2005 with previous
bibliography), the main area of Mycenaean interaction
westward is represented by Italy (Betelli 2002; Bieti
During the more mature phase of the palatial era,
corresponding to the subsequent ceramic phase LH III
B, something changed. This change, however, is not
dramatic and it is possible to fully appreciate its scope
only paying the due atention to the big picture.
Two new classes of materials of western origin
started to be atested in small quantities in Greek
assemblages. I am referring to a class of handmade
burnished potery, also known as Barbarian Ware
62
Francesco Iacono
Figure 5.1 Relations between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean during LH III A: distribution of Aegean type potery in Italy
(ater Vagneti 1999, 140 updated). 1) Torre S. Sabina, 2) Lipari, 3) Thapsos.
(Betelli 2002, 117–136; Ruter 1975; Pilides 1994) and
to a heterogeneous group of bronze items oten put
together under the label of Urnfield Bronzes (Harding
1984; S. Sherrat 2000).
These exogenous materials atracted archaeologists’
atention prety soon and up to very recent times
their interpretation has been quite regularly (with
few notable exceptions: i.e. Borgna and Càssola Guida
2005; Harding 1984; Sandars 1978; S. Sherrat 1981;
Small 1990; 1997) ethnically coloured and connected
with historical and semi-historical events such as the
arrival of the Dorians in Greece or Sea People’s raids
across the Mediterranean (i.e. Ruter 1975; 1990; DegerJalkotzy 1977; Kilian 1978; 1985; Bouzek 1985; Betelli
2002; Jung 2006; 2007, 353; Gentz 1997; French 1989).
Since the beginning of the last century bronzes, and
in particular the Naue II swords, were seen as the
archaeological indicators of the coming of the dreadful
Dorian warriors from the north (i.e. Milojčić 1948;
Desborough 1964; contra Snodgrass 1971, 354–355).
Albeit fundamentally recalibrated in their extent, more
recent migratory hypothesis still present a culture =
people model of explanation which is unsatisfying
in many respects.3 My general objection to this sort
of argument is that linking directly prehistorical
archaeological data with the histoire événementielle
is always a hazardous operation. Here I will try to
consider western items in the Aegean as indicators of
a broader economic relationship. I will focus primarily
on Handmade Burnished Ware (HBW) although I
will integrate also in the discussion the contextual
distribution of Urnfield Bronzes.
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Handmade Burnished Ware
HBW is a ceramic class atested not only in continental
Greece (Jung 2006; Ruter 1990) and Crete (Hallager
1985; Jung 2006; Ruter 1990), but also on Cyprus (Pilides
1994) and in the Levantine area (Badre 2003; Mazar
1985), presenting three distinctive characteristics:
1) This potery was handmade, whilst almost the
entirety of ceramic production in the Minoan/
Mycenaean world (including cooking wares) was
wheel-made, since long time.4
2) Surface treatment (that is burnishing) as well
as some morphological features represented in
these pots had parallels in areas external to the
Mycenaean world.
3) The relative frequency of this pottery has recurrently proved to be rather low in Greek sites.5
As far as the last point is concerned, it must be noted
that although an endless list of comparanda has been
proposed in the past for HBW, recent studies (and
in particular those from Reinhardt Jung and Marco
Bettelli) have demonstrated that there are some
morphological elements among many specimen of this
class, which clearly refer to handmade production of
the central and western Mediterranean, above all to
Southern Italy and to a much more limited extent to
Northern Greece (Betelli 2002, 117–137; Jung 2006;
Kilian 2007, 55–56).
Additionally, provenance analyses have revealed that
direct imports are not completely absent as perhaps
in the case of Lekandi (Lekandi: Jones 1986, 474–476;
Menelaion: Whitbread 1992; Cyprus: Jones 1986;
Pilides 1994).
Puting aside the difference between imports and
local imitations (I shall return to this issue later on),
what is immediately clear, observing HBW assemblages
through time, is that there seems to have been very
litle chronological difference between the various
shapes atested, as they all seem to have appeared
at about the same time in the Aegean. Additionally,
although, as noticed long ago by Jeremy Rutter,
most of the possible functional categories seem to be
represented in HBW, the shapes which truly reach an
Aegean-wide diffusion are probably only the large
jars (either plain or with finger-impressed and plain
cordon) and carinated shapes (bowls and cups)6.
As far as decorative techniques are concerned, the
most widespread ones are plastic cordons (normally
finger-impressed but also plain) which refers to
Italian Subappennine traditions and, to a much more
limited extent, Barbotine technique, which instead
points toward Northern Greece (Fig. 5.2). The largest
assemblages recovered so far pertaining to HBW are
63
those of Tiryns (virtually all the HBW shapes are
atested here, Fig. 5.2.5) and Chania (Fig. 5.2.6 and
Fig. 5.3). This might be due to a recovery bias as both
the excavators of Chania and Tiryns were among the
firsts in recognizing HBW, but ,it also seems that these
two sites did in fact enjoy an important role on this
respect.
Further, the assemblages of these two sites have many
points in common, not only under a typological point
of view, but also under a chronological perspective, as
in both sites the HBW phenomenon start rather early,
that is in LH III B2.
From this initial area in the LH/M III C HBW
expanded, although with minor intensity, to most of
mainland Greece and Crete (Fig. 5.2). This period of
expansion is interestingly associated with the growth
of the total frequency of HBW at Tiryns and a reduction
at Chania (Hallager and Hallager 2000, 166; Kilian
2007, 46, fig. 1).
In other words, the HBW package probably appeared
as it is in LH/M III B2 in a rather restricted area
comprehending the Argolid and West/Central Crete
(the only exceptions being a vessel from Athens and a
single sherd coming from Nichoria, see Appendix). In
the activities underlying HBW as a material correlate
large, the use of large containers and carinated bowls
seems to have been quite important.
Excluding a certain predilection for coastal locales
(Hallager 1985), it does not seem possible to recognize
particular directives in this process of expansion,
although, it is quite interesting to note that the relatively
litle explored region of Achaea presents more than one
find spot. This is possibly due to the fact that this area
was acquiring a notable importance into post palatial
period (accompanied possibly by a population growth),
but perhaps its western position is not to be ruled out
completely as an explanation (Dickinson 2006; Eder
2006; contra Papadopoulos 1979, 183).
Western items as evidence of trade in metal
As mentioned before HBW is not the only class
of ‘western’ items present in late palatial and post
palatial times in Greece. In this same timeframe, a
quite heterogeneous group of bronze items presenting
a close ancestry with European productions oten
collectively put under the label of Urnfield Bronzes
(UB) starts to be found in the Aegean (eventually
becoming quite popular also on Cyprus and elsewhere
in the Eastern Mediterranean). Among those items it
is possible to find the notorious Naue II sword that
will become the standard weapon of the end of the
64
Francesco Iacono
Figure 5.2 Relations between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean during LH III B and C: Distribution of Aegean type potery in
Italy (ater Vagneti 1999, 140 updated) and of Handmade Burnished Ware and Urnfield Bronzes in the Aegean. 1) Fratesina, 2) Moscosi
di Cingoli, 3) Cisterna di Tollentino, 4) Rocavecchia, 5) Tiryns, 6) Chania, 7) Koubarà, 8) Pellana, 9) Perati, 10) Kommos.
Bronze Age all over the Mediterranean, being also
converted to iron later on (Foltiny 1964, 255; KilianDirlmeier 1993, 94–106; Sandars 1963, 163), together
with other weapons like the Peschiera daggers (Bianco
Peroni 1994; Harding 1984, 169–174; Papadopoulos
1998, 29–30) and work tools such as knives (Bianco
Peroni 1976; Harding 1984, 132–134). As noted long
ago by Anthony Harding, once again the closer
typological terms of comparison for most of these
items (particularly for weapons) are not to be sought
in central Europe, rather in the Adriatic area, either on
the Italian or on the Balkan side, the later as in the case
of socketed spearheads (for swords: Bieti Sestieri 1973,
406; Harding 1984, 162–165; for spearheads: Snodgrass
1971, 307; in general: S. Sherrat 2000; 84–87). Recent
provenance analyses, although occasionally offering
ambiguous results, have also proved the existence of
direct imports from Italy, as in the case of the warrior
tomb that recently came to light at Koubarà, in AetoliaAcarnania (Fig. 5.2.7) (Koui et al. 2006; StavropoulouGatsi, et al. 2009). Again, as with HBW, it is intriguing
to note that taking in consideration the distribution
of the UB, Argolid, Crete and Achaia have the lion’s
share, with a particular concentration of artefacts on
Crete and in Achaia (see Appendix).
But are HBW and UB in any way related? There
is some overlapping between the distributions of the
two categories but, to this extent, the evidence is far
from being compelling, since they co-occur only at
nine sites (see Appendix). A more useful approach to
explore this hypothesis entails looking at contextual
differences.
HBW has been found almost exclusively in setlement
contexts (with only two exceptions: a jug from Pellana
and another one from Perati, Fig. 5.2.8–9), conversely
for UB funerary and cultic contexts are predominant
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Figure 5.3 Distribution of features in various Handmade Burnished Ware assemblages. Each feature has been taken in consideration only if atested at more than one site. For
a quantitative assessment of the various assemblages see the Appendix. (* buckets are distinguished from bucked shaped jars by their horizontal handle on the rim; ** plastic
decoration includes horned, axe and bird handles).
(see Appendix). We can at the same time observe that
the contexts where bronzes and potery are atested
together are exactly, those that can be defined as the
exception to the normal rule (Appendix). The same
tendency for sites close to the coast which has been
noted for HBW is reversed for bronzes, which tend to
occur more frequently in inland locations.
In order to explain this second negative evidence, it
is possible to recall the extremely low value that was
normally atributed to potery in LBA (S. Sherrat 1999).
As a mater of fact this product was much more likely
to be discarded in the place where it was used, whilst
the valuable metal artefacts normally had a long life
being moved far away from their place of origin.
Having established that it is possible to read some
sort of link between these two classes of artefacts in
the archaeological record, much more difficult remains
the assessment of which areas of Greece were chiefly
involved in this connection. Although some of the
best explored regions of Greece such as Argolid and
Crete seem to have played an important role, the
discrepancies in the level of exploration of different
Greek regions may severely hamper our understanding
of distributional paterns. Some considerations are
however still possible. For instance it can be noticed
that an area that has been intensely investigated such
as Messenia has actually yielded relatively litle traces
of this western connection.
Conversely a region that has been relatively litle
explored, such as for instance Achaia, returned a good
number of find spots (primarily of UB but also of HBW,
see Appendix and map at Fig. 5.2).
Therefore, we are dealing with two phenomena
concentrated in the same areas, connecting the
Aegean world with roughly the same western regions
and contextually manifesting themselves in the
archaeological record in opposite ways.
It is now perhaps possible to construct a general
model according to which HBW is more likely to be
found in coastal setings whilst metal objects can also
penetrate inland, being acquired and used for long
periods, eventually being put out of circulation in
various ways among which are also cultic deposits
and grave offerings.
The shit in the frequency of HBW atested from
Chania to Tiryns is perhaps indicative of a shit in the
role of major node in this exchange, taken up by the
Argolid at the beginning of LH III C.
The case for a connection between impasto (the
Italian name for HBW) and metal has been already put
forward in the past by Vance Watrous. This scholar,
analyzing the Sardinian material from Kommos (Fig.
5.2.10) in Southern Crete, noticed the coincidence of
the diameter of bowls and large jars, suggesting that
65
66
Francesco Iacono
the two vessels formed a transport package for metal
from the Central Mediterranean Island. His point was
strengthened by the fact that large containers similar
to those found at Kommos were actually used in
Sardinia as container for metal hoards (Ruter 1999;
Watrous 1989; 1992, 163–168, 175 and 182). The recent
re-dating of the Sardinian material to a horizon of LH
III B has made what was happening in Southern (with
Sardinian materials) and Northern Crete (with Italian
and ‘Adriatic’ materials) even more credibly connected,
as Kommos and Chania may represent the outcome of
similar, roughly contemporary west–east connections
(Ruter 1999; Shaw and Shaw 2006, 674).
To conclude, I am proposing that HBW was connected
in some way with metal trade. This connection may
have been direct, as at Kommos where Sardinian
jars were possibly used as containers, or more subtle
entailing only the knowledge in the local Mycenaean
‘market’ that the two material categories, namely
bronze and potery, were related to each other as well
as to the West, the original source of metal. In the first
case the increase of popularity of HBW during early
LH III C should be considered as a sort of side effect
of the popularity of UB and, therefore, HBW would
have not been valued as prestige exotic in itself, being
primarily concentrated in setlement contexts not far
from the break-bulk area of trade. In the second case
the potery would have been charged of symbolical
significance and because of its visual distinctiveness
it may have been even used to signal association with
eminent personages involved in trade activities.
In this perspective the difference between true
imports and local imitation in HBW would cease to be
meaningful as the really crucial factor would have not
been actual provenance but rather external appearance
of the items. It is not necessary to envisage these two
possibilities as mutually exclusive alternatives. On the
contrary, there are tenuous hints that they probably
represented two consecutive stages, as atested by the
finds of HBW in funerary contexts (at Pellana, Perati,
see Fig. 5.2.8–9 and at Medeon, see Appendix) departing
from LH III C. This trade and the acculturation processes
entailed by it represented the economic motor behind
the phenomenon of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’. In order
to make sense of them, however, it will be necessary
to place them in a World Systemic frame.
From Periphery to Core: the West in LH III
B–LH III C
In a timeframe comparable to that of the appearance
of HBW in Greece, a new trend in the distribution of
Aegean type potery in Central Mediterranean can be
observed. This new trend is characterized by an increase
of the number of find spots in continental Italy, perhaps
paired by a relative decrease of atention towards the
Tyrrhenian area (Smith 1987; Vagneti 1983; 1999) with
the exclusion of Sardinia (for which however at this
time, a Cypriot connection has been argued, see Lo
Schiavo 2003; Vagneti 1999a). Two areas are chiefly
interested by this dynamic, namely the Ionian and the
Adriatic. In the Ionian area, evidence confirms a trend
already established in LH III A. On the Adriatic side,
in LH III B–C, Mycenean potery seems to be atested
in relatively modest quantities (oten not more than
a handful of sherds), but in a vast number of coastal
locales. This new trend is epitomized by the situation
of Adriatic Apulia where it is possible to recognize
findspots of Aegean type potery placed at a distance
ranging from 20–40 km from one another (Betelli
2002, 38).
Interestingly, however, most of the potery fragments
found in this chronological span did not come from
imported vessels, but rather from local imitations,
whose production was by now well established in
many southern Italian centres (Vagneti and Jones
1988; Vagneti 1999; Vagneti and Panichelli 1994).
In the light of this consideration, the distribution of
Aegean type potery seems more likely to be related
with a development of local maritime activity rather
than with a growth of Mycenaean frequentation
(Broodbank forthcoming).
This process was perhaps also accompanied by a
decrease in the use of potery in funerary display, as,
at this timeframe, potery is almost exclusively found
in setlements (Vagneti 1999, 140).
Of extreme importance is, further North, the
atestation of Mycenaean potery at the large site of
Fratesina (Fig. 5.2.1), placed in a strategic position at
the mouth of the Po river. Findings at Fratesina are
abundant encompassing not only Mycenaean potery,
but also materials which in a European context may
be categorized as absolute exotica such as elephant
ivory and faience, for which there are clear traces
of in-place manufacture activities (Biet i Sestieri
1983; 1996; Bieti Sestieri and De Grossi Mazzorin
2001; Cássola Guida 1999; Henderson 1988, 440–441;
Rahmstorf 2005).7
Metals played a capital role at Fratesina, as atested
by the recovery of four hoards comprising various
types of ingots with a wide Adriatic diffusion as
well as numerous finished objects showing affinities
with Urnfield productions found in Greece. Among
those objects it is worth recalling the Allerona type
swords which have been found also in the necropolis
pertaining to the setlement (Cássola Guida 1999).
Lead isotopes analysis performed on the metals from
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Fratesina have returned ambiguous results, as the
possible provenience of the copper was to be sought
either in Etruria or in the Alpine area (Pearce 1999;
Pellegrini 1995). This is not at all surprising as the
background of what has been called the ‘Fratesina
phenomenon’ is constituted by the area of the so
called Terramare, wealthy agricultural embanked sites
atesting clear connections (in metallurgy as well as
in potery productions) either southward with Etruria
and northward with the Alpine area and the Peschiera
horizon. It has been recently suggested (Cardarelli
et al. 2004, 83) that during the Recent Bronze Age
stone weights from the Terramare were in some way
related to Aegean ponderal system. However is the
very existence of weights that indicates that not only
primary production but also trade and convertibility
probably had a noteworthy importance for Terramare
societies. Weights of the same class as those of the
Terramare centres are also atested in Adriatic Italy
(Marche and Apulia) in sites that returned Aegeantype materials.8
In an initial phase the Terramare system may
well have constituted what Andrew Sherrat (1993)
has defined as ‘buffer zone’, namely farming areas
linking two chains of exchange, in this case the
Alpine-European and the Mediterranean networks
(Bernabò Brea et al. 1997; Bieti Sestieri 1973, 1996;
Pearce 1999).
Aterwards, with the increase of metal circulation
importance, during Italian Recent Bronze Age (roughly
LH III B–LH III C early in Aegean terms) Terramare area
experienced a rapid growth in the size of setlements
which eventually ended up in a moment of major
crisis towards the end of Recent Bronze Age (Bernabò
Brea et al. 1997).
To this extent, however, it is important to highlight
that the so called Grandi Valli Veronesi system, the
group of setlements out of which Fratesina emerged,
possibly did not experience a breakdown similar to
that of the bulk of the Terramare sites. Here indeed,
as indicated by various elements among which the
recovery of LH III C middle/late potery mostly of
probable Southern Italian manufacture, occupation
was protracted also in an advanced phase of the
Recent Bronze Age and in a couple of examples to
Final Bronze Age (i.e. Montagnana and Fabbrica dei
Soci, see Jones et al. 2002, 225, 230 and 232; Jung 2006;
Leonardi and Cupitò 2008). Therefore, as suggested by
Mark Pearce, in the collapse of the Terramare system,
the deep moment of environmental and economic crisis
occurring around the end of Recent Bronze Age, may
also have triggered a process of site selection on a
regional scale, where sites more likely to survive were
perhaps those less dependent on autarkic agricultural
67
activity. This is probably the case of the Grandi Valli
Veronesi polity where a number of other production
are atested (above all bronze but also amber and glass)
(Pearce 2007, 103 and 106).
At the apex of this process of selection is to be posed
the Fratesina phenomenon, manifesting its full range
of overseas contacts.9
Similar phenomena of site selection, although
more limited in their extent, to those suggested for
the Terramare area, can be recognized also in Apulia,
starting already at the end of Middle Bronze Age and
strengthening towards Recent Bronze Age (Betelli
2002, 39–40; Gravina et al. 2004, 210–211).
Apulia indeed probably represented a key area
in the trade dynamics entailed by the ‘Westernizing
Aegean’. Quite surprisingly this region completely
devoid of any metal resources produced from Recent
Bronze Age to Final Bronze Age (LH III B/C in Aegean
terms) the largest collection of bronze smith hammers
in Italy, as well as a large number of stone moulds and
metal hoards. Among this last category can be placed
a hoard coming from the site of Rocavecchia contained
by an impasto jar very close to those contemporarily
ubiquitous in the Aegean and composed only by
Northern Italian types (Guglielmino 2005, 644–645;
2006; 2008).10
It may be pertinent at this point to ask what was
the rationale behind the encounter of the European
and Mediterranean trade systems. The answer is that
they acted one as complement for the other. In the
first net (the Alpine-European), metal circulation and
production was growing (as atested for instance by
tons of slags calculated for the Late/Final Bronze Age
smelting site of Acque Fredde in Trentino, see Pearce
2007, 76–77), whilst in the second circuit the need for
metals was endemically high, being propelled by the
necessity to maintain an high level of liquidity (A.
Sherrat 1993; 2004).
The impressive amount of metal circulating in
this period in the Alpine-European trade system
provided the capital accumulation which is behind
the phenomenon of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’.
To sum up, it can be argued that the Central
Mediterranean phenomena of site selection and import
replacement consistently increased during the Italian
Recent Bronze Age, showing a new atitude toward
exchange. Trade was no longer passively accepted,
but rather local communities were now probably
actively engaged in and competed for the control of
the flow of traded goods. In this process a major role
was probably played by societies positioned at the
immediate interface of the Mycenaean core. These
had indeed the possibility to take advantage of their
intermediate position between Northern Italy/Europe
68
Francesco Iacono
and Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean. It is extremely
likely that these former semi-peripheries, lacking
palaces’ control in Greece, for a brief time-span acted
as a sort of polycentric core able to invert the east–west
cultural drit.
Reverberation of ‘Westernizing’ features
West–east ‘influence’ interested undoubtedly as first
some of the main centres of the Minoan/Mycenaean
world that for their nature of large communication/
economic nodes where more likely to catalyze trade.
The range of influence of these new precarious western
cores, however, should not be overemphasized, as
indeed, excluding main trade nodes, their prominence
was probably very short, being stronger in the areas
of Greece closer to the west such as Achaia. Indeed
the existence of a strong relationship between this last
region and southern Italy has been already noted on
the basis of existing similarities between productions
of Aegean type decorated potery (i.e. Fisher 1988,
129–131).
Particularly in Achaia, although not only there,
western metal artefacts (above all Naue II swords)
started to be used as items of display in warriors’
tombs, reproducing a dynamics similar to that atested
in the west during Middle Bronze Age (Deger-Jalkotzy
2006; Papadopoulos 1999).
Western metal found its way eastward possibly
through the Gulf of Corinth. It is very improbable that,
even during LH III B when the palaces still existed,
the channel used for entering the Mycenaean ‘market’
was the official palatial one possibly regulated by the
rules of git exchange and perhaps under the control
of the authority of the palace(s). Indeed, the very
multiplicity of UB models and shapes atested in the
Urnfield Bronzes in Greece, as well as the fact that the
bronze was not re-casted in Aegean shapes (which
appears to be unusual if we consider the tight control
that palatial economies exercised on weapons, see Hiller
1993) tells us that we are dealing with something less
formal, which possibly implied the exchange of finished
objects or scrap metal, something more similar to the
cargo of the Cape Gelidonya ship than to that of the
Ulu Burun wreck.
We are thus possibly dealing with a different
social formation from that constituting the higher
level palatial elite (S. Sherrat 2000, 87), an emerging
class perhaps formed by low rank (palatial) elite and
middlemen such as the so called collectors,11 which in
the troubled post-palatial times were able to increase
their economic (and possibly political?) relevance by
the mean of trade with the West.
In Greece for a brief period, bronze shapes, as well
as possibly a wider range of material culture which
has not come to us, became the material symbol of
this new emerging class.
Western features during this time span became even
fashionable and many elements possibly originated in
the HBW repertoire were reproduced in the standard
Mycenaean productions. Ruter identified a number
of these features (such as for instance the appearance
of the carinated bowl FS 240) and, although for
some of them it is possible to find an ancestry also
in Mycenaean fine production, the chronological
coincidence of the emergence of most of these features
with the period immediately subsequent to the
moment of maximal attestation of HBW remains
nevertheless striking (Ruter 1990, 37–39; contra Kilian
2007, 53). Ruter’s point seems even more credible
considering some remarkable examples of cultural
hybridity such as the Mycenaean carinated bowls
surmounted by a Subappennine-looking bull’s head
found at Tiryns (Podzuweit 2007, Taf. 59). Excluding
Mycenaean potery, however, it is possible to suggest
the existence of ‘Westernizing’ elements reverberating
in various spheres of post-palatial material culture. For
instance the widespread adoption of simple clay spools
(for which again parallel is to be sought primarily in
Italy) in textile production, used perhaps instead of
traditional loom-weights, can be seen as a reflex of the
introduction of new textiles in the Aegean (Rahmstorf
2003). A confirmation to this suggestion can be perhaps
sought in the adoption or spread of violin bow fibulas
and long pins, perhaps indicating the appearance of
new ways of fasting clothes and thus of a new fashion
(S. Sherrat 2000, 85).
A ‘Westernizing’ influence can be read also in the
sphere of symbolism and particularly in the diffusion
of symbols like the solar boat or the bird-motif on a
wide range of media, like knives, Mycenaean decorated
potery or golden leaf. There is some discrepancy
between the chronology of some of these items and
the time of widest diffusion of HBW, as the former
normally can be dated from LH III C middle onward.
It looks however safe to consider these features as the
last residual of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’ phenomenon
(Betelli 2002, 146–164; Mathäus 1980; Peroni 2004,
425–427).
People behind the system
So far I might have given the impression that the
hypothesis of the ‘Westernizing Aegean’ is in stark
contrast with any foreign presence in Mycenaean
Greece, but this is simply not the case. For the dichotomy
between movement of people and movement of
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
goods is a false one, as oten the first one implied
at least partially the second one, particularly in
prehistoric and ancient times when the time required
for travelling was huge and the season available for
seafaring limited.
In his recent analysis of the HBW corpus from
Tiryns, Klaus Kilian suggested that this class of
potery was to be related to a small nucleus of people
coming from Appennine peninsula residing in Tiryns
(Kilian 2007; see also Belardelli and Betelli 1999).
This is absolutely likely and the patern of slow
absorption of this group of foreigners in Tiryns’
society identified by the scholar adds a considerable
historical depth to the dynamics entailed by the
‘Westernizing Aegean’. The question to which I have
tried to answer in this work was exactly what was
the rationale for this people to be there, and I think
that trade is an answer that need to be taken more
seriously in consideration.
Conclusions
In this work I hope to have been able at the very least
to cast some doubts on the dominant archaeological
narrative which sees the relationship between
the Eastern civilization and the barbarian West in
Late Bronze Age as sporadic and fundamentally
irrelevant.
The reason why the importance of ‘Westernizing’
features in the archaeological record of the Aegean
have not been fully acknowledged before has primarily
to do with the pervasiveness of the ex oriente lux
dogma, which still underlies the interpretation
of much of the archaeological record of the late
prehistoric Mediterranean, even if at a subconscious
level.
As an example, suffice here to note that the largely
accepted notion of a Late Bronze Age metallurgical
koinè, albeit highlighting the wide range of the
connections established during the last part of Bronze
Age, de facto obscures the truly revolutionary nature
of this exchange. Indeed, for the very first time in late
prehistory, Europe and the western Mediterranean did
not constitute a mere passive receiver of innovation
but its main origin (Carancini and Peroni 1997; Müller
Karpe 1962, 280).
Western influences appears to have been for at
least some decades a critical factor in the shaping of
late palatial/post-palatial cultural milieu and it has
been possible to demonstrate their importance only
by paying atention to large scale processes of social
cultural and economic change in a wide Mediterranean
seting.
69
Notes
1 Tyrrhenian and Sicily: Bieti Sestieri 1988; Vianello 2005.
Ionian arc: Betelli 2002; Peroni 1994. Balkan side of the
Adriatic: Bejko 1994; 2002; Tomas 2005. Italian side: Betelli
2002; Bieti Sestieri 2003.
2 As noticed by Van Wijnergaarden (2002), among Mycenaean
materials came to light in Sicily and Southern Italy there
is a prevalence of storage vessels. For a different view on
Southern Italian evidence see Betelli 2002, 144.
3 Marginal groups in Mycenaean society have been oten
indicated as possible bearers of the new western material
culture items. For Bankoff these groups where likely to
be the ‘slave’ women atested in the well known set of
Pylian tablets (Bankoff et al. 1996; Genz 1997). For Eder
(1998) HBW was introduced by northern pastoralist groups
responsible also for the reintroduction of cist graves in the
Mycenaean heartland. For Betelli (2002, drawing upon
Drews’ (1993) warfare hypothesis for the fall of Bronze Age
societies in the Eastern Mediterranean) instead, HBW and
UB were likely to refer to groups of mercenaries hired by
various Mycenaean and Near Eastern monarchs during
the troubled days of the Sea Peoples.
4 Ruter 1975 contra Walberg 1976. As a consequence of
these three criteria it is not possible to consider together
with the rest of the HBW phenomenon areas presenting
long standing traditions of handmade potery production
such as for instance Epirus (Tartaron 2004), Ionian Islands
(Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999) and Central Macedonia
(Kiriatzi et al. 1997; Hochsteter 1984).
5 To this extent the site of Kalapodi (Felsch 1996), that has
oten been mentioned in previous discussion on HBW (i.e.
Kilian 1985), will not be considered as part of the HBW
phenomenon. Many scholars have noted the peculiarity of
this site (e.g. Ruter 1990). The unusual representation of
HBW at this context prevent us from advancing any useful
comparison with the rest of Greece. Handmade potery at
this site constituted almost the 40% of the coarse potery
assemblage and is concentrated only in one area close to
a kiln. In addition, according to compositional analysis
(Felsch 1996, 117–120), the local HBW, although presenting
some peculiarities, under a technologic point of view can
be grouped without any doubt with the other cooking ware
of the site. All these elements, which are unatested in other
sites of the Aegean, lead me (in agreement with Ruter
1990) to consider HBW at Kalapodi as the outcome of
fundamentally different phenomena from these affecting
the rest on the Minoan/Mycenaean heartland which need
to be examined in their own terms.
6 Kilian 2007, 72–80; Ruter 1990. It is indeed possible
to recognize containers (i.e. various kind of large jars:
Catling and Catling 1981, fig. 2; Evely 2006, fig. 2.42.4;
French 1989, fig. 4; Hallager and Hallager 2003, 253; Kilian
2007, 9–20; pithoid vessels: Catling and Catling 1981, fig.
4.33; Hallager and Hallager 2000, pl. 67d), vessels made
for consuming liquid and solids (i.e. cups: i.e. Evely
2006, fig. 2.42.2–3; jugs: i.e. Andrikou et al. 2006, 176, n.
154; French 1989, fig. 3; Kilian 2007, pl. 18.206; bowls:
Hallager and Hallager 2003, 169, pl. 133 d2; Ruter 1975,
70
7
8
9
10
11
Francesco Iacono
21–22, n.8,12) and cooking implements (i.e. Kilian 2007,
pl. 21, 261–262).
The once remarkable gap in the distribution of Aegean
type potery on the coast of Adriatic Central Italy is
being slowly reduced by new find spots (i.e. Moscosi
di Cingoli and Cisterna di Tolentino, fig. 1.2.2–3), see
Vagneti et al. 2006).
At Moscosi di Cingoli and at Coppa Nevigata. A stone
weight which came to light at Lefkandi looks also
morphologically very similar to the Italian pesi con
appicagnolo type (see Cardarelli et al 2004, 82 and 87, fig.
3; Evely 2006, 275, fig. 5.5.4).
The recent acknowledgement of an early phase of
occupation at Fratesina dating to the Recent Bronze Age
seems to support the existence of some sort of continuity
between the site and the Grandi Valli Veronesi system
(Càssola Guida 1999, 487–488).
There are a number of comparisons between the impasto
repertory retrieved at Rocavecchia and HBW of the
Aegean. This is the case, for instance, of an impasto jar
with plastic decoration (Pagliara et al. 2007, 338, fig. 38,
iv.32) which is closely comparable to a similar vessel
from Korakou (Ruter 1975, 18, no.1).
Studies by Jean-Pierre Olivier (2001) and Judith Weingarten
(1997) have plausibly suggested that these figures were
strongly connected not only with production, but also
with trade and metal redistribution. It is this the case
of collectors involved in oil production/collection and
trade (atested also by inscriptions on coarse stirrup jars
which at the very least travelled from Crete to Tiryns,
see Olivier 2001, 151; Carlier 1993), or of the qua-si-reu
of Pylus, whose connection with metal is recorded in
the linear B tablets (Weingarten 1997, 530). It is worth
of note that possible foreigners are atested among the
collectors from Knossos (Olivier 2001).
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a paper presented at the 14th
meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists
held in Malta in September 2008. I would like to thank
all the people that in that occasion offered several
valuable comments as well as Todd Whitelaw, Mark
Pearce, Ruth Whitehouse, Riccardo Guglielmino,
Andrea Vianello and Michele Massa who in other
occasions discussed with me some of the issues treated
in this paper. I am extremely thankful to Cyprian
Broodbank who had the patience to read and comment
a drat of this paper. Needless to say I am the only
responsible for any of the views here expressed (as
well as for possible errors and/or inaccuracies).
Addendum
While this chapter was in press a number of analyses
have partially confirmed some of the trends tentatively
identified in the article. These are primarily the result
of the important research project on metal ingots and
artefacts by Jung and others (see Jung et al. 2008;
Jung 2009, 75) that has supported a possible Italian
provenance for some of the metal objects retrieved
in Greece (particularly in Argolid and Achaia).
Also recent studies have proposed new explanatory
hypotheses for the presence and distribution of HBW
in Greece (Strack 2007; Lis 2008; Jung 2010) among
which are to be mentioned the new syntheses by
Betelli (2009; 2011) that endorse a view similar to
the one held here.
Appendix
Find spots of Handmade Burnished Ware (HBW) and Urnfield Bronzes (UB) in Greece. The number ater UB indicates the
number of bronze items atested. The number ater HBW instead is an approximate quantitative assessment of the consistency
of the assemblage: 1= the potery constitutes a considerable proportion of the overall assemblage, 2= some vessels/ fragments
are atested (up to 20), 3= the potery is only atested (one vessel/ fragment), ?= unknown (ater S. Sherrat 2000, updated).
Region
Site
Mycenae
Settlement/ Hoards
HBW (?) and UB (8)
Funerary/Cultual
Bibliography UB
Bibliography HBW
UB (3)
Bouzek 1985, 147 no
B3; Catling 1956, 111
no. 3; French 1986, 281;
Sandars 1963, 151 pl.
25, 37; Schlieman 1878,
144 fig. 221; Tsountas
1897, 110 Pl. 83; Wace
1953, 78 fig. 45, 7.
Bouzek 1985, 183 no. 5;
French 1989.
Grossmann and Schafer
1971, 70, fig. 1; Karo
1930, 135 Pl. 37; Maran
2006; Papadopoulos
1998, 29 no. 139.
Belardelli and Betelli
1999; Betelli 2002, 122,
126; Kilian 2007.
Argolid and
Corinthia
Euboea
Tiryns
HBW (1) and UB (4)
Asine
HBW (2)
Korakou
HBW (2)
Nemea
UB (1)
Catling 1975, 9 fig. 11.
Corinth
HBW (1) and UB (2)
Davidson 1952, 200 no.
1522 pl. 91; Stilliwell
1948, 119 pl. 48, 30.
Ruter 1979, 391.
Lekandi
HBW (2) and UB (1)
Popham and Sacket
1968, 14 fig.19.
Evely 2006, 215 fig.2.42
and Pl. 49; Popham and
Sacket 1968, 18 fig.34.
Dhimini
HBW (2)
Frizell 1986, 83 fig. 29
no.298–300.
Blegen 1921, 73–74 fig.
104, 105; Ruter 1975.
Adrimi-Sismani 2003,
2006, 473, 475, 476–477
fig. 25.7, 25.8, 25.9, 25.10;
Jung 2006, Taf. 17.
Southern
Thessaly
Agrilia
Volos
UB (1)
Athens
HBW (3)
Perati
Teichos
Dymaion
Achaia
Aigeira
Hochsteter 1984, 336
Abb.55; Jung 2006,
36–37, Taf. 17.7.
HBW (?)
Helaxolophos
Atica
Bouzek 1985, 137 no.
A2.7, 141, no. 1.
UB (1)
Bouzek 1985, 141 no. 1.
UB (3)
Bouzek 1985, 139,
nos 5–6; Kraiker and
Kübler 1939 173; pl. 52.
Immewahr 1971, 141, 258
Pl. 62.
HBW (3) and UB
(3)
Bouzek 1985, 147 no
4.1.3.1.
Iakovides 1969 I, 157 No.
35, II, 228; III Pl. 45. .35.
Papadopoulos 1979,
227 no. 209 fig. 317c–d.
Betelli 2002, 122; DegerJalcotzy 1977, 31 3.4.1,
3.9.2; Mastrokostas 1965,
fig. 156, 157.
HBW (2) and UB (1)
Deger-Jalckotzy 1977;
Deger Jalckotzy and
Alram Stern 1985, 395,
410; 2006, 7–11; Ruter
1990, note 1.
HBW (?)
Monodhendri
UB (1)
Nikoleika
UB (1)
Portes
UB (1)
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
165–167; Papadopoulos
1999, 271.
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
160.
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
159; Kolonas 2001, 260f.
Francesco Iacono
72
UB (2)
Papadopoulos 1979,
228, nos 222–223; fig.
320, a–b.
Patras (Klauss)
UB (3)
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
165; Kyparisses 1938,
118; Papadopoulos
1979, 228, no. 210 fig.
316 d; 1999, 270–271.
Patras (Krini)
UB (1)
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
157; PapazoglouManioudaki 1994.
Lousika
UB (2)
Deger-Jalkotzy 2006,
158; Petropoulos 2000,
68, 75.
Kangadi
UB (2)
Papadopoulos 1979,
227–228, no. 209, 221
fig. 317 c, 320 c–d.
Gerokomion
UB (1)
Papadopoulos 1979,
227 no. 204 fig. 316 b.
AetoliaAcarnania
Koubala
UB (1)
Macedonia
Vergina
UB (1)
Vardina
UB (1)
Heurtley 1925, Pl. 19, 2.
Mazaraki
UB (1)
Vokotopoulou 1969,
198 fig. 6.
Konitza
UB (1)
Vokotopoulou 1969,
197 fig. 7.
Gardikion
UB (1)
idem
Kallithea
Epirus
Ionian
Islands
Arcadia
Zagoriou
UB (1)
idem 184 fig. 2.1.
Elafatopos
UB (1)
idem
Dodona
UB (1)
Bouzek 1985, 149 4.1.8.
Polis
UB (4)
Benton 1935, 72 fig. 20.
Metaxata
UB (2)
Diakata
UB (2)
Palaiokastro
UB (2)
Schiste Odos
UB (1)
Phocis
Boeotia
Elis
Stavropoulou-Gatsi
et al. 2009.
Petsas 1962, 242, Pl.
146a.
SouyoudzoglouHaywood 1999, 42–43,
Pl. 21 A1592.
Kyparisses 1919, 119,
fig. 36; SouyoudzoglouHaywood 1999, 38–39,
Pl. 21 A915.
Blackman 1997, 33;
Demakopoulou 1969,
226.
Tsountas 1897, 110
fig. 1.
Medeon
HBW (?)
Pilides 1994, 27.
Delphi
HBW (3)
Thebe
HBW (2)
Andrikou et al. 2006,
53–54 Pl. 6, 151–156.
Agios Ioannis
HBW (?)
Kilian 1985, 89.
UB (2)
Perdrizet 1908, 95 no.
456 fig. 126 a 327.
Orchomenos
UB (1)
Catling 1956, 113 no.
10.
Olympia
UB (3)
Furtwangler 1890, 174
no. 1035 Pl. 64; Weber
1944, 146 Pl. 56.
Lerat 1938, 201, 205;
Reber 1991, 44.
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Palaiopyrgos
Laconia
Menelaion
UB (1)
Messenia
Nichoria
Cyclades
Grota (Naxos)
Chania
Crete
Catling 1961, 117 no. 9.
HBW (3)
Catling and Catling
1981.
Demakopolou 1982, 117,
176 Pl. 59.135.
Mac Donald and Wilkie
1992, 512, 766.
UB (1)
Kardara 1977, Pl. 7.
HBW (2)
Pellana
73
HBW (3)
Betelli 2002, 122–126;
Hallager 1983, XIVb;
Hallager and Hallager
2000, 67–69 ,92, 96,
102, 106, 109–110, 114,
116–117, 119, 121; 2003,
68–69, 107–108, 113,136–
137, 161–162, 164, 175,
253; Hallager and
Tzedakis 1982, 23 2.
HBW (1)
Betelli 2002, 122;
D’Agata 2001, 346 n. 11;
Hallager 1985, 303 note
110.
Knossos
HBW (?) and UB (1)
Agia Palagia
HBW (?)
D’Agata 2001, 346 n. 11.
Kastelli/Pediada
HBW (?)
idem
Tylissos
HBW (?)
idem
Thronos
HBW (?)
idem
Kommos
HBW (1)
Shaw and Shaw 2006,
674–680; Watrous 1992,
Pl. 44, 56, 57, 58.
Phaistos
UB (1)
Milojčić 1955, 156, 163
fig. 1, 13.
UB (4)
Bouzek 1985, 149, 4.1.8;
Pendlebury et al. 1938,
69, 95, 97, nos 540, 645
and 687 Pl. 28, 2.
Karphi
UB (2)
Bouzek 1985, 141 no. 4;
Catling 1996, 518, fig.
163 f7 Pl. 277 f7; Evans
1905, fig. 90; Warren
1983, 71 fig. 51.
Mouliana
UB (6)
Catling 1956, 113
nos 13–14 Pl. 9 c;
Xanthoudides 1904,
46, 48 fig. Il.
Myrsine
UB (1)
Catling 1961, 117 no. 21;
Kanta 2003, 178; Kilian
Dirlmeier 1993, 95.
Episkopi
UB (1)
Bouzek 1985, 141 no.4.
UB (14)
Boardman 1961: 17–18
no. 56; fig. 2; Pl. 9, 4,
5, 6, b–c; Bouzek 1985,
132, 148–149 nos 1,
2–5, 4.1.8.
Dictean Cave
74
Francesco Iacono
References
Adrimi-Sismani, V., 2003, ‘
ϊ ή
ό ’ (Mykēnaikē
Iōlkos). In A
o o άA ά
A
ώ (Archaiologika
Analekta ex Athēnōn) 32–34, 71–100.
Adrimi-Sismani, V., 2006, ‘The Palace of Iolkos and its End’. In
Deger Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 465–482.
Andrikou, E., Aravantinos, V., Godard, L., Sacconi, A. and Vroom,
J., 2006, Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmèe. Les tabletes en linéaire B
de la Odos Pelopidou, le contexte archéologique: la céramique de la
Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire B, Pisa.
Badre, L., 2003, ‘Handmade Burnished Ware and Contemporary
Imported Pottery from Tell Kazel’. In Stampolidis and
Karagheorghis 2003, 83–99.
Bankoff, H. A., Meyer, N. and Stefanovich, M., 1996, ‘Handmade
Burnished Ware and the Late Bronze Age of the Balkans’,
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9, 2, 193–209.
Bejko, L., 1994, ‘Some Problems of the Middle and Late
Bronze Age in Southern Albania’, Bulletin of the Institute of
Archaeology, University of London 31, 105–126.
Bejko, L., 2002, ‘Mycenean Influence and Presence in Albania’.
In Cambi, N., Cace, S. and Kirigin, B. (eds), Greek Influence
along the Eastern Adriatic Coast. Proceedings of the International
Conference, Split 1998, Split, 9–24.
Belardelli, C. and Betelli, M., 1999, ‘La Raum 127 dell’Unterburg
di Tirinto: distribuzione della ceramica pseudominia e HMB’.
In La Rosa et al. 1999, 473–474.
Benton, S., 1935, ‘Excavations at Ithaca, III’, Annual of the British
School at Athens 35, 45–73.
Bernabò Brea, M., Cardarelli, A. and Cremaschi, M. (eds), 1997,
Le Terramare. La piu’ antica civiltà Padana, Napoli.
Betelli, M., 2002, Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su
dinamiche di acculturazione e aspeti archeologici, con particolare
riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana
(Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana 5),
Florence.
Betelli, M., 2009, ‘Handmade Burnished Ware e Ceramica Grigia
Tornita in Egeo nella Tarda Eta’ del Bronzo: una Messa a
punto’, in Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici 51, 95–121.
Betelli, M., 2010, ‘Italia ed Egeo prima e dopo il crollo dei palazzi
micenei: le ceramiche d’impasto e grigia tornita in Grecia e a
Creta alla luce delle piu recenti scoperte’. In Radina, F. and
Recchia, G. (eds), Ambra per Agamennone. Indigeni e Micenei
tra Adriatico, Ionio ed Egeo, Bari.
Bianco Peroni, V., 1970, Die Schwerter in Italien (Prähistorische
Bronzefunde IV, Bd 1), Stutgart.
Bianco Peroni, V., 1976, Die Messer in Italien: I coltelli nell’Italia
continentale (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung 7, Bd.2),
München.
Bianco Peroni, V., 1994, I pugnali nell’ Italia continentale (Prähistorische
Bronzefunde. Abteilung VI;Bd. 10), Stutgart.
Bieti-Sestieri, A. M., 1973, ‘The Metal Industry of Continental
Italy, 13th to 11th cent. B.C., and its Connection with the
Aegean’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, 383–424.
Bieti-Sestieri, A. M., 1983, ‘Fratesina’. In Vagneti 1983, 201.
Bieti-Sestieri, A. M., 1988,’The Mycenaean Connection and its
Impact on the Central Mediterranean Societies’. In Dialoghi
di Archeologia 6, 23–51.
Bieti Sestieri, A. M., 1996, Protostoria. Teoria e Pratica, Rome.
Bieti Sestieri, A. M., 2003, ‘L’Adriatico tra l’Età del Bronzo e
gli inizi dell’ Età del Ferro (c.a. 2200–900 A.C.)’. In Lenzi
2003, 49–64.
Bieti Sestieri, A. M. and De Grossi Mazzorin, J., 2001, ‘L’avorio
dell’abitato protostorico di Fratesina (Rovigo, Italia)’. In
Cavarreta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M. and Palombo, M. R. (eds),
La terra degli Elefanti. Ati del primo convegno internazionale,
Roma,735–736.
Blackman, D., 1997, ‘Archaeology in Greece 1996–1997’,
Archaeological Reports 43, 1–125.
Blegen, C. W., 1921, Korakou: A Prehistoric Setlement near Corinth,
Boston/New York.
Boardman, J., 1961, The Cretan Collection in Oxford: the Dictaean
Cave and Iron Age Crete, Oxford.
Borgna, E. and Càssola Guida, P., 2005, ‘Some Observations on
the Nature and Modes of Exchange between Italy and the
Aegean in the Late Mycenaean Period’. In Laffineur and
Greco 2005, , 497–505.
Bouzek, J., 1985, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural
Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. (Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 29), Göteborg.
Broodbank, C. (forthcoming), ‘‘Ships a-sail from over the rim of
the sea’: voyaging, sailing and the making of Mediterranean
societies c. 3500–500 BC.’. In Anderson, A. and Barker, G.
(eds), The Global Origins of Seafaring (McDonald Institute
Monographs), Cambridge.
Burkert, W., 1992, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influences
on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, Cambridge, Mass.
Carlier, P., 1993, ‘Les Collecteurs sont-ils des fermiers?’. In
Olivier 1993, 159–166.
Carancini, G. and Peroni, R., 1997, ‘La Koine metallurgica’. In
Bernabò Brea, M. et al. 1997, 595–601.
Cardarelli, A., Pacciarelli, M. and Pallante, P., 2004, ‘Pesi e
bilance nell’età del bronzo italiana: quadro generale e nuovi
dati’. In De Sena, E. C. and Dessales, H. (eds), Metodi e
approcci archeologici: l’industria e il commercio nell’Italia antica.
Archaeological methods and approaches: industry and commerce
in ancient Italy (British Archaeological Report International
Series 1262), Oxford, 80–88.
Càssola Guida, P., 1999, ‘Indizi di presenze egeo-orientali
nell’Alto Adriatico alla fine dell’età del bronzo’. In La Rosa
et al. 1999, 487–497.
Catling, H., 1956, ‘Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the
Eastern Mediterranean’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
22, 102–126.
Catling, H., 1961, ‘A New Bronze Sword from Cyprus’, Antiquity
35, 115–122.
Catling, H., 1975, ‘Archaeology in Greece 1974–1975’, Archaeological
Reports 21, 1974–75, 3–28.
Catling, H., 1996, ‘The Objects Other than Pottery in the
Subminoan Tombs’. In Coldstream, N. and Catling, H. (eds),
Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. Volume II (Annual
of the British School at Athens Supplement 28), London.
Catling, H. W. and Catling, E. A., 1981, ‘‘Barbarian’ Potery from
the Mycenaean Setlement at the Menelaion, Sparta’, Annals
of the British School at Athens 76, 71–82.
Cazzella, A. and Moscoloni, M., 1999, ‘Emergence and Decline of
Coastal Setlements in Southern Italy from the Bronze Age to
the Early Iron Age’. In Pearce, M. and Tosi, M. (eds), Papers
from the EEA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, (British
Archaeological Report 717), Oxford, 156–160.
Chase Dunn, C. and Hall, T. D., 1993, ‘Comparing World
Systems: Concepts and Working Hypothesis’, Social Forces
71, 4, 851–886.
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Chase-Dunn, C. and Hall, T. D., 1997, Rise and Demise: Comparing
World-Systems, Boulder, Co.
Cocchi Genick, D., 2004 (ed.), L’età del bronzo recente in Italia.
Atti del Congresso Nazionale di Lido di Camaiore, 2000,
Viareggio.
Crielaard, J. P., Stissi, V. and Wijingaarden, G. J. (eds), 1999, The
Complex Past of Potery. Production, Circulation and Consumption
of Mycenaean and Greek Potery (Sixteenth to Early Fith Centuries
BC), Amsterdam.
D’Agata, L., 2001, ‘Religion Society and Ethnicity on Crete at
the End of the Late Bronze Age. The Contextual Framework
of LM III C Cult Activities’. In Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R.
(eds), Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age:
Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference Göteborg
2000 (Aegaeum 22), Liège/Austin, 345–354.
Davidson, G., 1952, Corinth. Results of Excavations Conducted by
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 12 The Minor
Objects, Princeton, N.J.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S., 1977, Fremde Zuwanderer im spätmykenischen
Griechenland, Wien.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S., 1983, ‘Das Problem der ‘Handmade Burnished
Ware’ von Myk. IIIC’. In Deger-Jalkotzy, S. (ed.), Griechenland,
die Ägäis und die Levante während der ‘Dark Ages’ vom 12. bis
zum 9.Jh. v. Chr [Akten des Symposions von Stit 1980], Wien,
161–178.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S., 2006, ‘Late Mycenaean Warrior Tombs’. In
Deger Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 151–179.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Alram-Stern, E., 1985, ‘Aigeira-Hyperesia
und die siedlung? Phelloe in Achaia’, Klio 67, 394–426.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Alram-Stern, E., 2007, Aigeira I. Die
Mikenischen Akropolis Faszikel 3. Vormykenische Keramik. Kleinfunde.
Archäozoologische und archäobotanische Hinterlassenschaten.
Naturwissenschaftliche Datierung (Veröffentlichungen der
Mykenischen Kommission 24), Wien.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Lemos, I. (eds), 2006, Ancient Greece. From
Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, Edinburgh.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Zavadil, M. (eds), 2007, LH III C
Chronology and Synchronism II. LH III C Middle. Proceedings
of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of
Sciences, Vienna. 2004 (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen
Kommission 28), Wien.
Demakopoulou, K., 1969, ‘A Mycenaean Bronze Sword from
Arcadia’, A
o o άA ά
A
ώ (Archaiologika
Analekta ex Athēnōn) 2, 226–228.
Demakopoulou, K., 1982,
ϊ ό pό
ί
ί
ί (To Mykenaiko Iepo sto
Amiklaio kai ē YE III G periodos sto Lakonia), Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Athens.
Desborough, V. R., 1964, The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors,
London.
Dickinson, O. T. P., 2006, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron
Age, London.
Drews, R., 1993, The End of the Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare
and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C., Princeton, N.J.
Eder, B., 1998, Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien vom Ende der Mykenischen
Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier (Veröffentlichungen der
Mykenischen Kommission. Mykenische Studien 17), Wien.
Eder, B., 2006, ‘The World of Telemachus: Western Greece 1200–
700 B.C.’. In Deger Jalkotzy and Lemos 2006, 549–579.
Evans, A., 1905, ‘The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos’, Archaeologia
59, 391–562.
75
Evely, R. D. G., 2006 (ed.), Lekandi IV. The LH III C Setlement at
Xeropoli (Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement
39), Athens.
Felsch, R. C. S., 1996 (ed.), Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen
im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der
antiken Phokis, Mainz.
Fisher, E., 1988, A Comparison of Mycenaean Potery from Apulia
with Mycenaean Potery from Western Greece, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Minnesota.
Foltiny, S., 1964, ‘Flange-hilted Cuting Swords of Bronze in
Central Europe, Northeast Italy, and Greece’, American Journal
of Archaeology 68, 247–257.
Frank, A. G., 1993, ‘Bronze Age World System Cycles’, Current
Anthropology 34, 4, 383–429.
French, E. and Wace, A, 1969, ‘The First Phase of LH IIIC’,
Archäologischer Anzeiger 84, 2, 133–136.
French, E., 1986, ‘Mycenaean Greece and the Mediterranean
World in LH III’. In Marazzi et al. 1986, 277—282.
French, E., 1989, ‘Possible Northern Intrusion at Mycenae’.
In Best, G. P. and de Vries, N. W. M. (eds), Thracians and
Mycenaeans, Boston, 39–51.
Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. J., 1977 ‘Notes toward an
Epigenetic Model of the Evolution of Civilisation’. In
Friedman, J. and Rowlands, M. J. (eds), The Evolution of Social
Systems, Duckworth, London, 201–276.
Frizell, B. S., 1986, Asine II, Results of the Excavations East of the
Acropolis, 1970–1974, Fasc. 3: The Late and Final Mycenaean
Periods (Skriter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4°,
24.3), Stockholm.
Furtwängler, A., 1890, Olympia, die Ergebnisse der von dem
deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung. IV. Die Bronzen und
die übrigen kleinen Funde von Olympia, Berlin.
Genz, H., 1997, ‘Northern Slaves and the Origin of Handmade
Burnished Ware: A Comment on Bankoff et al.’, Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 109–111.
Gravina, A., Marino, D., Pacciarelli, M. and Tunzi Sisto, A. M.,
2004, ‘Italia Meridionale’. In Cocchi Genick 2004, 209–218.
Grossmann, P. and Schàfer, J., 1971, ‘Tiryns: Unterburg,
Grabungen 1965’. In Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte V, Mainz
am Rhein, 41–75.
Guglielmino, R., 2005, ‘Rocavecchia: i rapporti con l’Egeo’. In
Laffineur and Greco 2005, , 637–650.
Guglielmino, R., 2006, ‘Testimonianze di ativita’ metallurgiche
e di contati con l’Egeo in un sito costiero del Bronzo finale’.
In Adombri, B.,
Η
. Miscellanea di studi in onore
di Mario Cristofani, Firenze, 32–50.
Guglielmino, R., 2008, ‘Rocavecchia (Le). New Evidence for
Aegean Contacts with Apulia during the Late Bronze Age’,
Accordia Research Papers 10, 87–102.
Hall, T. D. and Turchin, P., 2003, ‘Spatial Synchrony Among and
Within World-Systems: Insights From Theoretical Ecology’,
Journal of World System Research IX, 37–66.
Hallager, B. P., 1983, ‘A New Social Class in Late Bronze Age
Crete: Foreign Traders in Khania’. In Krzyszkowska, O. and
Nixon, L. (eds), Minoan Society, Bristol, 111–119.
Hallager, B. P., 1985, ‘Crete and Italy in the Late Bronze Age III
Period’, American Journal of Archaeology 89, 293–305.
Hallager, E. and Hallager, B. P. (eds), 2000, The Greek-Swedish
Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania
1970–1987. Volume II. The Late Minoan IIIC Setlement (Skriter
utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4°; 47:2), Stockholm.
76
Francesco Iacono
Hallager, E. and Hallager, B. P. (eds), 2003, The Greek-Swedish
Excavations at the Agia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania,
1970–1987 and 2001. Vol. III:1–2. The Late Minoan IIIB:2
Setlement (Skriter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4°;
47:3), Stockholm.
Hallager, E. and Tzedakis, Y., 1982, ‘The Greek-Svedish
Excavations Kastelli Khania’, A
o o ά A ά
A
ώ (Archaiologika Analekta ex Athēnōn) 15, 21–30.
Harding, A. F., 1984, The Mycenaeans and Europe, Orlando, Fl.
Haskell, H. W., 1985, ‘The Origin of the Aegean Stirrup Jar and
Its Earliest Evolution and Distribution (MB III–LBI)’, American
Journal of Archaeology 89 2, 221–229.
Henderson, J, 1988, ‘Glass Production and the Bronze Age
Europe’, Antiquity 62, 236, 435–451.
Heurtley, W., 1925, ‘Report on an Excavation at the Toumba
of Vardino, Macedonia’, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology 12, 15–36.
Hiller, S., 1993, ‘The ‘Corridor of the Sword Tablets’ and the
‘Arsenal.’ The Evidence of the Linear B Texts’. In Olivier
1993, 303–314.
Hochstetter, A., 1984, Kastanas: Ausgrabungen in einem
Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–
1979 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa Bd.3),
Berlin.
Iakovides, S. E., 1969,
ή–
ί (Perati – To
Nekrotapheio) (B
ή
ή
A
ή
E
ί 67 – Bibliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs
Hetaireias 67), Athens.
Immerwahr, S. A., 1971, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. The
Athenian Agora. (Results of Excavations Conducted by
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 13),
Princeton.
Jones, R., 1986, Greek and Cypriot Potery: A Review of Scientific
Studies, Athens.
Jones, R., Vagneti, L., Levi S. T., William. J., Jenkins, D. and
De Guio, A., 2002, ‘Mycenaean Potery from Northern Italy.
Archaeological and Archaeometric Studies’, Studi Micenei ed
Egeo–Anatolici 44, 2, 221–261.
Jung, R., 2006,
comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie
zwischen der Ägäis und Italien von 1700–1600 (Veröffentlichungen
der Mykenischen Kommission 26). Wien.
Jung, R., 2009, ‘Pirates of the Aegean: Italy – the East Aegean
– Cyprus at the end of the Second Millennium BC’. In
Karageorghis, V. and Kouka, O. (eds), Cyprus and the East
Aegean. Intercultural Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC (A.G.
Leventis Foundation), Nicosia, 72–93.
Jung, R., 2009a, ‘I “bronzi internazionali” ed il loro contesto
sociale fra Adriatico, Penisola Balcanica e coste Levantine’. In
Borgna, E. and Càssola Guida, P. (eds), Dall’Egeo all’Adriatico:
Organizzazioni sociali modi di scambio e interazione in età
postpalaziale (Studi e Ricerche di Protostoria Mediterranea
8), 129–157.
Jung, R., Moschos, I. and Mehofer, M., 2008, ‘
ύ
ί
ό :
έ
έ
ό
ύ
ά
ί
ά
ά
ό
ϊ ώ
ό
’ (Phonoeúontas me ton ídio trópo: Oi
erēnikés epaphés gia ton pólemo metaxý Elládas kai Italías
katá tē diárkeia tōn ópsimōn mykēnaïkṓn chrónōn). In
Papeitis, S.A. and Giannopoulou, Ch. (eds) Cultural crossfertilization of Southern Italy and Western Greece through History
(Region of Western Greece), 85-106.
Kanta, A., 2003, ‘Aristocrats-Traders-Emigrants-Setlers: Crete in
the Closing Phases of the Bronze Age’. In Stampolidis and
Karagheorghis 2003, 183–174.
Kardara, C., 1977, A ώ
Nά o : K
ά
ή
ά ω
A
B (Aplōmata Naxou : Kinēta eurēmata taphōn A kai B),
(B
ή
ή
A
ή E
ί
88 – Bibliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias
88), Athens.
Kardulias, N., 1996, ‘Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze
Age World System’, Journal of World Systems Research 2(2).
Electronic journal on World Wide Web; URL htp://csf.
colorado.edu/wsystems/jwsr.html.
Karo, G., 1930, ‘Schacht von Tiryns’, Athenische Miteilungen
55, 119–140.
Kilian, K., 1978, ‘Nordwestgriechische Keramik aus der Argolis
und ihre Entsprechungen in der Supappeninfacies’, Ati
della XX riunione scientifica dell‘Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e
Protostoria in Basilicata, 1976, 311–320.
Kilian, K., 1985, ‘La caduta dei palazzi micenei: aspetti
archeologici’. In Musti, D. (ed.), Le Origini dei Greci: Dori e
Mondo Egeo, Rome–Bari, 73–95.
Kilian, K., 2007, Tiryns XV: Die handgemachte geglätete Keramik
mykenischer Zeitstellung, Wiesbaden.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., 1993, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb
der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien (Prähistorische
Bronzefunde Abteilung IV, Bd. 12), Stutgart.
Killen, J., 2001, ‘Some Thoughts on ta-ra-si-ja’. In Voutsaki and
Killen 2001, 161–180.
Kiriatzi, E., Andreou, S., Dimitriadis, S. and Kotsakis, K., 1997,
‘Co-existing Traditions: Handmade and Wheelmade Potery
in Late Bronze Age Central Macedonia’. In Laffineur, R. and
Betancourt, P. P. (eds), TEXNH: Cratsmen, Cratswomen and
Cratsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th
International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, 1996 (Aegaeum
16), 361–367.
Kolonas, L., 2001, ‘Η
ή ύ o (Ēleiakē Pylos)’. In
Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. and Schauer, C. (eds), Forschungen in
der Peloponnes: Akten des Symposions anlässlich der Feier ‘100
Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen’, 1998,
Athens, 257–262.
Koui, M., Andreopoulou-Mangou, E., Papazoglou-Manioudaki,
L., Pritaj-Vevecka, A., Papandreopoulos, P. and Stamati, F.,
2006, ‘Study of Bronze Age Copper Based Swords of Type
Naue II from Greece and Albania’, Mediterranean Archaeology
and Archaeometry 6, 1, 49–59.
Kraiker, W. and Kübler, K., 1939, Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10.
Jahrhunderts. (Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen I,
Walter de Gruyter), Berlin.
Kyparisses, N., 1938, ‘
ή
ϊ
ί
ί
ϊ
(Anaskaphi Mykênaïkōn nekrotapheiōn
arkhaias Akhaïou)’,
ή
ή
ί (Praktika tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Etaireias)
1938, 118–119.
Laffineur, R. and Greco, E. (eds), 2005, Emporia. Aegeans in the
Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th
International Aegean Conference, Athens 2004 (Aegaeum 25),
Liège.
La Rosa, V., Palermo, D. and Vagnetti L. (eds), 1999, Epi
ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a
Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. Roma 1998,
Rome.
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Lerat, L., 1938, ‘Fouilles de Delphes. Rapport Préliminaire’,
Revue Archéologique 12, 183–207.
Lenzi, F. (ed.), 2003, L’Archeologia dell’Adriatico dalla Preistoria al
Medioevo. Ati del Convegno, Ravenna 2001, Firenze.
Leonardi, G. and Cupitò, M., 2008, ‘Il sito arginato dell’età
del bronzo di Fondo-Paviani-Legnago. Notizia preliminare
sulla campagna di indagine 2007’, Quaderni di Archeologia
del Veneto 24, 90–93.
Levi, S. T., 2004, ‘Circolazione dei prodoti ed organizzazione
della manifatura’. In Cocchi Genick 2004, 233–242.
Lis, B., 2008, ‘Handmade and burnished potery in the Eastern
Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age: Towards an
explanation for its diversity and geographical distribution’
in Bachhuber, C. and Gareth Roberts, R. (eds) Forces of
Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean
(Oxbow), 152–163.
Lo Schiavo, F., 2003, ‘Sardinia between East and West:
Interconnections in the Mediterranean’. In Stampolidis and
Karagheorghis 2003, 15–34.
Malone, C. A. T., Stoddart, S. K. F. and Whitehouse. R. D.,
1994, ‘The Bronze Age of Southern Italy, Sicily and Malta’.
In Mathers, C. and Stoddart, S. K. F. (eds), Development and
Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield, 167–194.
Maran, J., 2006, ‘Coming to Terms with the Past: Ideology and
Power in Late Helladic III C’. In Deger-Jalkotzy and Lemos
2006, 123–150.
Marazzi, M., Tusa, S. and Vagneti, L., (eds), 1986, Traffici Micenei
nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica,
Taranto.
Mastrokostas, E., 1965, ‘
ή
έ
ί
(Anaskaphi tou Teichous Dymaiōn)’,
ό
ί
(Arkhaiologikon Deltion), 121–136.
Mathäus, H., 1980, ‘Mykenische Vogelbarken, antithetische
Tierprotomen in der Kunst des östlichen Mitelmeerraumes’,
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblat, 10, 4, 319–330.
Mazar, A., 1985, ‘Excavations at Tell Qasile. Part 2: The
Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Potery, Conclusions,
Appendixes’, (Qedem 20), Jerusalem.
McDonald, W. A. and Wilkie, N. C. (eds), 1992, Excavations
at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume II: The Bronze Age
Occupation, Minneapolis.
Milojčić, V., 1948, ‘Die Dorische Wanderung im Lichte der
vorgeschichtlichen Funde’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 63–
64,12–36.
Milojčić, V., 1952, ‘Das Sethosschwert kein gemeineuropäisches
Griffzungenschwert’, Germania 30, 95–97.
Milojčić, V., 1955, ‘Einige miteleuropäische Fremdlinge auf
Kreta’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-Museums
Mainz 2, 153–169.
Müller-Karpe, M., 1962, ‘Zur Spätbronzezeitlichen Bewaffnung
in Mitel Europa und Griechenland’, Germania 40, 255–287.
Olivier, J.-P., 1993 (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque
international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens (Bulletin de
Corréspondence Héllenique Supplément 25), Paris.
Olivier, J.-P., 2001, ‘Les ‘collecteurs’: Leur distribution spatiale
et temporelle’. In Voutsaki and Killen 2001, 139–160.
Pagliara, C., Maggiulli, G., Scarano, T., Pino, C., Guglielmino,
R., De Grossi Mazzorin, J., Rugge, M., Fiorentino, G.,
Primavera, M., Calcagnile, L., D’Elia, M. and Quarta, G. 2007,
‘La sequenza cronostratigrafica delle fasi di occupazione
dell’insediamento protostorico di Roca (Melendugno, Lecce).
77
Relazione preliminare della campagna di scavo 2005 – Saggio
X’, Rivista di Scienze Protostoriche LVII, 311–362.
Papadopoulos, T., 1979, Mycenaean Achaea (SIMA 55),
Göteborg.
Papadopoulos, T., 1998, The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean:
I Mainland Greece (Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Abteilung VI;
Bd. 11), Stutgart.
Papadopoulos, T., 1999, ‘Warrior Graves in Achaean Mycenaean
Cemeteries’. In Laffineur, R. (ed.), POLEMOS: Le contexte
guerrier en Égée á l’âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre
égéenne internationale Université de Liège 1998 (Aegaeum 19),
Liège, 267–274.
Papazoglou-Manioudaki, L., 1994, ‘A Mycenaean Warrior’s
Tomb at Krini near Patras’, Annals of the British School at
Athens 89, 171–200.
Pare, C. F. (ed.), 2000, Metal Makes the World Go Round: the Supply
and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe, Oxford.
Pearce, M., 1999, ‘New Research on the Terramare of Northern
Italy’, Antiquity 72, 743–746.
Pearce, M., 2000, ‘Metals Make the World Go Round: the Copper
Supply for Fratesina’. In Pare 2000, 108–115.
Pearce, M., 2007, Bright Blades and Red Metal. Essays on North
Italian Prehistoric Metalwork, (Accordia Specialist Studies on
Italy 14), London.
Pellegrini, E., 1995, ‘Aspeti della metallurgia in Italia continentale
tra XVI e XI sec. a.C.’. In Christie, N. (ed.), Setlement and
Economy in Italy 1500 B.C to 1500 A.D, Oxford, 511–519.
Pendlebury, H. J. and Money-Couts, M., 1938, ‘Excavations
in the Plain of Lassithi III. Karphi: a City of Refuge of the
Early Iron Age in Crete. Excavated by Students of the British
School of Archaeology at Athens, 1937–39’, Annals of the
British School at Athens 38, 57–145.
Perdrizet, P., 1908, Fouilles de Delphes V. Monuments figurés, petits
bronzes, terre-cuites, antiquités diverses, Paris.
Peroni, R., 1994, ‘Le comunità Enotrie della Sibaritide ed i loro
rapporti con i navigatori egei’. In Peroni and Trucco 1994,
, 831–879.
Peroni, R., 1996, L’Italia alle soglie della storia, Rome-Bari.
Peroni, R., 2004, ‘Sistemi transculturali nell’economia, nella
società, nell’ideologia’. In Cocchi Genick 2004, 411–427.
Peroni, R. and Trucco, F. (eds), 1994, Enotri e Micenei nella
Sibaritide, Taranto.
Peroni, R. and Vanzeti, A. (eds), 1998, Broglio di Trebisacce
1990–1994. Elementi e Problemi Nuovi delle Recenti Campagne
di Scavo, Rubbetino.
Petropoulos, M., 2000, ‘M
ϊ ό
ί
έϊ
ώ (Mykēnaiko nekrotapheio sta Spaliareika tōn
Lousikōn)’. In Rizakis, A. D., Paysages d’Achaïe, 2. Dymé et son
territoire. Actes du colloque international ‘Dymaia et Bouprasia’,
Katō Achaïa 1995. (Meletemata 29), Athens-Paris, 65–92.
Petsas, F., 1962, ‘
ή
ί
ί
ί
1960/1 (Anaskaphe arkaiou nekrotaphiou Bergines 1960/1)’,
ό
ί
(Arkhaiologikon Deltion) 17, 1,
218–288.
Phelps, W. W., Lolos, Y. and Vichos, Y. (eds), 1999, The Point
Iria Wreck. Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC.
Proceedings of the International Conference, Island of Spetses
1998, Athens, 187–208.
Pilides, D., 1994, Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze
Age in Cyprus (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 105),
Göteborg.
78
Francesco Iacono
Podzuweit, C., 2007, Tiryns XIV: Studien zur spätmykenischen
Keramik, Wiesbaden.
Popham, M. R. and Milburn, E., 1972, ‘The Late Helladic IIIC
Potery of Xeropolis (Lekandi): A Summary’, Annals of the
British School at Athens 66, 333–336.
Popham, M. R. and Sacket, L. H., 1968, Excavations at Lekandi,
Euboea, 1964/1966. A Preliminary Report, London.
Rahmstorf, L., 2003, ‘Clay Spools from Tiryns and other
Contemporary Sites. An Indication of Foreign Influence in LH
IIIC?’. In Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and Papakonstantinou, M.
(eds), ‘
έ
ό
ό
«Η
έ
ϊ ύ ό
»,
ί 1999/2nd International
Interdisciplinary Colloquium ‘The Periphery of the Mycenaean
World’, Lamia 1999, Athens, 397–415.
Rahmstorf, L., 2005, ‘Terramare and Faience: Mycenaean
Influence in Northern Italy during the Late Bronze Age’. In
Laffineur and Greco 2005, , 663–672.
Reber, K., 1991, Untersuchungen zur Handgemachten Keramik
Griechenlands in der Submykenischen, Protogeometrischen und
der Geometrischen. Jonsered.
Riva, C. and Vella, N., 2006 (eds), Debating Orientalizing:
Multidisciplinary Approaches to Processes of Change in the Ancient
Mediterranean, London.
Ruter, J. B., 1975, ‘Ceramic Evidence for Northern Intruders in
Southern Greece at the Beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC
Period’, American Journal of Archaeology 79, 17–32.
Ruter, J. B., 1979, ‘The Last Mycenaeans at Corinth’, Hesperia
48, 4, 348–392.
Ruter, J. B., 1990, ‘Some Comments on Interpreting the Darksurfaced Handmade Burnished Potery of the 13th and 12th
Century B.C. Aegean’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
3, 29–49.
Ruter, J. B., 1999, ‘Cretan External Relations during LM IIIA2–B
(ca. 1370–1200 B.C.): A View from the Mesara’. In Phelps et
al. 1999, 139–186.
Sandars, N. K., 1961, ‘The First Aegean Swords and Their
Ancestry’, American Journal of Archaeology 65, 17–29.
Sandars, N. K., 1963, ‘Later Aegean Bronze Swords’, American
Journal of Archaeology 67, 117–153.
Sandars, N. K., 1978, The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient
Mediterranean, 1250–1150 B.C., London.
Schliemann, H., 1878, Mycenae: A Narrative of Researches and
Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns, London.
Schneider, J., 1977, ‘Was there a Pre-capitalist World System?’,
Peasant Studies 6, 20–29.
Shaw, J. and Shaw, M. (eds), 2006, Kommos V: The Monumental
Minoan Buildings at Kommos, Princeton.
Sherrat, A., 1993, ‘What would a Bronze Age World System
Look like?’, European Journal of Archaeology 1, 2, 1–57.
Sherrat, A., 1997, Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe:
Changing Perspectives, Princeton, N.J.
Sherrat, A., 2004, ‘Material Resources, Capital, and Power:
The Coevolution of Society and Culture’. In Feinman, G.
and Nicholas, L. (eds), Archaeological Perspectives on Political
Economies, Salt Lake City, 79–103.
Sherrat, S., 1981, The Potery of LH III C and its Significance,
Sommerville College D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford.
Sherratt, S., 1982, ‘Patterns of Contact: Manufacture and
Distribution of Mycenaean Potery, 1400–1100 B.C.’. In Best,
J. and de Vries, N. (eds), Interaction and Acculturation in the
Mediterranean, Amsterdam, 179–95.
Sherrat, S., 1999, ‘E pur si muove: Pots Markets and Values in
the Second Millennium Mediterranean’. In Crielaard et al.
1999, 163–211.
Sherrat, S., 2000, ‘Circulation of Metal and the End of the Bronze
Age in the Eastern Mediterranean’. In Pare 2000, 82–98.
Small, D. B., 1990, ‘‘Barbarian Ware’ and Prehistoric Aegean
Economics: an Argument for Indigenous Appearance’, Journal
of Mediterranean Archaeology 3, 3–28.
Small, D. B., 1997, ‘Can We Move Forward? Comments on the
Current Debate over Handmade Burnished Ware’, Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 10, 223–228.
Smith, T. R., 1987, Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West
Central Mediterranean: 1600–1000 B.C. (British Archaeological
Report International Series 371), Oxford.
Smithson, E. L., 1961, ‘The Protogeometric Cemetery at Nea
Ionia, 1949’, Hesperia 30, 147–178.
Snodgrass, A., 1971, The Dark Age of Greece: an Archaeological Survey
of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries B.C., Edinburgh.
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C., 1999, The Ionian Islands in the
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age 3000–800 BC, Liverpool.
Stampolidis, N. and Karagheorghis, V. (eds), 2003, Ploes, Sea
Routes. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th–6th cent.
B.C., Athens.
Stavropoulou-Gatsi, M., Jung, R., Mehofer, M., 2009, ‘ ́
«
́ »
́
́
ω
́ ’
(Taphos «Mykēnaiou» polemistē ston Koubara Aitōloakarnanias),
Paper presented at the conference “IMMORTALITY: The
Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in the Mediterranean
from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age” held in Rhodes
28–31 May 2009.
Stillwell, A., 1948, Corinth. Results of Excavations Conducted by
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. XV. Part I.
The Poters’ Quarter, Princeton.
Strack, S., 2007, Regional Dynamics and Social Change in the
Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: a study of handmade potery
from southern and central Greece (unpublished Ph.D. thesis),
University of Edinburgh.
Tainter, J., 1988, The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge.
Tartaron, T. F., 2004, Bronze Age Landscape and Society in Southern
Epirus, Greece (British Archaeological Report International
Series 1290), Oxford.
Tomas, H., 2005, ‘Mycenaean in Croatia?’. In Laffineur and
Greco 2005, , 673–682.
Tsountas, C., 1897, ‘ έ
ώ (Metrai kai
xiphē ek Mikenon)’,
ή
ί (Archaiologike
Ephemeris) 1897, 7–128.
Vagneti, L., 1983 (ed.), Magna Grecia e Mondo Miceneo, Taranto.
Vagnetti, L., 1999, ‘Mycenaean Pottery in the Central
Mediterranean: Imports and Local Production in their
Context’. In Crielaard et al. 1999, 138–161.
Vagneti, L., 1999a, ‘Mycenaeans and Cypriots in the Central
Mediterranean before and ater 1200 BC’. In Phelps et al.
1999, 187–208.
Vagneti, L., Percossi, E., Silvestrini, M., Sabbatini, T., Jones,
R. E. and Levi, S. T., 2006, ‘Ceramiche egeo-micenee nelle
Marche: indagini archeometriche ed inquadramento iniziale
dei dati’. In Ati della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto
di Preistoria e Protostoria, Florence, Vol. II, 1159–1172.
Vagneti, L. and Jones, R., 1988, ‘Towards the Identification of
Local Mycenaean Potery in Italy’. In French, E. B. and Wardle,
K. A. (eds), Problems in Greek Prehistory, Bristol, 335–348.
5. Westernizing Aegean of LH III C
Vagneti L. and Panichelli, S., 1994, ‘Ceramica egea importata e di
produzione locale’. In Peroni and Trucco 1994, I, 373–413.
Vlachopoulos, A., 2008 (ed.), ύ
ά
ά (Euboia
kai Sterea Ellada), Athens.
Vokotopoulou, I., 1969, ‘ έ
ό
ά
ό
Η ί
(Neoi chibōtioschēmoi taphoi tēs
YE III B–G Periodou ex Ēpeirou)’,
ή
ί
(Arkhaiologike Ephemeris), 179–207.
Voutsaki, S. and Killen, J. (eds). 2001, Economy and Politics in
the Mycenaean Palace State (Cambridge Classical Journal
Supplementary Volume 27), Cambridge.
Veblen, T., (1902) 1994, A Theory of Leisure Class, New York.
Vianello, A., 2005, Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in
the West Mediterranean: a Social and Economic Analysis (British
Archaeological Report International Series 1439), Oxford.
Wace, A., 1953, ‘Mycenae 1939–1952’, Annual of the British School
at Athens 48, 3–93.
Weingarten, J., 1997, ‘The Sealing Bureaucracy of Mycenaean
Knossos: The Identification of Some Officials and Their Seals’.
In Driessen, J. and Farnoux, A. (eds) La Crète mycénienne:
Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale organisée par l’École
française d’Athènes (1991) (Bulletin de Corréspondence Héllenique
Supplément 30), Athènes-Paris, 517–535.
79
Walberg, G., 1976, ‘Northern Intruders in Myc. III C?’, American
Journal of Archaeology 80, 2, 186–187.
Wallerstein, I., 1974, The Modern World System. Vol. I , New
York.
Warren, P., 1983, ‘Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations
1978–82. Part II’, Archaeological Reports 29, 63–87.
Watrous, L. V., 1989, ‘A Preliminary Report on Imported ‘Italian’
Wares from the Late Bronze Age Site of Kommos on Crete’,
Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 27, 69–80.
Watrous, L. V., 1992, Kommos III: An Excavation on the South Coast
of Crete. The Late Bronze Age Potery, Princeton.
Weber, H., 1944, ‘Anfgriffswassen’. In Kunze, E. and Schleif, H.
(eds), Olympische Forschungen I, Berlin, 146–156.
Whitbread, I., 1992, ‘Petrographic Analysis of Barbarian Ware from
the Menelaion, Sparta’. In Sanders, M. J. (ed.),
o ά ω .
Lakonian Studies in honour of Hector Catling, Athens, 297–306.
Wijngaarden, G. J., 2002, Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean
Potery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600–1200 B.C.),
Amsterdam.
Wilkinson, D., 1987, ‘Central Civilization’, Comparative Civilization
Review 17, 31–59.
Xanthoudides, S., 1904, ‘
ή
(Ek Kretes)’,
ή
ί 43 (Archaiologike Ephemeris 43), 1–55.