List of Maps

Map I. Italy and the adjacent islands (after Smith 1987, 2).

List of Tables

Table I. the chronology of the West Central Mediterranean in the Bronze Age (after

Marazzi and Tusa 1979, 326).

Table II. The chronology of Sicily during the Bronze Age period in relation to Aegean

Bronze chronology (after Smith 1987 table 1, 3).

Table III. The chronology of the Aeolian islands during the Bronze Age period in

relation to Aegean Bronze Age (after Smith 1987 table 1, 3).

Table IV. The chronology of Peninsular Italy during the Bronze Age period in relation

to Aegean Bronze Age (after Smith 1987 table 1, 3).

Table V. The chronology of Sardinia during the Bronze Age period in relation to

Aegean Bronze Age (after Smith 1987 table 1, 3).

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Examples of local Italian pottery of the Bronze Age period.

Fig. 2 Map showing the sea routes followed by the Mycenaeans during the three

successive phases of the contact with Italy (after Cevoli 2001, 44).

Fig. 3 Map of Thapsos (after Holloway 1981, 83).

Fig. 4 Plan of the Protourban centre of Thapsos (after Holloway 1981, 175).

Fig. 5 Tomb D, Thapsos, grave goods (after Tusa 1999, 174).

Fig. 6 Map of Aeolian islands 1. Alicudi 2. Filicudi 3. Salina 4. Lipari 5. Volcano 6.

Panarea 7. Stromboli (after Holloway 1981, 60).

1
 Fig. 7 Maps of the trade connections of the Aeolian Islands in the Bronze Age period

(after Holloway 1981, 62, 66, 70, 72 and 79).

Fig. 8 Map of the Gulf of Napoli (after Marazzi 1988, 14).

Fig. 9 Categories of Mycenaean pottery at Vivara (after Re 1993 fig.1, 332)

Fig. 10 Repertoire of Mycenaean pottery found at Vivara (after Marazzi 1988, 18).

Fig. 11 Reconstruction of a prehistoric hut at Vivara (after Cevoli 2001, 47).

Fig. 12 Map of Sardinia (after Re 1998, 284).

Fig. 13 A. Local impasto pottery, B. Grey pottery and C. Aegean parallels from

Broglio di Trebisacce (after Bergonzi 1985, 360, 362 and 364).

Fig. 14 Map of the area of Taranto 1. Scoglio del Tonno 2. Porto Perone (after

Holloway 1981, 89).

Fig. 15 Graph showing the distribution of Mycenaean pottery in Italy (based on

Vagnetti 1999, 156-161).

Fig. 16 Drawing of storage vases (after Cevoli 2001, 44).

Fig. 17 Distribution of Mycenaean pottery found in Italy (after Vagnetti 1999, 156).



2
3
 Introduction

During the Bronze Age, the predominant type of pottery in Southern Italy (Apulia,

Calabria and Basilicata) and the adjacent islands (Sicily, Aeolian - Phlegrean islands and

Sardinia) (Map I), was a handmade impasto ware. Early in the LHI period Mycenaean

pottery was imported into Italy whilst at the end of the LHIIIA period it started to be

produced locally. The two traditions- the local handmade and the imported wheelmade -

co-existed from the LHIIIA period until the end of the LHIIIC period.

The aim of this dissertation is to examine the different ways, in which the indigenous

population of Italy made use of Mycenaean pottery, through the study of the conditions

under which this pottery was introduced to Italy, co-existed with the local impasto ware

and was imitated by the indigenous population. Did the meaning of this pottery change as

it passed through space and time?

Until recently, most scholars interested in the "Mycenaean presence" in Italy (i.e.

Taylour 1958, Vagnetti 1993) were mainly preoccupied with study of the production and

distribution patterns of Mycenaean pottery there. Questions related to the variability of

consumption patterns and their social significance received minor attention. The co-

existence of pottery with other Mycenaean imports (metals, amber and figurines) and

influences on the residential and funerary architecture of some regions led some scholars

to argue in support of the idea of the physical presence of people from Southern Greece

(conventionally called Mycenaeans) in Italy. Moreover, because of the human habit to

interpret past activities as an unbroken continuum which led to their present order, they

seek to transfer terms of the modern world market like demand, production centres and

consumption zones back to antiquity, by interpreting those imports and influences as

4
proofs of the Mycenaean colonization in Italy. In addition, the occurrence of Mycenaean

pottery in only a restricted number of tombs in the necropolis of Thapsos (southeastern

Sicily) was interpreted as evidence of the presence of elite groups there. Consequently,

one gets the impression that the Italians adopted Mycenaean imports as products of a

higher civilization. They seemed to be passive recipients of an external influence

In contrast this dissertation tries to demonstrate that "the significant thing about the

adoption of alien objects is not the fact that they are adopted, but the way they are

culturally redefined and put to use" (Kopytoff 2000, 380). For this purpose, emphasis

should be given to the intra-societal organization of the sites under discussion and in the

different meanings that the same product (here Mycenaean pottery) acquires according to

its social context (Hamilakis 1995, 185). The situation is not so simple, as it seems. The

discovery of imports in one site does not necessarily mean that the site was a colony or

that people from the country of origin of the imports were present there. Italy was a

mosaic of many small societies. Each of its major regions presented different

characteristics and seems to have participated differently in the process of the

consumption of Mycenaean pottery. The quantity of imports as well as the degree of

Aegean influence on a number of sectors, from architecture to burial customs, differed

markedly from site to site, even when they belonged to the same local "culture"

(Bergonzi 1985, 359). In addition to that, the different social, political and economic

characteristics of the regions involved in the interaction (i.e. Italy and Mycenaean

Greece) and the time-span over which this contact took place should be taken into

account (Bietti Sestieri 1988,23).

5
 Pottery, here, is regarded as a mean of material communication. As such it "has a

longer effect than other forms such as verbal communication (assuming a pre-literate

society or a largely illiterate population), but it is at the same time more costly, since it

involves the investment of energy and matter and not simply information" (Hamilakis

1995, 225). Pottery as people possesses biography. The biography of pottery consists of

four stages: production, distribution, consumption and discard. During these stages, it

changes hands many times and it adopts different meanings. Pottery consumption

contributes to the construction of a person's identity and his interaction with his social

environment (Tomkins 2001, 62) by helping him to enter into social relationships,

understand the world and communicate with other people (Hamilakis 1995, 185).

According to Miller (1985, 181-2), pottery acts as a frame, in the sense that its presence

directs people to a specific kind of behaviour. All pottery has some function (container,

transporter, serving and cooking). The division between utilitarian and elite pottery is not

really the issue as even utilitarian pottery may have a ritual and symbolic meaning

(Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993, 227). Moreover, it is a functional distinction constructed

in our world and probably not applicable to the past (Tomkins 2001, 49). Consequently,

the thing that matters is not the particular type of pottery but the choice of it. Choice is a

product not only of desire but also of a variety of social practices and classifications in

which pottery plays a part.

In order to examine the way, in which the different regions made use of the imported

Mycenaean pottery, it is better to focus on the study of the social and cultural context in

which this process took place. As context of an object, we mean the totality of the

relevant environment that both gives meaning to and gains meaning from the object

6
(Hodder 2000, 89). The time and place of use along with questions about stratigraphy,

morphology and composition can provide answers about the way an object was

consumed (Strange 1989, 23-30). Mycenaean pottery in Italy has been mainly found in

settlement and funerary contexts with the exception of one possible cult place at Monte

Grande (Sicily, Vagnetti 1999, 156). The study of the different findspots of Mycenaean

pottery inside the same settlement or cemetery is of vital importance as based on that we

might extract conclusions about the probable implications of its presence in a limited

number of tombs and houses. However most of the reports, do not give much

information about the specific findspot of an object and this make the study of the

material difficult. The examination of the variety of vase shapes found in these contexts

would be also indicative of the preference of the indigenous population for some

particular vases. This preference will probably reveal interesting information about the

socio-economic situation in the different regions of Italy. The chemical and petrographic

analysis of pottery found in the sites under study proved the co-existence of imported and

local manufactured Mycenaean pottery. From the presentation of the material, however,

the distinction between Mycenaean imports and local imitations is very difficult and for

that reason the extract of conclusions about consumption of Mycenaean pottery in Italy

has most of the times to be based on assumptions. Finally, the study of the kinds of

practices that drew on different meaning and different forms of geographical reference

would shed light on problems related to the variability of consumption patterns.

This dissertation is comprised of four chapters. Chapter 1 sets out the background to

the period and region under study. Chapter 2, after a brief introduction about the

chronological framework of this study and the reasons of the choice of seven particular

7
sites, presents the evidence for the consumption of Mycenaean pottery (from those sites),

giving at the same time general information about their topography and history. Chapter 3

discusses this evidence and offers an explanation of the consumption patterns of

Mycenaean pottery revealed. Chapter 4 contains the conclusions.



8
 Chapter I: Southern Italy and the adjacent islands during the second

millennium B.C.

During the Bronze Age, Italy was divided into a number of distinctive regional

cultures, each with its own chronological framework (Table I). Conventional

chronologies are based on the dating of Mycenaean imports (Bietti Sestieri 1984, 55).

Table I. The Chronology of the West Central Mediterranean in the Bronze Age

(after Marazzi and Tusa 1979, 326).

A brief review of the internal situation in Italy during this period is considered

necessary to understand the social and cultural context in which Mycenaean imports were

adopted and used. The contrasts observed from one region to the next shed light on both

the cultural choices and the variety of socioeconomic strategies operating within the Late

Bronze Age world.

9
 a. The social and cultural context

At the beginning of the second millennium B.C., small coastal villages comprised the

typical type of settlement in the majority of Italy except in the western part of Calabria

where, because of its inaccessibility the settlements were situated inland (Bietti Sestieri

1988, 39). At Lipari and at Vivara a socio-economic revival after the Eneolithic crisis

caused by the collapse of demand for obsidian and a differentiation in the size of the

buildings inside the settlements is obvious (Tusa 1999, 164). Collective burials in

chamber tombs or natural caves furnished with the personal belongings of the dead were

the rule (Bietti Sestieri 1988, 33).

During the LHIIIA period, a differentiation between settlements, in their setting and

organization, and in their size and use of space is obvious (Smith 1987, 131). In Sicily

and Apulia, the major sites - Thapsos and Scoglio del Tonno - present, according to Bietti

Sestieri (1988, 33), "proto-urban" characteristics (fortifications, existence of buildings

larger than the others) and a degree of economic specialization (intensification of metal

and pottery production). A degree of ranking and territorial organization has been

inferred by Bietti Sestieri (1988, 33) in some gallery dolmens, used for collective burials,

in Apulia and Basilicata due to their isolation in elevated positions. These locations are

regarded as having facilitated the control of some natural routes and the determination of

natural boundaries. The concentration of Mycenaean products in some coastal sites led to

their identification as redistribution centres and to the recognition of their central role in

the regionally organized economic network (Bietti Sestieri 1984, 78).

In the later phase of the interaction, the appearance of relatively complex structures

and of a certain degree of intrasettlement spatial organization in the settlements of

10
peninsular Italy in combination with a general increase in metal production led Bietti

Sestieri to the conclusion that a number of changes occurred in the local culture during

this period (Bietti Sestieri 1988, 35).

From all the above, it may be concluded that the period of the introduction of

Mycenaean pottery in Italy was a transitional period in the sense that major changes can

be observed in the social and economic organization of the local communities. A deeper

insight into the social and political situation in Italy during the second millennium B.C.

requires a detailed study of the different aspects of material culture. This essay through

the study of the pottery would try to contribute to a better understudying of the situation

in Italy.

b. The study of the different classes of pottery.

Five different classes of pottery have been recognized in the area of the West Central

Mediterranean: 1. Local impasto pottery, 2. Local copies of Mycenaean pottery, 3.

Ceramica grigia, 4. Dolii Cordonati, and 5. Mycenaean imports.

1. Local impasto pottery.

During the second millennium B.C., Italy was characterized by a handmade variety of

impasto ware. Each major region had its own variety (fig.1). A variety of shiny black

burnished ware with thin walls characterized Lipari's pottery production during the first

phase of the 16th century (Tusa 1999, 167). The most popular shapes were small jars,

carinated bowls, cup-dippers and globular jugs (Tusa 1999, 167). In the second phase of

the 16th century, a poorly brown burnished pottery as well as a fine impasto ware were

the rule at Lipari (Tusa 1999, 167). The dominant shape was a cup with a flat base (Tusa

1999, 167). In Sicily, Thapsos pottery mainly consisted of a brownish - grey handmade

11
ware characterized by the production of vases used as tableware (Tusa 1999, 174) while

in Sardinia the predominant type of pottery was a handmade grey burnished ware.

The situation was different in peninsular Italy. The peninsular south of the Po valley

constituted a single cultural unit (Holloway 1981, 57). In the beginning of the second

millennium B.C. the dominant type of pottery in this region was a handmade black -

surfaced ware decorated with linear or dot pattern incision (Holloway 1981, 57). The

most popular vase shape was the carinated bowl, which retained its dominant position

until the next period (Holloway 1981, 57). In the next, Subapennine period the main type

of pottery was a handmade impasto unpainted pottery while in the last Protovillanovan

period a handmade ware decorated with impressed and incised patterns was the rule

(Bietti Sestieri 1984, 55).

At the end of the LHIIIA period, along with the production of local impasto ware,

local copies of Mycenaean pottery, a variety of grey wheel-made pottery and a type of

large storage vessels began to be produced (Bietti Sestieri 1988, 35-36).

2. Local copies of Mycenaean pottery.

The local production of Mycenaean vases started at the end of the LHIIIA period and

continued until the end of the Bronze Age period in Italy. The main archaeological

criteria to define local imitations of Mycenaean pottery are, according to Vagnetti

(Vagnetti and Jones 1989, 335): a. the appearance of the fabric, b. the use of shapes

belonging to the local tradition, c. the use of debased Mycenaean shapes and patterns, d.

an unusual combination of different patterns on the same vase, e. an unusual combination

of shape and motif and f. the use of motifs unknown in Mycenaean painted pottery.

Examples of this type of pottery have been found in large quantities only at specific sites:

12
at Antigori (Sardinia), Broglio di Trebisacce (Calabria), Termitito (Basilicata) and

Scoglio del Tonno (Apulia). Chemical analysis has provided very limited evidence of the

movement of this type of pottery probably from a large production centre in the south to a

smaller settlement in the centre (i.e. Casale Nuovo, Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 140).

Moreover, petrographic analysis has revealed the existence of separate production centres

involved in the manufacture of different categories of pottery in the same region (i.e.

Broglio di Trebisacce, Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 140).

3. Ceramica grigia.

The production of the grey wheelmade pottery, known as ceramica grigia, seems to be

related with the introduction of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. "It is wheelmade, slipped and

smoothed and is made of well-refined clay, fired at high temperatures" (Smith 1987, 25).

Its surface mostly presents a grey colour but sometimes has a beige or beigy/yellow

appearance (Smith 1987, 25). It always occurs on sites where Mycenaean pottery has

been found and in the same layers with it. Ceramica grigia first appeared in the LHIIIA

period and continued to be produced until the LHIIIC period. The bulk of the material

comes from southern Italy. In Sardinia, a handmade variety of this pottery was produced

(Smith 1987, 29). Carinated cups and bowls with upraised handles are the dominant

shapes produced in this fabric (Smith 1987, 25). Petrological and chemical analysis

suggest that this ware was locally produced.

4. Dolii Cordonati.

The production of large cordoned pithoi, known as dolii cordonati in southern Italy

from the LHIIIA period, is also considered a result of contact with Mycenaean Greece

during this period (Smith 1987, 30). They were manufactured in Italy and served as

13
containers. They have been found along with ceramica grigia, Mycenaean pottery and

local impasto ware. Their distribution mainly in southern Italy suggests, according to

Peroni (1979, 8-9), a relationship with the observed intensification of agricultural

production there during the Final Bronze Age.

5. Mycenaean imports.

Mycenaean imported pottery is discussed in Chapter II. In some cases it is not clear if

the discussion is about Mycenaean imports or local imitations of Mycenaean pottery and

this is due to the insufficient publication of the evidence from the excavators.



14
 Chapter II: Review of West Central Mediterranean sites with

Mycenaean pottery

The discovery of Mycenaean pottery in Italy is indicative of the contacts between Italy

and Mycenaean Greece during the second millennium B.C.. The interest for the region of

West Central Mediterranean is considered to be a result of the need for raw materials,

namely metals. The close typological affinities between the Mycenaean and the Italian

bronze objects, according to Bietti Sestieri (1984, 61) argue in support of this assumption.

Vagnetti has proposed four main phases in the development of Aegean-Italian

interconnections (Vagnetti 1999, 139) (fig.2):

a. The first phase corresponds to the LHI-II periods. In this phase Mycenaean pottery

reached few sites on the Adriatic coast of Apulia whilst it occurred in relatively

large quantities in the Aeolian and Phlegrean Islands.

b. The second phase corresponds to the LHIIIA period. The number of sites with

Mycenaean pottery increased radically. The main sources of evidence are: Scoglio

del Tonno, Lipari, Thapsos, Broglio di Trebisacce, Termitito and Antigori.

c. The third phase corresponds to LHIIIB. During this period, the production of local

imitations of Mycenaean pottery (which started at the end of the previous period)

was identified at Broglio di Trebisacce, Termitito, Scoglio del Tonno, Porto

Perone/Satyrion, Torre Mordillo and Antigori.

d. The fourth and final phase correspond to LHIIIB-C, the period of the collapse of

Mycenaean civilization. The number of sites with Mycenaean pottery increased

and its largest concentration is observed in Apulia, Basilicata and Calabria. During

this period, Mycenaean pottery was found for the first time in the Po valley.

15
 The first scholar, who tried to make a list of the West Central sites with Mycenaean

pottery, was Lord William Taylour in 1958. Since then, more than 80 sites with

Mycenaean pottery (imported and locally produced) have become known (65 settlements

and 16 cemeteries according to Vagnetti 1999, 141) (Appendix I). The majority of the

sites are situated near the coast commanding important harbors and, even though they

lacked local raw materials, through a system of rivers and coastal routes would have

facilitated the movement of goods from central and northern areas (Smith 1987, 128-

131). Some sites were exposed to a more systematic contact with Mycenaean Greece than

others. Some are fully excavated and well published while others remain largely

unpublished. For the purpose of this dissertation, emphasis will be placed on seven

important sites representative of the regions where they are located: Thapsos (Sicily),

Lipari (Aeolian Islands), Vivara (Phlegrean Islands), Nuraghe Antigori (Sardinia),

Broglio di Trebisacce (Calabria), Termitito (Basilicata) and Scoglio del Tonno (Apulia).

The study of the evidence from these sites will be the main object of this chapter in order

to examine the different consumption patterns of Mycenaean pottery. In some cases,

other sites will be mentioned to support the interpretation of the material from these

major sites.

The review starts with Sicily and the Aeolian Islands that for years were the best-

published regions. It continues with Vivara and Sardinia because of the possible relations

between those regions, and ends with Southern Italy (Calabria, Basilicata and Apulia).

Each region is examined separately. Information about the geographical and

topographical position of the sites, their stratigraphical sequence and function (settlement,

cemetery, and cult place) comprises a necessary part of their presentation. The type of

16
pottery consumed there is reported in chronological sequence, followed by an attempt to

explain this preference.

Sicily

EBA LHI-LHII CASTELLUCIO

1600-1400 B.C.

MBA LHIIIA THAPSOS

1400-1325 B.C.

LBA LHIIIB PANTALICA

1325-1190 B.C.

1190-1050 B.C. LHIIIC PANTALICA

Table II. The chronology of Sicily during the Bronze Age period in relation to Aegean

Bronze Age chronology (after Smith 1987 table 1, 3).

10 Km north of Syracuse on the projecting headland of Magnisi lies Thapsos, the

major known prehistoric site of eastern Sicily (fig.3). There, a large settlement of the

local Middle Bronze Age period, surrounded by a cemetery of rock-cut chamber tombs,

had access to two natural harbours suitable for small ships as they were protected from

the east winds (D' Agata 2000, 62). The site, almost an island, connected to the mainland

by a narrow spit, was probably inhabited since the local Early Bronze Age period as the

remains of the fortification walls along the harbour side indicate (Holloway 1981, 82).

The local Middle Bronze Age period is represented by the rock-cut chamber tombs first

excavated by P. Orsi and later by G. Voza and the more recently discovered settlement

17
(fig.4). Three occupational phases can be distinguished: a. 14th century: round-oval huts,

sometimes supplied with a rectangular room and delimited by pathways, b. 13th-12th

centuries: regularly laid out buildings with rectilinear streets, including two complexes -

A and B - consisting of a series of rooms which face a central court, and c. 10th-9th

centuries: new buildings "that tend to break up irregularly the ambitious planning of the

second" (Frederiksen 1976-77, 67).

The presence of Mycenaean pottery is traceable from the first phase of the Thapsos

culture (14th century) mainly in the material coming from the rock-cut tombs of the

Thapsos cemetery (Taylour 1958, 56-60; Voza 1973, 30-52).

Among hundreds tombs, over a dozen contained Mycenaean vases- usually only one

but occasionally more (i.e. tomb 2 contained three Mycenaean vases and tomb D nine)

(Harding 1984, 247). The Mycenaean pottery- dated to LHIIIA and B - constituted part of

the grave goods of the tombs along with bronze objects, ornaments, faience and amber

beads and local, Cypriote and Maltese pottery. It mainly consists of small closed vessels

(three-handled piriform jars and alabastra used for unguents and honey) and tableware

(small stirrup jars, truncated stemmed bowls and jugs used for perfumed oil) appropriates

for funerary use based on parallels from Mycenaean Greece (Leighton 1999, 172). Their

distribution is uneven: they appear in quantities in only few tombs, while in the majority

of tombs they are found in small numbers or are absent, an indication that production of

this material was controlled by few potters, closely connected with the elite and because

of that enjoying access to information on exotic pottery (D' Agata 2000, 79). Particularly

interesting is the discovery in tomb D of a set of Aegean-Mycenaean type tableware that

consists of a two-handled bowl, a kylix and a cup (D' Agata 2000, 78) (fig. 5). This

18
suggests a family group, which presented a mode of behaviour different to the socially

approved model of the period, as known through the material found in other tombs. The

presence of a family group is indicated by the fact that tomb D alone among all the

cemeteries of the same culture has yielded a set of Aegean-Mycenaean tableware and by

the absence of pedestal basins which are common in collective tombs. This has been

interpreted as an attempt to display a differentiation of status (D' Agata 2000, 78-79).

Because of the limited number of petrographic analyses of vases from Thapsos, there

is no proofs of local production of Mycenaean pottery (D' Agata 2000, 64), but Orsi has

interpreted a small jar with pointed handles from tomb 7 at Thapsos as a local imitation

of a Mycenaean three-handled piriform jar (Orsi 1895, 103). In addition, according to D'

Agata, among the vases found in Thapsos there are three ceramic groups of Aegean (if

not Mycenaean) origin: imported vases, imitations of Aegean vases and vases influenced

by Aegean pottery (D' Agata 2000, 63-64). Vases inspired or influenced by Mycenaean

pottery include local versions of deep bowls, piriform jars, cylindrical pyxis, dippers,

tubular spouted and narrow-necked incised jugs (Leighton 1999, 174).

The evidence from the settlement at Thapsos is very scanty. Fragments of Late

Helladic IIIA pottery have been found but nothing more is known (i.e. information about

their shapes and decorative motifs) (Wilson 1982, 88).

The small quantity of Mycenaean pottery discovered in the settlement in combination

with the restricted range of vessel types from the tombs has led some scholars to the

conclusion that Mycenaean pottery played the role of a prestige good connected with a

restricted number of potters closely related to the elite class (D' Agata 2000, 79). The

identification of poor and rich tombs by Orsi also points also to the presence of an elite

19
group (Tusa 1983, 400). The belief that the absence of those types of vases from the

settlement context means that those vases were so precious that they did not want to use

them in residential contexts contrasts with the discovery of the same type of pottery in the

site of Cannatello near Agrigento (De Miro 1999, 439-449, De Miro 1996, 995-1011 and

Castellana 1993-94, 48-57). Of course, they represent two different types of context but

at the same time they have many common elements (i.e. a Cypriot influence is diffused in

both these sites). Cannatello is a small village consisting of circular huts bounded by

circuit walls (De Miro 1999, 442). Among ca. 50 Mycenaean sherds of LHIIIA and B

period discovered in the huts only eight belong to open shapes. The rest were closed

vessels (piriform jars, small stirrup jars, alabastra and amphorae) (De Miro 1996, 998-

999). Petrographic analysis of a stirrup jar found in Cannatello proved its Central Cretan

origin (Day 1999, 66). Thus, it is obvious that in both the Thapsos cemetery and

Cannatello settlement the indigenous population adopted and used the same types of

Mycenaean closed vessels (three-handled piriform jars, stirrup jars and alabastra). The

contemporaneous use of the same vase types in Thapsos and Cannatello at first probably

indicates that the choice of those vases had more to do with the shapes of the vases than

with the commodities that they contained.

On the other hand both Thapsos and Cannatello were considered trading posts founded

by the "Mycenaeans" (Holloway 1981, 87 and De Miro 1999, 449) and is possible that

Thapsos served as a sheltered harbour on the route to the Gulf of Taranto or Lipari (Smith

1987, 142). The discovery of material from different regions (Mycenaean Greece, Cyprus

and Malta) there is perhaps indicative of their role as emporia, if these two sites did

participate actively in the international trade of the period. Their inhabitants may, in order

20
to communicate with other Mediterranean people, have adopted their code of

communication. This code was probably based on the use of a series of common vase

shapes, which had a symbolic function. Those vases were mainly small- and medium-

sized closed vessels (piriform jars, stirrup jars, amphorae and alabastra). Consequently,

the discovery of this type of vases at Thapsos and Cannatello would be the result of the

intention of their residents to be part of the Mediterranean culture.

Moreover, Thapsos may have functioned as a distribution centre for Mycenaean

artefacts. This is supported by the discovery of chamber tomb cemeteries with LH IIIA

and B pottery of the same type as that found at Thapsos, in the area to the west (50 km

from the coast): Floridia, Cozzo del Pantano, Matrensa and Buscemi (Bietti Sestieri 1988,

40-41).

After the end of the LHIIIB period, Mycenaean material from Sicily is very scarce and

mainly comes from the site of Pantalica, situated on a hill with defensive potential (Smith

1987, 143). The settlement hill is pierced by thousands (ca.5000) of chamber tombs,

many of which are regarded as clearly imitating the shape of the Mycenaean tholos tomb

(Bietti Sestieri 1988, 44). The manufacture of wheelmade pottery, the Mycenaean

building techniques used in the construction of the Pantalica anaktoron (a monumental

building divided into regular square and rectangular rooms, Bietti Sestieri 1988,44), the

local imitations of Mycenaean pottery (tubular-spouted jugs, cylindrical beakers, strainer

jugs and askoi Leighton 1985, 402) and the discovery of one Mycenaean jug from a tomb

at Pantalica (Vagnetti 1968, 132-135; recently Leighton (1999, 172) has argued that this

vase is earlier in date and locally made ) are indicative of the Mycenaean influence there.

Interestingly, however, no Mycenaean pottery has been found in the anaktoron. How can

21
this be explained? If this building was the residence of the local elite, the discovery of

large quantities of Mycenaean pottery might be expected. In contrast, not a single

Mycenaean sherd has been found.



22
 Aeolian islands

EBA LHI-II CAPO GRAZIANO

1600-1400 B.C.

MBA LHIIIA MILAZZESE

1400-1325 B.C.

LBA LHIIIB AUSONIO I

1325-1190 B.C.

1190-1325 B.C. LHIIIC AUSONIO II

Table III. The chronology of the Aeolian Islands during the Bronze Age period in

relation to Aegean Bronze Age chronology (after Smith 1987 table 1,3).

The Aeolian Islands (Salina, Volcano, Lipari, Stromboli, Panarea, Alicudi and

Filicudi) lie off the northeast coast of Sicily and they extend over 60 km. from east to

west (Holloway 1981, 58) (fig. 6). In these volcanic islands, Mycenaean sherds have been

found mainly in habitation contexts. Unique for the entire Bronze Age world is the case

of Lipari, which offers a long and secure stratigraphical occupation sequence of four

phases from Early to Late Bronze Age (Harding 1984, 250).

Lipari was known since the Neolithic times because of the obsidian sources there. The

contacts between Lipari and southern Greece probably started at the end of the Middle

Bronze Age period as the discovery of three MH sherds there proves (Taylour 1958, 16;

1980, 794). More intensive relationships started after the LHI period and lasted until

LHIIIC, as the Mycenaean pottery found there proves (Taylour 1958, 16-43; Taylour

1980, 794-817; and Cavalier and Vagnetti 1984, 143-154).

23
 In the Capo Graziano period, the village of Lipari consisted of oval huts with stone

foundations. Among the huts, one was considerably larger than the others. This hut was

connected with another smaller hut in which a great quantity of Mycenaean pottery was

found. The excavator Brea interpreted it as a sanctuary or as the chieftain's house

(Taylour 1958, 50) but nothing more has been said about this hut. The distribution of the

pottery is even: it appears in almost all the huts in small quantities. It consists mainly of

open vases (Vapheio cups, kylikes, pedestalled bowls and cups) and smaller quantities of

closed shapes (alabastra and jars) (Taylour 1958, 16-27). Consequently, drinking vessels

were the most frequent vase shape used there and among them the Vapheio cup was the

most popular shape (Taylour 1980, 816).

During the same period at Filicudi, another Aeolian island, matt-painted polychrome

pottery has been found, which presents similarities with the pottery found in the

Mycenaean Shaft Graves (Cavalier and Vagnetti 1984, 150).

In the next period (the Milazzese), the village at Lipari continued to consist of oval

huts. Mycenaean pottery has been found in contexts along with local, Apennine and

Sicilian pottery (Smith 1987, 71). The bulk of the Mycenaean pottery consisted of cups,

kylikes and jugs but some kraters and three-handled jars were present too (Taylour 1958,

27-37). In one of the oval huts (aIII), the discovery of a LHIIIA phi-shaped figurine led to

suggestions of the existence of a Mycenaean settlement there as its presence is usually

combined with Mycenaean burials and houses (Leighton 1999, 172). On some vases of

this period, appeared incised signs, known as potter's marks, which continued a tradition

started in the previous period (Holloway 1981, 70). They present many similarities with

the potter's marks found on Cycladic vases (Smith 1987, 31).

24
 During the mid-13th century, a violent destruction destroyed all the Milazzese

settlements. Only the settlement on the acropolis of Lipari was rebuilt. Sub-rectangular

timber-framed houses replaced the oval huts (Smith 1987, 74). Brea named the new

culture Ausonian and divided it into two periods: Ausonian I and II (Holloway 1981, 71).

The destruction has been attributed to the invasion of people from peninsular Italy (Bietti

Sestieri 1985, 126). The discovery of Sub-Apennine and Protovillanovan sherds (typical

of peninsular Italy) at Lipari supports this hypothesis (Holloway 1981, 71).

In Ausonian I levels Mycenaean sherds of LHIIIB and IIIC were found in association

with local imitations, grey wheel-made pottery and large cordoned pithoi, painted pottery

from Apulia and Sardinian pottery (Holloway 1981, 71). There was also evidence of

contacts with northeastern Sicily (the discovery of the pedestal bowl, Holloway 1981,

68). Mycenaean pottery consisted of kylikes, deep bowls and amphorae (Taylour 1958,

37-40). Consequently, there is an obvious change in the repertoire of Mycenaean shapes.

Now, the inhabitants of Lipari show a clear preference for closed vessels whilst in the

preceding periods they preferred drinking vessels. In addition, a decrease in the number

of Mycenaean imports can be observed which will be more obvious in the Ausonian II

period. Kraters and deep bowls would be the most popular shapes during this period

(Taylour 1958, 40-43). How can we explain this change in the "demand" for Mycenaean

vases? Does it have something to do with the arrival of Italian mainlanders?

As noted above, in the first two periods, the people of Lipari show a clear preference

for Mycenaean drinking vessels. This does not mean that the Liparians were drunkards or

that "Mycenaeans" were settled there (Taylour 1958, 50). Every object has a significance,

which derives from symbolically charged geographical distance (Helms 1988, 115). A

25
particular object acquires its possible significance at the time that its owner uses it.

Objects of great significance- are usually characterized as "prestige" items. As such, they

are closely related to a restricted group of people: the elite group. The Mycenaean

drinking vessels signal social identities or roles between people, as drinking is a social act

(Kiriatzi, Andreou, Dimitriadis, Kotsakis 1997, 366). However, at Lipari their wide

distribution among the population (Smith 1987, 128) does not support any relationship to

an existing social stratification. The same even distribution can be seen at the Milazzese

village of Panarea, where only one of the 20 huts lacked Mycenaean pottery (Holloway

1981, 70). Consequently, the preference for drinking vessels at Lipari has nothing to do

with the existence or not of an elite group. The change in "demand" during the last two

periods has been traditionally connected with the arrival of mainlanders. The newcomers

brought with them their culture. In this way, the active role of the local culture in the

adoption of new elements has received minor attention. The indigenous population has

been seen as a passive recipient of external influence. Internal changes should have led to

this change. Choice is closely related to need. Consequently, the change in choice must

have something to do with a change in the needs of the inhabitants of Lipari. For a reason

that is not clear they started storing goods. Thus, because of the lack of large vessels from

the local repertoire of shapes, they adopted Mycenaean storage vessels.

Lipari was well placed on the sea routes to the major West Central Mediterranean

metal sources was ideal (Smith 1987, 138). According to Holloway (1981, 67), the

"Mycenaeans" took advantage of the long-established trade networks in local products

(contacts between the Aeolian Islands, Sicily and Peninsular Italy) in which Lipari was

involved and founded there a transshipment centre (fig. 7). In this point it is obvious that

26
the so-called "Mycenaeans" are seen as the superpower of the period something like

England on the 19th century. Scholars in order to explain the facts uncritically use

contemporaneous examples as analogies for the past because there is not enough

evidence of what were the internal processes that led the people of Lipari or of other

Italian regions to adopt Mycenaean pottery.



27
 Phlegrean Islands

EBA LHI-II PROTOAPENNINE

1600-1400 B.C.

MBA LHIIIA APENNINE

1400-1325 B.C.

LBA LHIIIB SUBAPENNINE

1325-1190 B.C. (c.1300-1200 B.C.)

1190-1050 B.C. LHIIIC PROTOVILLANOVAN

(c.1200-1000 B.C.)

Table IV. The chronology of Peninsular Italy during the Bronze Age in relation to

Aegean Bronze Age chronology (after Smith 1987 table 1, 3).

The Phlegrean islands are a group of volcanic islands in the Gulf of Naples.

Mycenaean pottery has been found on two of these islands: Ischia and Vivara (fig. 8).

Vivara, an islet of 0.32 km2, which used to be joined with another island- Procida - in

antiquity, has 5 findspots of Mycenaean pottery (Punta d' Alaca, Punta di Mezzogiorno,

Punta Capitello, Punto L and Punto R, Cazella et al. 1982, 149) dated from the beginning

of the Late Bronze Age period until the beginning of LHIIIB. The interesting thing about

the site of Vivara is the contemporaneous occurrence of fine painted Mycenaean pottery

along with a considerable quantity of Mycenaean domestic pottery (Bietti Sestieri 1988,

26). The first contacts between Vivara and the "Mycenaeans" took place at Punta di

Mezzogiorno at the end of the Middle Bronze Age period. "The appearance of imported

ceramics, the presence of metal and the reduced contacts with the Aeolian Islands

28
together indicate the establishment of direct links with the Aegean, replacing the

cumbersome intermediation of Capo Graziano" (Tusa 1999, 172). During the second

phase of Protoapennine B at Vivara, Mycenaean pottery of LHIIA, IIB and IIIA1 at Punta

d' Alaca consisted of small and medium sized closed vessels and stirrup jars in and below

a disturbed context (Ridgway 1982, 66). According to Tusa (1999, 172), the site of Punta

d' Alaca played an important role to the maritime trade of the period because of its

position in the higher part of the islet, which facilitated the control of the sea. At the end

of the Protoapennine B period the site was abandoned and Punta Capitello took its place.

Punta Capitello was a typical Apennine settlement. Punta Capitello is the site where

Mycenaean pottery was first identified through the discovery of two sherds of LHII and

LHIIIA date respectively (Taylour 1958, 8). The bulk of the material comes from Punta

di Mezzogiorno and Punta d' Alaca. The repertoire of shapes is extremely rich (Panichelli

- Re 1994, 173-221 and Re 1994, 221-302) but also extremely fragmentary because of its

provenance from settlement contexts (Marazzi 1993, 335). Mycenaean pottery was found

mixed with local pottery. It includes painted, unpainted, and matt-painted wares.

Imported Local

Painted
Matt
Unpainted
Painted

Fine Heavy

Burnished Unburnished Coarse 29

 Fig. 9. Categories of Mycenaean pottery at Vivara (after Re 1993 fig.1, 332)

The study of the painted Mycenaean pottery proves that only 24 of 138 sherds

belonged to open vase forms and 109 to closed vases (Re 1994, 221-302). The pottery

consisted mainly of Vapheio and semiglobular cups, rounded and straight-sided alabastra,

squat jugs, piriform jars and jugs (Re 1994, 211). The most popular motif in the open

vases was the running spiral whilst in the closed ones, there was a great variety: sacral

ivy, rock pattern, joining semicircles and curved stripes (Panichelli and Re 1994, 214)

(fig.10).

Fig. 10 Repertoire of Mycenaean painted pottery found at Vivara (after Marazzi

1988, 18).

MH/LHI pottery was found only in Punta di Mezzogiorno. In the next LHII period, a

decrease in the number of Mycenaean imports is obvious. At the same time domestic

pottery was in use in both sites. Re distinguishes nine sub-classes of domestic pottery

based on fabric colour and texture, inclusions, surface finish and surface treatment (Re

1993, 331). Domestic pottery consisted mainly of medium or large semi-coarse

containers (Re 1994, 222) (fig. 11). The interesting thing about the domestic pottery is

30
that it has not been found exclusively in areas of specialized function. In contrast, it was

widely distributed over the whole island (Re 1994, 222). Based on the material, two

chronological phases can be distinguished: a. LHI-IIA and b. LHIIB-LHIIIA (Re 1993,

334). In the first phase, the people of Vivara seemed to use more drinking than storage

vases while in the second one they showed a clear preference for closed vases. As regards

the storage vessels, small sized ones contained perfume oil and unguents while big

containers were used for the storage of food or water (Marazzi 1999, 92). The chemical

analysis of the painted wares proved that at least two production centres were represented

at Vivara. There were two large clusters: Cluster A represents production at more than

one centre in the southern Peloponnese while Cluster B contains sherds from the

northeast and south Peloponnese (Jones 1994, 306). The domestic pottery was not of

uniform composition either. Some sherds can be linked to parts of the Peloponnese and

others seem to be of local manufacture (Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 131). Storage vessels

were probably needed for the products transported in them while drinking vessels might

have been used in gatherings to display social status. In addition, the contemporaneous

occurrence of Mycenaean domestic pottery is indicative of a close relationship, but not

necessarily of a Mycenaean presence there. According to Smith (1987, 143),

"Mycenaeans" were probably attracted to Vivara because of its position near the

metalliferous zone of Tuscany. In addition, Vivara offered a secure harbour for the ships

and so facilitated the transfer of metals from Tuscany.

There are strong affinities between the Mycenaean pottery from Vivara and that from

Lipari (Marazzi 1993, 336). Vivara and Lipari were closely connected long before the

arrival of "Mycenaeans" (Tusa 1999, 171). Vivara's proximity to the peninsular Italy

31
"…coincided with the firm establishment of the east - west axis which supplanted the

north - south one (Vivara - Aeolian islands)…" (Tusa 1999, 172).



32
 Sardinia

EBA LHI-LHII BONNANNARO

1600-1400 B.C.

MBA LHIIIA NURAGHIC

1400-1325 B.C.

LBA LHIIIB NURAGHIC

1325-1190 B.C.

1190-1050 B.C. LHIIIC NURAGHIC

Table V. The chronology of Sardinia during the Bronze Age in relation to Aegean

Bronze Age chronology (after Smith 1987 table1, 3).

In Sardinia, most of the sites where Mycenaean pottery has been found are located

close to the coast or not far from rivers (Vagnetti 1998, 285) (fig. 12). This facilitated the

transfer of the products from inland to the coastal sites and from coastal sites to the ships.

The bulk of the material is dated to LHIIIB and C and it comes from the site of Nuraghe

Antigori. "The Nuraghic fortress lies on a hill in the western side of the Gulf of Cagliari,

in the southern part of Sardinia. A massive circuit wall with some circular towers

encloses the top of the hill. Structures C, P, Q, N datable to the Late Bronze Age (Bronzo

Recente e Finale) yielded more than 50 Mycenaean sherds datable to LHIIIB and

LHIIIC" (Re 1998, 288). The majority of the Mycenaean material has been found in a

central square room where other evidence (a small lead double-axe of Mycenaean type

and a deep bowl) led the excavator, Ferrarese Ceruti, to the conclusion that this room

served as a Mycenaean shrine or cult centre (Ridgway 1982, 83 and Lo Schiavo 1985, 6).

33
The majority of scholars, however, identified it as a settlement because the evidence is

not sufficient to support Ferrarese Ceruti's statement. Mycenaean pottery seems to be

mainly of LHIIIB date and a great variety of shapes and origins are represented

(Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1987, 7-37 and Ferrarese Ceruti and Assorgia

1982, 167-176). The majority of the LHIIIB material belongs to stirrup jars, kylikes, open

mouthed bowls and closed vessels while the ones dated to LHIIIC belong to kraters,

stirrup jars and open vases. Consequently, the repertoire of shapes is more or less the

same for both these periods. A preference for closed vases is obvious. Except from

Mycenaean imports, pottery includes Cypriot (Vagnetti 1987, 17), Minoan (Pålsson

Hallager 1985, 300-302), coarse impasto with linear horizontal motifs (Vagnetti 1987,

20), grey wheel-made (Bergonzi 1985, 357), Mycenaean of local manufacture (Vagnetti

1987, 19) and many pithoi with impressed cordons (Vagnetti 1987, 21).

The chemical and petrographic analysis of the pottery from Nuraghe Antigori

demonstrated the existence of three different composition groups: Group I, wheel-made

impasto ware, Group II, material compatible with Chania (Crete), and Group III,

compatible with the northeastern Peloponnese (Jones 1994, 208). The ceramic analysis

also proved the movement of large pithoi- like those found at Ulu Burun and Cape

Gelidonya - from Crete and Cyprus to Sardinia (Jones and Day 1987, 257-270).

The variety of ceramic imports found at Antigori in combination with the evidence for

a metal trade (Gale and Stos-Gale 1989, 349-384) is indicative of the role that the site

may have played in the trade of this period. Probably it functioned as a distribution centre

of Mycenaean imports for the rest of the Sardinian sites, as "it gained access to the

interior by rivers and their valleys" (Smith 1987, 131).

34
 Calabria

The only site in Calabria that has yielded a considerable number of Mycenaean sherds

is Broglio di Trebisacce. It lies on a hill 1 km from the Ionian Sea and overlooks the plain

of Sybaris. Broglio has been continuously occupied from the Middle Bronze Age period

until the Iron Age (Bietti Sestieri 1984, 80). Mycenaean pottery appears in small

quantities in LHIIIA and increases gradually in the LHIIIB and LHIIIC periods (Vagnetti

1999, 143 and Vagnetti and Panichelli 1994, 373-413)). Some sherds present a very

strong LMIII affinity (Vagnetti 1984, 189-196). Only 3% of the Aegean style pottery is

imported, the rest is of local manufacture (Vagnetti 1994, 399). The imports are not

uniform in composition. They are associated with the Peloponnese, central Greece

(Boeotia and Locris) and Crete (Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 132). The highest

concentration of Mycenaean sherds has been observed in the excavation of Sector D

(Vagnetti 1994, 413). Closed vases include fine painted and mainly middle-sized plain

containers while open vases are limited to two examples (Vagnetti 1999, 143). A

preference for storage vases is obvious. According to Bergonzi (1985, 365) "This

widespread use of Aegean type pithoi must be connected with the adoption of storage

techniques of Aegean origin, but whether they can be linked to some kind of

intensification of the agricultural production, for instance with diffusion of tree crops

(…) we can not say for certain, owing to the scarcity of botanical data". The discovery of

great quantities of cordoned pithoi at Broglio points also to this direction. Big storage

rooms have not been found at Broglio (Bergonzi 1985, 365) however, with the exception

of two storage rooms reported by Vagnetti (1999, 149). The occurrence of cordoned

pithoi not only in Subapennine but also in Protovillanovan and Iron Age levels argues in

35
support of their local manufacture (Bergonzi 1985, 365). Indeed, petrographic analysis

conducted by L. Lazzarini and M. Mariottini proved that the pithoi were produced at

different centres around the coastal plain of Sybaris (Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 132). The

second local manufactured ware of Mycenaean type is the grey wheel-made pottery. Its

shapes can be compared both with Mycenaean vase shapes (mostly the open forms except

the carinated bowl) and with local impasto pottery shapes (Panichelli 1994, 408-410).

Interestingly while Mycenaean pottery consists mainly of closed storage vessels, the grey

wheel-made pottery consists of open tableware forms. Together they seem to fulfil the

functional range shown in the local impasto ware (Smith 1987, 160). This implies the

existence of a degree of organization and specialization between the different pottery

classes, in the sense that separate workshops were involved in the manufacture of

different categories of pottery in the same region. At Broglio, has also been found a

painted variety of ceramica grigia (grey wheel-made) which does not seem to have

parallels in Greece (Belardelli 1993, 349) (fig. 13).

The locally made Mycenaean pottery presents affinities with LH Greece and

postpalatial Crete (Vagnetti 1999, 144). Archeometric and archaeological studies indicate

that it is of Mycenaean style and technology (levigated buff clay, wheel-made and with

painted decoration, Vagnetti 1999, 143). The problem is who produced this kind of

pottery - local potters or specialized craftsmen from the Aegean? The fact that the

manufacture of this pottery required specialized knowledge and technology (selection of

suitable clay, its preparation and levigation, use of the fast wheel, painted decoration, the

use of high temperature kilns and the finishing of the surface with polishing and slip

(Vagnetti 1999, 148) led some scholars to the assumption that specialized artisans from

36
the Aegean were present at least at the beginning. However, nothing argues against the

possibility that local potters, after a long period of apprenticeship in Mycenaean Greece,

acquired the specific knowledge of manufacturing wheelmade vases. Broglio di

Trebisacce is the first place where Mycenaean cooking pottery has been studied in detail

(in Italy) and local production of Mycenaean-type pottery has been attested. These two

things make this site of considerable importance.



37
 Basilicata

The site of Termitito, which lies on a large terrace near Metaponto, flourished during

the Subapennine and Protovillanovan periods. There, large quantities of Mycenaean

pottery of high quality have been found (De Siena and Bianco 1982, 69-95 and De Siena

1986, 41-54), which is uniform both in fabric and in the use of patterns (Vagnetti and

Jones 1989, 338). It presents great affinities with LH and LMIII pottery as can be seen in

the range of shapes and decorative motifs. There seems to be a decrease in the number of

imports during the LHIIIB period in contrast with a remarkable increase in LHIIIC (De

Siena and Bianco 1982, 75). Kraters, deep and short goblets along with globular or

piriform two/three-handled jars and amphorae are the most popular ceramic shapes while

stirrup jars and alabastra are limited (De Siena and Bianco 1982, 76). The decoration of

the vases seems to indicate a kind of "Termitito style" as the preference for miniaturistic

patterns arranged in rows between thick bands does not suggest an exotic origin (Vagnetti

and Jones 1989, 338). French (1985, 297) recognizes special connections with Pylos (as

the kylix with the horizontal handle is a shape known only from there) and Crete/

Astypalea (as the small bowl and jar with one-sided patterns occur mainly there).

Chemical analysis does not indicate imports in Termitito as the majority of the analyzed

sherds (except two) were of local manufacture (Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 132). Probably

the vases were prized products in themselves and not for the products that they contained.

As Termitito might have been the most important centre in the region of Basilicata, it is

probable that it would need large vessels to cover the need of storing goods. The local

pottery did not cover this need and so the indigenous population tried to fulfil its needs

imitating Mycenaean storage vases.

38
 Apulia

Apulia is a region with many findspots of Mycenaean imported pottery. However, the

greatest quantity of Mycenaean pottery has been found at Scoglio del Tonno, which lies

on a promontory facing the Gulf of Taranto (fig. 14). The timespan covered is the entire

LHIII period (Harding 1984, 246). The excavation of the site, which took place during

1899 and 1900, revealed several rectangular timber huts and one larger timber-framed,

sub-rectangular building with a vestibule and a side apse (Building 2, Smith 1987, 131).

A large enclosure wall surrounded the settlement in the 13th century B.C. (Holloway

1981, 88). The bulk of the material has been catalogued by Taylour (1958, 81-137) and

Biancofiore (1963, 32-71). The largest concentration of Mycenaean sherds dates to

LHIIIA and consists mainly of closed vessels (three-handled jars, kraters and stirrup jars)

and in smaller quantities of pouring (jugs, flasks) and drinking (kylikes) vases (Taylour

1958, 82-88). In the following LHIIIB period, the number of imports decreases. Closed

vessels (large and medium-sized three-handled piriform jars, stirrup jars and kraters)

continue to predominate while pouring (jugs) and drinking (cups and kylikes) vases are

still limited (Taylour 1958, 88-108). The decrease of imports continues gradually in the

LHIIIC period when big containers continue to be the most popular shape (Taylour 1958,

102-114). Bergonzi (1985, 358) reports also the presence of Aegean cooking pots at the

site while Säflund (1939, 472-475) and Taylour (1958, 126) remarked on the occurrence

of grey wheel-made pottery in LHIIIC layers at Scoglio del Tonno. Consequently, in

Scoglio del Tonno as in the other two sites of peninsular Italy examined here, the

preference for Mycenaean storage vases is obvious. Thus, we can speak of a uniform

39
consumption pattern of Mycenaean imported pottery closely related to the situation in

Italy (the supposed intensification of agricultural production).

The predominance of three-handled piriform jars led Taylour to suggest that Scoglio

del Tonno was a Rhodian colony because this shape was particularly prevalent in Rhodes

(Taylour 1958, 128). Clay analysis of piriform jars from Rhodes however, showed that

the Rhodian examples originated in the Argolid (Jones and Mee 1978, 461-470).

According to Mountjoy (1993, 172), the preference of Rhodes and Scoglio del Tonno for

three-handled piriform jars is due to the fact that those jars were of a suitable size for the

transport of the particular commodities exported there. In addition, Pålsson Hallager

(1985, 296-300) identified as Minoan imports 12 of the 110 LHIII sherds that Taylour

published from Scoglio del Tonno. The great quantity of Mycenaean imports found at

Scoglio del Tonno in combination with the discovery of two Psi-shape figurines (LHIIIA)

and one local imitation (Taylour 1958, 115) led some scholars to support the existence of

a Mycenaean colony there. Nevertheless, this interpretation was based on a

reconstruction of the stratigraphy that has now proved to be wrong (Whitehouse 1973,

623). The problem was that following the report of Quagliati (the excavator of the site)

the Mycenaean material seemed to come from the upper level and thus be later than the

material found in the layer below (Holloway 1981, 88-89). In reality, it was

contemporaneous with the local Apennine material coming from the buildings. In

addition, the material found in the two other major sites of the region- Porto Perone and

Torre Castellucia -argues in support of their purely Italian origin, according to

Whitehouse (1973, 623). Both these sites produced Mycenaean pottery of the same type

40
as that found at Scoglio del Tonno along with fragments of ceramica grigia (Taylour

1958, 144-159).

Consequently, the evidence for the colonization of Scoglio del Tonno by the

"Mycenaeans" is very scanty. It may have been a major market place or some kind of

distribution centre for all the Aegean seafarers (Pålsson Hallager 1985, 300), based on the

ceramic analysis of sherds from Scoglio del Tonno, which proved the existence of

ceramic products of Rhodian, central Cretan and Peloponnese-type compositions (Jones

and Vagnetti 1991, 132).



41
 Chapter III: Discussion

The intensity of contacts between Italy and Mycenaean Greece and the sites where this

contact took place differ from period to period. This can be clearly seen in the

distribution maps of Mycenaean pottery in Italy constructed by Vagnetti (1999, 156-161)

(Appendix II). The re are two problems: a) Vagnetti does not make a distinction between

the Mycenaean imports and the local imitations of Mycenaean-style pottery and b) the

number of sites given is relative in the sense that is probable that more LHIIIB-C sites

have been excavated and for that reason seem to be more.

70
60 58,02
50
LHI-II
40 34,57 LHIIIA
30 LHIIIB
19,75 19,75 LHIIIB-C
20
10
0
Chronology

Fig. 15. Graph showing the distribution of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. The number
of sites is given in percentages (based on Vagnetti 1999, 156-161).

As is obvious from the maps, the "Mycenaeans" mainly established contacts with

coastal sites. Finds of Mycenaean pottery inland are isolated, small in quantity and

restricted mainly to the final phase of interaction (Smith 1987, 163). Consequently, the

contrast in the material culture of coastal and inland sites is obvious. Coastal sites

probably played the role of redistribution centres for inland sites but the absence of

42
buildings that may have functioned as storage rooms, argues against this probability. The

"Mycenaeans" took advantage of pre-existing local trade routes to facilitate the transfer

of their products. What was the nature of those settlements? The existence of Mycenaean

colonies in Italy is out of the question. The percentage of Mycenaean pottery there is too

low (rarely above 5% and usually much lower, Vagnetti 1999, 141). In addition, it is

always found mixed with local pottery. No Mycenaean settlement, layer or quarter has

been identified in Italy (Vagnetti and Jones 1989, 336).

The majority of the scholars tend to interpret the changes observed in the material

culture of Italy in terms of modern market forces. The increase in the number of sites

observed during the LHIIIA period, for example, has been considered a result of the

contemporaneous increase of Mycenaean power in the Mediterranean and the Aegean. At

the same way, the fact that the largest number of sites with Mycenaean pottery has been

recorded in the LHIIIB-C period was considered a result of the arrival in Italy of people

from Mainland Greece in combination with the more intense role played by Sardinia.

Those interpretations are products of the human habit to transfer models of the present to

the past. In reality, people should play the major role in the understanding of the changes

observed in the material culture because people create culture. People are the ones that

decide which types of vases they will adopt and use. They have the power of choice in

their hands and they use it according to their needs. Consequently, research should be

focused on people. People, whom at this point of their life, are "struggling" for their self-

identification and they use material culture to accomplish it. However the scarcity of

evidence about the internal changes, which took place in Italy during the Late Bronze

Age period, does not allow secure explanations.

43
 As regards the repertoire of shapes of the Mycenaean vases used in Italy, their range

differs from site to site. For example, in Lipari the majority of sherds belonged to

drinking vessels, but there were also storage and pouring vessels. In contrast, at Scoglio

del Tonno, a concentration on three-handled piriform jars and alabastra is obvious,

probably connected with trade in a specific commodity (Taylour 1958, 66).

In the LHI-II period, at Lipari and Vivara, the two sites where the greatest quantity of

Mycenaean pottery of this period have been found, a preference for drinking vases

(mainly Vapheio cups) is obvious (Appendix III). The acquisition and possession of

those vases would automatically assign a special status to their occupant. However, in

order to understand the demand for drinking vessels we should examine the social and

cultural conditions at Lipari and Vivara during this period. Those two regions were

closely related before the appearance of Mycenaean imports. According to Tusa (1999,

172), Lipari controlled the trade routes of the Tyrrhenian region while Vivara, at the

expense of links with Lipari, was in continuous contact with peninsular Italy. The arrival

of the Mycenaean imports at Lipari and Vivara corresponds to a great economic revival

there after the Eneolithic crisis caused by the collapse of demand for obsidian (Tusa

1999, 164). A degree of social differentiation and organization reflected in the

concentration of sites in defended positions and in the presence of one building larger

than the others, is obvious at both these sites (Holloway 1981, 61-62). Consequently, in

this period of the creation of social identities, Mycenaean drinking vessels offered the

appropriate mean for the display of social status. There is no proof of their restriction to

people of higher social status. In contrast, their distribution in the settlement of Lipari is

even, reflecting social competition. " The competing groups will try to show not that they

44
are different, but that they can consume more and in a more elaborate way" (Hamilakis

1995, 220).

Overall, from the beginning of the LHIIIA period until the end of the LHIIIC period, a

preference for closed vases is apparent in the majority of sites of southern Italy and of the

adjacent islands (fig.16). What was the reason for this preference? Were they interested

in the vases themselves or in their contents? Does this preference have a symbolic

meaning?

Many scholars believe that the main reason for this preference was the function of the

storage vases as containers. Taylour, for example, presenting the evidence from Scoglio

del Tonno, argues that the reason for the predominance of large three-handled piriform

jars there was that they were used in the trade of murex shells (1958, 135). Consequently,

he implied indirectly that they were interested in the commodity contained in the vase

and not in the vase itself. Nevertheless, the opposite view is favoured by the low

percentage of imports found at some sites in combination with the production of local

imitations of Aegean vases. If they were interested in the commodities contained in the

vases and not in the vases themselves, they would continue to import Mycenaean vases in

larger quantities and they would not manufacture imitations of them. Moreover, the lack

of evidence as regards the commodities contained in these vases complicates the

situation.

LHIIIA is the period of intensification of Mycenaean trade in the Western

Mediterranean. In order to transfer their products, the "Mycenaeans" used large storage

vases. These storage vases possess two basic characteristics: durability and

transportability. Due to that, they were appropriate for storage use and became popular

45
among the Italian population. The production of large cordoned pithoi (dolii) in

combination with a demand for medium-large sized Mycenaean storage vases argue in

support of Bergonzi's opinion that it can be connected with the adoption of storage

techniques of Aegean origin (1985, 365). The discovery of two storage rooms at Broglio

di Trebisacce (Vagnetti 1999, 144), the probable use of a hut attached to the so-called

chieftain's house at Lipari as a storage room (Taylour 1958, 50) and the occurrence of

two small semisubterranean circular silos attached to one large house at Punta d' Alaca

(Vivara) (Tusa 1999, 172) point in this direction.

Is it possible that they had a symbolic role? "A pot may mean that I, as the ancient

owner of this vessel, belong to this group and believe these things; that I have this level of

wealth, and this much status. I am also of a specific sex and perform these labours

defined by my sex, and this vase correlates with this sex and this status" (Strange 1989,

26). Storage vases - mainly two or three-handled piriform jars, alabastra, stirrup jars and

pithoi - were widely exchanged in the Mediterranean during this period. In a way, they

have been developed to symbols of the identity of the Mediterranean people. The

consumer of those vases had the opportunity of "developing a social identity founded on

common bases on the many shores of the Mediterranean" (D' Agata 2000, 64). "In each

society, a constant negotiation of roles and identities takes place, referring to kinship

relations, skills and authorities or gender, within the broad framework of the established

relations of social power" (Kiriatzi, Andreou, Dimitriadis, Kotsakis 1997, 366).

Consequently, in Italy where the situation - as it has been shown in Chapter I - was a bit

complicated, people probably used the Mycenaean pottery as a mean for the

establishment of their social identity.

46
 Who were the consumers of this pottery? Was the consumption of Mycenaean pottery

restricted to a certain group of people? An artefact during its consumption embodies the

whole production and distribution process (Hamilakis 1995, 185). Thus, the biography of

the thing is closely related to the biography of the man who consumes it. Consequently,

the study of the biography of the thing can gradually build the social identity of its

consumer. Mycenaean pottery in the majority of the sites has generally been found

equally distributed except in the case of the cemetery of Thapsos. There some tombs

contained more vases than others while some tombs did not contain Mycenaean vases at

all. This, in combination with the distinction of rich and poor tombs and the variation in

their size (from small groups with few tombs to large groups with several hundreds or

thousands tombs), indicated social differentiation and a hierarchical organization of

settlements (Bergonzi 1985, 361). Consequently, Mycenaean pottery with its elaborate

decoration was intended for a closely circumscribed social group of people (D' Agata

2000, 79). However, it is interesting that the same types of vases were consumed widely

in Cannatello. This is indicative of the different meaning that an object adopts in different

contexts. What in one area is considered a prestige object is in another just an item of

everyday use. However, we should always be careful when we assigning a label to an

object. What we today consider an object without meaning in antiquity it may have great

significance (Riley 1984, 61). "The distinction between humble commodities and more

exotic ones is thus not a difference in kind, but most often a difference in demand

overtime or, sometimes, a difference between loci of production and those of

consumption" (Appadurai 1986, 40).

47
 Why did they start to import Mycenaean vases and why did they later produce

imitations of those vases?

In traditional societies, foreign-derived goods had a symbolic significance because of

the geographical distance of the place where they were found from their country of origin

(Helms 1988, 80). In addition, the rarity of materials, the strangeness of the object and

the cunning of the craftsman or value increase the desire for a foreign item (Helms 1988,

118). Desire and need are the two major reasons that lead to consumption. They are

closely related and are both based on a feeling that something is missing. The

consumption of Mycenaean pottery in Italy is based on the desire and need of the

indigenous population for social and economical progress. The "proto-urban" character of

some settlements, in combination with the appearance of craft specialization (metals,

pottery, storage facilities), is indicative of the changes happening in Italy during the

second millennium B.C.. Within this framework of instability the Italians were open to

influences. This can be seen in the discovery of Mycenaean objects of different

provenance at the same site along with the prolonged contacts of some sites with Aegean

districts. However, this does not mean that they uncritically adopted foreign elements by

admitting that they were the products of a higher civilization. Moreover, they started

imitating Mycenaean pottery at the end of the LHIIIA period. Interestingly enough, the

number of imitations is larger than the one of imports, based on the known chemical and

petrographic analysis.

Who produced the locally made Mycenaean style vases? As has already been said, it

would be difficult- but not impossible - for the local potters to manufacture Mycenaean

style vases. As was natural, apart from the manufacture of Mycenaean vases, the foreign

48
derived pottery had an impact on local production too. The local potters started to

improve their techniques. Furthermore, they created two types of pottery influenced by

the Mycenaean tradition: ceramica grigia and dolii cordonati. The contact between the

small non - complex societies of Italy and the early states of Mycenaean Greece

accelerated the evolution of the former. The consumption of Mycenaean objects did not

create the social identity of the Italians, it just helped them to formulate it.



49
 Chapter IV: Conclusions

Local handmade and Mycenaean wheelmade pottery was objects of entirely different

meaning for the people of Southern Italy and the adjacent islands. Their different

meaning derives from the different contexts from which they come. It is also a result of

the different conditions of production, acquisition and consumption. The former was

something familiar and known. The latter was something new, an object unknown to the

majority of the population (at least at the beginning) and for that reason so attractive. The

quantitative relationship between local and imported pottery is not known because of the

weakly reported evidence. However, the conspicuous impact of Mycenaean pottery on

local production is indicative of the social changes happening in Italy during this period.

It was a period of "proto-urbanization" at least in Southern Italy and eastern Sicily, of

contacts with foreign countries and of technological intensification. All these led to

reorganization and re-negotiation of social boundaries and the social identity of Italians.

Individuals exercise choices over what they consume (Fine and Leopold 1993, 25).

Indeed, the indigenous population of Italy acted selectively as regards the consumption of

Mycenaean pottery. Goods are "a kind of tableau in which the meaning of this cultural

universe is written" (McCracken 1988, 133). They are like an advertisement of the

culture. The consumption of new objects can help a group to create a new definition of

itself and a revision of the cultural category to which it belongs (McCracken 1988, 135).

In that way, the Italian populations through the consumption of the Mycenaean pottery

tried to redefine their social identity and create a new image for themselves. They

followed the fashion of having in their possession Mycenaean vases but they managed to

retain their identity. Consequently, without denying the major role of Mycenaean pottery

50
(as a cultural component of outside origin) and of all other outside factors, cultural

change in Italy was basically a result of a series of processes which took place in its

different cultural units (Bietti Sestieri 1984, 59).



51
 APPENDIX I

Based on Vagnetti 1999, 157 and Bergonzi 1985, 371-374.

APULIA

1. Grotta Manacorra. Necropolis. LHI-II and LHIIIB.

(Peroni 1967, Smith 1987).

2. Molinella. Settlement. LHI-II.

(Puglisi 1948, Nava 1982)

3. Coppa Nevigata. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Puglisi 1975, Belardelli 1993)

4. Barletta. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

Unpublished.

5. Trani. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Lo Porto 1974, Vagnetti 1982).

6. Ripalta. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

7. Giovinazzo. Settlement and Necropolis. LHI-II.

(Lo Porto 1967).

8. Bari. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Lo Porto 1974)

9. Monopoli. Settlement. LHI-II, LHIIB and LHIIIB-C.

Unpublished.

10. Torre Santa Sabina. Settlement (LHIIIB-C) and Necropolis (LHIIIA)

(Lo Porto 1964, Smith 1987)

11. Torre Guaceto. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

52
(Marazzi and Tusa 1976)

12. Punta Le Terrare. Settlement. LHI-II and LHIIIA.

(Lo Porto 1968, 1970, 1974)

13. Oria. Necropolis? LHIIIB.

(Taylour 1958, Biancofiore 1963)

14. Roca Vecchia. Settlement. LHI-II and LHIIIB-C.

(Benzi and Graziadio 1996)

15. Otranto. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Cremonesi and Benzi 1982)

16. Leuca. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Benzi and Graziadio 1996)

17. Parabita. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Ciongoli 1986)

18. Porto Cesareo. Settlement. LHIIIA and LHIIIB-C.

(Lo Porto 1970)

19. Avetrana. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Biancofiore 1963)

20. Torre Casteluccia. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Taylour 1958, Peroni 1967)

21. Porto Perone/ Satyrion. Settlement. LHI-II, LHIIIB and LHIIIB-C.

(Lo Porto 1963, 1964)

22. Scoglio del Tonno. Settlement. LHIIIA-C.

(Taylour 1958, Biancofiore 1963, Pålsson Hallager 1985)

53
BASILICATA:

23. Cozzo Marziotta. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Gorgoglione 1986)

24. Toppo Daguzzo. Necropolis. LHIIIB-C.

(Cipolloni Sampò 1979, 1982)

25. Timarri. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Cipolonni Sampò 1979)

26. San Vito. Settlement. LHIIB-C.

(De Siena and Bianco 1982)

27. Termitito. Settlement. LHIIIA-C.

(De Siena and Bianco 1982, De Siena 1986)

CALABRIA:

28. Broglio di Trebisacce. Settlement. LHIIIA-C.

(Vagnetti 1984, Vagnetti and Panichelli 1994)

29. Francavilla. Settlement. LHIIIB.

(Vagnetti 1982b)

30. Torre Mordillo. Settlement. LHIIIA-C.

(Vagnetti 1982b, Bergonzi and Cardarelli 1982)

31. Capo Piccolo. Settlement. LHI-II.

(Vagnetti and Jones 1987)

32. Zambrone. Settlement. LHIIIA?

Unpublished.

33. Palmi. Undetermined. LHI-II.

54
(D' Agostino 1979, Genick 1996)

SICILY:

34. Molinello. Necropolis. LHIIIA

(Taylour 1958)

35. Pantalica. Necropolis. LHIIIB-C.

(Vagnetti 1968, Tusa 1983,)

36. Thapsos. Settlement and Necropolis. LHIIIA-C.

(Orsi 1895, Taylour 1958, Voza 1973, Tusa 1983)

37. Siracusa. Necropolis. LHIIIA

(Taylour 1958)

38. Floridia. Necropolis. LHIIIA.

(Orsi 1909, Taylour 1958)

39. Matrensa. Necropolis. LHIIIA.

(Taylour 1958)

40. Cozzo del Pantano. Necropolis. LHIIIA.

(Taylour 1958, Tusa 1983)

41. Buscemi. Necropolis. LHIIB.

(Taylour 1958)

42. Madre Chiesa. Settlement. LHIIIA.

(Castellana 1993-94)

43. Monte Grande. Cult place? LHI-II.

(Castellana 1993-94)

44. Cannatello. Settlement. LHIIIA, LHIIIB.

55
(Tusa 1983, De Miro 1996, De Miro 1999)

45. Agrigento. Necropolis. LHIIIA.

(Taylour 1958)

46. Milena. Settlement (LHIIIA) and Necropolis (LHIIIB-C)

(La Rosa 1982, Tusa 1983)

AEOLIAN ISLANDS:

47. Lipari. Settlement. LHI-IIIC.

(Taylour 1958, Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980)

48. Panarea. Settlement. LHI-IIB?

(Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968)

49. Salina. Settlement. LHIIIA.

(Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968)

50. Filicudi. Settlement. LHI-IIIA.

(Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1966, Cavalier and Vagnetti 1982)

51. Ustica. Settlement. LHIIIB-C?

(Tusa 1999)

CAMPANIA:

52. Praia. Settlement. LHIIIA?

(Bietti Sestieri 1984)

53. Sassano. Necropolis. LHI-II.

(Agostini, S., Di Santo, A. et al. 1996)

54. Polla. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Gastaldi and D' Agostino 1982)

56
55. Paestum. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Kilian 1969)

56. Eboli. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Schnapp- Gourbeillon 1982)

PHLEGREAN ISLANDS:

57. Ischia. Settlement. LHIIIA.

(Taylour 1958)

58. Vivara. Settlement. LHI-IIIA.

(Taylour 1958, Marazzi and Tusa 1994)

SARDINIA:

59. Antigori. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Ferrarese Ceruti and Assorgia 1982, Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1987)

60. Domu s' Orku. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Ferrarese Ceruti 1982)

61. Nora. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Rossignoli et al. 1994)

62. Monte Zara. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Ugas 1987)

63. Barumini. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Ferrarese Ceruti 1981,Vagnetti 1982)

64. Orroli. Settlement. LHIIIA.

(Lo Schiavo and Vagnetti 1993)

65. Tharros. Settlement. LHIIIA.

57
(Vagnetti 1982a)

66. Pozzomaggiore. Undetermined. LHIIIB-C.

(Jones and Day 1987, Lo Schiavo and Vagnetti 1986)

67. Orosei. Undetermined. LHIIIB.

(Lo Schiavo and Vagnetti 1980)

LAZIO:

68. Casale Nuovo. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Vagnetti and Jones 1992)

69. San Giovenale. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Vagnetti 1980, 1982e)

70. Luni sul Mignone. Settlement. LHIIIA? LHIIIB-C.

(Vagnetti 1982d, Östenberg 1967)

71. Monte Rovello. Settlement. LHIIB-C.

(Vagnetti 1982c, Biancofiore and Toti 1973)

72. Trezzano. Settlement. LHIIB-C.

(Vagnetti 1980)

73. Ancona. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Belardelli 1993)

74. Fratessina. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Bietti Sestieri 1981)

IL VENETO:

75. Villa Bartolomea. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Salzani 1988)

58
76. Fondo Paviani. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Vagnetti 1982f, Ridgway 1982)

77. Castello del Tartaro. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Vagnetti, L. and Bettelli M. 1997)

78. Montagnana. Settlement. LHIIIB-C.

(Belardelli 1993, Jones and Vagnetti 1991)



59
 APPENDIX II

LHI-II. Mycenaean vases from Lipari and Vivara.

60
LHIIIA. Mycenaean vases from Scoglio del Tonno, Broglio di Trebisacce, Lipari and

Thapsos.

61
LHIIIB. Mycenaean vases from Scoglio del Tonno, Antigori and Broglio di

Trebisacce.

62
LHIIIB-C. Mycenaean vases from Broglio di Trebisacce, Lipari and Antigori.

63
 APPENDIX III

LIPARI (based on Taylour 1958, 16-43 and Taylour 1980, 794-817):

Drinking vases: Storage vases:

LHI 3 cups LHI Hole mouth jar (FS

100?)

13 Vapheio cups 2 bowls

LHI or II 9 Vapheio cups LHI or II 9 alabastra

Pedestalled bowl or 11 closed vases not

kylix (FS 263?) otherwise

identifiable

5 cups

6 cups (FS 211)

LHII Cup LHII Palace style jar

2 kylikes alabastron

Vapheio cup bowl

Cup (FS 218) Closed vase not

otherwise

identifiable

64
 VIVARA (based on Panichelli and Re 1994, 173-221)

a. Punta d' Alaca:

Drinking vases: Storage vases:

LHI 2 Vapheio cups LHI Bowl

LHI/IIA 2 Vapheio cups LHI/IIA 4 closed vases and

one alabastron.

b. Punta di Mezzogiorno:

Drinking vases: Storage vases:

MH/LHI Hemispheric cup

(FS 211)

LHI 2 Vapheio cups LHI Closed vase

LHI/IIA Vapheio cup

c. Punto R:

Drinking vases:

LHI Vapheio Cup

LHIIA Hemispheric cup



65
 Abbreviations

AR Archaeological Reports

AJA American Journal of Archaeology

BAR British Archaeological Reports

BSA The Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens

BollArte Bollettino d' Arte

BPI Bulletino di Paletnologia Italiana

DialArch Dialoghi di Archeologia

JFA Journal of Field Archaeology

MH Middle Helladic

MonAnt Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei

LH Late Helladic

LM Late Minoan

SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici



66
 Bibliography

Agostini, S., Di Santo, A., Fabbri, F., Pellegrini, E., Piperno, M., Tagliacozzo, A. and

Vagnetti, L. 1996: "La Grotta del Pino: giacimento funerario del Bronzo medio nel Vallo

di Diano (Sassano, SA)", in Facchini, F. (eds.): Bronze Age in Europe and the

Mediterranean, Forlì, 475-6.

Appadurai, A. 1986: "Introduction: commodities and the politics of value", in

Appadurai, A (eds.): The Social life of things, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

3-63.

Belardelli, C. 1993: "Aegean-type pottery from Coppa Nevigata, Apulia", in Zerner,

C., Zerner, P. and Winder, J.: Wace and Blegen, Pottery as evidence for trade in the

Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the

American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, J. C. Gieben,

publisher, Amsterdam, 347-352.

Benzi, M. and Graziadio G.1996: "The last Mycenaeans in Italy? Late LHIIC pottery

from Punta Meliso, Leuca", SMEA XXXVIII, 95-138.

Bergonzi, G. 1985: "Southern Italy and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age:

Economic strategies and specialised craft products", in Malone, C. and Stoddart, S. (eds.),

Patterns in Italian Archaeology IV, vol.3, BAR International Series 245, Oxford, 355-

387.

Bernabò Brea, L. and Cavalier, M. 1966: "Ricerche paletnologiche nell' isola di

Filicudi (relazione preliminare)", BPI 75, 143-173.

Bernabò Brea, L. and Cavalier, M. 1968: Melingunìs-Lipàra, vol.3, Stazioni

preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli, Palermo, Flaccovio.

67
 Biancofiore, F. 1963: La civiltà Micenea nell' Italia Meridionale I: la ceramica,

Edizioni dell' Ateneo, Roma, Incunabula Graeca vol. IV.

Biancofiore, F. and Toti, O. 1973: Monte Rovello: testimonianze dei micenei nel

Lazio, Roma edizioni dell' Ateneo, Incunabula Graeca 53.

Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 1981: " Economy and Society in Italy between the late Bronze

Age and the early Iron Age", in Barker, G. and Hodges, R. (eds.): Archaeology and

Italian Society. Prehistoric, roman and Medieval studies. Papers in Italian Archaeology

II, BAR International Series 102, Oxford, 133-155.

Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 1984: "Central and Southern Italy in the Late Bronze Age", in

Hackens, T., Holloway, N. D. and Ross Holloway, R. (eds.): Crossroads of the

Mediterranean. Archaeologia Transatlantica II, Louvain de Neuve, Art and Archaeology

Pubblications, 55-122.

Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 1985: "Contact, exchange and conflict in the Italian Bronze Age:

The Mycenaeans on the Tyrrhenian coasts and islands", in Malone, C. and Stoddart, S.

(eds.), Patterns in Italian Archaeology IV, vol.3, BAR International Series 245, Oxford,

305-337.

Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 1988: "The "Mycenaean connection" and its impact on the

Central Mediterranean societies", DialArch. 6, numero 1, 23-51.

Castellana, G. 1993-4: "Notizia preliminare sui recenti ritrovamenti di materiali egeo-

micenei nel territorio Agrigentino", Kokalos XXXIX-Xl, tomo I (1), Atti dell' VIII

Congresso Internazionale di studi sulla Sicilia Antica, 48-57.

68
 Cavalier, M. and Vagnetti L 1982: "Filicudi (Messina)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna

Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia

della Magna Grecia, 136-138.

Cavalier, M. and Vagnetti L. 1984: "Materiali Micenei vecchi e nuovi dall' Acropoli di

Lipari", SMEA XXV, 143-154.

Cevoli, T. 2001: "Mycenaeans, the first Greeks in Italy", Corpus 28, 40-51.

Ciongoli, G. P. 1986: "Nuovi ritrovamenti a Parabita (Lecce)", in Marazzi, M., Tusa,

S. and Vagnetti, L.: Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo, Problemi storici e

documentazione archeologica, Atti del Convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e dicembre

1984), Instituto per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto, 99-102.

Cipolloni Sampò, M. 1979: "Il Bronzo Finale in Basilicata", in Atti della XXI Riunione

Scientifica dell' Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (1977), Firenze, 489-512.

Cipolloni Sampò, M. 1982: "Toppo Daguzzo (Rapolla, Potenza)", in Vagnetti, L.

(eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e

l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 99-102.

Cremonesi, G. and Benzi, M. D. L. 1982: "Otranto (Lecce)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.):

Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l'

archeologia della Magna Grecia, 55-59.

D' Agata, A.L. 2000: "Interactions between Aegean groups and local communities in

Sicily in the Bronze Age, the evidence from Pottery, SMEA XLII/1, 61-83.

D' Agostino, B.: "Il periodo del bronzo finale in Campania", in Atti della XXI Riunione

Scientifica dell' Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (1977), Firenze, 477-488.

69
 Day, P. M. 1999: “Petrographic Analysis of Ceramics from the shipwreck at Point

Iria”, in Phelps W., Lolos Y. and Vichos Y. (eds.): The Point Iria Wreck:

Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 B. C., Proceedings of the International

Conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998, Hellenic Institute of Marine

Archaeology: Athens, 59-76.

De Miro, E. 1996: "Recenti ritrovamenti micenei nell' Agrigento e il villaggio di

Cannatello", in De Miro, E., Godart, L. and Sacconi, A.: Atti e Memorie del secondo

congresso internazionale di Micenologia, vol.terzo, Roma-Napoli 14-20 Ottobre 1991,

Gruppo editoriale internazionale, Roma, Incunabula Graeca, vol. XCVIII,3, 995-1011.

De Miro, E. 1999: "Un emporio miceneo sulla costa sud della Sicilia", in La Rosa, V.,

Palermo, D. and Vagnetti, L.: ΕΠΙ ΠΟΝΤΟΝ ΠΛΑΖΟΜΕΝΟΙ, Simposio Italiano di Studi

Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma, 18-20

Febbraio 1998, Scuola Archaeologica Italiana di Atene, 439-449.

De Siena, A. 1986: "Termitito", in Marazzi, M., Tusa, S. and Vagnetti, L.: Traffici

Micenei nel Mediterraneo, Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, Atti del

Convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e dicembre 1984), Instituto per la storia e l'

archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto, 41-54.

De Siena, A. and Bianco, S. 1982a: "Termitito (Montalbano Ionico, Matera)",

Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto

per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 69-96.

70
 De Siena, A. and Bianco, S. 1982b: "San Vito (Pisticci, Matera)", Vagnetti, L. (eds.):

Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l'

archeologia della Magna Grecia, 97-98.

Ferrarese Ceruti, M. L. 1979: "Ceramica micenea in Sardegna (notizia preliminare)",

Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 34, 243-253.

Ferrarese Ceruti, M. L. 1981: "Documenti micenei nella Sardegna meridionale", in

Ichnussa: La Sardegna dalle origine all' età classica, Credito Italiano, Milano, 605-612.

Ferrarese Ceruti, M. L. 1982: "Nuraghe Domu S' Orku (Sarroch, Cagliari)", Vagnetti,

L. (eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la

storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 177-179.

Ferrarese Ceruti, M. L. and Assorgia R. 1982: "Il complesso nuragico di Antigori

(Sarroch, Cagliari)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi

documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 167-176.

Ferrarese Ceruti M. L, Vagnetti, L. and Lo Schiavo F. 1987: "Minoici, Micenei e

Ciprioti in Sardegna alla luce delle più recenti scoperte", in Balmuth, M. S.: Studies in

Sardinian Archaeology III, Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, BAR

International Series 387, 7-37.

Fine, B. and Leopold, E 1993: The World of Consumption, Routledge, London and

New York.

Frederiksen, M. W. 1977: "Archaeology in South Italy and Sicily, 1973-76", AR

1976-77, No. 23, 43-76.

71
 French, E. 1985: "The Mycenaean Spectrum", in Malone, C. and Stoddart, S. (eds.),

Patterns in Italian Archaeology IV, vol.3, BAR S 245, Oxford, 295-303.

Gale, N. H. and Stos-Gale Z. A. 1989: "Recent evidence for a possible Bronze Age

metal Trade Between Sardinia and the Aegean", in French, E. B. and Wardle, K. (eds.):

Problems in Greek Prehistory, Papers presented at the Centenary Conference of the

British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, published by Bristol

Classical Press, General editor: J. H. Betts, 349-384.

Gastaldi, P. and D' Agostino, B. 1982: "Grotta di Polla (Salerno)", in Vagnetti, L.

(eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e

l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 155-159.

Gorgoglione, M. A. 1986: "L' insediamento dell' eta del Bronzo di Cozzo Marziotta,

Palagiano, Taranto. Presenza di ceramica micenea", in Marazzi, M., Tusa, S. and

Vagnetti, L.: Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo, Problemi storici e documentazione

archeologica, Atti del Convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e dicembre 1984), Instituto

per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto, 23-25

Hamilakis, Y. 1995: Strategies for Survival and Strategies for Domination: Wine, Oil,

and "Social complexity" in Bronze Age Crete, Thesis submitted to the University of

Sheffield, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, for the degree of

doctor of Philosophy.

Harding, A. F. 1984: The Mycenaeans and Europe, London, Academic Press.

Helms, M. W. 1988: Ulysses' sail, An Ethnographic Odyssey of power, knowledge,

and geographical distance, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

72
 Hodder, I. 2000: "Symbolism, meaning and context", in Thomas, J. (eds.): Interpretive

Archaeology, A reader, Leicester University Press, London and New York, 86-96.

Holloway, C. R. R.1981: Italy and the Aegean, 3000-700 B. C., Louvain-la-Neuve-

Providence Crhode island.

Jones, R. E. 1986: "Chemical Analysis of Aegean type LBA pottery found in Italy", in

Marazzi, M., Tusa, S. and Vagnetti, L.: Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo, Problemi

storici e documentazione archeologica, Atti del Convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e

dicembre 1984), Instituto per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto, 205-

214.

Jones, R. E. 1994: "Chemical analysis of the Aegean Painted and Unpainted Wares

from Vivara", in Marazzi, M. and Tusa, S.: Ricerche di storia, epigrafia e archeologia

Mediterranea n.3, Vivara, centro commerciale mediterraneo dell' età del bronzo, vol.II.

Le tracce dei contatti con il mondo egeo (scavi 1976-1982), Bagatto Libri, Roma, 303-

316.

Jones, R. E. and Mee, C. 1978: "Spectrographic Analyses of Mycenaean Pottery from

Ialysos on Rhodes: Results and Implications", JFA 5, 461-470.

Jones, R. E. and Day, P. M. 1987: "Late Bronze Age Aegean and Cypriot-type pottery

of Sardinia: Identification of imports and local imitations by physico-chemical analysis",

in Balmuth, M. S.: Studies in Sardinian Archaeology III, Nuragic Sardinia and the

Mycenaean World, BAR International Series 387, 257-270.

Jones, R. E. and Vagnetti, L. 1991: "Traders and Craftsmen in the Central

Mediterranean: Archaeological evidence and archeometric research", in Gale N. H. (ed.):

73
Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean, Papers presented at the conference held at

Rewley house, Oxford in December 1989,Jonsered, Paul Åströms Förlag, 127-147.

Jones, R. E and. Vagnetti, L. 1992: "Traders and Craftsmen in the Central

Mediterranean: Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric research (An addendum)",

BSA 87, 231-235.

Jones, R. E., Lazzarini, L., Mariottini, M. and Orvini, E. 1994: "Appendice: Studio

minero-petrografico e chimico di ceramiche protostoriche da Broglio di Trebisacce

(Sibari)", in Peroni, P. and Trucco, F.: Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide, I, Broglio di

Trebisacce, Instituto per la Storia e l' archaeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto, 413-

454.

Kilian, K. 1969: "Neue funde zur vorgeschichte Paestum", Mitteilungen des

Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Roemische Abteilung 76, 333-349.

Kiriatzi, E., Andreou, S., Dimitriadis, S. and Kotsakis, K. 1997: “Co-existing

Traditions: Handmade and wheelmade pottery in Late Bronze Age Central Macedonia”,

in Laffineur R. and Betancourt P.P.: TEXNH, Craftsmen, craftswomen and craftsmanship

in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference,

Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996, Université de Liège, Histoire de l’ art

et archéologie de la Grèce antique, University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean

scripts and Prehistory, 361-368.

Kopytoff, I. 2000: "The cultural biography of things. Commoditization as Process", in

Thomas, J. (eds.): Interpretive Archaeology, A reader, Leicester University Press,

London and New York, 377-397.

74
 La Rosa, V. 1982: "Milena (Agrigento)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna Grecia e

mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia della

Magna Grecia, 127-129.

Leighton, R. 1985: "Evidence, Extent and Effects of Mycenaean contacts with South

East Sicily during the Late Bronze Age", in Malone, C. and Stoddart, S. (eds.), Patterns

in Italian Archaeology IV, vol.3, BAR International Series 245, Oxford, 399-412.

Leighton, R. 1999: Sicily before history, An archaeological survey from the

Palaeolithic to the Iron Age, Duckworth.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1963: "Leporano (Taranto): la stazione preistorica di Porto Perone",

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità (8th series) 17, 280-380.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1964: "Sepolcreto tardo-appenninico con ceramica micenea a S.

Sabina presso Brindisi, Boll Arte 48, 123-130.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1967: "Il "dolmen a galleria" di Giovinazzo", BPI 76, 137-173.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1968: "Una nuova stazione protostorica a Brindisi", in Atti della XI

riunione scientifica dell' istituto Italiano di preistoria e protostoria, 11 febbraio 1967,

Firenze, 99-101.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1970: " L' attivita archeologica in Puglia", in Atti del nono Convegno

di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 5-10 Ottobre 1969, Naples, 245-264.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1974: "L' attivita archeologica in Puglia", in Atti dell' tredicesimo

Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 1973, Naples, 413-422.

Lo Schiavo, F. 1985: "Sardinia and the Eastern Mediterranean", in Lo Schiavo, F.:

Nuraghic Sardinia in its Mediterranean setting: some recent advances, University of

Edinburgh, Department of Archaeology, Occasional paper no. 12, 6-7.

75
 Lo Schiavo, F and Vagnetti, L 1980: "Micenei in Sardegna?", Rendiconti Accademia

dei Lincei35, 371-393.

Lo Schiavo, F and Vagnetti, L. 1986: "Frammento di un vaso miceneo (?) da

Pozzomaggiore (SS)", in Marazzi, M., Tusa, S. and Vagnetti, L.: Traffici Micenei nel

Mediterraneo, Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, Atti del Convegno di

Palermo (11-12 maggio e dicembre 1984), Instituto per la storia e l' archeologia della

Magna Grecia, Taranto, 199-203.

Lo Schiavo, F and Vagnetti, L. 1993: "Alabastron miceneo dal Nuraghe Arrubiu di

Orroli (NU)", Rendiconti Accademia dei Lincei serie 9, 4, 121-148.

Marazzi, M. 1988: "La più antica marineria Micenea in Occidente. Dossier sulle rotte

commerciali nel basso Tirreno fino al golfo di Napoli nei secoli XVI-XV a. C.",

DialArch. 6 (1), 5-22.

Marazzi, M. 1993: "The early Aegean-Mycenaean presence in the Gulf of Naples: Past

and Recent discoveries", in Zerner, C., Zerner, P. and Winder, J.: Wace and Blegen,

Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989, Proceedings of the

International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,

December 2-3, 1989, J. C. Gieben, publisher, Amsterdam, 335-342.

Marazzi, M. 1999: "Manufatti di grande pregio", in Garofalo, C., Marazzi, M. and

Moccheggiani Carpano C.: "Vivara. Importanti ricerche e reperti sui fondali della piccola

isola che fronteggia la più famosa Procida", Mondo Sommerso XXXX, n.12, Editoriale

Olimpia, 90-95.

Marazzi, M. and Tusa, S. 1976: "Interralazioni dei centri siciliani e peninsulari durante

la penetrazione micenea", Sicilia Archaeologica 9, 49-90.

76
 Marazzi, M. and Tusa, S. 1979: "Die Mykenische Penetration im Westlichen

Mittelmeerraum. Probleme und Voraussetzungen bei der Gestaltung einer Forschung

über die italienischen und sizilianischen Handelszentren", Klio 61 (2), 309-351.

McCracken, G. 1988: Culture and Consumption, New approaches to the Symbolic

character of Consumer Goods and Activities, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and

Indianapolis.

Miller, D. 1985: Artefacts as Categories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mountjoy, P. 1993: Mycenaean pottery: An Introduction, Oxford University

Committee for Archaeology.

Nava, M. L. 1982: "Molinella (Vieste, Foggia)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna Grecia

e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia della

Magna Grecia, 43-44.

Orsi, P. 1895: "Thapsos", MonAnt 6, 88-150.

Orsi, P. 1909: "Floridia, sepolcreto siculo con vaso miceneo", Notizie degli scavi di

Antichità, 374-378.

Orton, C., Tyers, P. and Vince, A. 1993: Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Östenberg, C. E. 1967: Luni sul Mignone e problemi della preistoria d' Italia, Skrifter

Utgivna av Svenska institutet I Rom. Acta institutet I Romani Regni Sueciae 4o, 25,

Lund.

Pålsson Hallager, B. 1985: "Crete and Italy in the Late Bronze Age III Period", AJA

89, 293-305.

77
 Panichelli, S. and Re, L. 1994: "Ceramiche d' importazione egea di fabbrica fine a

pittura brillente e opaca", in Marazzi, M. and Tusa, S.: Ricerche di storia, epigrafia e

archeologia Mediterranea n.3, Vivara, centro commerciale mediterraneo dell' età del

bronzo, vol.II. Le tracce dei contatti con il mondo egeo (scavi 1976-1982), Bagatto Libri,

Roma, 173-221.

Peroni, R. 1967: Archaeologia della Puglia preistorica, De Luca, Rome.

Peroni, R. 1979: "From Bronze Age to Iron Age: economic, historical and social

considerations", in Ridgway, D. and Ridgway, F. (eds.): Italy before the Romans: the

Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan periods, London, Academic Press, 7-30.

Puglisi, S. M. 1948: "Le culture dei capannicoli sul promontorio Gargano", Mon Ant

40, 30-38.

Puglisi, S. M. 1953: "Noti preliminare sugli scavi nella Caverna dell' Erba

(Avetrana)", Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 8, 86-94.

Puglisi, S. M. 1975: "L' età bronzo nella Daunia", in Atti del colloquio Internazionale

de preistoria e protostoria della Daunia, Foggia, 24-29 Aprile 1973, Civilta preistoriche e

protostoriche dalla Daunia, Firenze, Istituto Italiano di preistoria e protoistoria, Parenti,

225-233.

Puglisi, S. M. 1982: "Coppa Nevigata (Manfredonia, Foggia)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.):

Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l'

archeologia della Magna Grecia, 45-51.

Re, L. 1993: "Early Mycenaean plain and coarse ware from Italy", in Zerner, C. ,

Zerner, P. and Winder, J.: Wace and Blegen, Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean

Bronze Age 1939-1989, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the

78
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, J. C. Gieben,

publisher, Amsterdam, 331-334.

Re, L. 1994: "Ceramica di fabbrica corrente di tradizione Mesoelladica e ceramica

corrente Micenea", in Marazzi, M. and Tusa, S.: Ricerche di storia, epigrafia e

archeologia Mediterranea n.3, Vivara, centro commerciale mediterraneo dell' età del

bronzo, vol.II. Le tracce dei contatti con il mondo egeo (scavi 1976-1982), Bagatto Libri,

Roma, 221-302.

Re, L. 1998: " A Catalog of Aegean Finds in Sardinia", in Balmuth, M. S. and Tykot,

R. H. (eds.): Sardinian and Aegean chronology, Towards the Resolution of Relative and

Absolute dating in the Mediterranean, Proceedings of the International Colloquium

"Sardinian Stratigraphy and Mediterranean chronology", Tufts University, Medford,

Massachusetts, March 17-19 1995, Studies in Sardinian Archaeology V, Oxbow books,

287-290.

Ridgway, D. 1982: "Archaeology in South Italy, 1977-1981", AR 1981-2, 28, 63-83.

Riley, J. A. 1984: "Pottery Analysis and the reconstruction of ancient exchange

systems", in Van der Leeuw, S. E. and Pritchard A. C. (eds.): The many dimensions of

pottery, Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, Amsterdam, 57-73.

Rossignoli, C., Lachin, M. T. and Bullo, S. 1994: "Nora III. Lo scavo. Area D

(macellum)", Quaderni della Sopritendenza Archeologica per le Provincie di Cagliari e

Oristano 11, 225-237.

Säflund, G. 1939: "Punta del Tonno: eine vorgriechische siedling bei Tarent", in

DRAGMA, Martino P. Nilsson Dedicatum, Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, Series

Altera I, 458-490.

79
 Salzani, L. 1988: "Villabartolomea. Fabbrica dei Soci", Quaderni di Archeologia del

Veneto, IV, 262-63.

Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. 1982: "Montedoro di Eboli (Salerno)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.):

Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l'

archeologia della Magna Grecia, 160-163.

Smith, T. 1987: Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean,

1600-1000 B. C., BAR International Series 371, Oxford.

Taylour, W. 1958: Mycenaean pottery in Italy and adjacent areas, Occasional

publications of the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

Taylour, W. 1980: "Aegean sherds found at Lipari", in Bernabò Brea, L. and Cavalier,

M.: Melingunìs Lipàra, vol. IV: L' Acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria, pubblicazioni del

Museo Eoliano di Lipari, Palermo, 791-817.

Tomkins, P. D. 2001: The Production, Circulation and Consumption of Ceramic

vessels at Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete, vol.1, Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D.,

Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.

Tusa, S. 1983: La Sicilia nella preistoria, Sellerio editore, Palermo.

Tusa, S. 1993: "The Bronze Age settlements at Vivara (Naples): The local context", in

Zerner, C., Zerner, P. and Winder, J.: Wace and Blegen, Pottery as evidence for trade in

the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989, Proceedings of the International Conference held at

the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, J. C. Gieben,

publisher, Amsterdam, 343-345.

Tusa, S. 1999: "Short term cultural dynamics within the Mediterranean", in Tykot, R.

H., Morter, J. and Robb J. E.: Social dynamics of the prehistoric Central Mediterranean,

80
vol.3, Accordia specialist studies on the Mediterranean, Accordia Research institute,

University of London, 149-183.

Ugas, G. 1987: "Indagini ed intervento dopo lo scavo lungo la SS 131 tra il Km. 15 e

il Km. 32. Breve notizia", Quaderni della Sopritendenza Archeologica per le Provincie di

Cagliari e Oristano 4(1), 117-128.

Vagnetti, L. 1968: "Un Vaso Miceneo da Pantalica", SMEA V, 132-135.

Vagnetti, L. 1980: "Mycenaean imports in central Italy", in Peruzzi, E.: The

Mycenaeans in early Latium, Roma edizioni dell' Ateneo and Bizarri, 151-167.

Vagnetti, L. 1982a: Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto,

Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia

Vagnetti, L. 1982b: "Quindici anni di studi e ricerche sulle relazioni tra il mondo Egeo

e l' Italia protostorica", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi

documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 9-40.

Vagnetti, L. 1982c: "Monte Rovello (Allumiere, Roma)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.):

Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l'

archeologia della Magna Grecia, 191.

Vagnetti, L. 1982d: "Luni sul Mignone (Blera, Viterbo), in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna

Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia

della Magna Grecia, 192-193.

Vagnetti, L. 1982e: "San Giovenale (Blera, Viterbo)", in Vagnetti, L. (eds.): Magna

Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e l' archeologia

della Magna Grecia, 194.

81
 Vagnetti, L. 1982f: "Fondo Paviani (Torretta di Legnago, Verona)", in Vagnetti, L.

(eds.): Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti, Taranto, Istituto per la storia e

l' archeologia della Magna Grecia, 208.

Vagnetti, L. 1984: "Ceramica Micenea e ceramica dipinta dell' età del Bronzo",

Ricerche sulla protoistoria della Sibaritide 3, Paleani Editrice, 164-184.

Vagnetti, L. 1993: "Mycenaean pottery in Italy: Fifty years of study", in Zerner, C. ,

Zerner, P. and Winder, J.: Wace and Blegen, Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean

Bronze Age 1939-1989, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the

American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, J. C. Gieben,

publisher, Amsterdam, 143-154.

Vagnetti, L. 1998: "Aegean Chronology Session: Introductory remarks", in Balmuth,

M. S. and Tykot, R. H. (eds.): Sardinian and Aegean chronology, Towards the Resolution

of Relative and Absolute dating in the Mediterranean, Proceedings of the International

Colloquium "Sardinian Stratigraphy and Mediterranean chronology", Tufts University,

Medford, Massachusetts, March 17-19 1995, Studies in Sardinian Archaeology V,

Oxbow books, 285-286.

Vagnetti, L. 1999: "Mycenaean pottery in the central Mediterranean: imports and local

production in their context", in Crieelaard, J. P., Stissi, V.and Jan van Wijngaarden, G.

Gieben, J. C.: The complex past of pottery: Production, circulation and consumption of

Mycenaean and Greek pottery (16th to early 15th centuries B. C.), Proceedings of the

ARCHON international conference, held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November 1996, J. C

Gieben, publisher Amsterdam, 137-161.

82
 Vagnetti, L. and Jones, R. E. 1987: "Frammento di ceramica micenea da Capo

Piccolo", Klearchos 113-116, 37-44.

Vagnetti, L. and Jones, R. E. 1989: "Towards the identification of local Mycenaean

Pottery in Italy", in French, E. B. and Wardle, K. (eds.): Problems in Greek Prehistory,

Papers presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at

Athens, Manchester, April 1986, published by Bristol Classical Press, General editor: J.

H. Betts, 335-348.

Vagnetti, L. and Panichelli, S. 1994: "Ceramica Micenea Importata e di produzione

Locale", in Peroni, P. and Trucco, F.: Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide, I, Broglio di

Trebisacce, Instituto per la Storia e l' archaeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto, 373-

413.

Vagnetti, L. and Bettelli, M. 1997: "Aspetti delle relazioni fra l' area egeo-micenea e l'

Italia settentrionale, in Bernabo Brea, L., Cardarelli, A. and Cremaschi, M.: Le

Terremare. La più antica civiltà padana, Catalogo della Mostra di Modena, Milano, 614-

620.

Voza, G. 1973: "Thapsos", in Pelagatti, P. and Voza, G.: Archaeologia nella Sicilia

Sud-orientale, Centre Jean Bérard, Napoli, 30-52.

Voza, G. 1999: Nel segno dell' antico, Archaeologia nel territorio di Siracusa,

Arnaldo Lombardi.

Wilson, R. J. A. 1982: "Archaeology in Sicily, 1977-81", AR 28 (1981-82), 84-105.



83
84