MYCENAEAN AND CYPRIOT LATE BRONZE AGE CERAMIC IMPORTS TO KOMMOS: An Investigation by Neutron Activation Analysis Author(s): Jonathan E. Tomlinson, Jeremy B. Rutter and Sandra M. A. Hoffmann Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 79, No. 2 (April-June 2010), pp. 191-231 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835485 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 10:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:14:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HESPERIA 79 (2010) MYCENAEAN AND Pages IÇI-2JI CYPRIOT LATE BRONZE AGE CERAMIC IMPORTS TO KOMMOS An Investigation by Neutron Activation Analysis ABSTRACT The resultsof a small-scaleprogram of neutronactivation analysis of 69 ceramicfragments from the Minoan harbortown of Kommos are presented andcritically evaluated. Prior to analysis,the vessels represented in the sample werethought to be importsfrom outside of Crete,manufactured either on Cyprusor in theMycenaean cultural sphere. The chemicalanalyses support theidentifications of thevessels as importsfrom the regions in questionin roughly80% ofthe cases. They further suggest that the vast majority of these ceramicimports were produced in a comparativelysmall number of produc- tioncenters. INTRODUCTION The Minoan harbortown known by the modernname of Kommosis lo- catedon Crete'ssouth-central coast, just to thenorth of the Hellenistic and Romanharbor of Mátala.1 The sitewas excavatedfor a totalof 15 seasons, from1976 to 1985 and againfrom 1991 to 1995,by an internationalteam directedby J. W. Shaw of theUniversity of Toronto under the auspicesof theAmerican School of Classical Studiesat Athens.The resultsof these excavationshave been publishedover the past two decades in a seriesof fivevolumes (one in twoparts, for a totalof sixseparate books), and a final 1. The authorswould like to thank Josephand Maria Shaw,codirectors Pfaffand havebeen reformatted for theeditor of Hesperia as wellas Priscilla ofthe Kommos Excavations and co- thispublication by Tina Ross.The Keswaniand thetwo anonymous Hes- editorsof the associated publications. photographswere taken by Taylor periareviewers for numerous helpful Forsuggesting the collaboration that Dabney. suggestions,including the recommen- has resultedin thisarticle, we owe a The contributionsof the authors dationto add illustrativematerial. For specialnote of thanks to Elizabeth areas follows:the opening sections, activeencouragement throughout the French.For successfully locating and discussion,and conclusionswere writ- extendedpublication process, especially makingavailable the relevant Kommos tenby Jeremy Rutter, the section on forthe latest versions of the site plans analyticaldata in Manchesterlong chemicalanalysis by Sandra Hoffmann, (Figs. 1,2) and thefinancial support afterthe analyses were run, we are and thesections on statisticalanalysis to publishthe second of these in color, verygrateful to John Prag. The draw- and resultsby Jonathan Tomlinson. we gratefullyacknowledge our debt to ingswere initially prepared by Julia © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:14:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [Ç2 J. E. TOMLINSON, J. B. RUTTER, AND S. M. A. HOFFMANN 0 5 10 15 20 25 m - 1. Site of Kommos. Josephw.shaw giuliana bianco 2010 Figure plan G. Bianco.Courtesy J. W. Shaw This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:14:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LATE BRONZE AGE CERAMIC IMPORTS TO KOMMOS 193 Figure2. Periodplan ofthe South- volumein two parts is currentlyinpreparation.2 The purposeof the present ernArea at identified Kommos, articleis to reporton theresults of a proveniencestudy of Late Bronze in Figure 1 as the Greek Sanctuary. ceramics to tothe site. Neutron activation G. Bianco.Courtesy J.W. Shaw Age thought representimports analysis(NAA) wasundertaken in orderto assessthis possibility. Excavationsatthe site were concentrated inthree distinct sectors, from northto south,the Hilltop, Central Hillside, and SouthernArea (Fig. 1, inwhich the Southern Area is labeled"Greek Sanctuary")- In the first two sectorsthe remains dated exclusively from the Final Neolithic and Bronze Ageeras, between approximately 3500 and 1200 b.c. In theSouthern Area (Fig.2) theprehistoric remains were overlaid, after an apparentoccupa- tionalhiatus of roughly a century, by an extra-urbansanctuary that was in continuoususe from the endof the Bronze 1100 until 2. KommosI-V. In preparationare very Age (ca. b.c.) Shawand Shaw,forthcoming, and Rut- RomanImperial times. The periodmost abundantly represented at the ter,forthcoming. siteis theLate BronzeAge (LBA), or Late Minoan(LM) era,to which This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:14:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 194 J- E- TOMLINSON, J. B. RUTTER, AND S. M. A. HOFFMANN a substantialnumber of residential buildings in theHilltop and Central Hillsidesectors belong. In theSouthern Area a seriesof LM monumental structures(BuildingT below Buildings N andP) lieto the south of a major east-westroad, on thenorth side of which is a particularlywell-appointed domesticbuilding (House X) thatincorporated a shrine during its later phasesof use. IMPORTEDPOTTERY AT LATEBRONZE AGE KOMMOS Duringthe four-century span of the Late BronzeAge, Kommos enjoyed an exceptionalrange of contacts, as attestedby the presence of imported ceramics,with regions both within and beyond the Aegean.3 At thetime ofwriting, vessels originating from the Greek mainland, at least two west- ernAegean islands (Kythera and Melos, possibly also Naxos and Thera), southwesternAnatolia, Sardinia, Egypt, various locales along the Syro- Palestiniancoast, Cyprus, and possibly portions of central Anatolia have beenrecognized. This extraordinary body of evidence for maritime contacts withregions of the Mediterranean outside of Crete shows that Kommos was a uniquelywell-connected trading emporium.4 It was one ofa small numberof sites throughout the eastern Mediterranean that functioned as majornodes of intercultural exchange during an era of increasingly intense culturalinteraction, especially between ca. 1450and 1200 b.c. These sites includeEnkomi, Kition, and Hala SultanTekke on the southcoast of Cyprus,Ras Shamraand its port at Minetel-Beida in coastalSyria, Tell AbuHawam at thenorth end of the Carmel Ridge in Israel,and perhaps alsoTroy and Tiryns within the Aegean. Althoughthe external contacts of Kommos were already impressive priorto theend ofthe Neopalatial era, ca. 1450 b.c.,when it probably servedas theprincipal port of entry for goods entering the polity controlled fromeither Phaistos (in Protopalatialtimes) or AyiaTriada (from the developedLM IA phaseuntil near the end of LM IB),5the site reached itsacme as an entrepôtin LM II-LM IIIA2 Early,ca. 1450-1375b.c. Duringthis relatively brief interval of two to threegenerations, when the siteof Knossoswas hometo theonly known functioning palace center on Crete,Kommos served as theprincipal southern port of the Knossian administration.This roleno doubtaccounts for the factthat the only EgyptianNew Kingdom ceramic containers known from the Aegean come fromKommos and were recovered from strata datable between 1500/1475 and1375/1350 b.c. 3. The principalpublications of duringthe LBA areextremely rare, ofthis site has unfortunatelybeen lost ceramicimports to Late Minoan arguablybeing limited to Troy in the to archaeologicalexploration due to the Kommoshave been Watrous 1985; northeastand Tiryns in thesouthwest, moderndevelopment of the harbor at KommosIII, pp. 149-183; Cline 1994, butin thecase ofthe latter, they are Herakleion. esp.p. 106; Knappand Cherry1994, evidentonly from the LH IIIA through 5. Fora convenientchart laying out pp. 138-141; Rutter1999, 2006b. The earlyLH IIIC phases,ca. 1400 through developmentsat thesite of Kommos lastof these offers the most up-to-date 1150 b.c. withinthe broader context of events andwide-ranging overview of the evi- 4. The northernharbor of Knossos throughoutthe Mesara plain of south- dence.Other Aegean sites with com- at Poros-Katsamba was almostcertainly ernCrete during the Bronze Age, see parablywidespread external contacts as wellconnected as Kommos,but most Shaw2006, pp. 866-871,table 5:1. This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:14:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LATE BRONZE AGE CERAMIC IMPORTS TO KOMMOS 195 Despitethe wealth of importedceramics from Kommos identified alreadyby Watrous in his 1992 publicationof the site'sLBA pottery, onlya smallselection of these imports had been specifically targeted for petrologicaland trace-elementanalyses prior to 1995.6Up