Atkinson, Thomas [Mitarb.]
Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos — London, 1904

Seite: 164
Zitierlink: 
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/atkinson1904/0184
Lizenz: Creative Commons - Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Nutzung / Bestellung
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
164

C. C. EDGAR

As regard's the actual date (and not merely the chronological inter-
relätions) of the various classes of the Phylakopi pottery there is no need to
say much here. The establishment of dates for Aegean pottery depends
almost entirely on the conjunct discovery of dated Egyptian or Babylonian
objects, and no such discovery occurred in Melos. There is good hope, how-
ever, that the Cnossos excavations will furnish some reasonably close dates
for the Cretan fabrics, from which one will be able to work back to the
pottery of the Cyclades. One aid towards this task is already provided by
the Kamäres wäre found at Phylakopi.

§ 20.— Conclusion.

There is still one point on which I feel it necessary to make some
remarks before finishing, as it has an important bearing on the general
character of the lind. As for the wider ' Mycenaean questions' in which
the Phylakopi pottery is implicated I must leave them to others and trust
that the material published in this volume will be found serviceable.

It has been assumed throughout the present chapter that the bulk of
the pottery discussed is of local provenance, by which I mean made either
at Phylakopi or at some clay-bed within a reasonable distance. It is of
course possible that the clay was brought from Siphnos or some other source
and the pottery made at Phylakopi; but, as clay exists in Melos, it is more
probable that this was utilized. It might be thought again that such articles
as drains and well-linings, and in fact all the coarse unpainted wäre, were
made on the spot and that the better vases were imported from else-
where; but it only needs a brief glance at the actual finds to see that
the painted vases and the kitchen wäre are unmistakably of the same fabric.
We must either admit that there was a local mamifacture of painted
wäre or we must suppose that all the pottery used in the settlement
was brought from a considerable distance. This is not only improbable
from a general point of view but is at variance with what we have learned
from other finds. Such evidence as we have goes to show that the early
Aegean Settlements had their own special fabrics and did not import their
pottery ready-made from one or two common centres. The geometric wäre of
Syros for instance is quite easily distinguished from that of Melos, while neither
of them is at all like the contemporary pottery found in Aegina. The
Santorini vases again, though closely akin to ours, are not of the same
fabric. Many of the forms and some of the patterns are identical, but the
clay has a different appearance and the style is coarser. There are indeed
one or two fragments among them which it would be difficult to distinguish
from the Phylakopi pottery, but these may very well have been imported
from Melos. It is probable that in the early Mycenaean period Phylakopi
was one of the most important places in the Cyclades owing to its position
with regard to Crete and that it exercised some influence on the arts of the
surrounding region. Though eveiy settlement of any pretensions probably
loading ...