DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.15680#0104
84
C. C. EDGAR
There were also a great many fragments of open vessels, the shapes of
which coukl not be restored with certainty. Some had long horizontal suspen-
sion-handles below the rim; and in one or twocases the handleshadbeen left
unpierced. Many were unpolished and some of them bore marks of burning
on the outside; these probably belonged to cooking pots. Several of this class
had small holes pierced through their sides a little below the rim. There
were many specimens of what looked like the leg of a tripod vase ; in the best-
preserved instance, however, it was clearly not a leg but a handle (somewhat
like the lamp- and ladle-handles of the later period, e.g. PI. XXV. 7), and it
may be, therefore, that they all were handle.s.
This pottery, as has been already said, is of the same type as that which
is characteristic of the earlier class of cist-tombs. A cemetery only a few
miles south of Phylakopi, at a spot called Pelos, -has yielded a good deal of
very similar wäre (B.S.A. loc. cit.). Butit is to the researches of Mr. Tsonntas
that we owe the füllest and most interesting information about the pottery of
Fio. 09. Fig, 70.
Preiiistoric Vases from Pelos, illustrating tue Earliest kind of Pottery eound
at Phylakopi.
(Reproduced from B.S.A. Vol. III.)
the cist-tombs. Certain of the cemeteries which he explored, especially those of
Paros and the neighbouring islets, were characterized by the kind of pottery
under discussion ; in others, particularly those of Amorgos, the types were
different and more advanced (I leave out of account for the present the later
tombs of Syros and Siphnos which contained painted wäre). Further, the
pottery of the prehistoric settlement at Pyrgos in Paros was found to have
much more in common with the pottery of Amorgos than with that of the
Paros tombs. The types numbered above as 1, 2 and 3 are those which were
most characteristic of the tombs and most conspicuously absent in the settle-
ment. The conclusion to which Mr. Tsountas comes is that these types
were consecrated to sepulchral uses and that they do not, therefore, mark
the tombs in which they are found as earlier than the settlement of Pyrgos
and the tombs of Amorgos in which they are not found ('E<£. 'Ap%. 1898,
pp. ISO, 181).
C. C. EDGAR
There were also a great many fragments of open vessels, the shapes of
which coukl not be restored with certainty. Some had long horizontal suspen-
sion-handles below the rim; and in one or twocases the handleshadbeen left
unpierced. Many were unpolished and some of them bore marks of burning
on the outside; these probably belonged to cooking pots. Several of this class
had small holes pierced through their sides a little below the rim. There
were many specimens of what looked like the leg of a tripod vase ; in the best-
preserved instance, however, it was clearly not a leg but a handle (somewhat
like the lamp- and ladle-handles of the later period, e.g. PI. XXV. 7), and it
may be, therefore, that they all were handle.s.
This pottery, as has been already said, is of the same type as that which
is characteristic of the earlier class of cist-tombs. A cemetery only a few
miles south of Phylakopi, at a spot called Pelos, -has yielded a good deal of
very similar wäre (B.S.A. loc. cit.). Butit is to the researches of Mr. Tsonntas
that we owe the füllest and most interesting information about the pottery of
Fio. 09. Fig, 70.
Preiiistoric Vases from Pelos, illustrating tue Earliest kind of Pottery eound
at Phylakopi.
(Reproduced from B.S.A. Vol. III.)
the cist-tombs. Certain of the cemeteries which he explored, especially those of
Paros and the neighbouring islets, were characterized by the kind of pottery
under discussion ; in others, particularly those of Amorgos, the types were
different and more advanced (I leave out of account for the present the later
tombs of Syros and Siphnos which contained painted wäre). Further, the
pottery of the prehistoric settlement at Pyrgos in Paros was found to have
much more in common with the pottery of Amorgos than with that of the
Paros tombs. The types numbered above as 1, 2 and 3 are those which were
most characteristic of the tombs and most conspicuously absent in the settle-
ment. The conclusion to which Mr. Tsountas comes is that these types
were consecrated to sepulchral uses and that they do not, therefore, mark
the tombs in which they are found as earlier than the settlement of Pyrgos
and the tombs of Amorgos in which they are not found ('E<£. 'Ap%. 1898,
pp. ISO, 181).