DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.15680#0105
THE POTTERY.
85
It is quite possible, of course, that in sorae places the above types continued
to be manufactured for tbe use of the dead after they bad ceased to be used
in daily life. But on tbe wbole I tbink we need
not besitate to make sorae chronological distinction
between tbe various cemeteries and Settlements of
the primitive period. Here at Pbylakopi we have
traces of a settlement füll of the saine sort of
pottery as tbe Paros torabs; if tbe settlement
corresponding to the neighbouring cemetery of
Pelos could be discovered,1 it is to be presumed
that it would not be of a more advanced type
than this. It will be seen in the next section Fig. 712(1:4).
that the most primitive kind of wäre at Phylakopi
is immediately succeeded by pottery like that of Pyrgos and Amorgos. For
instance, the vase Fig. 71, whicb was found on a higher part of the site, and
which is of less coarse fabric than the fragments from tbe trial trench, is of the
sarae form asa vase from Dokathismata in Amorgos ('Ec/j.'Ap^;. 1898,PI.IX. 21),
and the type is evidently a development of type 1. The points in which the
Phylakopi exainple chierly differs from tbe primitive type are the Hat rim
and the absence of any line of demarcation between neck and Shoulder.
§ 3.—Somc other Eai'ly Warcs.
The pc-ttery to be described in the following paragraphs was found in
great abundance in the trial trench in J 2, but not exclusively there ; it was
fairly common in other places also. It was a good deal mixed up with
the primitive wäre of § 2. Tbe latter, however, had the bottom layer
almost entirely to itself, disappoared at a lower level, and was not found
elsewhere on the site. It is probable, to judge by tbe evidence of accumula-
tiou, that some at least of the types of § 3 were in use at the same titue
as those of § 2; but it is ccrtain that they originated later and that
they lasted later.
The pottery in cpiestion is not at all a homogeneous collection. It was
found in a hopelessly shattered condition, and I have not attempted to do
more than pick out a certain number of characteristic details, such as form
points of comparison with other finds.
Among the fragments of large coarse wäre there were several that were
decorated with impressed patterns of zigzags, rows of triangles, and other simple
geometric Scheines. PI. XXXIV. 2 is from the rim of a pithos surrounded by
1 lt might be thought that Pelos was the
cemetery of the original inbabitants of
Phylakopi; it is more likely, however, that
there existeil another village on the slopes
above ■ the marshy plaiii of Palaeocliora
(perhaps at that date covered by water), anil
that the Phylakopi people, as in the Bllcceed-
ing period, buriedtheir dead intheimmediate
vioinity of the settlement.
- Light-colonred clay ; dark-brown coat,
hand-polished: two vertical suspension-
handlea ; rim Hat on top ; base flat.
85
It is quite possible, of course, that in sorae places the above types continued
to be manufactured for tbe use of the dead after they bad ceased to be used
in daily life. But on tbe wbole I tbink we need
not besitate to make sorae chronological distinction
between tbe various cemeteries and Settlements of
the primitive period. Here at Pbylakopi we have
traces of a settlement füll of the saine sort of
pottery as tbe Paros torabs; if tbe settlement
corresponding to the neighbouring cemetery of
Pelos could be discovered,1 it is to be presumed
that it would not be of a more advanced type
than this. It will be seen in the next section Fig. 712(1:4).
that the most primitive kind of wäre at Phylakopi
is immediately succeeded by pottery like that of Pyrgos and Amorgos. For
instance, the vase Fig. 71, whicb was found on a higher part of the site, and
which is of less coarse fabric than the fragments from tbe trial trench, is of the
sarae form asa vase from Dokathismata in Amorgos ('Ec/j.'Ap^;. 1898,PI.IX. 21),
and the type is evidently a development of type 1. The points in which the
Phylakopi exainple chierly differs from tbe primitive type are the Hat rim
and the absence of any line of demarcation between neck and Shoulder.
§ 3.—Somc other Eai'ly Warcs.
The pc-ttery to be described in the following paragraphs was found in
great abundance in the trial trench in J 2, but not exclusively there ; it was
fairly common in other places also. It was a good deal mixed up with
the primitive wäre of § 2. Tbe latter, however, had the bottom layer
almost entirely to itself, disappoared at a lower level, and was not found
elsewhere on the site. It is probable, to judge by tbe evidence of accumula-
tiou, that some at least of the types of § 3 were in use at the same titue
as those of § 2; but it is ccrtain that they originated later and that
they lasted later.
The pottery in cpiestion is not at all a homogeneous collection. It was
found in a hopelessly shattered condition, and I have not attempted to do
more than pick out a certain number of characteristic details, such as form
points of comparison with other finds.
Among the fragments of large coarse wäre there were several that were
decorated with impressed patterns of zigzags, rows of triangles, and other simple
geometric Scheines. PI. XXXIV. 2 is from the rim of a pithos surrounded by
1 lt might be thought that Pelos was the
cemetery of the original inbabitants of
Phylakopi; it is more likely, however, that
there existeil another village on the slopes
above ■ the marshy plaiii of Palaeocliora
(perhaps at that date covered by water), anil
that the Phylakopi people, as in the Bllcceed-
ing period, buriedtheir dead intheimmediate
vioinity of the settlement.
- Light-colonred clay ; dark-brown coat,
hand-polished: two vertical suspension-
handlea ; rim Hat on top ; base flat.