image/svg+xml
217
XII/2/2021
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of
Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
Anthi Balitsari
1*
1
Fonds de la Recherche Scientifque -FNRS, Université catholique de Louvain, Place Blaise Pascal 1, bte L3.03.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
1. Introduction
Grey Minyan is considered an emblematic ceramic class of
the Middle Helladic (hereafter MH) period (ca. 2100–1700
BCE) in mainland Greece. It is a ceramic tradition particularly
related to central Greece, mainly Boeotia, where it was
frst recognised by H. Schliemann, during the Orchomenos
excavations back in the 19
th
century, and named after the
mythical king Minyas (Sarri, 2010a, pp.55–56). Because
of the radical changes that took place in the material record
towards the end of the Early Helladic (hereafter EH) period,
which are traditionally described in terms of backwardness,
Grey Minyan was not simply considered as a new ceramic
trend of tablewares but as a product of the new population
that had just arrived, the frst ancestors of the Greeks,
according to the cultural-historical approach (Blegen, 1928;
Haley, 1928; Caskey, 1960; Syriopoulos, 1994, pp.771–775;
for a latest overview of the matter, see also Dickinson, 2016).
Although the MH material excavated at Orchomenos had to
wait for a century to be fully published (Sarri, 2010a), the
characteristics of Grey Minyan as frst described in some
detail by E. J. Forsdyke, namely the use of fne clay pastes,
the grey colour throughout the section due to the reduction
fring, the nicely burnished surfaces with the so-called
“soapy texture”, and the systematic use of the potter’s wheel,
became archetypical (Forsdyke, 1914, pp.129–130; Wace
and Blegen, 1916–1918, pp.180–181). Consequently, any
variation observed that could not ft into the above criteria
-especially in terms of the use of the potter’s wheel – was
considered to represent an inferior product, an imitation of
the “True Grey Minyan” (Zerner, 1993, p.43; Sarri, 2010b).
Modern research though emphasises that regionalism was
a signifcant component of the MH culture, with variability
being particularly expressed in ceramics (Rutter, 2007, p.36;
Voutsaki, 2010, p.100), something that could explain the
inability to produce a uniform nomenclature, the necessity
of which has been recently proposed (Gauss and Lindblom,
2017). Therefore, any distinction made between a classic
example of quality and a less carelessly made “replica”
seems arbitrary and pointless. Common interregional
cultural traits did exist, and the production of well-burnished
eating and drinking pots fred in a reducing atmosphere
Volume XII ● Issue 2/2021 ● Pages 217–233
*Corresponding author. E-mail: anthoula.balitsari@uclouvain.be
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 15
th
January 2021
Accepted: 17
th
July 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2021.2.8
Key words:
the Argolid
Attica
Middle Helladic
Grey Burnished
potter’s wheel
wheel-fashioning methods
handmade
ABSTRACT
The Middle Helladic Grey Minyan ware is usually assigned with archetypical features, including the
systematic use of the potter’s wheel. However, because of the signifcant variation observed, terms
such as “True Grey Minyan” and “Imitations of Grey Minyan” were commonly applied in order to
emphasise the diferences, which, nonetheless were never systematically analysed. The main subject of
the present paper is to highlight the diferences existing in the potting traditions of Grey Minyan in two
nearby regions, namely the Argolid and Attica, which seem to belong to diferent cultural spheres, given
the divergence observed especially in the shape repertoire. The identifcation of diferent production
and consumption practices is obviously related to diferent cultural phenomena, as evidenced through
(a) the production of similar wheel-fashioned and hand-built Grey Minyan shapes in Attica, and (b)
the introduction of foreign potting traditions, namely wheel-fashioned Grey Minyan pots, which are
completely alien to the local, handmade ceramics of the Argolid.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
218
Figure 1.
Distribution of main MH sites in the Argive plain (the Argolid);
sites discussed in text are indicated with capital letters (map created by
A. Balitsari).
Figure 2.
Distribution of main MH sites in Attica; sites discussed in text are
indicated with capital letters (map created by A. Balitsari).
was one of them, shared by many subregions of the Greek
mainland. However, the production of Grey Minyan was not
necessarily a routine only done one way.
The main subject of this paper is to provide a preliminary
overview of the diferences existing in the potting traditions
of two nearby regions, namely the Argolid and Attica
Figure 3.
Typical shapes of GB from the Argolid and Attica (drawings by A. Balitsari and Y. Nakas).
(Figures 1–2), with special emphasis placed on the use of
the potter’s wheel for the production of Grey Minyan, which
will be here preferably called Grey Burnished (hereafter GB)
0 20 km
0 5 km
0 5 cm
0 5 cm
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
219
(see also Balitsari, 2019, p.481)
1
. Although the study of the
potter’s wheel in the preceding EH II–III (ca. 3100–2200/2100
BCE) period has made signifcant progress (Choleva, 2012;
2018; 2020), the use of this tool in the MH period has not
yet been satisfactorily explored, despite the crucial role of
this era for the technological developments attested during
the Late Helladic (hereafter LH) period, when the potter’s
wheel was assumed to be more systematically used for the
production of Mycenaean ware (Prillwitz, 2020), although
detailed studies of forming techniques were largely lacking
(Berg, 2013) and have only recently appeared (Rutter, 2017;
Choleva
et al.
, 2020).
The present analysis is focused on the Argolid and Attica
because they seem to belong to diferent cultural spheres,
as is easily observed through the diferences expressed in
their preferred wares, as well as in the shape repertoire of
the GB of each area (Figure 3). In brief, NE Peloponnese,
including the Argolid, is characterised by greater variation
in the surface treatment of their ceramics, with painted
wares prevailing, while plain burnished pottery is much
more common in central Greece, including Attica (Philippa-
Touchais and Balitsari, 2020). These variations are apparently
related to diferent eating and drinking practices. However,
further substantial diferences in the material record cannot
be established, because of (a) poor preservation of the MH
remains, (b) the preliminary and often short character of
many publications, and (c) the lack of systematic research
of the Middle Bronze Age in the Greek mainland, which is
less appealing compared to other periods and areas of the
Bronze Age Aegean, like the synchronous Middle Minoan
civilization.
2. Methodology, aims & theory
The present analysis is of a preliminary character, and the
ultimate goal is not to provide a detailed map with specifc
chaînes opératoires
attested to in the GB pottery, but to
approach statistically the relative percentages of handmade
and wheel-thrown or wheel-fashioned GB pots per site
and region. Taking into consideration the socio-technical
1
The attributive MH (
i.e.
MH Grey Burnished) could be used to avoid
confusion, when also dealing with other grey wares of the Aegean, like the
Anatolian grey ware (Pavúk, 2007).
requirements of a specialised manufacturing process (Roux,
2016, pp.101–103), such as the adoption of the potter’s
wheel, the emerging pattern(s) can thus be used, frstly, as
a starting point for future and more detailed studies, and
secondly and more importantly, to challenge traditional
approaches, according to which GB could be more or less
successfully copied by any potters who, it is suggested,
have only needed to have sight of some arbitrarily-assumed
exemplary fnal product derived from somewhere else (
i.e.
Boeotia) to be able to reproduce it perfectly.
The above simplistic perspective cannot be considered
valid any longer, since technological practices are now
considered to be deeply socially embedded. Although their
transmission happens through networks of close interaction,
this dissemination does not follow a linear development
according to which up-to-date, more efcient, and less
energy- and time-consuming technologies will easily spread
because they are improvements (Choleva, 2020, pp.1–2).
More importantly, the physical presence of a master and
an apprentice is a prerequisite for particular perceptual motor-
skills to be developed, those that are related, for example, to
the clay preparation, the fring methods (Fowler, 2016, p.480),
and more importantly the forming techniques, particularly
those linked to the potter’s wheel (Roux and Corbetta,
1989). Therefore, despite the dearth of other evidence and
the overall problems of research, the comparative study of
the potting practices applied in the production of the GB in
the Argolid and Attica provides frmer ground to establish
the sociocultural boundaries existing between the subregions
of the Greek mainland during the MH period.
The study was based on hands-on experience with GB
pottery from settlement contexts in the Argolid (Argos) and
Attica (Marathon-Plasi, Athenian Agora, Thorikos); it also
took into consideration the available evidence from related
researches conducted on nearby MH sites, including Aspis
and Asine in the Argolid, and Marathon-Vranas in Attica.
GB was organised in subclasses according to macroscopic
fabric groups; the visually-distinct features on the walls and
sections of the sherds of each subclass were examined in
order to distinguish between handmade (namely coil-built)
and wheel-thrown or wheel-fashioned pots. However, on the
one hand, the fragmentary character and poor preservation of
the material, particularly the small size of sherds, obscures
the identifcation of properly wheel-thrown products, which
can only be hesitantly recognised. On the other hand, the
Table 1.
Main diagnostic features and corresponding forming operations of wheel-fashioned GB pottery (after Choleva 2012, pp.356–357, table 8).
Diagnostic featuresForming operation
Stretched surfacesShaping with RKE
Uneven wall thickness Shaping the roughout with RKE
Horizontal and parallel striations Thinning the rough-out with RKE
Oblique surface discontinuities and bulges
Thinning and/or shaping the roughout with RKELinear grooves between zones of coil joints
Concentric or spiral undulations
Fissures along sectionJoining the coils with or without RKE
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
220
Figure 4.
MH habitation districts in Argos
(map created by A. Balitsari).
0 400 m
Table 2. Main diagnostic features compatible with wheel-throwing and/or wheel-fashioning techniques (after Choleva 2012, p.354, table 6).
Diagnostic features
Wheel-throwing
or wheel-fashioning technique
Wheel-fashioning
technique
Stretched surfaces
+
Concentric or spiral undulations
+
Horizontal and parallel striations
+
Uneven wall thickness
+
Oblique surface discontinuities and bulges
+
Linear grooves between zones of coil joints
+
Fissures along section
+
generic term “wheel-fashioning” is mainly applied, when
the main diagnostic features argue for joining and thinning
the coils, and shaping the roughout with the help of a potter’s
wheel, as described namely in methods 3 and 4 in the four-
type classifcation system proposed by Roux and Courty
(1998, pp.750–751, tables 1 and 3), and further applied
by Choleva in the study of EH and LH pottery (Choleva,
2012, esp. pp.352–358; Choleva
et al.
, 2020, pp.227–229)
(Table 1). Particularly the coexistence of stretched surfaces
indicative of strong wall modifcation with the help of
rotative kinetic energy (hereafter RKE) with other features
incompatible with thoroughgoing wheel-throwing was the
main criterion for distinguishing wheel-fashioned pottery
(Table 2). Nonetheless, further distinction between the two
methods was not pursued, as it goes beyond the general
aims of the study. Intense burnishing, though, frequently
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
221
Figure 5.
GB bowls from South Quarter in (a) fne grey, (b) semi-fne
grainy, and (c) semi-fne with black inclusions fabric (drawings by Y. Nakas
and A. Balitsari).
Figure 6.
Handmade GB bowls from the South Quarter in (a) fne grey, (b) semi-fne grainy: nonstretched surfaces; coils visible on the interior (indicated
in red); fssures along section (indicated in blue) (photos by A. Balitsari).
creates certain obstacles as it masks surface features
related to forming techniques. In a few cases some kind
of rotational movement might have also been used for the
fnishing of rims and shoulders, as indicated by the creation
of parallel grooves and incisions. The term “wheel-fnished”
is potentially applicable, but these features might have also
resulted from the steady hand of a potter with the help of
a simple turntable; therefore, the particular specimens were
preferably classifed as handmade.
3. The Argolid
3.1 Short historical background and results of research
Compared to other areas of mainland Greece, the MH period
of the Argolid in the northeast Peloponnese is much better
explored. This state of research is an immediate consequence
of the early attention attracted by the later prosperous
Mycenaean civilization that emerged in sites, which were
already and uninterruptedly inhabited from the beginning
of the MH period. The most signifcant MH settlements
developed around the Argive plain, which remained the nodal
point for the entire Bronze Age. Asine apart (Nordquist,
1987), the other major centres with stratifed evidence of
continuous habitation, such as Argos and Lerna, are still
largely unpublished, while Mycenae (Shelton, 2010), Tiryns
(French and French, 1971) and Midea (Demakopoulou and
Divari-Valakou, 2010), which later developed into major
palatial centres, only poorly preserve evidence of MH
stratifed contexts, mostly because of latter disturbances,
especially of the intense building activity.
Special emphasis will be placed on
Argos
, where the
author had the opportunity to examine unpublished material
(a)
(c)
(a)(b)
(b)
(Not to scale)
0 5 cm
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
222
from stratifed contexts. During MH I–II, habitation in Argos
was dispersed, organised in diferent nuclei: on top of Aspis,
on Larissa, in the ravine of
Deiras
, at the SE foothills of
Aspis, as well as in the
South Quarter
of the modern city
(Figure 4). During MH III–LH I, the settlement plan changed
drastically; with the exception of Aspis, the other habitation
districts were abandoned and the population was concentrated
on the southeast foothills of Aspis, which also went through
major reorganization (Touchais, 1998; Papadimitriou
et al.
,
2015, pp.162–166; Balitsari, 2017, pp.119–121).
The material discussed here is dated to MH I–III early
and derives from settlement and stratifed contexts: from
a household assemblage, conventionally termed as the
“House of Pithoi” (Balitsari, 2019), and settlement deposits
in the area of Aphrodite’s temple (“Aphrodision”) in the
South Quarter
(Balitsari, 2017; in prep.), and from the
semi-underground house structure P1 at
Deiras
(Deshayes,
1966, pp.18–21). The GB was grouped in three subclasses
according to fabric: (a) fne grey (MFG 7a), (b) semi-fne
grainy (MFG 6a), and (c) semi-fne with black inclusions
(MFG 3a)
2
. Fine grey predominates (46–81%), and semi-fne
grainy is also common (12–38%), although fuctuations in
the relative percentages between subphases existed. Semi-
fne with black inclusions is less popular throughout the
period studied (2–4%)
3
. Similar shapes are attested in all
three varieties, mainly bowls with an everted rim and fat base
(Figure 5). In terms of the manufacturing process, the MH
pottery of Argos, including the GB, seems mostly handmade,
as indicated by the discontinuities on the surfaces, and the
uneven wall thickness, from the use of coils. The latter are
particularly visible on the interior (Figure 6), as well as in
the irregular rim formation and unbalanced shape, in the case
of some of the best preserved, (nearly) complete examples
(Figure 7).
Wheel-fashioning methods, on the other hand, were only
observed in a restricted number of pots (1–9%), mainly two-
handled bowls with an angular body, drop-shaped rim and
2
For detailed descriptions, see Balitsari, 2019, pp.482–484.
3
Percentages are estimated in the total number of GB sherds collected
from MH I–III early deposits from the House of Pithoi (Balitsari, 2019,
p.501, table 5), Square BB 33 in Aphrodision (Balitsari, 2017, vol. 3, p.26,
table 36; Balitsari in prep.) and house structure P1 at Deiras (after personal
inspection).
Figure 7.
Handmade fne GB bowl from the South Quarter with nonstretched
surfaces and irregular rim formation (photo by A. Balitsari).
Figure 8.
GB bowls with an angular body from (a) Deiras (after Deshayes,
1966, p.37:5), and (b) Orchomenos (after Sarri, 2010a, pl.2:6).
Figure 9.
Fragments of fne GB bowls with an angular body from the South Quarter and Deiras with evidence of wheel-fashioning methods: concentric
undulations (indicated in green); oblique surface discontinuities (indicated in blue); horizontal and parallel striations (indicated in red) (photos by A. Balitsari).
0 5 cm
(a)
(b)
(a)(b)(c)
(Not to scale)
(Not to scale)
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
223
ring base (Figure 8), which are closely linked to the potting
traditions of central Greece, including Attica. These were
mainly found in MH I late-MH II deposits. The prevailing
features include stretched surfaces, horizontal and parallel
striations usually observed on the interior, combined with
oblique surface discontinuities, which correspond to the
pressure exercised while joining and levelling the coils on
a potter’s wheel (Figure 9). The fabric of the specifc vases
is always fne but usually of a darker grey colour, with well-
burnished but less shiny surfaces compared to the handmade
fne GB pots. The petrographic examination, combined with
a refring test of small chips, indicated the use of slightly
diferent fne clay pastes, which are less calcareous, compared
to the fne clays used for the handmade GB (Balitsari
and Kiriatzi, 2019). A local provenance for these wheel-
fashioned pots can neither be excluded nor reinforced, since
the fne texture of the fabric does not really allow any safe
correlation to a specifc clay resource. So even if these bowls
have been locally produced, they are not simply imitations,
but are the product of a deeply rooted “know how”, and one
which seems alien to local ceramic traditions.
For
Aspis
, the preliminary examination of the GB by
M. Choleva suggested that it was equally handmade and
wheel-fashioned, with the potter’s wheel being incorporated
into the manufacturing process in diferent, more or less
complex, ways including the shaping of the roughout, the
fnishing of the rims and/or the upper parts of the containers,
and the burnishing of the surfaces (Philippa-Touchais
et al.
,
2011, p.555). More information on the typology and the
chronological distribution of both handmade and wheel-
fashioned GB in Aspis is certainly needed.
In
Asine
, the pioneer research conducted by L. Spencer for
pottery assemblages dated from EH III to MH II indicated
that “wheel-formed” products constitute diachronically
a minority (≤7%), being often produced in fabrics, which are
either non-local or of uncertain provenance (Spencer, 2007,
p.146). Although classifcation according to ware was not of
primary importance in this research, it is easy to assume that
a signifcant amount of the wheel-fashioned pottery is related
to GB (Spencer, 2007, pp.152–153). Unfortunately, further
details for particular shapes and specifc typological features
remain unknown.
3.2 Discussion
Despite the lack of consistency in the evidence available
so far, hand-forming techniques seem to remain popular in
the Argolid. This is not in accordance with an evolutionary
model, according to which the appearance of the potter’s
wheel in EH III should have “normally” led to the gradual
displacement of handmade techniques in the course of
time. The resistance of the Argolid to the potter’s wheel
in conjunction with the development of a shape repertoire,
which is characterised by notable diferences when
compared to central Greece, indicates that the communities
of the Argolid retained a distinct social identity expressed
through specifc choices in the production and consumption
of ceramics.
Based on the evidence from the South Quarter and Deiras
of Argos, wheel-fashioned pots constitute a minority, strictly
related to the potting traditions of central Greece. These
could either have been imported or produced by one or more
potters initially trained in central Greece and later settled
temporarily or permanently in the Argolid. The fact that the
potter’s wheel is strictly related to the specifc shape of the
two-handled bowl with an angular body, drop-shaped rim
and ring base signifes that wheel-fashioning methods were
not silent and were unlikely to have been easily overlooked
by consumers. On the contrary, it seems that the wheel-
fashioned material was closely linked to specifc craftsmen
and to a certain package of symbolic correlations, and this
could explain (a) why the shape was not reproduced in
a handmade version that would be probably less appreciated,
and (b) why local shapes were not reproduced with wheel-
fashioning methods. More evidence from Aspis will certainly
provide us with valuable insights into the co-existence and
integration of foreign and local traditions, especially during
the later phases of the MH period, as well as into the potential
inequalities existing in the supply patterns of imported
pottery between the diferent habitation areas of Argos. The
latter possibility is based on the divergence observed in the
amount of Aeginetan and Minoan(ising) pottery, which is
signifcantly higher in Aspis compared to the South Quarter
(Balitsari, 2019, p.507, and n.138).
4. Attica
4.1 Short historical background and results of research
The MH period in Attica is the least explored compared to
other prehistoric phases in the region. Long-lived settlements
presumably existed, like Athens (Immerwahr, 1971;
Balitsari and Papadopoulos, 2018; 2019; Venieri, 2020)
and Eleusis (Mylonas, 1975; Cosmopoulos, 2014), though
the stratigraphic evidence is scarce, because of continuous
habitation in later periods and/or poor documentation of the
excavation record of past decades. To give an outline of the
available evidence, it is worth stressing the following:
(a) EH III–MH I is only represented in an extremely limited
number of sites by very little pottery, even fewer burials
and no architectural remains. Consequently, the end of
EH II and the transition of Early to Middle Helladic
period (EH III–MH I) remains practically unknown
(Balitsari and Papadopoulos, 2019, pp.135–138).
(b) During MH II–III, the number of sites increased
across Attica, although it never reached the density of
settlements attested to during the earlier EH period,
a situation that possibly refects a more centralised model
of habitation, which is also common for the Peloponnese
(Papadimitriou, 2010, pp.246–248; Papadimitriou and
Cosmopoulos, 2020, p.374). However, it is important
to note that the majority of sites attributed to the
specifc period is only known through short reports or
preliminary publications. Except for Eleusis, no other
site has produced satisfactory evidence to reconstruct
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
224
Figure 10.
Typical GB shapes from Attica and other MH sites of central Greece (for Plasi: drawings by A. Balitsari; Athenian Agora: drawings by
A. Hooton; Amarynthos: after Krapf, 2015, Figure 3:19; Mitrou: after Hale, 2016, Figure 14:30; Orchomenos: after Sarri, 2010a, plates. 8:20, 15:1).
(Not to scale)
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
225
settlement organization (Cosmopoulos, 2014). For
Athens, it was recently suggested that habitation was
organised in clusters around the Acropolis (Venieri,
2020, p.417), but again, no architectural phases have
been distinguished.
(c) As far as the transitional late MH-early LH period is
concerned, except for the exemplary publication of
J. Maran for the related deposits excavated at Kiapha
Thiti (Maran, 1992), the existing picture of the dearth
Figure 11.
Fragments of GB pots from Plasi
in (a, c, e) fne grey, (b, f) semi-coarse with
whitish inclusions and silver mica, (d) semi-
fne grainy fabric (drawings by A. Balitsari).
Figure 12.
Fragments of GB pots from Plasi in (a–c) fne grey and (d) semi-coarse with whitish inclusions and silver mica, with evidence of wheel-
fashioning methods: concentric undulations and uneven wall thickness (indicated in red); horizontal and parallel striations (indicated in blue); fssures along
section (indicated in green); oblique surface discontinuities (indicated in yellow) (photos by A. Balitsari).
of evidence from the rest of Attica does not change
signifcantly. Even at Thorikos, which at this time became
the most important centre of Attica (Papadimitriou,
2010, pp.254–256), because of its control over the
Lavrion mines, and as is evidenced in the rich burial
record of the site (Lafneur, 2010), settlement remains
were not systematically explored and deposits were not
always recorded in detail (Servais, 1967, pp.20–24;
Papadimitriou, 2020).
(a)(b)
(c)(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)(c)
(b)(d)
(Not to scale)
0 5 cm
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
226
It is thus instantly clear that the MH cultural changes,
including the development of potting traditions, are difcult
to track and organise within the traditional tripartite
scheme (
i.e.
MH I, MH II, MH III). Inevitably then the
chronology of pottery and related fnds is usually established
based on parallels from stratifed contexts in other areas.
Also, compared to the Argolid, Attica is characterised by
a signifcant geographical segmentation with plains being
divided of by mountains and ridges. A preliminary overview
of the potting traditions in various Attic sites revealed (a)
a complete accordance of GB in terms of shapes with central
Greece’s standards (Figure 10), and (b) interesting regional
diferences related mainly to external contacts, especially
with Aegina and Keos (Philippa-Touchais and Balitsari,
2020, pp.387–393, 395). However, a close study of the
technology of its manufacture is certainly needed in order
to shed light on potential diferences in the potting traditions
exercised, as well as the interregional contacts that might
have developed. Here is presented an overview for the GB
from some major centres of the MH period, Marathon (Plasi,
Vranas), Athens and Thorikos, which are currently being
studied by the author as part of her post-doctoral research.
The
Marathon
plain is located on the north-eastern coast
of Attica at the entrance of the Euboean gulf. The MH period
is represented by both settlement and burial evidence. At
the coastal site of
Plasi
, settlement remains were uncovered
in the late 1960s (Marinatos, 1970a, p.5; 1970b, pp.153–
154; Mastrokostas, 1970), but systematic exploration
did not start until 2015 by the National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens. The settlement remains include among
others an impressive fortifcation wall, a large rectangular
building, the so-called “Megaron” of Plasi, dated to MH
II–III (Polychronakou-Sgouritsa
et al.
, 2016, pp.307–310),
and two contemporary pottery kilns (Kapsali, 2019). Other
rectangular buildings, including a second smaller Megaron
to the north, have also been unearthed, though their
excavation, and the study of the associated deposits, has not
been completed yet. Here we will focus on the deposits from
the interior of the frst Megaron, currently being studied by
the author.
The GB can be divided into three subclasses according
to macroscopic fabric features: fne grey, semi-coarse with
whitish inclusions and silver mica, and semi-fne grainy. All
varieties are represented in common shapes, mainly goblets
and bowls (Figure 11). Unfortunately, because of the later
use of the area as a burial ground, during the transitional
MH III–LH I (Polychronakou-Sgouritsa
et al.
, 2016,
pp.310–311) and the Geometric period
4
, in addition to the
proximity of the MH remains to the modern ground surface,
signifcant disturbance has been caused and the pottery has
largely sufered from wear and extreme fragmentation. The
following observations though can be made:
(a) The fne grey variety is the dominant subgroup of GB
(88%). The wheel has been commonly used for its
production and it seems that it was introduced from
an early stage in the procedure, namely from the joining
of the coils. This observation is mostly based on the
uneven wall thickness, the fractures along sections and
the surface discontinuities observed combined with the
4
See: https://www.marathonexcavations.arch.uoa.gr/index.php/geom-cemetery.
Figure 13.
Fine GB bowl from Plasi with evidence of wheel-fashioning
method: uneven wall thickness (indicated in red); horizontal and parallel
striations (indicated in blue); spiral undulations (indicated in green) (photos
by A. Balitsari).
0 5 cm
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
227
stretched surfaces, and the typical striations created
during rotation.
(b) Semi-coarse with whitish inclusions and silver mica fabric
group, which is the second most representative (11%),
has also produced similar evidence (Figures 12–13).
However, there are few sherds with no evident wheel
marks, suggesting that the potter’s wheel might have
not been systematically used for the manufacture of the
specifc subclass.
(c) Semi-fne grainy on the other hand, which is less
common (1%), lacks entirely wheel marks (Figure 14).
Only a few kilometres away, a MH cemetery is located at
the inland site of
Vranas,
where a stone-coated tumulus dated
to MH I–II represents one of the earliest MH monumental
burial structures of the Greek mainland (Pantelidou-
Gofa
et al.
, 2020, pp.437–440). The pottery found inside
the graves, as well as in the nearby deposits consists of
signifcant quantities of fne GB (Pantelidou-Gofa
et al.
,
Figure 14.
Fragments of GB pots from Plasi in (a) semi-coarse with whitish inclusions and silver mica and (b–c) semi-fne grainy fabric with no apparent
wheel marks. The few lines barely visible on the exterior surface correspond to burnishing marks (photos by A. Balitsari).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(Not to scale)
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
228
Figure 15.
Fragments of fne GB pots from the Athenian Agora with evidence of wheel-fashioning methods: horizontal and parallel striations (indicated in
red); oblique surface discontinuities (indicated in blue); burnishing marks (indicated in yellow) (photos by C. Mauzy).
Figure 16.
Fragments of fne GB pots from the Athenian Agora with
evidence of wheel-fashioning methods: horizontal and parallel striations
(indicated in red); oblique surface discontinuities and bulges (indicated
in blue); linear grooves between zones of coil joints (indicated in green);
burnishing marks (indicated in yellow) (photos by C. Mauzy).
2016, pp.25–34). The close study of the technology, with
special emphasis placed upon the intact vases from the
graves, indicated that wheel-fashioning methods prevail,
with the wheel being introduced also at an early stage in the
manufacturing process (Pantelidou-Gofa
et al.
, 2017, pp.39–
40). It should be stressed though that the fne GB of Vranas
is quite soft, light grey and the burnishing seems more
carelessly executed. In contrast, at Plasi, the GB is always
hard-fred, well-burnished and exhibits more commonly
darker grey hues. Semi-coarse and semi-fne varieties have
not been recognised at Vranas.
At
Athens
, a MH II deposit excavated at the Basileios Stoa
of the
Athenian Agora
, close to an empty and partly destroyed
cist tomb of possibly MH date, was systematically examined
and published (Balitsari and Papadopoulos, 2018). GB
constitutes the majority of the assemblage, with goblets being
the most representative shape (Balitsari and Papadopoulos,
2018, pp.228, 254, tables 1, 3). In this deposit, GB is strictly
represented by a fne fabric with slight variations of colour,
presumably because of the atmosphere and temperatures
reached during the initial fring: macroscopic fabric group 1a
is hard and dark grey throughout, while macroscopic fabric
group 1b is light grey, sometimes medium hard to soft, with
biscuit efect
5
. In terms of the manufacturing process, signs
akin to those observed mostly in the fne GB of Plasi suggest
that the potter’s wheel was also used during coil-joining
(Figures 15 and 16). Proper wheel-thrown products may also
be present (Balitsari and Papadopoulos, p.233, Figure 12).
Other varieties of GB in coarser fabrics, as well as strictly
hand-built specimens, were not observed. Fine GB is also
attested in other deposits of the Athenian Agora, with many
sherds being catalogued then as wheelmade (Immerwahr,
1971, pp.60–61, 76–78, nos.272–291), a designation
which now creates reasonable suspicions for the possible
identifcation of similar wheel-fashioning techniques.
However, until there is full publication and systematic
examination of related material from other assemblages, no
pattern can be considered representative for the entire Athens.
5
For more details, see Balitsari and Papadopoulos 2018, p.229–230.
(Not to scale)
(a)(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(Not to scale)
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
229
Thorikos
is the third site to be discussed. As already
mentioned, the settlement mainly fourished during late
MH-early LH. However, there are substantial indications
that habitation might have started earlier, possibly from
the beginning of MH (Papadimitriou, 2020, p.466). The
GB presented here comes from various assemblages, not
necessarily stratifed, and it is dated to MH II–III, according
to the available parallels. The quantifcation attempted
for its representation, can only be based on the settlement
deposits excavated by the Belgian School in the mid and
late 1960s (Papadimitriou
et al.
, in prep.). Fine GB prevails
(93%), while a semi-coarse variety with schist inclusions
and silver mica seems to constitute a small minority (7%).
However, both fabric groups are associated with similar
shapes, mainly goblets and wheel-fashioning techniques of
manufacture as those encountered at Marathon and Athens
(Figures 17–18).
4.2 Discussion
From the evidence above, it becomes clear that the Attic sites
examined so far are set within the same and distinct socio-
technological framework with regard to the production and
consumption of GB, as indicated by the predominance of
fne fabrics, the systematic use of wheel-fashioning methods,
and the creation of similar shapes – with goblets dominating
– intended to cover the same drinking habits. However,
slight variations also existed and these are mostly seen in
the quality of burnishing and the initial fring. Coarser
clay pastes are also attested, but there is no strict relation
between specifc clay recipes, formation processes and fnal
products of specialised use. On the contrary, both hand-built
semi-fne/coarse and wheel-fashioned fne GB tend to cover
similar consumption practices, and therefore any distinction
Figure 17.
Fragments of GB pots from Thorikos in (a–b) fne grey and
(c) semi-coarse with schist inclusions and silver mica fabric with evidence
of wheel-fashioning methods: horizontal and parallel striations (indicated
in red); fssures along section (indicated in green); oblique surface
discontinuities and bulges (indicated in blue) (photos by A. Balitsari).
Figure 18.
Fragment of fne GB goblet from Thorikos with evidence of
wheel-fashioning methods: evenly made horizontal ribs (indicated in
green); concentric undulations (indicated in yellow); horizontal and parallel
striations (indicated in red); oblique surface discontinuities (indicated in
blue) (photos by A. Balitsari).
(Not to scale)
(a)
(b)
(c)
0 5 cm
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
230
between them is strictly related to the production choices
made by the potters.
The petrographic examination and the chemical analysis
conducted at Vranas do not exclude the local/regional
production of the GB (Pantelidou
et al.
, 2017, pp.45–47;
Balitsari
et al.
, forthcoming). The assumption is further
reinforced by a few special typological features shared
with other sites of Attica’s east coast, mainly Brauron,
such as the low foot and the incised shoulder of bowls
(Philippa-Touchais and Balitsari, 2020, p.389). The same
analyses at Plasi are defnitely required to be undertaken in
order to shed light on the provenance of its GB. A working
hypothesis for explaining the variability particularly seen at
Plasi would be that the settlement, because of its privileged
position on the coast, was possibly subjected to more
regional and external infuences, compared to the inland
community of Vranas.
The interrelation of the less fne varieties of GB at Thorikos
and Plasi also demands further investigation
6
. Interestingly,
fairly coarse to coarse, as well as handmade, GB is also
attested at Eleusis (Cosmopoulos, 2014, pp.270–271), while
in Kiapha Thiti, which is contemporaneous with Thorikos,
GB is exclusively fne and probably entirely “wheelmade”
(Maran, 1992, p.120), as in the case of the Athenian Agora.
It may be assumed then that the production of semi-fne/
coarse GB, handmade or wheel-fashioned, is allied to potting
traditions shared between coastal sites, but this hypothesis
needs to be further investigated by analytical methods and
the detailed examination of more Attic sites.
5. Concluding remarks
This short overview underlines that any comparison made
between the GB of two diferent regions can only be telling
when substantial information is known for the entire
technological sequence, including its typology, where the
latter is particularly linked to consumption practices and
local preferences. Therefore, GB can no longer be examined
from the prevailing point of view of today, which is biased
towards Boeotia’s so-called superior manufacturing
standards.
The examination of GB in Attica indicated that the potter’s
wheel was highly involved in the manufacturing process.
Handmade GB did exist, but its typological similarities
with its wheel-fashioned counterpart indicate that they
were also produced within a common cultural framework.
In the Argolid, however, the situation is reversed; GB is
predominantly handmade, while the complex use of the
wheel was only observed in a limited number of pots.
The apparent techno-typological afnities of the latter
6
The petrographic examination and chemical analysis of selected samples
from the Athenian Agora, Plasi and Thorikos is part of the author’s research
programme, which is conducted at UCLouvain, in close collaboration
with the Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens, and aims at the
investigation of the cultural contacts developed within and beyond Attica
during MH and early LH, with special emphasis placed upon ceramics.
with central Greece’s GB indicates that the specifc pots
were either imported or produced by craftsmen who were
familiar with the potting practices of a diferent cultural
environment.
This situation though is not entirely new, since the very
frst appearance of wheel-fashioning methods during the
EH III phase was also the “result of technical transfers from
central Greece” (Choleva, 2018, p.229). Therefore, we could
speak of a continuum of infuences, which, nonetheless,
never became so frmly established as to signifcantly afect
local potting traditions. According to L. Spencer’s analysis,
the striking resistance exhibited – not only – at Asine to the
incoming device of the wheel and all the associated practices
may be explained in terms of household-based production,
as is indicated by the overall lack of technologically-
sophisticated ceramics, and household diferentiation
sought through the diversity of the consumption choices
(Spencer, 2007, pp.150–158). The latter situation has also
been witnessed in Argos. In contrast, at Lefkandi, a type-
site of central Greece, there is a growing specialisation in
production and homogenisation of ceramic assemblages
over the centuries, with the latter being closely related to
a consumption behaviour in favour of communal cohesion
(Spencer, 2007, pp.129–133). This picture certainly fts with
V. Roux’ s position, according to which the ”non-transfer of
the potter’s wheel could be explained in terms of polarisation
between communities” (Roux, 2020). In other words, GB
was not simply a product of imitation – because it was
“fashionable” at that time – but was reproduced according to
specifc social structures and identities.
A last question that is worth exploring is the chronological
context of the relatively higher occurrence of wheel-
fashioned GB pots, during MH I late-MH II, at least in
Argos. Interestingly, both the Argolid (Philippa-Touchais,
2007, pp.111–112; Spencer, 2007, p.149) and Attica (Gauss,
2020, p.614) witnessed an increase of Aeginetan wares from
MH I late-MH II. Being visually distinct, Aeginetan pottery
is generally a helpful indicator for reconstructing external
contacts. It is thus possible that the appearance of wheel-
fashioned products could be seen within a wider revitalization
of the communication networks in the Argosaronic gulf that
enabled the transfer of products and/or people.
This is, however, only a half-fnished scenario with
signifcant limitations that create some obstacles and gaps.
Being overlooked in the research for many years, because of
the remarkable poverty of the material culture, the MH period
has yet to be systematically investigated. The development
of pottery organised in conventional chronological phases
needs to be updated and refned, given the signifcant degree
of regionality that obscures direct comparisons between
synchronous events. To accomplish this, well-stratifed
deposits are of primary importance to allow the close
examination of the technological sequences. Especially as
far as the use of the wheel is concerned, the investigation of
the earliest MH period is a prerequisite to fully understanding
the formation processes of potting practices after the end of
the Early Bronze Age.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
231
Acknowledgments
This paper was made possible thanks to collaborations with
various institutes and research teams. In no particular order,
I would like to express special thanks to Prof. G. Touchais,
A. Philippa-Touchais and the late Prof. F. Croissant from
the French School at Athens, Ass. Prof. Y. Papadatos,
Ass. Prof. G. Vavouranakis and Prof. N. Polychronakou-
Sgouritsa from the National and Kapodistrian University of
Athens, Prof. R. Docter and Dr. S. Dederix from the Belgian
School at Athens, Dr. N. Papadimitriou from the University
of Heidelberg, Prof. J.K. Papadopoulos and Dr. S. Dumont
from Agora Excavations, and last but not least to
Dr. E. Kiriatzi, Dr. N.S. Müller and Dr. M. Choleva from the
British School at Athens. Finally, I would also like to thank
Dr. Don Evely for reading and improving my text, as well
as both anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. All
shortcomings though that remain are my own.
References
BALITSARI, A., 2017.
Argos. Oi Mesoelladikes (ME) katavoles enos
diachronikou argolikou kentrou. Nea dedomena gia ti ME I–II periodo
apo ti Notia Synoikia.
Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Athens.
BALITSARI, A., 2019. The “House of Pithoi”: An early Middle Helladic
(MH) household in the South Quarter of Argos (Argolid, Peloponnese).
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
, 143(2), 455–543.
BALITSARI, A., in preparation. Argos. Les Fouilles de l’Aphrodision: Les
niveaux d’occupation de l’Helladique Moyen.
Études Péloponnésiennes
.
BALITSARI, A., KIRIATZI, E., and MÜLLER, N.S., forthcoming.
Petrografki kai chimiki analysi deigmaton Mesoelladikis kai
Ysteroelladikis kerameikis apo tous tymvous Vrana sto Marathona. In: M.
Pantelidou-Gofa, G. Touchais, A. Philippa-Touchais, N. Papadimitriou,
eds.
Oi Proistorikoi Tymvoi Vrana Marathonos. Anaskaf Spyridonos
Marinatou 1970.
Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens.
BALITSARI, A., and KIRIATZI, E., 2019. Local potting traditions and
supply patterns at early Middle Helladic (MH I–II) Argos, Greece (poster)
[online].
Annual Ceramic Petrology Group Meeting, Fitch Laboratory,
British School at Athens, Athens 8–9 November
. Available from:
https://www.academia.edu/44633909/_Local_Potting_Traditions_and_
Supply_Patterns_at_Early_Middle_Helladic_MH_I_II_Argos_Greece_
Annual_Ceramic_Petrology_Group_Meeting_Fitch_Laboratory_
British_School_at_Athens_8_9_November_Athens Retrieved in
December 11
th
2020.
BALITSARI, A., and PAPADOPOULOS, J.K., 2018. A Cist Tomb on the
South Bank of the Eridanos in the Athenian Agora and the Middle Bronze
Age in Athens.
Hesperia
87(2), 215–277.
BALITSARI, A., and PAPADOPOULOS, J.K., 2019. A Middle Helladic
I Tomb in the Athenian Kerameikos and Some Thoughts on the Early
Connections of Attica.
The Annual of the British School at Athens
, 114,
119–143.
BERG, I. 2013. The Potter’s Wheel in Mycenaean Greece: A Re-
Assessment. In: G. Graziadio, R. Guglielmino, V. Lenuzza, and S. Vitale,
eds.
Philikí Sinavlía. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario
Benzi
. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 113–121.
BLEGEN, C.W., 1928. The Coming of the Greeks: II. The Geographical
Distribution of Prehistoric Remains in Greece.
American Journal of
Archaeology
, 32, 146–154.
CASKEY, J.L., 1960. The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid.
Hesperia
,
29, 285–303.
CHOLEVA, M., 2012. The First Wheelmade Pottery at Lerna: Wheel-
Thrown or Wheel-Fashioned?
Hesperia
, 81, 343–381.
CHOLEVA, M., 2018. The story of a savoir-faire. The transmission of the
potter’s wheel and the emergence of new technological traditions in the
prehistoric Aegean.
Annales de la Fondation Fyssen
, 33, 192–234.
CHOLEVA, M., 2020. Travelling with the Potter’s Wheel in the Early
Bronze Age Aegean.
The Annual of the British School at Athens
, 115,
1–46.
CHOLEVA, M., JUNG, R., and KARDAMAKI, E., 2020. Working on the
potter’s wheel: technological insights into Mycenaean pottery production.
Egypt and the Levant
, 30, 219–282.
COSMOPOULOS, M.B., 2014.
The Sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis. The
Bronze Age.
Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens.
DEMAKOPOULOU, K., and DIVARI-VALAKOU, N., 2010. The Middle
Helladic Settlement on the Acropolis of Midea. In: A. Philippa-Touchais,
G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright, eds.
Mesohelladika: La Grèce
continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international organisé
par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American
School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens,
Athènes, 8–12 mars 2006. BCH Suppl
., 52. Athens: École française
d›Athènes, pp. 31–44.
DESHAYES, J., 1966.
Argos. Les fouilles de la Deiras.
Études
Péloponnésiennes, 4. Paris.
DICKINSON, O., 2016. “The Coming of the Greeks” and All That. In: J.
Bintlif, and K. Rutter, eds.
The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies
in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass
. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, pp. 3–21.
FORSDYKE, E.J., 1914. The Pottery called Minyan Ware.
Journal of
Hellenic Studies
, 34, 126–156.
FOWLER, K.D., 2016. Ethnography. In: A.M.W. Hunt, ed.
The Oxford
Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis
. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 469–486.
FRENCH D., and FRENCH, E., 1971. Prehistoric Pottery from the Area of
the Agricultural Prison at Tiryns. In: J. Ulf, ed.
Tiryns: Forschungen und
Berichte
V. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. 21–40.
GAUSS, W., 2020. Considerations on Kolonna on Aegina and Attica
from the Early to Late Bronze Age (ca. 2100 to ca. 1600 BC). In:
N. Papadimitriou, J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa,
and E. Andrikou, eds.
Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings
of the International Conference Athens, 27–31 May 2015
. Oxford:
Archaeopress, pp. 607–618.
GAUSS, W., and LINDBLOM, M., 2017. Pre-Mycenaean pottery shapes
of the central Aegean: a new resource in development. In: C. Wiersma,
and S. Voutsaki, eds.
Social Change in Aegean Prehistory
. Oxford and
Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, pp. 1–15.
HALE, C.M. 2016. The Middle Helladic Fine Gray Burnished (Gray
Minyan) Sequence at Mitrou, East Lokris.
Hesperia
, 85(2), 243–295.
HALEY, J.B., 1928. The Coming of the Greeks: I. The Geographical
Distribution of Pre-Greek Place Names.
American Journal of
Archaeology
, 32, 141–145.
IMMERWAHR, S.A., 1971.
The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. The Athenian
Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens
, 13. Princeton: American School of Classical
Studies.
KAPSALI, P., 2019. Two Middle Bronze Age Pottery Kilns at Plasi,
Marathon.
Athens University Review of Archaeology
, 2, 19–63.
KRAPF, T. 2015. Erétria kai Amárinthos: dio yitonikí allá diaphoretikí
ikismí tis Mésis Epokhís Khalkoú stin Évia. In: A. Mazarákis-Ainián,
ed.
Arkhaioloyikó Érgo Thessalías kai Stereás Elládas 4. Praktiká
epistimonikís sinántisis, Vólos 15. 3 – 18. 3. 2012, Tómos II: Stereá
Elláda
. Vólos: Ipouryío Politismoú, Paidías kai Thriskevmáton-
Panepistímio Thessalías, pp. 681–696.
LAFFINEUR, R., 2010. Thorikos. In: E.H. Cline, ed.
The Oxford Handbook
of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC)
. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 712–721.
MARAN, J., 1992.
Kiapha Thiti. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen II2
(2.Jt.v.Chr.: Keramik und Kleinfunde)
. Marburger Winckelmann-
Programm 1990. Marburg: Philipps-Universität Marburg/Lahn.
MARINATOS, S., 1970a.
Anaskaphaí Marathónos.
Praktiká tis en Athínais
Arkhaioloyikís Etairías tou Étous, 1970, 5–28.
MARINATOS, S., 1970b. Further News from Marathon.
Athens Annals of
Archaeology
, 3, 153–166.
MASTROKOSTAS, E., 1970. Proïstorikí Akrópolis en Marathóni.
Athens
Annals of Archaeology
, 3, 14–21.
MYLONAS, G.E., 1975.
To Ditikón Nekrotaphíon tis Elefsínos.
Athens:
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
232
The Archaeological Society at Athens.
NORDQUIST, G.C., 1987.
A Middle Helladic Village: Asine in the Argolid.
Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations,
16. Uppsala.
PANTELIDOU-GOFA, M., TOUCHAIS, G., PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A.,
and PAPADIMITRIOU, N., 2016. Meléti Proïstorikón Tímvon Vraná
Marathónos.
Praktiká tis en Athínais Arkhaioloyikís Etairías tou Étous
,
2016, 27–56.
PANTELIDOU-GOFA, M., TOUCHAIS, G., PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A.,
and PAPADIMITRIOU, N., 2017. Meléti Proïstorikón Tímvon Vraná
Marathónos.
Praktiká tis en Athínais Arkhaioloyikís Etairías tou Étous
,
2017, 29–53.
PANTELIDOU-GOFA, M., PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A., and
PAPADIMITRIOU, N., 2020. The prehistoric tumuli of Vranas,
Marathon: The study of S. Marinatos’ excavations. In: N. Papadimitriou,
J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa, and E. Andrikou,
eds.
Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International
Conference Athens, 27–31 May 2015
. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 437–
448.
PAPADIMITRIOU, N., 2010. Attica in the Middle Helladic Period. In:
A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright, eds.
Mesohelladika: La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du
colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes, en
collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le
Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8–12 mars 2006. BCH Suppl
.,
52. Athens: École française d’Athènes, pp. 243–257.
PAPADIMITRIOU, N., 2020. Ceramic Material from Valerios Stais’
Excavations at the Prehistoric Settlement of Thorikos: A Summary.
In: N. Papadimitriou, J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-
Sgouritsa, E. Andrikou, eds.
Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings
of the International Conference Athens, 27–31 May 2015
. Oxford:
Archaeopress, pp. 457–470.
PAPADIMITRIOU, N., and COSMOPOULOS, M.B., 2020. The Political
Geography of Attica in the Middle and the Late Bronze Age. In:
N. Papadimitriou, J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa,
and E. Andrikou, eds.
Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings
of the International Conference Athens, 27–31 May 2015
. Oxford:
Archaeopress, pp. 373–385.
PAPADIMITRIOU, N., NAZOU, M., BALITSARI, A., EFSTATHIOU, A.,
KAYAFA, M., DUCHENE, S., METAXAS, O., MICHALOPOULOU,
S., THEODOROPOULOU, T., and PREVEDOROU, E., in preparation.
Prehistoric Thorikos: the Belgian excavations in the settlement area.
PAPADIMITRIOU, N., PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A., and TOUCHAIS, G.,
2015. Argos in the MBA and the LBA: A reassessment of the evidence.
In: A.L. Schallin, and I. Tournavitou, eds.
Mycenaeans up to date. The
Archaeology of the north-eastern Peloponnese – current concepts and
new directions
. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, pp. 161–184.
PAVÚK, P., 2007. What can Troia tell us about the Middle Helladic Period
in the Southern Aegean? In: F. Felton, W. Gauss, and R. Smetana,
eds.
Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the
International Workshop Held at Salzburg, October 31
st
– November 2
nd
,
2004.
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
pp. 295–308.
PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A., 2007. Aeginetan Matt-Painted Pottery at
Middle Helladic Aspis, Argos. In: F. Felton, W. Gauss, and R. Smetana,
eds.
Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the
International Workshop Held at Salzburg, October 31
st
– November 2
nd
,
2004.
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
pp. 97–113.
PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A., TOUCHAIS, G., CHOLEVA, M.,
GARDEISEN, A., LEKAKIS, S., MOTTAIS, C., NIKOLOPOULOU,
K., and PHILIPPA V., 2011. L’Aspis.
Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellénique
, 135(2), 551–566.
PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, A., and BALITSARI, A., 2020. Attica in the
Middle: Middle Helladic Pottery Traditions and the Formation of
Cultural Identity. In: N. Papadimitriou, J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N.
Polychronakou-Sgouritsa, and E. Andrikou, eds.
Athens and Attica in
Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference Athens, 27–31
May 2015
. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 387–398.
POLYCHRONAKOU-SGOURITSA, N., PAPADATOS, Y., BALITSARI,
A., and PREVEDOROU, E., 2016. Marathon in the Middle and Late
Bronze Age: New Evidence from an Old Excavation. Preliminary Results
from the Excavation of the University of Athens at Plasi. In: J. Driessen,
ed.
RA-PI-NE-U. Studies on the Mycenaean World ofered to Robert
Lafneur for his 70
th
Birthday. Aegis
, 10. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses
Universitaires de Louvain, pp. 305–315.
PRILLWITZ, S., 2020. Is there only one type of potter’s wheel in Late
Bronze Age Greece? [online].
Archaeological Approaches to the Study
of Potter’s Wheel, 25–28 November. Online Conference hosted by
University of Amsterdam
. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/h?
v=pD0dwx9B3G8&list=PLqWUT1pOFU1NSOBjNucxJjBhuDAvwI7F
e&index=5 Retrieved in November 30
th
2020.
ROUX, V., 2016. Ceramic Manufacture. The
chaîne opératoire
Approach.
In: A.M.W. Hunt, ed.
The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic
Analysis
. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 101–113.
ROUX, V., 2020. Understanding the Evolution of Wheel Potting Techniques
[online].
Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Potter’s Wheel, 25–28
November. Online Conference hosted by University of Amsterdam
. Available
from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aeBxdVGVOQ&list=PLqW
UT1pOFU1NSOBjNucxJjBhuDAvwI7Fe&index=13 Retrieved in
November 26
th
2020.
ROUX, V., and CORBETTA, D., 1989.
The Potter’s Wheel. Craft
Specialization and Technical Competence
. New Delhi-Bombay-Calcutta:
Oxford & IBH Publishing.
ROUX, V., and COURTY M.-A., 1998. Identifcation of Wheel-fashioning
Methods: Technological Analysis of 4
th
–3
rd
Millennium BC Oriental
Ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 25, 747–763.
RUTTER, J., 2007. Reconceptualizing the Middle Helladic “Type
Site” from a Ceramic Perspective: Is “Bigger” really “Better”? In:
F. Felton, W. Gauss, and R. Smetana, eds.
Middle Helladic Pottery
and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held
at Salzburg, October 31
st
– November 2
nd
, 2004.
Wien: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 35–44.
RUTTER, J., 2017. Ceramic surprises from LH IIIC Aigeira [online].
The
wider island of Pelops: a workshop on prehistoric pottery in memory of
Professor Christopher Mee, 19
th
September 2017
. Available from: https://
www.bsa.ac.uk/videos/jeremy-rutter-ceramic-surprises-from-lh-iiic-
aigeira/ Retrieved in April 10
th
2021.
SARRI, K., 2010a.
Orchomenos IV: Orchomenos in der mittleren Bronzezeit
.
München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
SARRI, K., 2010b. Minyan and Minyanizing Pottery. Myth and Reality about
a Middle Helladic Type Fossil. In: A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais,
S. Voutsaki, and J. Wright, eds.
Mesohelladika: La Grèce continentale
au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École
française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of
Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes,
8–12 mars 2006. BCH Suppl
., 52. Athens: École française d’Athènes,
pp. 603–613.
SERVAIS, J. 1967. Les fouilles sur le haut du Velatouri. In: H.F. Mussche,
J. Bingen, J. Servais, J. De Geyter, T. Hackens, P. Spitaels, and A. Gautier,
eds.
Thorikos 1965. Rapport Préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de
fouilles
. Brussel: Comité des Fouilles Belges en Grèce, pp. 9–30.
SHELTON, K., 2010. Living and dying in and around Middle Helladic
Mycenae. In: A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki, and
J. Wright, eds.
Mesohelladika: La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen.
Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française d’Athènes,
en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et
le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8–12 mars 2006. BCH Suppl
.,
52. Athens: École française d’Athènes, pp. 57–65.
SPENCER, L.C., 2007.
Pottery Technology and Socioeconomic Diversity
on the Early Helladic III to Middle Helladic II Greek Mainland
.
Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of London.
SYRIOPOULOS, K.T., 1994.
I Proïstorikí Katíkisis tis Elládos kai i Yénesis
tou Ellinikoú Éthnous.
Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens.
TOUCHAIS, G., 1998. Argos à l’époque mésohelladique: un habitat
ou des habitats? In: A. Pariente, and G. Touchais, eds.
Argos et
l’Argolide: Topographie et Urbanisme. Actes de la Table Ronde
internationale, Athènes – Argos 28/4 – 1/5/1990
. Athènes-Nauplio-
Paris: École française d’Athènes, pp. 71–84.
VENIERI, G., 2020. Rethink Middle Helladic Athens: Anasínthesi tis
mesoelladikís katíkisis yíro apó tin Akrópoli. In: N. Papadimitriou,
J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa, E. Andrikou,
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 217–233
Anthi Balitsari: Diferent Shades of Grey Minyan: Dissecting an “Iconic” Ceramic Class of Middle Bronze Age, Mainland Greece
233
eds.
Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International
Conference Athens, 27–31 May 2015
. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 417–
426.
VOUTSAKI, S., 2010. Middle Bronze Age: Mainland Greece. In: E.H.
Cline, ed.
The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–
1000 BC)
. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–112.
WACE, A.J.B., and BLEGEN, C.W., 1916–1918. The Pre-Mycenaean
Pottery of the Mainland.
The Annual of the British School at Athens
, 22,
175–189.
ZERNER, C., 1993. New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early
Late Helladic Periods on the Mainland. In: C. Zerner, P. Zerner, and
J. Winder, eds.
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, Athens,
Dec. 2–3, 1989
. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, pp. 39–5.
image/svg+xml