3. T 486, DB flask (Fine Chloritic Fabric).

This fine-grained fabric is different in appearance from the other two. It is dark grayish brown,
2.5Y 4/2 to 4/0 in the Munsell system, with very few inclusions 'visible to the unaided eye (Le.
inclusions above 62 micrometers in size account for only about 2% of the sample). The clay was
wiped smooth, but it was not slipped. The sherd comes from a flask.
When examined as thin section, abundant inclusions under 62 micrometers in size are visible
in the fabric, accounting for approximately 55-60% of the sample; they are all angular to subangular in shape. Constituents include quartz, chlorite and opaque minerals. The quartz and the
chlorite both occur in significant amounts in the fabric (Le. ca. 30% and ca. 25-30%).
The few inclusions above 62 micrometers and up to ca. 750 micrometers in size include clay
lumps, quartz and phyllite or schist. The clay lumps (unmixed masses of clay) have rounded
contours, and the other inclusions are all rounded to angular.
Although the non-plastic constituents of these fabrics are not uncommon in the Aegean. they
may be clearly distinguished both from the fabric classes at Lerna which are possibly local to
southern Greece (with the tentative conclusion based on frequency of occurrence through time)
and from other fabrics found at Lerna (including a Gold Mica Fabric which may be centered on
Aegina and several Minoan and Minoanizing groups). The analysis confirms the validity of distinguishing the highly micaceous/chloritic pottery on stylistic criteria and on the basis of visual
examination of the fabric with the unaided eye.
It is likely that all three of these sherds came from different sources of production. The fabrics
of the jug and the duck vase are generally similar, but the presence of carbonate in the duck vase
probably indicates a different production center. Lema was evidently receiving goods from a
number of locations, not just from a single source. Although the Cyclades are one possible source
for this pottery because highly micaceous and chloritic fabrics are known to occur there, none of
these pottery production centers can be localized at our present level of knowledge.
Philip P. Betancoun
Department of Art History
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122,USA

George H. Myer
Department of Geology
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

NOTES

\ The pottery samples discussed here are pan of a group of samples of Lema V and Lerna VI
selected by C. Zerner and submitted to us for analysis. We would like to thank S. Vaughan for
heT,ful comments on~themanuscript.
Zerner, 1986,pp:66-67.

Although there is no detailed study on this topic as yet, Aegina is generally accepted as having
been a major center of trading contacts during the MBA in the Aegean. Aeginetan pottery of the
period was obviously exponed to other sites, while vessels of clearly non-Aeginetan origin have
been recognized among the material stored in the storerooms of the Kolonna excavations. In 1982
I began to study this material for publication. It should be said in advance that the Minoan and
Min6anizing pottery presented here constitutes only a portion of the MBA pottery impons on
Aegina.\
The bulk of the material under study was found in the pre-war excavations and has no known
contexts. As a consequence, it was classified according to fabric and style. Approximately 200
vessels, mainly sherds, have been identified as either true Minoan impons or as belonging to one
of the Minoanizing classes which show a more or less distinct Minoan influence.
On Aegina, as elsewhere in the Aegean, Minoan impons first appeared around the beginning
of the second millennium B.C., during MM IA So far only two fragments from Aegina can be
ascribed to this period: rim fragments of typical MM IA egg-cups, decorated with a white band
painted over a zone of small barbotine dots; a third sherd exhibiting another type of barbotine
decoration may likewise belong to this phase.
Within the main group of pottery which falls into the category here discussed, four subgroups
may be distinguished: first, that composed of unquestionably Minoan impons; secondly, the group
which I would like to call Minoanizing Aeginetan, which will be more closely examined below; my
third group corresponds to that which has been defined as Lustrous Decorated by C. Zemer~ the
fourth group comprises the remaining pieces which cannot be precisely identified.
Apan from a belly-handled jar on display in the Kolonna Museum and published by G. Welter
long ago (PI. 22:a),3 some 20 more fragments of the third class have been selected from the
material stored in the excavation storeroom. This class is cenainly not Aeginetan, its place of
origin supposedly being located somewhere in the southeastern Peloponnese or on Kythera. In my
founh group are some sherds and two globular amphoras which are likely to have reached the'
island from somewhere in the Dodecanese.
As true Minoan impons I count about 30 fragments of MM II date. There may be some 10 or
15 more from MM ill; the provenance of these, however, is less cenain. Among them small open
shapes predominate, such as straight-sided cups, carinated cups and hemispherical cups. Oosed
vessels, on the other hand, are comparatively rare. Among these should be mentioned a bridgespaded jar and the lower pan of a jug, both of which are decorated with an elaborate spiral (PI.
22:b).
MM impons on Aegina hardly come as a surprise when compared to the general situation as
we know it from contemporary MBA sites in the Aegean. It must, however, be kept in mind that
Aegina lies outside of what has been called the "Western String" route, leading, via Thera, Melos
and Kea, to the Laurion region.4 Thus, for Aegina, as well as for mainland sites like Lema or
Agios Stephanos, different trade strategies and concerns must have been at work.
The most striking group is the second one, which I tentatively call Minoanizing Aeginetan.
Since this group has been defined exclusively by criteria of style and typology it cannot be
regarded as cenain until its local production and homogeneity have been proved by clay analysis.

MINOAN AND MINOANIZING

In this group I roughly count some 100 fragments, approximately half the material in all. The
sherds are painted in light colors on a reddish to blackish ground. What makes them appear to
constitute a really homogeneous group is the fact that they are confined to a restricted number of
shapes and decorative elements. Likewise their fabric looks rather homogeneous. Unlike the
vessels belonging to group one, i.e. true Minoan imports, there is a greater number and also a
broader range of closed shapes. Particularly noteworthy are spouted jugs with protruding eye-like
knobs. Spouts of at least five examples have been found, and in one case the handle and part of
the shoulder still exist (PI. 22:c). Other shapes in this group are jugs with cylindrical necks, two of
which have a rolled rim, and the oval-mouthed amphora, of which two examples have been
identified. At least ten more vessels, primarily jugs, are attested by their handles. One clearly
comes from a bridge(?)-spouted jar, a shape which is also represented by rim fragments.
The decorative patterns mainly consist of white strokes with pointed ends, appearing in secon
dary zones such as spouts, rims and handles. The main zones, i.e. shoulder and belly, are
decorated either with tall freestanding rosettes or branches of reed leaves (PI. 22:de); the latter
may be either pendent, standing or torsional. It is not always easy to see how this motif was
applied. A third kind of decorative pattern consists of rosettes, which in this case are framed by
closed circles: the rosette petals may have either pointed ends, as in the free-standing examples
just mentioned, or rounded ones. In between the circles, there appear simple crosses composed of
thin horizontal and vertical bars. This kind of circleframed rosette composition is very popular in
our group: it appears, as can be proved by joining fragments, on spouted jugs and bridge-spouted
jars as well as on small o\J,~nvessels.
The only open shape which I have identified "'~helonging to the Minoanizing Aeginetan group
is the semiglobular cup. One compositional schcI!l(;which was used for this shape is iIIustratt'd on
PI. 22:f: a wreath of lanceolate petals around the base, with a shoulder frieze composed of slant
ing groups of slender strokes with pointed ends. Thus, the main decorative elements appear both
on mediumsized closed shapes as well as on smaller open ones. A chalky white paint is used for
the dominant motifs and a powdery orange-pink for smaller elements like central dots, or vice
versa. Apart from this Kamares-like technique, w1;::hcombines two colors for decorative patterns
upon a red or black surface glaze, the more simple method of adorning vessels by painting pat
terns in a lustrous dark color on the plain clay seems to have been used in the Minoanizing
Aeginetan group. A number of fragments of tall closed vessels have large rosettes, which are so
closely related to those on the light-ondark painted vases as to suggest a common workshop. The
fact that there exists the upper part of a plai..
Ispouted jug, corresponding exactly in its shape and
protruding eye knobs to the above mention~.:!.i'y.ample, from the polychrome group, supports this
conclusion. The spout itself may, moreover, indicate at least one specific shape which was
decorated in this technique. To a certain extent this technique may have competed with the local
Aeginetan matt-painted technique. The lustrous-on-plain decorated fragments come from hand
made vessels. As a rule, the taller vessels belonging to this group are handmade, while the smaller
ones are regularly wheelmade and of good workmanship.
Finally, there remains the question of how <;;d wh:;: to localize this group. If, as I suppose, it
really is homogeneous, it should represent the ;urvivi'.:gpart of the production of what seems to
have been a specialized workshop unquestionably depending on Minoan models for shapes and
decorative patterns and for, it should be be added, the polychrome technique per se. On the basis
of the preserved spouts, necks and handles, at least 30 vessels can be assigned to this group. This
is not very much, particularly if we accept, as I do, that a period of no less than a full century
(roughly three generations) of continuous production is represented by our Minoanizing
Aeginetan group. However, I know of no other site, on Crete or elsewhere, with evidence for a
pottery workshop to which this group could be convincingly connected. As far as I can see it is .

POTIERY

ON AEGINA

restricted to L\egina and may therefore, at least preliminarily, be defined as Ae~inetan: If i~,r~~llY
is what still -remains to be proved is that its products are both in shape an~ ecoratl?n ISmcti~ely different from anything else which is regarded as typically,local Aegmetan. Wlt~ou~ny
doubt both the shapes and decorative motifs come from the MI~oan potte~ repe~01re.
a
consequence, the conclusion s(;ems reasonable that a workshop eXIstedon Aegma which was run
by resident Minoan potters.
fr
th objects
Apart from the vessels discussed above, this conclusion finds ~ome support, om 0 er
, I
found at the Kolonna site: fragments of three stone vessels of Mmoan provem nce, a ceremo:~
(?) stone hammer of Minoan origin,S and the jewelry from the so;alle? Ae~n~ trelasur~ ;o~~s
also contains items of Minoan manufacture.6 All of these may h~ve een Impo e as uxu
into prehistoric Aegina without necessarily implying resident Mmoans. Hfowever t,heAregarane
als~~e:
'gh
f the sual Minoan type known rom ot her e e
.
considerable number 0 f loom wel ts 0
u
.
r' h 17 both
Also found in the Aegina material were a stone kernos and the fragme~t of a potte s w ee,
of which are highly suggestive of Minoans living on Aegina and producmg pottery there.

Stefan Hiller
Institut fUr Kiassische Archaologie
Universitlit Salzburg
A.5020 Salzburg, Austria

NOTES

I The observations presented here are preliminary, since the study of the MBA pottery impo~
on Aegina, which was started several years ago, has not yet been completed.1?e text:r~se:ts
here should be regarded only as a preliminary sketch of the author's ?bse~uons an t?U
which will one day be published, it is hoped, in a more complete diSCUSSionof Cycladlc and
Minoan pottery imports on Aegina.
2 Zerner, 1978, pp. 159-167; Zerner, 1986,pp. 66-68; Zerner, 1988,pp. 6-10.
3 Welter, 1938, p. 16, fig. 17; W(;;(.:r, 1962,pI. 32:b.
.
"
4 J. Davis, 1979a, especially p. 146; cf. also Cherry and DaVIS,1982; Niemeier, 1984, p. 206 note
17.
Cf. Schiering, 1972.
Higgins 1979.
, .
k
'k
fu dene
Cf Welter, 1937, p. 24: "Bine mit der aigmeuschen Kamares ,era~.
~~ n
Topfers~heibe aus kretischem Ton bestatigt die kretische Topferwerkstatt m Aigma. Cf. also
Georgiou, 1983, especially p. 76 note 17; Evely, 1988,p. 123 note 51.
S

6
7