A deposit of Late Helladic IIIB1 pottery from Tsoungiza

The clay ware from pit 1 at Tsoungiza, individual of the largest individual deposits of Mycenaean ceramics at any time completely analyzed, is important to the inquiry of chronology and stylistic unravelling issues of ceramic ecology (i.e., patterns of household acquisition, use, and discard of pottery) and broader questions of clay ware production and consumption relating to social and economic organization. The circumstances of its deposition and the other artifacts associated with it (broken sod stone tools, animal bones) leave little doubt that it exhibits household rubbish. The wide variety of utensils present would seem to exemplify almost the entire range of pans employed by the site's residents. These considerations make the Tsoungiza ceramics particularly valuable for comparison with other deposits.

In assessing the chronological position of the Tsoungiza material, it must first be emphasized that the material is highly homogeneous, with little evidence of mixing with clay ware from earlier periods and no evidence of later material. It is, in survey unfortunate that the pit was not sectioned when it was excavated, as this would have allowed us to determine whether there was any observable change in decoration from the bottom of the pit to the top. Nevertheless, it is possible to approach this question in an indirect manner. Since the pit was excavated in square meter units (SMUs) and the material was not mixed during processing, the SMUs from the central, deepest parts of the pit can be compared with the shallower SMUs along the cutting sides (167) Logically, if the pit had been filled gradually above an extended period of time, the SMUs in the deepest part of the pit would contain a disproportionate amount of relatively earlier material. This is not the case, however, as the material displays minimal chronological variation over the entire area. It therefore strike one as beings likely that the pit was not filled above a long period of time (such as 50 years), on the contrary over a considerably shorter period, perhaps 20-30 years, as argued below.

level a cursory examination would place the volume of the pottery safely in LH IIIB. It can be further restricted to LH IIIB1, for none of the decisive distinguishing characteristics of LH IIIB2, like as Group B deep goblets and rosette bowls, is at hand Not even a single suspected example of either of these stamps was found among the thousands of sherds. (168) It should also be noted that patterned kylikes, which are generally lacking in LH IIIB2 deposits in the Argolid, are at hand in quantity. (169) Mountjoy has indicateed that the basin FS 294 which has linear decoration upon the exterior and is solidly painted upon the interior, should also be considered diagnostic of LH IIIB2, (170) on the other hand the evidence for this is problematic. of the like kind basins are certainly present in LH IIIB2 deposits at Mycenae, (171) on the other hand the date of their initial appearance is uncertain. A sherd probably belonging to this shape from an undoubted LH IIIB1 connection at Mycenae was published by the agency of Wardle, and Schonfeld has reported that they appear in LH IIIB early connections at Tiryns. (172) In light of these considerations, along with the incident of examples 235 and 236 at Tsoungiza, it appear to bes more reasonable to conclude that the mark existed as early as LH IIIB1. No part of this deposit, then, stretch outs into LH IIIB2.

Placement of the deposit more specifically within LH IIIB1 is difficult. (173) The material is chronologically closer to the extremity of LH IIIA2 than to the beginning of LH IIIB2. Several lines of reasoning point to this conclusion: the nearness of both the FS 257 and 258 kylikes in quantity, the nonstandardized size and shape of the F 284 reaching far down bowls, the total lack of innovative features linked to the defining marks of the succeeding period (eg dotted rims or solidly painted interiors upon deep bowls), the presence of solitary a few examples of the F 274 conical kylix, and the overall character of the decoration, which keeps a number of stylistic links (such as horizontal/diagonal whorlshells) with the preceding LH IIIA2 late phase. As a whole, therefore, the deposit is best characterized as early LH IIIB.

individual final observation on chronology pertains to the fairly high stage of uniformity exhibited by Mycenaean ceramics through every part of much of the mainland in LH IIIB1, as in LH IIIA. The EU 2 pit 1 deposit from Tsoungiza clearly throw backs this koine. The FS 258A Zygouries-style kylix, for example, is near not only at Argivo-Corinthian sites like as Mycenae, Tiryns, Zygouries, and Tsoungiza, on the contrary also at Nichoria in Messenia, Eutresis in Boiotia, and across the Aegean upon Rhodes. (174) In LH IIIB2, definite regional differences are apparent. Certain marks commonly found in the Argolid, similar as the deep rosette beaker are rarely found in other areas; local variants of reaching far down bowl types are common, as is evident at Nichoria. (175)

In addition to its chronological significance, analysis of the Tsoungiza pit 1 deposit may also contribute to a better understanding of the ceramic ecology or use life of pans in a comparatively small Mycenaean adjustment Although there are certain difficulties, it is worthwhile to estimate the number of utensils present in order to address issues of ceramic breakage and replacement. Rice has outlined the attendant riddles and suggested a number of estimation techniques. (176) Many of these require detailed recording of sherd thicknesses, maximum sherd diameters, and full specimens to provide a known baseline. Given the many different kinds of utensils represented in the Tsoungiza deposit, greatest in quantity of them fragmentary, the last criterion certainly cannot be met and the other sum of two units criteria would require an immense expenditure of time if subsampling were not employed