Bamboula, Pottery classification

3. made to contain anything, as more closed types can. Surely this is sufficient economic consideration to account for the fact that Mycenean exporters did not care to fill their ships with them.

Finally, there is the matter of bowls. [On this score, it seems possible to entertain the assumption of some local manufacture.] Bowls are also not suited to carry anything enroute, although by stacking they can be packed much more economically of space, and are less fragile. Since bowls are proportionately numerous among Mycenean wares in Cyprus, it may be questioned whether space would have been taken up to transport them. Cypriote potters could have imitated the Mycenean paint and clay (see following) to produce a local luxury product. The shape is simple and well within their scope. Furthermore, if there is influence on bowl shapes from local coarse ware, as Furumark implies rather than says, it is most easily explained by the assumption that local potters were adapting shapes they knew. Surely one will not suppose that imported Mycenean artists found inspiration in local coarse ware! Also the simple and monotonous ornamentation of bowls would suit the theory that they are Cypriote adaptations of the Mycenean fabric.

Drawing: no; text block set off by rules and a red bracket

Such an assumption would seem to be strengthened by the fact that one is occasionally at a loss as to whether to classify a potparticularly bowls - as Mycenean or as Late Cypriote III Dec. This is true in the case of many pots found in tombs at Kouklia. The clay and paint seem, viewed in one light, Mycenean, in another LC III Dec. There is also a certain ambiguity in the designs, which do not correspond exactly to anything in MP, either III B or III C:I, yet have similarities to both (more to III B). The work is careless and not of high quality but this is not to the prejudice of a lively appearance. These pots are probably imitations of Mycenean wares by local potters. In the case of the bowls the decorations of pieces found at Bamboula is virtually limited to stripes. Bowls from Enkomi sometimes have rosettes. Br. Mus. C may be a local imitation of the Protome Painter.

This would also account for the occasional hybrid form of pots found on Cyprus (Cf. Br. Mus. C623 and C729 also C659-60) which, incidentally, stand out by their infrequent occurrence. It seems to me, nevertheless, unlikely that all the bowls in Cyprus are to be accounted for in this way and I should not like