First Impressions: A Preliminary Account of Mat-Impressed Pottery in the Prehistoric Aegean

Neolithic and early Bronze Age excavators have discovered, noted, and described mat-impressed bases since the late nineteenth century. Since most of the perishable originals no longer exist, these impressions have been windows into prehistoric Aegean matting and basketry. However, beyond the definition of a range of weave patterns and the widespread acceptance that mats were employed as prototypical potter's wheels, this subject has received limited discussion. My research is an attempt to destroy this illusion of weaving's exclusivity, for mat impressions can also be viewed as reflections of cultural identity and as an indication of the movement of physical objects and ideas through prehistoric Greece.

The distribution of mat-impressed bases was first considered by Carington-Smith (1975)¹, who noted that from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age the phenomenon was primarily Cycladic. My paper investigates this claim in light of new data and considers the significance of these artefacts in non-Cycladic contexts (see below). It has also been my aim to study this material in finer detail by noting its distribution in time, space and context. This includes attempting to discern inter-island differentiation of weaves and vessel types bearing impressions. It is quite apparent that the production of pottery on mats was meaningful and selective. For example, when impressed bases are discovered, they are almost exclusively viewed upon coarse wares, providing further evidence for the existence of parallel potting techniques during these periods. Pottery from burials also rarely, if ever, bears mat impressions.

My work to date has also indicated that there is a strong correlation between EBA mat impression and other, more accepted aspects of 'Cycladica': figurines, marble vessels, pottery and burial practices. This paper examines the dissemination of this phenomenon. Are the same vessel and fabric types used consistently in both island and non-island contexts? If this is the case, does this represent the physical movement of material culture or the appropriation / emulation of a particular ceramic technique? If technology is being passed on, is an understanding of propriety also shared?

Thus, whilst the Early, Late, and Final Neolithic evidence for mat impressions will be briefly discussed, this paper's emphasis will be placed on the EBA evidence.

1. J. Carington-Smith (1975), Spinning, Weaving and Textile Manufacture in Prehistoric Greece: From the beginning of the Neolithic to the end of the Mycenaean Ages; with particular reference to the evidence found on archaeological excavations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tasmania.