Findspot

The final criterion is findspot, since the fragments were recovered in two distinctly separate general areas of the citadel, either NE of the Lion Gate (Tsountas 1-5, Mylonas 1, likely also Tsountas 7) or the ‘Cult Centre’ area (Tsountas 6, Taylour 1-2). This criterion remains questionably valid, as we do not know how any of the fragments arrived in their final fill contexts, and both find areas contained considerable downwash from further uphill that arguably had originated from the palace. However, all these downwash layers are at higher levels, overlying the known contexts of all the Mylonas and Taylour fragments which are not downwash contexts. Thus, we cannot demonstrate these ‘plaques’ originated from a single uphill (and thus likely palatial) source, although it remains theoretically possible.

Whether any of the Tsountas fragments were recovered in downwash layers is, of course, unknown but we must consider that Tsountas himself declared they “had nothing to do with the palace at all” (Sewell 1904, 259).

Present Condition

This constitutes the second point to be considered. The accidentally achieved wear-and-tear condition of the ‘plaques’ is immaterial here,607 only their deliberately and anciently altered condition that has never been considered in previous discussion. Only two of the fragments (Mylonas 1, Taylour 1) retain any original edges.608 This is indicated by the faience glaze extending over the entire ‘plaque’ surface, including along the surface of the edges. The edges on all other fragments are not glazed. It is manifestly apparent that they have been deliberately sawn to reduce (at least) their width and in some cases also their height. All sawn edges, as the original glazed edges, essentially are at right angles to the reverse and obverse faces.

Width

Both fragments (Mylonas 1, Taylour 1) with fully preserved side edges are 11.3 cm in width, with their texts generally centred on both obverse and reverse.609 The one fragment (Tsountas 3) with both surviving ‘reduced’610 side edges is only 10.7 cm wide, with the text generally centred on both obverse and reverse. This suggests that Tsountas 3 also had the same 11.3 cm width originally, and 3 mm must have been removed from both side edges, in order to retain the centrality of the text. When this same ‘reduced’ width of 10.7 cm also is applied to fragments having only one surviving ‘reduced’ side edge (Tsountas 1-2, 4-5, 7, Taylour 2), the preserved text also generally is centred. The original width of 11.3 cm is indicated by the dotted lines on either side of all fragments in Fig. 3. The one fragment lacking both

Mylonas 1 retains a good strong blue-green colour in its glaze, whilst the glaze of all other ‘plaques’ either is virtually leached of colour or it has been lost altogether. This is assumed here to be the result of the different conditions in the various specific contexts where the individual fragments were recovered. In general, colour rarely survives on glazed faience objects recovered in Aegean contexts, whereas those in Egyptian contexts normally retain their colour; see BEN ToR, this volume. Thus the actual physical situation of the context of Mylonas 1 must be most unusual for the Aegean, and its description will make interesting reading when it is published in detail. A preliminary account in

Side edges (Tsountas 6) also can be generally positioned by similarly centring its text. Thus, most likely, all ‘plaques’ originally had this same width of 11.3 cm before their side edges were sawn. The ‘plaques’ therefore likely all were the same shape and size originally or, at minimum, had a uniform width.

This point seems always to have been assumed, but had never actually been demonstrated. The ‘reduced’ side edges all are absolutely flat and smooth to the touch, with glaze chipped off along the face edges (most clearly seen on Tsountas 3-4). That these edges were in fact sawn rather than, for example, shaved or worn down, is indicated by one fragment (Taylour 2) that clearly has been ‘snapped’ at the last minute rather than entirely sawn off, leaving part of the original edge standing proud of the ‘reduced’ edge and somewhat rough to the touch. Furthermore, none of the ‘reduced’ edges shows any indication of further treatment. Their surface, or rather lack of it, was unimportant for their altered function, but the centred text was, since it is a tricky, time-consuming and otherwise unnecessary process to remove so narrow a portion of the edge.

The uniform width of all but the two still with edges intact (Mylonas 1, Taylour 1) also strongly suggests that the rest all would have been deliberately altered at the same time to this uniform width, for a single unknown purpose or perhaps several related purposes. Also, whenever they actually arrived at Mycenae - and we have over a century to play with - they most likely would have been kept or stored together before this alteration was done. This suggests either storage under controlled conditions, possibly in the palace uphill, or alteration immediately upon arrival, before any hypothetical distribution either within or beyond the palace but still within the citadel occurred. They appear to have been valued not for their text or any association with the Egyptian pharaoh named, but rather for their visual and physical attributes as thick flat colourful (blue-green) decorated objects. Nonetheless, the text clearly remained visually important (and clearly was intended to be seen on completion), as both edges were reduced by 3 mm to retain its central position, rather than just one side having 0.6 mm removed. The characteristic Mycenaean love of decorative symmetry is quite apparent in this alteration.

The two ‘plaques’ separately treated, or rather not treated, in this manner, perhaps arrived at a different time, or simply were used for a different purpose or purposes at Mycenae. They are, after all, the largest and the least altered fragments.