Kos in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: The Halasarna Finds and the Aegean Settlement Pattern (Prehistory Monographs) 9781931534680, 1931534683

Table of contents :
List of Tables and Maps
List of Figures
List of Plates
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
1 Introduction
Part I The Finds from the Halasarna Survey Project, 2003–2006
2 Topography of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Sites
3 Pottery Fabrics
4 Pottery Shapes
5 The Pottery of Halasarnain Chronological and Regional Perspective
6 Chipped Stone
7 Ground Stone
8 Small Finds
9 The Halasarna Chronology
10 Catalog of Diagnostic Finds
Part II Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Aegean Islands
11 Settlement Patterns in the Pre-Neolithic and Neolithic Aegean
12 Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns
13 Diachronic Developments in the Halasarna Region in TheirBroader Aegean Context
References
Index

Citation preview

Kos in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age The Halasarna Finds and the Aegean Settlement Pattern

Kos in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age The Halasarna Finds and the Aegean Settlement Pattern

Halasarna

PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 38

Kos in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age The Halasarna Finds and the Aegean Settlement Pattern by Mercourios Georgiadis

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2012

Design and Production INSTAP Academic Press Printing and Binding Thomson-Shore, Inc., Dexter, MI

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Georgiadis, M. (Mercourios) Kos in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age : the Halasarna finds and the Aegean settlement pattern / by Mercourios Georgiadis. p. cm. — (Prehistory monographs ; 38) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-931534-68-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Neolithic period—Greece—Kardámaina. 2. Bronze Age—Greece—Kardámaina. 3. Pottery, Prehistoric— Greece—Kardámaina. 4. Pottery, Aegean. 5. Kardámaina (Greece)—Antiquities. 6. Excavations (Archaeology)— Greece—Kardámaina. 7. Land settlement patterns—Aegean Sea Region. I. Title. GN776.22.G8G47 2012 938—dc23 2012023021

Copyright © 2012 INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

To Nireus

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Plates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PART I. THE FINDS FROM THE HALASARNA SURVEY PROJECT, 2003–2006 2. Topography of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3. Pottery Fabrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Pottery Shapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5. The Pottery of Halasarna in Chronological and Regional Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6. Chipped Stone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7. Ground Stone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 8. Small Finds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 9. The Halasarna Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 10. Catalog of Diagnostic Finds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

viii

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

PART II. NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE AEGEAN ISLANDS 11. Settlement Patterns in the Pre-Neolithic and Neolithic Aegean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 12. Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 13. Diachronic Developments in the Halasarna Region in Their Broader Aegean Context. . . . . . . . . . . 205 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Tables Maps Figures Plates

List of Tables and Maps

Table 1.

The pre-Neolithic and Neolithic chronology of the Aegean.

Table 2.

The Early Bronze Age chronology of the Aegean.

Table 3.

Characteristics of the pottery assemblages from the seven main sites.

Table 4.

Small islands and islets used during the LN/FN Neolithic and EBA.

Table 5.

EBA site location preferences in the Aegean islands.

Map 1.

The Aegean islands.

Map 2.

Prehistoric sites on Kos and the Halasarna Survey Project area.

Map 3.

Neolithic and EBA sites at Halasarna.

Map 4.

Sites at Nerantzia and Koutlousi hills.

Map 5.

Occurrence of chipped stone at Halasarna sites.

Map 6.

Neolithic Halasarna.

Map 7.

EBA Halasarna.

Map 8.

Neolithic sites on Kos.

Map 9.

EBA sites on Kos.

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Deep and medium bowls with straight walls and straight or slightly flaring rims (Kt.9–Kt.11, Kt.20); shallow bowl with straight walls and straight rim (Kt.22); shallow bowls with flaring walls and simple round rims (Kt.27–Kt.29, Kt.32); bowl with straight body, high shoulder ending on an incurving pointed rim (Kk.1); bowls with straight walls and flaring rims that thicken considerably (Kt.33, Kt.34); bowl with straight wall and thickened round everted rim (Kk.2); bowl with straight or slightly curving walls and upturned pointed rim (N.4); bowls with curved walls and incurving rim (Kt.35, Kt.36, Ktn.2, Ktn.3, T.2). Scale 1:2.

Figure 2.

Bowls with curved walls and upturned straight rims (Kt.37, Kt.39, N.6); bowls with straight walls and upturned rims (N.7, Kk.4); bowls with slightly curved walls and incurving, internally thickened, rims (T.3, Ktn.4, N.8); bowls with straight walls and straight thickened rims (Kt.42, Kk.5); bowl with slightly curving walls and a bead lip (Kt.43); bowls with curving body and slightly flaring, externally thickened, -type rim (O.1, Kt.44); wide-mouthed bowls with a slightly S-shaped body curvature (Kt.45–Kt.47); bowls with S-shaped body curvature and flaring rims (Kt.49–Kt.52); bowl with straight walls and T-rim (T.5); bowl with rolled rim (Kt.53). Scale 1:2.

Figure 3.

Bowl with S-shaped body and horizontal handles (Kt.54); bowls with high swing vertical loop handle (Kt.55–Kt.57); bowl with one or two handles and a curved body (T.6); carinated bowl with a vertical lug (Ktn.5); dipper (Kt.58). Scale 1:2.

Figure 4.

Scoop (Kt.59); one-handled cups with incurving rims and vertical handle below the rim (Kt.Lh.3, N.9); one-handled cup (Kt.60); one-handled cup with upraised rim (Kt.61); one- or two-handled cup with straight body and flaring rim (N.11); sauceboats (Kt.62, Kt.63); basin (T.7). Scale 1:2.

xii

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Figure 5.

Basins with straight or slightly curving bodies and thickened rims (Kk.6, Kk.7); deep pedestal bowls (Kt.65, Kt.66); pedestal bowl (Kt.67); cylindrical pyxis (Kt.68); rims from broad-mouthed jugs (Kt.70, Kt.71). Scale 1:2.

Figure 6.

Deep open jars (Kt.72–Kt.75); jar with curved body, no neck, and incurving thickened rim (Kt.76); jars with spreading neck and simple rim (Kt.77–Kt.79, Kt.82, Kt.84); jars with spreading necks and flaring rims (Kt.89, Kt.91); jars with spreading neck and flaring rim, internally thickened (Kt.94). Scale 1:2.

Figure 7.

Jars with cylindrical necks and straight or slightly flaring rims (Kt.95, Kt.97, N.17, Kt.98, N.18); jars with cylindrical necks and flaring rims (Kt.99, Kt.100); jar with almost cylindrical neck and flaring, thickened, rim (T.8); jars with incurving neck and rim (Kt.102, Kk.10); collared-neck jar with flaring neck and rim (Kt.103); collared-neck jar with flaring neck and everted rim (N.19); collared-neck jar with round everted rim (Kt.104); globular jars with collared necks (Kt.105, Kt.106); amphora (Kt.107). Scale 1:2.

Figure 8.

Pithoid jars without necks and with everted projecting rims (Kt.108, Kt.Lh.5, Kt.Lh.6); pithoid jars without necks and with everted round rims (Kt.109, Kt.Lh.7, Kt.Lh.8); pithoid jar without neck and with a straight flat rim (Kt.Lh.9); pithoid jar with spreading neck and a simple, almost rectangular rim (N.20); pithoid jar with short cylindrical neck and everted round rim (N.21); cheese pot rim (Kk.11); unperforated cheese pot rims (Ktn.7, Kt.116); body of cheese pot (Kt.111); cheese pot rims (Kt.122–Kt.124). Scale 1:2.

Figure 9.

Cheese pot rims (Kt.118, Kt.125–Kt.128, Kt.130, Kt.131). Scale 1:2.

Figure 10.

Cheese pot rims (Kt.132, Kt.135, N.22); cheese pot bases (N.23, Kt.136–Kt.138); horizontal handles (Kt.139, Kt. 140, N.24, O.2, Kk.16); horizontal raised or loop handle (Ktn.h.1) Scale 1:2.

Figure 11.

Horizontal raised or loop handle (Kk.17); vertical cylindrical handle from a cup or small bowl (O.3); vertical cylindrical handles (N.25, Kt.142); jug handles (N.27, N.28, Kt.143–Kt.145). Scale 1:2.

Figure 12.

Jar or jug handles (T.10, Kt.147); strap-tubular vertical handle (N.31); kidney-shaped vertical handle (N.32); ribbed vertical (push-through) handle (Kt.151); vertical jar handles (N.34, T.11). Scale 1:2.

Figure 13.

Vertical jar handles (Kt.152, Kt.153); vertical rectangular handle from a jar or jug (N.36); vertical ribbon loop handle from a jar (Kt.156). Scale 1:2.

Figure 14.

Vertical strap pithos handles (N.37, Kt.157). Scale 1:2.

Figure 15.

Vertical circular pithos handle (N.38); oval vertical pithos handles (Kt.158, Kt.159); horizontal handle from a pithos (N.40). Scale 1:2.

Figure 16.

Vertical lug (Kt.160); horizontal horn-shaped lug (Kt.162); horizontal lug with a small horn (Kt.163); rectangular-shaped vertical lug (Kt.164); tab or horn handles (Ktn.h.2, Kt.165, Kt.166); flat bases with angular edges and straight walls (Kt.167, Kt.168); flat bases with round edges and curved walls (Kt.169, Kt.170, O.8); flat base with thin incurving wall (Kt.171). Scale 1:2.

Figure 17.

Flat splayed base with round edge (Kt.173); flat differentiated base (N.41); sunk base (Kt.175); tripod feet (Kt.176, N.42); raised base from a crusted ware bowl (Ktn.12); patternburnished ware body fragment from a closed vessel (Kt.177); incised ware (Kt.178–Kt.180); rim from a spherical pyxis (T.12); rim from a pithoid vase with a vertical triangular relief band (Kt.181). Scale 1:2.

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

Figure 18.

Body of a bowl with a slightly oval button with a sunk top (Kt.185); rim of a pithos with shallow thumb impressions (Kt.187); slashed handle from a jar (Kt.Lh.10); vertical handles from closed vessels with holes (N.43, N.44); vertical handle from a jar with a shallow vertical ridge (Ktn.13). Melian blades (Kt.C.6, Kt.C.7, Kk.C.3); Giali medial blade (Kt.C.8); Giali bladelets (Kk.C.12, T.C.1); Giali one-edged blades (Kt.C.10, Kt.C.11); Giali scrapers (N.C.3, N.C.4, Kk.C.20, Kk.C.21). Scale 1:2

Figure 19.

Grindstone type (N.St.1). Scale 1:2.

Figure 20.

Grindstone type 1 (N.St.2); grindstone type 2 (T.St.1, T.St.2); grindstone type 3 (Kt.St.1). Scale 1:2.

Figure 21.

Mortar type 1 (Kt.St.2); mortar type 2 (N.St.5); mortar type 3 (Kt.St.3). Scale 1:2.

Figure 22.

Grinder type 1 (Kt.St.4, Kt.St.7, T.St.4); grinder type 2 (Kt.St.11, O.St.1); grinder type 3 (Kt.St.12); grinder type 4 (Kt.St.13); grinder type 5 (Kt.St.14). Scale 1:2.

Figure 23.

Grinder type 5 (Kt.St.16); grinder type 6 (N.St.9); grinder type 7 (T.St.5); grinder type 8 (N.St.11); pounder type 1 (T.St.6). Scale 1:2.

Figure 24.

Pounder type 2 (Kt.St. 18, Kt.St.19); hammers (T.St.7, O.St.2). Scale 1:2.

Figure 25.

Polisher (Kt.St.22). Open clay mold (Kt.SF.1); clay furnace (Kt.SF.2); terracotta ring (Kt.SF.4). Scale 1:2.

List of Plates

Plate 1A.

The hill southwest of Hagios Phokas, view from south.

Plate 1B.

Kastello or Kastelles hill, view from southwest.

Plate 1C.

View of the hill east of Panagia Tsoukalaria, view from northeast.

Plate 2A.

Mesaria, view to west.

Plate 2B.

The metal source near the Hagios Georgios chapel on the eastern side of the stream, view from north.

Plate 2C.

The copper veins close to the Hagios Georgios chapel.

Plate 3A.

Hagios Ioannis hill, view from north.

Plate 3B.

Hill north of Hagios Stephanos, view from south.

Plate 3C.

Laftonero hill, view from south.

Plate 4A.

Hill east of Hagia Varvara.

Plate 4B.

Hill northeast of Hagia Varvara (in the middle left), view from southwest.

Plate 4C.

Milies hill, view from east.

Plate 5A.

Vigles hill, view from southeast.

Plate 5B.

Site northwest of Aspri Petra cave, view from south.

Plate 5C.

Hagios Theologos northern hill, view from south.

xvi

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Plate 6A.

Hagios Theologos southern hill, view from east.

Plate 6B.

Hill north of Hagios Ioannis, view from northeast.

Plate 6C.

The rock shelters on the eastern side of the Marmara pennisula, view from east.

Plate 7A.

Eleona hill slopes at the center, view from west.

Plate 7B.

Site K11.06 in the upper left part of the plain, view from Eleona (northeast).

Plate 8A.

Nerantzia Hill and Mt. Dikaios range, view from Koutlousi (southwest).

Plate 8B.

Koutlousi Upper Hill (right) and Koutlousi Lower Hill (left), view from Nerantzia (northeast).

Plate 8C.

Koutlousi Lower Hill, view from Koutlousi Upper Hill (north).

Plate 9A.

Site K.09.89 and the Halasarna plain, view from Koutounis Upper Hill (east).

Plate 9B.

Koutounis Hill (the higher flat hill to the right) view from south.

Plate 9C.

C. Koutounis (the site is on the lower slopes of the hill at the center), view from Koutounis Hill (north).

Plate 10A.

Tsangaris hill, view from northeast.

Plate 10B.

Ancient Halasarna and the Tholos hill, view from south.

Plate 10C.

Koukos hill, view from south.

Plate 11.

Straw marks on the internal side of Kt.86; sherds with black slip and burnishing (T.1 and Ktn.1); post-firing hole on bowl rim (Kt.Lh.1); scored ware cheese pot rim with horizontal striation lines (Ktn.116); rough and burnished ware (unnumbered). Scale is 1:1.

Plate 12.

Red-slipped and burnished ware (N.32); red-glazed ware (Urfirnis) bowl rim (T.7); body sherd with thick white slip (unnumbered); bowl rim with milky, whitish slip (N.1); strawimpressed base from a cheese pot (Kt.137); open jar with mottled surface (Kt.75, nubbly ware); cheese pot rims (Kt.130, N.22). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.

Plate 13.

Push-through, horizontal, strap handle from a jar (Kt.141); vertical strap handle with upraised edges (O.6); rectangular-shaped vertical lug (Kt.161); body from a bowl with red crusted decoration (Ktn.11); body from closed vessel with a patterned decoration (Kt.177); rim from a spherical pyxis with incised decoration (T.12); bowl rim with external thumb impressions (Kt.44); vertical jar handles with unperforated and perforated holes (N.43 and N.44, respectively). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.

Plate 14.

Chipped stone tool material: quartz core (Kt.C.2); chert scraper (Kk.C.19); Melian obsidian blade (Kt.C.7); Giali obsidian core (Kt.C.4); Anatolian or Giali core (O.C.9); Kefalos obsidian flake (unnumbered) and scraper (N.C.4); Giali obsidian arrowhead (Kk.C.29). Scale 1:1.

Plate 15A.

Geological strata at the hill northeast of Hagia Varvara church.

Plate 15B.

Geological stratum with obsidian nodules and scale.

Plate 15C.

Detail of the geological stratum showing an obsidian nodule.

Plate 16.

Kephalos obsidian varieties 1, 2, and 3. Andesite grindstone (Kk.St.1). Sandstone mortar (Kt.St.2). Grinders: marble (Kt.St.5) and andesite (Kt.St.14, Kt.St.15). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.

LIST OF PLATES

xvii

Plate 17.

Grindstones: volcanic rock (Kt.St.1) and granite (N.St.1). Greenstone axe (Kt.St.21). Limestone grindstone left in situ (T.St.3).

Plate 18.

Hemispherical token or weight with incised signs (Kt.St.20); part of a clay mould (Kt.SF.1); parts of a clay furnace with pre-firing holes (Kt.SF.2, Kt.SF.3). Scale 1:1.

Acknowledgments

I have many people to thank for their help, comments, and advice during different stages of this work. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to all the students from the University of Nottingham and other institutions who participated in this research, Christina Aamont, Nick Booth, Katerina Bousopoulou (University of Athens), Jemma Jones, Alex Sheppard, Georgia Verza (University of Milan), Robert Woodward, and Eugenia Zouzoula. Without their help this study would never have been completed. I would also like to thank Katy Soar for checking my English and Lela Antonini-Georgiadis for her help. Special thanks are owed to Nikolaos Dimakis (University of Nottingham) for his patience during our drive across Kos while locating prehistoric sites and to Lambros Travlos for all his help during the Halasarna survey. I would like to express my gratitude to Fondas and Sara Chryssopoulos at Kardamaina for their help, friendship, and support in the years I visited Kos and for the expert advice of Fondas in matters of pottery making, clay deposits, and local topography. Without the generous financial aid from the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (2006–2008), the J.F. Costopoulos Foundation (2007), and the Mediterranean Trust (2006), this study would never have been completed. I thank these organizations for all of their support. Thanks are owed to Yiannis Bassiakos, Barbara Horejs, Edward Faber, Nick Flemming, Vassilis Kilikoglou, Yeorgios Katavoutas, Neyir Kolankaya-Bostanci, Elisabetta Mangani, Fanis Mavridis, Eleni Panagopoulou, Yannis Papadatos, Mark Pearce, and Elpida Skerlou for the information they shared with me and the discussions we had on a number of issues. I would also like to express my gratitude to the 22nd Ephorate of Classical and Prehistoric Antiquities. I would like to thank

xx

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Adamantios Sampson for giving me permission to study the finds from Hagios Phokas, although it was not possible for me to see the material. I would also like to express my gratitude to Richard Hope Simpson for allowing me to study the finds he collected during his fieldwalks in the Dodecanese. Thanks are also due to the former Director of the British School at Athens James Whitley, the former Assistant Director Eleni Hatzaki, the Archivist Amalia Kakissis, the Assistant Director Robert Pitt, and the Director of the British School at Athens Catherine Morgan for the permission to study and use the facilities of the School. Many thanks are owed to Krzysztof Nowicki for his useful comments and fruitful discussions about prehistoric times in the wider southeastern Aegean. His help in sharing information about prehistoric sites he located on Kos years ago has been invaluable. The same applies to William G. Cavanagh and Christopher B. Mee for their patience with my endless questions on a number of issues. My discussions with Chrysanthi Gallou have been fruitful and enlightening as always, but above all I thank her for her support. I would like to express my gratitude to Yeorgia Kokkorou-Alevra for inviting me to participate in the Halasarna Survey Project. I also thank Kostas Kopanias from the bottom of my heart for invaluable help and support throughout my involvement in the Halasarna Survey Project.

List of Abbreviations

B.P.

C. ca. cm d. EB EBA EC ECh EH EM EN FN g GIS GPS ha HSP Kk. km km2

Before Present chipped stone (in catalog numbers following site abbreviation) circa centimeter(s) diameter Early Bronze Early Bronze Age Early Cycladic Early Chalcolithic Early Helladic Early Minoan Early Neolithic Final Neolithic grams geographic information system Global Positioning System hectares Halasarna Survey Project Koukos kilometer(s) square kilometers

km3 Kt. Kt.Lh. Ktn. Ktn.h. L. LAN LBA LCh LH LM LN m MB MBA MC MCh mm MN Mt. N N.

cubic kilometers Koutlousi Upper Hill Koutlousi Lower Hill Koutounis Koutounis Hill length Late Aegean Neolithic Late Bronze Age Late Chalcolithic Late Helladic Late Minoan Late Neolithic meter(s) Middle Bronze Middle Bronze Age Middle Cycladic Middle Chalcolithic millimeter(s) Middle Neolithic Mount Neolithic Nerantzia

xxii

n.m. O. PPNB pres. S.F.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

nautical mile other sites Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period preserved small find (in catalog numbers following site abbreviation)

St. T. th. w.

ground stone (in catalog numbers following site abbreviation) Tsangaris thickness width

Chronology FN EM MM LM SM PG

Final Neolithic (ca. 4000–3200 B.C.) Early Minoan (ca. 3200–2100 B.C.) Middle Minoan (ca. 2100–1600 B.C.) Late Minoan (ca. 1600–1100 B.C.) Subminoan (ca. 1100–1000 B.C.) Protogeometric (ca. 1000–900 B.C.)

G LG EO V Ott. Mod.

Geometric (ca. 900–700 B.C.) Late Geometric (ca. 760–700 B.C.) Early Orientalizing (ca. 700–660 B.C.) Venetian (12th–17th century A.D.) Ottoman (17th century–1900 A.D.) Modern (1900 A.D.–present A.D.)

1

Introduction

Research on the eastern Aegean and the Dodecanese in particular is scarce and not always coherent. Studies of the periods before the Late Bronze Age are rare and have afforded rather limited information regarding wider issues in this part of the world. A regional compartmentalization is commonly applied in discussions of Aegean settlement patterns of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. These are the main reasons why I decided to undertake the writing of this monograph, which is based partly on survey material and partly on a study of settlement patterns across the Aegean. My goal is not only to provide a new corpus of data on these periods, but also, more importantly, to present a material sequence based on stylistic analysis and to develop a diachronic understanding of settlement dynamics within a wider regional context (Map 1). Halasarna is the ancient name of modern Kardamaina in southern Kos. It is located on the southern coast of the central part of the island, in a plain below the Antimachia plateau (Map 2). This is the largest plain in central, eastern, and southern Kos, measuring 4.5 km by 1.5 km (ca. 6.75 km2), and it is one of the most fertile areas on the island. The

plain is the principal area covered in the survey, which was limited to the south by the sea, to the east by the Mt. Dikaios range and its foothills, and to north and west by low hills. The reasons for defining these boundaries for the survey will be discussed below. Overall, the area in which the survey was carried out covered the whole plain, along with parts of the low hills up to 1 km north and west of the plain, while on the eastern side of the plain it reached up to the western end of the Mt. Dikaios range. The survey area had an almost rectangular shape, ca. 7 km by 2.5 km. Altogether an area of ca. 18 km2 was covered in an intensive and systematic field survey.1 The Halasarna Survey Project (HSP) was undertaken by a team from the University of Athens under the direction of Yeorgia Kokkorou-Alevra in order to explore an area known in the Classical and Hellenistic period as the demos of the Halasarnites. This research was associated with the excavations by the University of Athens of ancient Halasarna, which explored a complex of public buildings, including temples and a stoa dating mainly to the Hellenistic period, as well as an Early Christian settlement. The aim of the survey was to achieve a

2

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

broader perspective on the region both at a microscale, focusing on the site of Halasarna itself, and at a macroscale, aiming at an understanding of a whole demos. The project was designed as a systematic land survey using geographic information system (GIS) for accurate and quantitative results. The fieldwork took place in various seasons from 2003 through 2006. In the first two years the main goal was to cover the most accessible area of the plain, where most of the sites were expected to be located. While this hypothesis was confirmed, only sporadic evidence of prehistoric occupation of the region was recovered. This situation changed dramatically in 2005, when the hill zone of the survey area was surveyed. Several sites or activity areas from prehistoric times were recognized, of which six seem to have been the largest and most important. The quantity of prehistoric material collected— 2,975 sherds, 411 pieces of chipped stone, and 43 ground stone tools—is sufficient to allow us to formulate a number of conclusions about the Neolithic and Early Bronze periods. The most prominent of the diagnostic finds are presented, analyzed, and discussed in this work. The fact that the material is a product of an intensive, systematic survey has both advantages and disadvantages.2 The most important drawback is the fact that the finds are not stratified, and therefore no solid chronology for their findspots can be claimed; this problem is inherent in all survey material. Nonetheless, surveys also have considerable advantages, such as the rich information that they provide on a regional scale. Such data, almost impossible to obtain from excavation alone, can form a narrative for the diachronic development of an area. Moreover, the methodological characteristics of systematic, intensive survey, as opposed to simple fieldwalking, permit the undertaking of

valid quantitative as well as qualitative analyses. These advantages are particularly important for studying the dynamics of settlement patterns in any given period, as I propose to do here. This book is organized so as to make the finds as comprehensible as possible to the researcher before the settlements, their character, and their development over time are discussed. In the remainder of this chapter I discuss the geological attributes of the island and the Halasarna area in particular in order to highlight their role in the formation of the local topography. I then examine the mineral resources of Kos and neighboring islands such as Giali and Nisyros for a broader understanding of the resources that would have been available for use in prehistory. After this, I review the history of research and all the known prehistoric sites on the island. The chapter concludes with a small section on the problems of dating, the chronological terminology used for this area, and the chronology followed in this monograph. Next, in Part I of this book, I present a discussion of the main sites and the diagnostic finds from Halasarna. HSP site numbers are prefixed by K. The pottery, chipped stone, ground stone tools, and other finds are examined in detail, with consideration of parallels from other sites. I then summarize this material and the evidence for relations with other regions, both neighboring and further afield. Part I ends with a catalog that describes the characteristics of each find so as to facilitate comparative study by other researchers. Finally, in Part II I provide a broad diachronic assessment of settlement patterns in the Aegean throughout the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age (EBA). Thus, I place Kos in its contemporary context, and I consider the Halasarna sites in conjunction with other settlements from Kos.

Geology and Geomorphology In order to understand the Halasarna region, it is necessary to review the geological formation of Kos, Giali, Nisyros, and the surrounding islets. All of these islands are part of the Hellenic arc, which is a volcanic zone located primarily underwater. To the west, the beginning of this volcanic belt lies in the Saronic Gulf, encompassing Krommyon (i.e., the

eastern part of the Megarid), Methana, Aegina, and Poros. To the east, it passes through the Melos and Thera island complexes to Nisyros, Giali, and the lesser islands Strongyli, Pyrgoussa, Pacheia, and Hagios Antonios.3 Kos is roughly rectangular in shape with an area of 290 km2. It receives an average rainfall of 940

INTRODUCTION

mm per annum with a standard deviation of 360 mm, which represents an important variance in rainfall every year.4 The southeastern Aegean islands receive considerably different amounts of annual rainfall relative to the southern Cycladic islands.5 Kos can be divided geologically as well as geomorphologically into three regions: the eastern, the central, and the western.6 Although it is not a volcanic island per se, volcanic activity has affected it, especially the western part of the Kephalos region. Along with the volcanic minerals found in the west, hot springs, particulary in the southern part of the island, are indications of its position within the volcanic zone. The morphology of the eastern region includes the mountain, hill, and plain zones.7 The mountainous area is located in the southern part of this region and has an east–west orientation. It is dominated by Mt. Dikaios, 847 m high, with a geological composition consisting mainly of schist and flysch, as well as diorite in its western part. Sporadically, volcanic minerals, marble, limestone, and quartz monzonite outcrops are found in this zone.8 Most of the hot springs are found along the southern and central parts of Mt. Dikaios. The hilly zone is dominated by Neogene deposits forming low sloping hills, 250–300 m high. Nonetheless, in its northwestern area small outcrops of schist and flysch, limestone, volcanic minerals, and marble exist, while a hot spring is located just above the Asklepieion. The plain area is formed from alluvial deposits, which descend gradually from the low hilly area to the sea. The central region is dominated by a plateau formed by volcanic tuff in its central and northern part and by an alluvial plain on the southern side, the Halasarna area. The characteristics of this region are the direct result of a volcanic eruption 145,000 to 160,000 years ago, possibly from Giali. The eruption covered an area of 5,000 km2, with either 100 km3 or 33–35 km3 of volcanic ash blanketing Kalymnos, Tilos, Chalki, and the Halicarnassus peninsula, and forming the tuff plateau, 100 m high, in the Antimachia area.9 Quartz is one of the main components of the pumice that covered parts of Kos. The hills surrounding the Halasarna plain can be divided roughly into three geological regions.10 The first is in the northeastern area and consists of

3

tertiary lacustrine and marine deposits, mainly lacustrine, with marls and conglomerates. The second region is located in the north of the plain, where quaternary marine deposits predominate, and there are limited outcrops of volcanic tuffs. The third region is in the west of the plain and consists of tertiary lacustrine and marine deposits with many large outcrops of volcanic tuffs. Most of the western region of Kos consists of volcanic tuff, but in the northern part of the Kephalos peninsula limestone also occurs. In the southern part of this area, rock hills resulting from volcanic activity during or after the Neogene are found. There is also a small zone of Neogene sediments in the southeastern part of Kephalos.11 Since the Pleistocene there has been a general geological tendency for uplift on the island, especially in the central part.12 Overall, however, Kos is a relatively flat, fertile island, with hills that have low vegetation and are well suited to animal husbandry. The island is well watered due to its perennial streams.13 The Halasarna area in particular is characterized by numerous streams and is the largest fertile plain in central and western Kos. Giali is a small islet with an area of 4.5 km2. It is located ca. 9 km south of Kos and consists of two roughly triangular parts connected by a narrow neck.14 The southwestern region consists of pumice and Neogene sediments, with a peak 174 m high.15 The pumice that dominates this area does not retain water, limiting the supplies on the islet. The northeastern area was formed by volcanic activity centered somewhere between Giali and Nisyros, and it consists of rhyolite, perlite, and obsidian.16 In this part of the islet the highest peak is 190 m high. Nine outcrops of obsidian have been identified in the western, southern, and eastern parts. It is interesting to note that the islet of Hagios Antonios, located just south of northeastern Giali, is made of andesite, a mineral not recovered on Giali itself.17 Nisyros is located ca. 4 km south from Giali and has an area of 41 km2. It consists of an active volcano, which lies at the center of the island, and a volcanic crater with a diameter of 4 km. The geology of the island is attributable to a number of volcanic explosions that covered it with lava and tuff between 66,000 and 10,000 years ago, forming a large range of andesites to dacites, pyroxenes,

4

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

and other minerals.18 The western part of the caldera and the rest of the western part of the island are characterized by rhyolite domes. Pyrgoussa, Pacheia, and Strongyli are small islets around Giali and Nisyros with a volcanic geology

similar to that of Nisyros.19 Both Giali and Nisyros were formed as the result of repeated volcanic events.

Mineral Resources The rich mineral resources of Kos and the surrounding islands were continuously exploited from the Classical period onward. Most archaeological studies of these resources have concentrated on locating the quarries where certain rocks were extracted and used in the construction of large public buildings, statues, and stelai.20 Marble occurs at a number of sites in a variety of colors ranging from white to black, but it seems that the white was generally preferred.21 Evidence for extraction, however, is difficult to locate at the main marble sources, such as those south of Mt. Dikaios at the sites of Hagia Eirene, Marmara, and Prophetes Elias, as well as those in central Kos at Hagios Georgios, just above Zia, and at Kouvas hill on the west end of Mt. Dikaios.22 Travertine, known locally as amygdalopetra, is a porous limestone of white or yellowish color. It was used mainly from the 4th century B.C. onward.23 Although traventine outcrops exist around the springs of Vourinna and Kokkinonero, as well as at Mesovouno, north of Pyli, only at the last-mentioned site is there positive evidence of extraction.24 The local granite is a variety of monzonite, known as psaropetra by the locals. Its use began in the Hellenistic period.25 It was previously thought that the source for the gray granite was Elaionas, west of Mt. Dikaios, but no such source has been confirmed. Sources were located south of Pyli at Kastro Palaiopyli, in central Kos, and in the Mt. Dikaios area, but there is no definite evidence of quarrying.26 Furthermore, during my visit to the Marmara coast, south of Mt. Dikaios, I located a seashore outcrop of reddish granite on the east side of the promontory (Map 2, no. 37). Another variety of hard stone is the purplish or grayish tuff recovered at Cape Tigani, east of the Kephalos bay, and at Kamela. This material was used from the 4th century B.C. and thereafter.27 In

the Kephalos area there are two large rhyolite domes, Mt. Latra and Mt. Zini, which were also exploited from the 4th century B.C. and are locally known as prasinopetra or sideropetra.28 Quarries have been located at the sites of Pelekita, where a reddish variety exists, and at Kastelli and Pyrgi, where the stone has a green or gray color.29 In the area of Mt. Zini and Mt. Latra veins of obsidian have been found within the dominant rhyolite.30 Perlite exists in the Kephalos area at Mt. Zini, and andesite has also been recovered, but it is of lesser quality from that from Nisyros. Limestone has been extracted at Pyli in recent times.31 Kos also has metal resources, which are concentrated on Mt. Dikaios and consist of copper, lead, leaded silver, iron, and magnetite. These occur in quantities that could have been exploited in the past and in some cases even today.32 On Giali the sources of pumice, perlite, and rhyolite could have been exploited to a limited extent in antiquity. More definitive evidence exists for the exploitation of the local obsidian source, but due to its low quality it never became as popular or widespread as that from Melos. Although andesite is found on the islet of Hagios Antonios and not on Giali, round, pebble-like andesite pieces were washed ashore from Hagios Antonios on the south coast of northwestern Giali. This material was used by the locals in the Late Neolithic (LN) and EBA.33 The best quality andesite recovered in the Aegean comes from Nisyros and was exploited from the Classical period to Roman times, mainly for mortars. An andesite quarry in use from at least the Classical period has been located in the south part of the island at Aulaki.34 The high quality of the Nisyrian andesite is confirmed by its distribution in mainland Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, and even Mallorca.35

INTRODUCTION

5

History of Research The history of archaeological research on Kos is closely associated with the recent history of the island. Kos, like the rest of the Dodecanese, was part of the Ottoman empire at the turn of the 20th century. In 1912, however, the Italians occupied the Dodecanese and retained the region until approximately the end of World War II. During the period of Italian control the largest prehistoric excavations in the Dodecanese were conducted on Kos, mainly in the area of Kos town itself.36 An important settlement with limited Middle Bronze Age remains, consisting primarily of Minoanizing and Mycenaean material, was identified. In addition, between 1935 and 1943 a Mycenaean cemetery was excavated in the Eleona and Langada area outside the town of Kos.37 Another important excavation of a prehistoric site took place in the Kephalos region, the easternmost area of the island, where the Aspri Petra cave was investigated.38 Two EBA cemeteries were also excavated at Mesaria39 and Askloupi.40 Smaller projects such as the fieldwalking undertaken by Zarraftis also took place during this period.41 After 1947 when Kos and the Dodecanese became part of Greece, research was limited to rescue excavations conducted mainly in Kos town and to a lesser extent elsewhere. These excavations were supplemented by the fieldwork of Bean and Cook,42 and, most importantly, of Hope Simpson and

Lazenby.43 Rescue excavations revealed the extent of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) settlement in Kos Town, as well as other Mycenaean cemeteries across the island. During the last few decades the only systematic excavation on the island was conducted at Kardamaina, ancient Halasarna. The finds from this site are primarily Hellenistic, Roman, and Early Christian, although sporadic Mycenaean finds have been reported.44 The most important pre-LBA finds came from the excavation conducted on the neighboring islet of Giali, rather than on Kos itself. Sampson also located an EBA site on the Hagios Phokas peninsula during a fieldwalking survey.45 Although, as noted above, a number of rescue excavations have been conducted over the years, there has been an unfortunate paucity of systematic research and excavation aimed at the investigation of prehistoric sites on Kos. Aside from the excavation reports, only limited synthetic studies have been undertaken,46 although a monograph concerned mainly with the Mycenaean finds from cemeteries also provides a short summary of the finds on Kos from the LN to the LBA.47 Thus, new studies on this large and important island are necessary for a fuller understanding of the prehistoric period.

A Gazetteer of Prehistoric Sites on Kos In an attempt to relocate the sites found by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, I embarked on a program of fieldwalking in June 2007, August 2008, and July 2009. My initial intention was to gain a better understanding of the local topography and the reasons for the selection of particular sites for settlement in the Neolithic and the EBA. I tried to combine four different data sources for locating the sites: the site description provided, the compass readings, satellite images from Google Earth based on the compass readings, and the output from a Global Positioning System (GPS) hand-held device used in the field. It became clear that the original

site descriptions offered the most reliable information for locating the sites. The Google Earth data were not as accurate as expected and proved not to be compatible with the GPS readings from the field. The compass readings were based on a World War II Italian map, and they diverged from the site positions as described and from the GPS locations by a few hundred meters. It was not possible for me to visit all of the previously discovered sites. In the process of identifying older site locations, I discovered several new prehistoric sites, often as a result of the compass reading confusion. These are presented below. The diagnostic finds were photographed in

6

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

situ and left in place. Krzysztof Nowicki visited Kos in 2007 and was kind enough to show me three sites he had located several years before (Hagios Phokas hill, the Hagios Stephanos north hill, and the Hagia Varvara east hill), and I have also included these in my gazetteer of prehistoric sites. Below I offer a short description of the locations of and the finds from all of the known prehistoric sites on Kos. They are either located outside the HSP area or were unknown before HSP. The sites are presented in the approximate order of their occurrence from east to west and are identified on Map 2 by the numbers given here. (1) Remains of an EB II settlement have been found at Hagios Phokas, which is located at the southeasternmost point of Kos on a small flat promontory. Sherds, the most characteristic of which are the bowls with incurving rims, along with obsidian pieces, were collected during a fieldwalking survey.48 (2) About 2 km southwest of the Hagios Phokas peninsula, a steep hill with a large limestone outcrop at its summit rises above the sea (Pl. 1A).49 At its top a concentration of prehistoric and later sherds was found in an area measuring 80 m x 60 m. The steepness of the hill and its erosion may have affected the preserved area of this prehistoric site, which has a commanding view over the Kos strait and overlooks the sea traffic traveling through this area. The pottery included included a Final Neolithic cheese pot sherd, as well as EBA, Archaic, Classical, Roman, Byzantine, and Modern sherds. A limestone grinding stone and more than 20 pieces of Melian obsidian were also found, along with a single piece of obsidian from Giali. The Melian pieces were mainly blades, one of which was particularly large, and some of the blades bore evidence of retouch. (3) A single Late Helladic (LH) IIIB chamber tomb was discovered as a result of road work along the eastern part of a gentle oblong hill named Kastello or Kastelles, 1–2 km from the northern coast of the island and ca. 4 km southwest of Kos town.50 This site is located in the hilly part of the island between the northern coastal plain and the Mt. Dikaios range. During my fieldwalk along the western hilltop and its lower slope, in an area ca. 60 m x 40 m (Pl. 1B), I observed a concentration of prehistoric sherds, including diagnostic handles of EBA date.

(4) On the flat summit of Troulli, a low hill with gentle slopes, about 3 km east to southeast of Kos town and close to a stream called Bokasia, sherds and a few pieces of Giali obsidian were collected from an area measuring roughly 120 m x 90 m.51 The pottery seems to represent a single phase of occupation in the EB II period, with parallels from Troy II, Thermi, and Heraion;52 one rim has a parallel among Final Neolithic (FN) finds from Giali.53 (5) The site of Iraklis is located in the Psalidi area, 2 km east of Kos town. It is situated on a lowland plain a few hundred meters from the coast. Remains of a Mycenaean settlement and possibly a LH IIIA:2–IIIB chamber tomb were discovered there.54 Today, a modern athletic stadium has been built on the site. (6) The largest and most important prehistoric site of the island was discovered under the modern town of Kos, which is located on a fertile plain in the northern part of the island, set on a low hill next to the sea. A substantial late Middle Bronze Age (MBA)–LBA settlement was found in the area known as Serrayia.55 After 1947 the local ephoreia conducted numerous rescue excavations that defined the extent of the settlement. Over the last few decades, the stratigraphic sequence of the occupational periods has been defined, while the absolute dating has been more firmly established with reference to the eruption of Thera.56 The earliest occupation began in the EB III period.57 Finds associated with the EB III period include a potter’s kiln and wheelmade red-burnished bowls, duck vases, and tankards. There seems to have been a hiatus in occupation during most if not all of the MBA.58 The Mycenaean cemetery that belongs to this settlement, Eleona and Langada, lies just 1 km southwest of Serrayia.59 It is the largest Mycenaean cemetery on the island, consisting of at least 82 tombs ranging in date from LH IIB–IIIA:1 to LH IIIC. The burial ground is located in two relatively flat areas separated by the Langada perennial stream. Today the topography of the cemetery is unclear since the area is heavily built up. The most recent discovery is a Mycenaean tholos tomb located a few hundred meters to the west of the cemetery. The date of this tholos, which is the only one of its kind among many chamber tombs, is uncertain.60 (7) Gyapili, located in a lowland fertile region 2 km south of Kos town, is a site at which a LH IIIC period stirrup jar was found.61 This find strongly

INTRODUCTION

suggests the presence of a chamber tomb, if not a cemetery, but the location cannot be confirmed. (8) A concentration of sherds was recovered on a hill just east of Panagia Tsoukalaria (Pl. 1C).62 A low, oblong spur protrudes north from a higher pine-covered fill with a limestone outcrop at its top, and to the immediate west of this spur is a steep ravine full of pine trees. The assemblage was located on the central part of its summit. A line of stones suggests the presence of an old structure, while a number of sherds were dispersed over an area measuring ca. 40 m x 30 m. Prehistoric sherds that included a few diagnostic EB pithos handles were identified, along with Roman sherds. (9) Southeast of the Asklepieion at Askloupi, settlement remains have been found on hill terraces over an area measuring 150 m x 120 m.63 This site has yielded sherds from various periods, with material representing the FN, the EBA, and the Mycenaean period. On the slopes of two successive low hills to the east, I observed small concentrations of sherds during my fieldwork, including nondiagnostic prehistoric sherds similar to those just mentioned. A small EBA cemetery with three pithos burials and a possible cist grave was found 200 m northeast of the Askloupi hill.64 The chronology of the burials is debated, with an initial date of EB III having been proposed by some65 and an EB II date having been put forward by others.66 (10) A tholos tomb used in the LH IIIA:2 and LH IIIC periods was discovered ca. 3 km west of Kos town in a relatively flat area off the main road connecting Kos town with the airport.67 The tomb is located on a gentle slope facing north, and it lies under a modern building called Giorgaras. The surrounding region was searched, but no other tombs were found. (11) At the classical site of Asklepieion, which is located south of Kos town, a number of bronze weapons and a LH IIIA:2 vase have been recovered, suggesting the existence of at least one tomb.68 Unfortunately, there is no record of the spot where the finds were discovered. Asklepieion is located on the gentle slopes of a hilly area with a clear view of the lowlands, the sea, and the Anatolian coast to the north. (12) Approximately 2 km northwest of Askloupi and just south of Asklepieion lies a small plateau at Tsilimpiri where sherds were collected from an area

7

measuring 80 m x 50 m.69 The finds suggest that this 70 small site was occupied during the FN and EBA. (13) In the fields around Vourinna, a site with a spring located ca. 1.5 km south of Tsilimpiri, sherds from the prehistoric to the Byzantine period were recovered.71 There is also an older report of Mycenaean finds from this area.72 (14) Mesaria is situated 2 km northwest of Tsilimpiri and 150 m north of the local road leading to Asphendiou. A chamber tomb used during the LH IIIA and LH IIIB periods was found here on a low hill, which is surrounded by a fertile lowland area.73 The Mesaria stream cuts across this area, and 50 m east of the stream an EBA pithos burial has been discovered.74 Its exact date is controversial, as in the case of the Askloupi tomb, and is placed in either EB II75 or EB III.76 In the same area of Mesaria just east of the stream a large concentration of sherds was located in an area roughly 150 m x 100 m (Pl. 2A).77 The spread of pottery may have been larger, but fencing has prevented a review of the whole area. An abandoned stonebuilt house lies to the north. Prehistoric sherds including FN cheese pot sherds and EBA material, along with Classical black-glazed and Roman pottery, were found. Obsidian pieces were also observed. These were mainly from Giali, but there were several Melian examples, including one flake bearing a large part of its cortex. In addition, two fragmentary grindstones, one of sandstone and the other of marble, were identified, as well as a large irregular piece of marble rounded by water. (15) Misonisi at Zia is located ca. 4 km southwest of Mesaria on a spur extending from the mountainous area of Dikaios.78 This site, located on a hill that is characterized by security and fertility, has yielded sherds suggesting occupation during the EBA and LBA periods. During my visit to this site two Giali obsidian pieces were noted, along with part of a blade from Melos. (16) Two of the iron and copper sources of the island are located a few hundred meters to the south of Misonisi (Pls. 2B, 2C). In my visit to this area I found the northern source by the stream on a rather steep slope of Mt. Dikaios, ca. 250 m southeast of the Hagios Georgios chapel. In this area a few Hellenistic and Roman sheds were identified, and on a low plateau two grindstones, one of marble and one of green stone, and a green stone grinder/pounder were identified. Several

8

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

pieces of green stones with a volcanic, nonlocal origin, possibly used in the process of copper extraction and purification, were also found. Closer to the visible copper veins farther south and higher on the mountain (Pl. 2C), in the east part of the stream, an undiagnostic prehistoric sherd, possibly EBA in view of its consistency and color, was identified. A similar one was recovered, along with a limestone pounder, on a higher plateau on the west side of the stream. The steepness of this slope and the stream has brought down earth and many stone blocks of various sizes from higher points of the mountain. Although the present finds are not conclusive, it could be proposed that some copper was being extracted from this source, possibly during the EBA. This site should be seen as an activity area rather than as a settlement. (17) The church of Hagios Ioannis, erroneously identified as Prophetes Elias,79 is located on the summit of a limestone outcrop (Pl. 3A) south of the road between Zia and Amaniou and southeast of Amaniou in the Lagoudi area. The hill, located ca. 600 m northwest of Misonisi at Zia, was fortified and yielded many Medieval remains, as well as Roman and Hellenistic finds over an area ca. 450 x 150 m. Among the numerous sherds were several nondiagnostic examples with fabrics suggesting that they belong to the Neolithic and/or the EBA. (18) At the Kastro at Palaiopyli, 2 km westsouthwest of Misonisi, EBA, MBA or LBA, and Mycenaean sherds have been collected, and a Cyclopean wall from the Mycenaean period has been found.80 One of the finds is a horizontal trumpet lug, possibly of FN date.81 During my fieldwork I observed that the distribution of prehistoric sherds is larger than previously noted, starting just 30 m southwest of the Hagios Vasilios chapel. The sherds cover many periods including the FN, EBA, Mycenaean, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and post-Byzantine. A whole and a fragmentary grindstone were also identified, both made of local granite. (19) Sherds of EBA or MBA and MBA or LBA date were recovered from the southern part of a small hill 120 m x 90 m, located just 300 m east of Linopotis Piyi.82 (20) Between the Linopotis Piyi and Pyli a chamber tomb used from LH IIIA:2 to LH IIIC was discovered at an unknown point near the chapel of Hagia Paraskevi, which today has a cemetery.83

(21) Vouno hill is located 1 km south-southeast of Mastichari, close to the northern coast of the island.84 From a small area 80 m x 60 m, EBA sherds of the same character as those found at Tsilimpiri were collected. Sampson proposes an occupation of FN date as well, based on the presence of a perforated handle.85 During my visit to the site, apart from prehistoric sherds, a piece of Giali obsidian and Hellenistic and Roman sherds were also found. (22) Two LH IIIB–IIIC Mycenaean pots were discovered at Antimachia.86 Their exact provenance is unknown, but they probably belong to a Mycenaean tomb. (23) At Tavla, an area located ca. 2 km south of Antimachia on the way to Kardamaina, a burial belonging to the same chronological horizon as that at Askloupi, either EB II or EB III, was recovered.87 The site is probably located on a low hill just west of the road that connects Antimachia with Kardamaina. (24) At Eleona, an area in the northeastern part of the Halasarna plain, a Mycenaean cemetery was originally thought to have existed due to a misunderstanding of the Eleona and Langada toponym.88 Several hollows, thought to be remnants of tombs, were preserved in the southern and northern parts of the low flat hill, which is located below the Mt. Dikaios range and next to the modern road. A number of sherds were found in the plateau, while today the hill is heavily eroded and bulldozed, and no remains of the hollows are preserved. (25) Part of the ancient site of Halasarna has been located about 3.5 km west of Eleona at the western edge of modern Kardamaina. The site was occupied mainly during Hellenistic and Early Christian times, but sporadic Mycenaean sherds have also been reported.89 (26) North of the Hagios Stephanos early Christian church, just before the main road that connects Antimachia and Kephalos descends to the Kephalos bay, the road diverts to the northwest toward Kephalos village and meets an inland road that runs beside a low hill.90 On top of this flat hill (Pl. 3B), a large concentration of prehistoric sherds, definitely EBA and possibly earlier, along with Roman and post-Byzantine pottery, occurs over an area of 100 m x 60 m. Giali obsidian appears to have been common, although the Melian variety was also found.

INTRODUCTION

(27) As the inland road ascends from the previous site towards Kephalos, ca. 80 m north of the road in the Laftonero area, there is a low hill with evidence of occupation on its southeast slope (Pl. 3C). EBA and possibly earlier sherds, as well as many Hellenistic, Roman, and Late Roman sherds were identified over an area 50 m x 30 m. In addition, a Melian obsidian scraper was recognized, and possibly part of a neck and head from an EBA figurine made out of conglomerate stone was identified. (28) Farther west along the south part of the same road there is a low hill about 300 m northeast of Hagia Varvara church (Pl. 4A).91 In an area 60 m x 60 m on the northern slopes and the top of the hill, prehistoric material including an EBA handle, Classical and Roman sherds, and numerous pieces of Giali obsidian were found. (29) Local obsidian was recovered from the geological layers on a hill located ca. 200 m west of the previous site and northeast of the Hagia Varvara church. When viewed from the southern coastal road, this hill appears to dominate the horizon (Pl. 4B). A large part of the hill has been leveled for the extraction of volcanic ash. At its north end, just north of the road, obsidian flakes of the local variety were found on the surface, along with Hellenistic and Roman sherds, while several prehistoric sherds, including a handle type that suggests an EBA date, were also identified. (30) In the Milies area, ca. 1.5 km southwest of the previous site and just north of Kephalos on the west side of the road, there is a low hill with a manmade chamber hewn in the local tuff (Pl. 4C). On this hill a nodule of the local obsidian variety was found on the surface, along with a few prehistoric sherds and an EBA handle. (31) On the main road from Kephalos to Hagios Ioannis in the Vigles area, about 1 km before the junction with the road leading to Mt. Zini and Aspri Petra, there is a low hill with many stone walls. On this hill and the eastern plateau in a strategic inland location (Pl. 5A) numerous sherds were found, including some that were EBA and possibly earlier and many Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, and a few Modern fragments. The sherds cover an area 80 m x 50 m and extend to a wider fenced region farther north. Two marble rectangular blocks and a rectangular architrave were found, although most of the local stones from the hill are andesites.

9

(32) The Aspri Petra cave is situated in the western part of the island in the Kephalos district south of Zini hill. The prehistoric finds from the cave possibly cover parts of the Middle Neolithic (MN) and derive more definitely from the FN and EBA, with sporadic Mycenaean sherds. Stone tools and chipped stones made out of Giali obsidian were also found.92 (33) About 50 m northwest of the Aspri Petra cave (Pl. 5B), sherds of Neolithic/EBA, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine date, along with part of an andesite grindstone, were observed on a gentle slope over an area of 60 m x 30 m.93 (34) About 3.2 km west of Aspri Petra cave, 1 km north of Hagios Theologos church, a low hill sits by the main road (Pl. 5C). In an area measuring 80 m x 50 m, FN, nondiagnostic prehistoric, Hellenistic, Roman, possibly Byzantine, and Modern sherds were observed. The prehistoric pottery was concentrated in an area measuring 30 m x 30 m. A FN II rolled rim was identified, while the rest of the sherds belong to the wider Neolithic/EBA pottery tradition. Among the sherds is one that may have come from a clay furnace for smelting copper, a find more common in the EBA than in other periods. (35) In the same area ca. 800 m southwest of the previous site and just north of the Hagios Theologos church there is a low slope west of the main road (Pl. 6A). Nondiagnostic, Neolithic/EBA, Hellenistic, Roman, and Modern sherds were observed over an area of 50 m x 40 m. (36) Following the road from Kephalos to Hagios Ioannis, 2 km south of the Zini junction and about 1 km north of Hagios Ioannis chapel, there is a site by a slope on the west side of the road (Pl. 6B). Sherds covered an area 30 m x 40 m that extended to a larger fenced area, where a few fragments of Neolithic/EBA and Roman pottery were identified. A small fragment of Giali obsidian was also observed, as well as two pieces of black chert and a small granite grinder. (37) The south coast of eastern Kos is quite mountainous, and almost no research has taken place in this area. Nonetheless, I have visited the area of Marmara, the beach from which the marbles from the mountains were moved and exported. At the eastern end of the beach there is a small peninsula with a large cave; on the eastern

10

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

side of this peninsula, looking onto a smaller beach, there are a series of small rock shelters, one next to the other (Pl. 6C). These are used today as animal shelters, and on the slopes in front of them nondiagnostic sherds of prehistoric date, as well as several from Hellenistic/Roman, Byzantine, and post-Byzantine times, were recognized. Just before the plateau in front of the rock shelters a granite grindstone, possibly used during the prehistoric period, was identified. Prehistoric sherds were also seen in a lower density on the flat top of the peninsula above the rock shelters. On the beach of the rock shelters, east of Marmara, there are large numbers of granite rocks of various

sizes. It is unclear whether they represent an outcrop or if they have fallen from above. It is possible that much of the granite recovered in the Halasarna region came from this coastal site. Zarraftis recovered stone axes from a number of sites in his fieldwalking survey.94 He found four stone axes on the coast between the Cape of Hagios Phokas and San Gabriel, as well as one near Kos town, one at Asphendiou, two close to Pyli, one from Mesaria, 11 from Antimachia, one from Kephalos, and one of unknown provenance. There is no information about their exact findspots, and consequently all these artifacts represent potentially wide areas.

Chronological Problems and Terminology Dating, along with the related terminology, is a sine qua non component of any archaeological discourse. For the Bronze Age Aegean, several chronologies are used to define both time and space, e.g., the terms Early Cycladic (EC), Early Helladic (EH), and Early Minoan (EM). As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, one of the problems in reconstructing the Bronze Age is the geographic and temporal compartmentalization of the Cyclades, Crete, and southern mainland Greece. In addition, there are other areas in Greece where the more general terms Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Age are applied to identify temporal periods, including the northern Ionian islands, Epiros, Macedonia, Thrace, and the eastern Aegean islands. With four different names to describe a common period and its regional variations, artificial fragmentation, misunderstandings, and confusion ultimately arise. For example, the term EC II can be used equally for Kea and Amorgos, but in Kea’s neighboring region of Attica the term EH II is applied, despite the common material culture. Things become even more complicated when we try to date a site in the Cyclades or the Dodecanese during the LBA; due to Cretan and mainland ceramic influence we have to compromise in the use of terms like Late Minoan (LM) IB and LH IIA, which are contemporaneous in regard to dating but include different geographical areas, i.e., Crete and mainland Greece. These differences, though, are difficult to comprehend or incorporate within the

local dating system of the islands, causing problems and confusions. Conventional dating is not adequate, but it is very difficult to alter it and further changes could cause additional confusion. Matters of synchronization are complicated still further by the fact that the EBA period is not necessarily represented in all areas.95 Thus, along with the conventional dating terms referred to above, culture horizons such as the Keros-Syros phase or Phylakopi I are also used to provide a better understanding and definition of chronological subdivisions.96 The combination of these two dating approaches is so far the best option we have for describing the chronology of both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. The tripartite EBA divisions used for mainland and insular Greece are more or less synchronous, something that cannot be said for the EBA divisions used in Anatolia. In particular, Thompson’s definition of the tripartite EBA divisions of western Anatolia97 is not totally compatible or synchronous with that used in the Aegean. The chronological periods used for the dating of western Anatolia, which also includes part of the Aegean basin, are largely defined by the sequences at Troy in the northwest of the region. The chronological terminology used for Neolithic Greece is considerably different from that which has been applied to the Bronze Age. For the Neolithic scholars have used various terminologies without spatial affiliation to describe the same

INTRODUCTION

period of time, such as the Final Neolithic or Chalcolithic. This problem is especially apparent in the Aegean islands, where the study of the Neolithic started very late, most notably with the publication of Saliagos in 1968.98 In Mylonas’s review of the Greek Neolithic there is no section for the islands beyond Crete.99 There is a lack of consensus in regard to the terms to be used for dating the period from the late 6th to the late 4th millennium B.C. Renfrew has proposed a unified system of chronology with four phases to describe the Neolithic period: Early, Middle, Late, and Final, with further subdivisions.100 While this system is employed by Theocharis and others,101 some scholars use a tripartite system, i.e., Early Neolithic (EN), MN, and LN, but the Late Neolithic is divided into periods I and II, rather than applying the term Final Neolithic, with further subdivisions.102 Another system borrowed from the Balkans and Anatolia, where the term Chalcolithic is used, has been applied mainly to northern Greece and Thessaly.103 In the Dodecanese the term Late Chalcolithic (LCh) was coined due to the proximity and the cultural relationship of this area with southwestern Anatolia, Beycesultan in particular.104 The four phases that characterized the site of Beycesultan105 were used to define four chronological periods in the Dodecanese. Sampson proposed and thereafter used the term Late Aegean Neolithic (LAN) 1–4 instead of Late Chalcolithic 1–4.106 In this new terminology the Middle Neolithic period, which Sampson believed did not exist in the Aegean islands as it did in the Greek mainland, was merged with the Early Neolithic phases.107 Nevertheless, he proposes that both Hagios Petros in the Sporades as well as the earliest occupation at the Kalythies cave belong to the MN era.108 Recent approximate dates from Anatolia suggesting that the Late Chalcolithic period covers the period between ca. 4500 B.C. and ca. 3000 B.C. complicate this chronological scheme still further.109 In contrast, dates from the Greek mainland indicate that the LN–FN period was longer, extending from approximately 5300 to ca. 3200/3100 B.C.110 The LN I–II and FN I–II, LN Ia–b and LN IIa–b, LCh 1–4, and LAN 1–4 are four different systems used to describe the same four periods from the end of the 6th to the end of the 4th millennium B.C. in the Dodecanese. All have their drawbacks, but a

11

choice of dating terminology needs to be made. The LCh is not a meaningful term in my opinion, as it derives from an entirely different region with different cultural characteristics and chronological periods that are related only to a limited extent to the Dodecanese. It is also rather pointless to compare FN Tigani with LCh Kos, when the same period of time is being referenced. The LAN 1–4 system creates the same problems as above and additional chronological problems with respect to the Early Bronze Age and the associated spatial terms in use. Therefore, only the first two systems have a wider application throughout Greece. The distinction between these two systems rests on the significant differences in the material culture of mainland Greece and other areas between the LN and FN phases. Hence, Phelps argues for the division of the Neolithic into four periods, at least in southern Greece.111 In the Aegean islands the change between the LN and FN is not so obvious, but the continuity in material culture is accompanied by a number of new elements such as the introduction of crusted ware, pattern-burnished decoration, larger containers perhaps associated with new sociocultural practices, and more metal items. The terms LN and FN are even more useful in the Dodecanese, not only when this region is compared with mainland Greece, but, more importantly, when it is compared with Crete. Recent FN finds from Crete have shown certain contacts and common elements in material culture with the Dodecanese.112 Moreover, FN finds from Crete have facilitated a division of this period into four phases.113 The similar divisions of the Cretan FN period and the western Anatolian LCh could potentially be applied to the FN Dodecanese, which is located between these two regions. The FN could be used as a conventional term in the Dodecanese chronology, one that does not necessarily signify a dramatic change in culture but marks the region’s association with other areas of the Aegean and Anatolia. Thus, it could be useful to adopt Renfrew’s model, especially in combination with the cultural horizons proposed for the EBA. An important limitation in dating finds from the Dodecanese is the incompleteness of the available stratigraphic sequence. Most known sites were recognized in the course of unsystematic fieldwalking and limited excavations. Unfortunately, the stratigraphies of sites excavated at Vathy, Daskalio cave,

12

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Aspri Petra cave, and Müskebi are unclear.114 Among the excavated Neolithic sites in the Dodecanese only Kalythies cave and Koumelo cave have stratigraphic successions and archaeological material that can be used to define a solid sequence of four phases from the end of the 6th until the end of the 4th millennium B.C.115 The same cannot be said regarding the archaeological deposits at Partheni on Leros and on Alimnia, which represent one occupation phase now assigned to LN II (LAN 2) rather than FN II (LAN 4).116 Among the excavated sites on Giali, similarly, a single phase has been excavated and an older one recognized on stylistic grounds only. These have been redated from FN I–II (LAN 3–4) to LN II–FN I (LAN 2–3).117 The catalyst for the new dating was the recovery of numerous LN II cheese pots from the Ftelia excavation on Mykonos.118 The cheese pots had been the main reason for dating these sites to the FN II in the first place, in the belief that this vessel type originated in the Dodecanese.119 My opinion is that the dating Sampson originally proposed in 1987 is more valid and better explains the pottery interrelations between the sites. A comparable difficulty exists with regard to the unstratified LN and FN finds from Tigani120 and Akrotiri.121 The excavations at Asomatos and Serrayia only revealed phases of EB III. It is still debatable as to whether or not a hiatus exists at the latter site between EB III and the MBA–LBA sequence.122 Moreover, there is no stratigraphic succession or

any substantial corpus of material for the EB I and II periods from the Dodecanese. There is a single prehistoric stratum at Aspri Petra with mixed LN and EBA material123 and limited EB II–III evidence from Daskalio cave.124 Consequently, it is uncertain whether the tombs at Mesaria, Askloupi, and Tavla belong to EB II or EB III.125 Still, there is limited evidence from the EB I–II cemetery at Iasos and from other sites further afield. The Cyclades provide ample material from graves, which can be well dated, but there are open issues on stratigraphic sequences. A major problem in this context is the assignment of the Kastri Groups to the EC II late and/or EC III early phases, affecting the definition of the EC III or EB III period.126 These unresolved issues make the dating of the finds from the Halasarna region very difficult, especially as all of them also come from a nonstratified land survey context. Nonetheless, the available material provides a useful corpus for the periods represented, connecting the finds that are already known and enriching archaeological discussion on the Dodecanese. The terms MN, LN I–II, FN I–II, and EB I–III will be used henceforth for defining the dates of sites from the 6th to the late 3rd millennium B.C. The application of this system to the Dodecanese and other regions of the Aegean discussed here may be seen in Tables 1 and 2, to which the reader should refer for the elucidation of chronology throughout this work.

Chapter 1 Endnotes 1. Kokkorou-Alevra and Kopanias, eds., forthcoming. 2. Pullen 1995, 39–40; Bintliff 2000, 3–8. 3. Sampson 1988b, 9; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 24; Dermitzakis, Kyriakopoulos, and Ntrinia 2001, 26. 4. Y. Katavoutas, pers. comm. 5. Stathopoulou, Theocharatos, and Katavoutas 2002, 446. 6. Leontaris 1970, 40–41; Kelepertsis and Reeves 1987–1988, 443–444; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 15. 7. Leontaris 1970, 41. 8. Kalt, Altherr, and Ludwig 1998, 665, fig. 2c. 9. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 160; contra Dermitzakis, Kyriakopoulos, and Ntrinia 2001, 26–27.

10. Triandafylli 1998. 11. Leontaris 1970, 45–46; Kelepertsis and Reeves 1987–1988, 444; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 16; Triandafylli 1994; 1998; Higgins and Higgins 1996, 159. 12. Leontaris 1970, 59; Kelepertsis and Reeves 1987–1988, 444; Dermitzakis, Kyriakopoulos, and Ntrinia 2001, 30. 13. Chatzivasiliou 1990, 20–21; Higgins and Higgins 1996, 158. 14. Sampson 1988b, 9. 15. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 161. 16. Sampson 1988b, 9; Higgins and Higgins 1996, 161. 17. Sampson 1988b, 10.

INTRODUCTION 18. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 165. 19. Sampson 1988b, 250; Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993, table 4. 20. Poupaki 2001, 2004; Chatziconstantinou and Poupaki 2002, 2009. 21. Chatzivasiliou 1990, 22; Higgins and Higgins 1996, 158; Poupaki 2001, 60; 2004, 166. 22. Poupaki 2004, 166–167; Chatziconstantinou and Poupaki 2009, 61–62; Chatziconstantinou, forthcoming. 23. Poupaki 2001, 61; 2004, 169. 24. Poupaki 2004, 170–171; Chatziconstantinou, forth-coming. 25. Chatzivasiliou 1990, 22; Higgins and Higgins 1996, 159; Poupaki 2004, 172–173; Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 21. 26. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 159; Poupaki 2001, 62; 2004, 172; Chatziconstantinou, forthcoming. 27. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 161; Poupaki 2004, 173–174. 28. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 160; Poupaki 2001, 62; 2004, 175. 29. Buchholz and Althaus 1982, 44; Poupaki 2001, 61, 64–65; 2004, 174; Chatziconstantinou, forthcoming. 30. Buchholz and Althaus 1982, 41–42, fig. 11, pl. 4:b. 31. Poupaki 2001, 61, 64–65. 32. Branigan 1974, 61, fig. 1, table 2; McGeehan-Liritzis 1983, 176, no. 68; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 22; Triandafylli 1998; Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 21. 33. Sampson 1988b, 164. 34. Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993, 278. 35. Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993, 291. 36. Morricone 1972–1973. 37. Morricone 1965–1966. 38. Levi 1925–1926. 39. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58. 40. Morricone 1972–1973, 261–271. 41. Morricone 1972–1973, 139 n. 3. 42. Bean and Cook 1957. 43. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 1970. 44. Alevra et al. 1985, 1, 18. 45. Sampson 1987, 109. 46. La Rosa 2001; Sampson 2001; Marketou 2004. 47. Georgiadis 2003. 48. Sampson 1987, 109; 1988b, 229; 2001, 38; Davis 1992, 747; Marketou 2004, 18; Georgiadis 2008a, 229, fig. 1.1. 49. Georgiadis 2008a, 229, fig. 1.2. 50. Papachristodoulou 1979, 458–459; Papazoglou 1981, 62–65; Georgiadis 2003, 40; 2008a, 229, fig. 1.3. 51. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55–57, fig. 7:1–5, pls. 19a, 20a; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 361; Marketou 2004, 18; Georgiadis 2008a, 229, fig. 1.4.

13

52. Davis 1992, 747. 53. Sampson 1988b, 229; 2001, 37. 54. Skerlou 1993, 553; 1996, 690; Georgiadis 2003, 40; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.1. 55. Bean and Cook 1957, 121; Hope Simpson 1965, 187–188; Morricone 1972–1973, 388–396; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 360. 56. Marthari, Marketou, and Jones 1990, 172, 176–178. 57. Kantzia 1984, 330; Sampson 1988b, 229; Marketou 1990a, 40; 1990b, 100–103; 1998, 41; 2004, 25–26; Davis 1992, 747–748; Georgiadis 2008a, 229–232, figs. 1.6, 2.6, 3.6. 58. Marketou 1998, 63; contra La Rosa 2001, 53; Vitale 2005, 87. 59. Hope Simpson 1965, 187–188; Morricone 1965–1966, 9–10; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 361; Georgiadis 2003, 40. 60. Skerlou 1997. 61. Morricone 1972–1973, 271; Georgiadis 2003, 40; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.8. 62. Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1.7. 63. Hope Simpson 1965, 188; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57, fig. 7:6, 7, pls. 19b, 20b:2–5; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 361; Georgiadis 2003, 40; 2008a, 220–230, fig. 1.9; Marketou 2004, 18, 20. 64. Morricone 1972–1973, 261–270. 65. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57; Sampson 1988b, 229; 2001, 37–38. 66. Marketou 1990a, 40; Davis 1992, 747. 67. Skerlou 1996, 690; Georgiadis 2003, 40; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.10. 68. Morricone 1972–1973, 253–261; Georgiadis 2003, 40; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.11. 69. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58, fig. 7:8; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 361. 70. Sampson 1988b, 229; 2001, 38; Marketou 2004, 18; Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1.12. 71. Brouskari 1987. 72. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 171 n. 157. 73. Papachristodoulou 1979, 457–458; Georgiadis 2003, 40–41; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.13. 74. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58, pl. 19:c; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 362. 75. Marketou 1990a, 40; 2004, 20–21; Davis 1992, 747. 76. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58; Sampson 1988b, 229. 77. Georgiadis 2008a, 229, fig. 1.13. 78. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58–59; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 362; Sampson 1988b, 229; 2001, 38; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 229–230, 232, figs. 1.14, 3.14; Marketou 2004, 19. 79. Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1.15.

14

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

80. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 59–60, pl. 20b:1, 6, 7; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 362; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 229–232, figs. 1.16, 2.16, 3.16; Marketou 2004, 19. 81. Sampson 1988b, 229; 2001, 38. 82. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 60; Sampson 1988b, 229–230; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 229–232, figs. 1.17, 2.17, 3.7; Marketou 2004, 19. 83. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 60; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 362; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.18. 84. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 60–61; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 363; Marketou 2004, 19; Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1.23. 85. Sampson 1988b, 230; see Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, fig. 7:9. 86. Hope Simpson 1965, 187; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 363; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.22. 87. Kantzia 1984; Marketou 1990a, 40; 2004, 19, 22–23; Davis 1992, 747; Georgiadis 2008a, 229, fig. 1.21. 88. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 171; 1970, 55 n. 28; Hope Simpson 1965, 187; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 363; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 231, fig. 3.19. 89. Alevra et al. 1985, 1, 18; Georgiadis 2003, 41; 2008a, 232, fig. 3.20. 90. Nowicki 2002, 68; Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1.24. 91. Georgiadis 2008a, 229, fig. 1.25. 92. Levi 1925–1926, 278–302; Jacopich 1928; Furness 1956, 193; Bean and Cook 1957, 123; Hope Simpson 1965, 187; Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, 363; Sampson 1988b, 230; 2001, 38; Marketou 2004, 19; Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, 232, figs. 1.26, 3.26. 93. Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1.27. 94. Morricone 1972–1973, 139 n. 3. 95. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 248. 96. Broodbank 2000a, 53–54; Shelmerdine 2008, 3, fig. 1.1. 97. Thompson 2007, table 2. 98. Evans and Renfrew 1968. 99. Mylonas [1928] 1975.

100. Renfrew 1972. 101. Theocharis 1973, 110; Demoule and Perlès 1993, fig. 2; Phelps 2004. 102. Weinberg 1947, 171–176, 181–2; Sampson 1993c; 2006, 244–246, table 8. 103. Theocharis 1993, 150–160, 163–167; Treuil et al. 1996, 134. 104. Sampson 1983, 1984b, 1985b; Melas 1988. 105. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 71–115. 106. Sampson 1984a, 249; 1987; 1988b; 2002; 2006. 107. Sampson 1984a, 249. 108. Sampson 2006, 137, table 8 contra table 9. 109. Fletcher 2007, table 5; Thompson 2007, table 1; Steadman et al. 2008, table 1. 110. Demoule and Perlès 1993, fig. 2; Shelmerdine 2008, fig. 1.1. 111. Phelps 2004, 7. 112. Nowicki 2002, 68–69; Papadatos 2008, 262, 267. 113. Tomkins 2007, tables 1.1–2. 114. Levi 1925–1926; Burton Brown 1947; Vermeule 1964. 115. Sampson 1987, 58–65, 77–78; 2006, 222–225. 116. Sampson 1987, 85–86, 92–95; contra Sampson 2006, 230, 232. 117. Sampson 1988b, 230–232; contra Sampson 2006, 234–235. 118. Sampson 2002, 65. 119. Sampson 1987, 86, 90; 1988b, 232; 2002, 167. 120. Felsch 1988. 121. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 44. 122. Marketou 1990a, 40–41, 44. 123. Levi 1925–1926, 277–310; Furness 1956, 193. 124. Benzi 1997, 383. 125. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57; Sampson 1988b, 229; contra Marketou 1990a, 40; 2004, 20–24; Davis 1992, 747; La Rosa 2001, 52–53. 126. Warren and Hankey 1989, 25–29; Sotirakopoulou 1999, 236–248; Broodbank 2008, 68–69; Shelmerdine 2008, 3.

Part I

The Finds from the Halasarna Survey Project, 2003–2006

2

Topography of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Sites

In this chapter I provide a short description of the topographic characteristics of the Neolithic and EBA sites recovered during the HSP so as to give a clearer picture of their setting in the landscape. This discussion supplements earlier accounts of the prehistoric sites with further details on those that produced the most material. The presentation of the sites will start from the eastern edge of the Halasarna area and move westward (Map 3).1 Eleona is located on a low flat hill at the northeastern edge of the Halasarna plain (Map 3, no. 32; Pl. 7A). It is the lowest outcrop of the Mt. Dikaios ridge, with a southwest orientation and a good view over the entire valley and the sea. Today the hill is heavily eroded, bulldozed, and leveled, and military trenches have further disturbed the site. The prehistoric sherds were concentrated on the central and southern part of the hill. Eleona was also occupied during historic times, and these remains dominate the surface, preventing a good reconstruction of the size of the prehistoric site. A few prehistoric sherds have also been recovered on a flat hill ca. 100 m west of Eleona, suggesting the possible existence of

a second cluster of occupational remains from the same settlement. Sherds were also discovered at site K.11.06, which is situated ca. 400 m southeast of Eleona on the plain, close to the present coastline (Map 3, no. 31; Pl. 7B). The sherds are nondiagnostic, but their fabric suggests they could be Neolithic and/or EBA in date; there also several examples from historic periods. Site K.11.06 is the only substantial prehistoric site in the alluvial plain, and its location suggests that the coastline was at least as far north as this location during the LN/FN and/or EBA period. Nerantzia is a low flat hill ca. 900 m west-southwest from Eleona, an isolated southern outcrop of the Antimachia plateau (Map 3, no. 30; Map 4; Pl. 8A). The hill has a roughly ovoid shape and an east–west orientation, with its highest point at the western end. The south, west, and north slopes are rather steep, offering protection, while the eastern side is comparatively smooth and more easily accessible. The view over the plain to the south and east, as well as to the Koutlousi hill to the southwest, is very good. It also has the advantage of good

18

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

visibility to the north and west towards the plain and the sea, looking over smaller inland plains, ridges, and the Antimachia plateau. The prehistoric finds are located all along the southern edge of the hill and extend in a limited way to the north, distributed over an area of more than ca. 0.6 ha. The later sherds occur over a more limited area. West of Nerantzia is the site K.09.10, which consists of a concentration of finds on the western slopes of Nerantzia hill (Map 4). The steep angle of the hillside on which the finds occurred strongly suggests that they were deposited as the result of erosion. The stylistic similarity of these finds with the ones from the upper part of the hill confirm this hypothesis. Thus, the finds from this site will be considered henceforth to be from Nerantzia. The site K.10.34 is situated ca. 200 m to the southeast of Nerantzia on the lowest part of the hill, just above the plain, and is known as Nerantzia lower site (Map 3, no. 29, Map 4). The leveling of this area for modern cultivation has considerably altered its nature and only a handful of finds have been recovered. Still, there seems to be a small habitation area, which presumably was a satellite to the Nerantzia site. Koutlousi is situated on a low smoothed hill top, an outcrop of the Antimachia plateau, ca. 300 m southwest from Nerantzia (Map 3, no. 26, Map 4; Pl. 8B). The two hills are separated by a relatively deep, flat ridge. The hill has a northwest–southeast orientation and is round with a narrow neck, ca. 150 m long. The neck, which lies to the southeast, connects it to a lower, round hilltop. Both hilltops have a very good view over the Halasarna plain and the sea to the south and east. I have called these sites, conventionally, Koutlousi Upper Hill, K.09.50 (Map 3, no. 26) and Koutlousi Lower Hill, K.10.61 (Map 3, no. 25; Map 4; Pl. 8C). The vast majority of the prehistoric material was found on the Upper Hill site, which is called simply Koutlousi, and it covered an area of ca. 0.45 ha in two adjacent clusters, K.09.50 and the smaller K.09.49 (Map 4). Sherds of later periods are rare at this site. The lack of sherds between the Upper and Lower Hill sites suggests that they did not form a single, continuous habitation area. These two clusters are part of a single settlement with the Upper Hill being the main area, while the Lower Hill was a satellite. The Lower Hill has eroded far more than the Upper, and

military trenches have destroyed most of the site, the estimated area of which is ca. 0.05 ha. It has a very strategic position above the plain, with steep slopes on all sides except for the neck that connects it to the Upper Hill site, which is more accessible from the northern and southern sides. K.09.89 is a small site also located on a low hill from the same Antimachia plateau outcrop as Koutlousi (Map 3, no. 23; Pl. 9A). It is situated 300 m south-southeast of Koutlousi, and it has a flat edge at its eastern end. It has steep sides to the north and east but is more accessible from the south, with a view similar to that of Koutlousi over the Halasarna plain and the sea. A small concentration of prehistoric finds was recovered on this part of the hill, but historic sherds dominate the assemblage of surface finds overall. Koutounis Hill is also a part of the main body of the Antimachia plateau outcrop (Map 3, no. 21; Pl. 9B). The site is located on a small flat edge with a south-southeast orientation and is ca. 300 m west of K.09.89. It has steep slopes to the south, and it is the highest of all the prehistoric sites, with views over the Halasarna plain, the sea, and northward toward Antimachia. The distribution of the prehistoric material covers an area of ca. 0.1 ha. The site known simply as Koutounis is part of the same hill ridge as Kountonis Hill and extends to the south (Map 3, no. 17; Pl. 9C). It is situated at a lower point on the flat edge of the eastern part of the ridge, an area that is roughly triangular in shape and ca. 250 m from Koutounis Hill. The slopes to the northeast and south are relatively gentle, but the site still has good views over the east and south toward the Halasarna valley and the sea. The prehistoric finds are distributed over an area measuring slightly more than 0.2 ha. Tsangaris is located ca. 900 m southwest of Koutounis on a low hill at the end of yet another Antimachia plateau outcrop (Map 3, no. 11; Pl. 10A). The shape of this hill is roughly triangular, with steep southern, western, and northern sides and a more gentle slope to the east. The habitation area is concentrated on the eastern part of the hill, which today is terraced for olive cultivation. It has a limited view over the Halasarna plain and the sea to the southeast. The prehistoric finds have been found mainly on the terraces in an area of ca. 0.2 ha.

TOPOGRAPHY OF NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SITES

Tholos, or ancient Halasarna, is located ca. 1.6 km south-southeast of Tsangaris on a low gentle hill ca. 200 m north from the present coastline (Map 3, no. 7; Pl. 10B). The hill is roughly triangular in shape, with steep slopes only on its northern side, and it has a flat top. The site has a good view of the sea and the valley to the north and east. In historic times it served as the acropolis of the ancient settlement of Halasarna. The hill, as well as the area south of it leading to the sea, was heavily occupied in historic times until the Early Christian period. As a result very few prehistoric finds have been found. Although its extent and character remain elusive, the fragmentary evidence suggests that a substantial prehistoric settlement extended from Tholos hill to the south, either in clusters or in a continuous area of occupation. Koukos is situated ca. 800 m west-southwest of ancient Halasarna and ca. 1.8 km southwest of Tsangaris on a high, broad hill (an outcrop of the Antimachia plateau) that reaches almost to the sea (Map 3, no. 6; Pl. 10C). With steep slopes to the north, south, and west, it resembles a natural fortress. It is accessible via two narrow paths, one from the northwest and one from the east. From the rather flat top there is clear visibility to the sea, the hills to the west and north, and part of the Halasarna plain to the east. The prehistoric finds were mainly dispersed in an area of more than 1.0–1.5 ha on the southwestern and southern side of the hill near its edge, a location with views over the narrow fertile plain to the west and south and over the sea. The prehistoric finds from Koukos are more heavily weathered than those found at any other site, suggesting their long exposure to the elements. This site was apparently the largest prehistoric settlement on the island. It had good natural protection, and it lay ca. 600 m north of the present coastline, closer to the sea than any other prehistoric site in the Halasarna region. Koukos also seems to have been occupied for a long time during the historic era. Most of the other prehistoric sites produced very few finds, and it is difficult to determine their character or size. Some were located on hill slopes and others on the plains. The survey visibility of prehistoric sites on the plain was affected to a large degree by the process of alluviation. There is an important distinction between these small sites, with some

19

having been occupied in a single phase and others continuing in use in historic times. At the prehistoric sites K.29.58, K.24.90, K.14.98, K.09.76, and K.09.69, no later finds have been found, arguing for a single phase of use (Map 3). The same applies to the sites such as K.08.88, K.14.03, and K.25.22, where only chipped stone artifacts have been recovered, and K.15.51, which yielded only ground stone tools. In contrast, the prehistoric sites K.30.71, K.29.87, K.29.29, K.29.06, K.22.43, K.21.54, K.20.15, K.17.15, K.16.76, K.08.48, 49, and K.09.51 were situated within areas that were occupied mainly during the Hellenistic, Roman, and/or Modern times. Similarly, K.16.42–51, which yielded only chipped stones, was occupied in later times. Most of the large and visible sites in the Halasarna region are located on hill slopes and hills at the edges of the plain overlooking the lowland area and the sea. The locations are naturally protected and would have had immediate access to the rich arable land of the valley, which is very well watered by four large streams, as well as access to the Antimachia plateau, which offers good grazing land for animals. The hill sites from Eleona to Tsangaris are located at distances of ca. 1.0–1.5 km inland from the present coast. Ancient Halasarna and Koukos are closer to the sea, and their residents probably exploited their positions. It is also important to note that these two sites, along with Tsangaris, are strategically placed in relation to the roads that connected the plain with Antimachia on a roughly north–south axis in historic times.2 These roads follow natural routes along the terrain, and they may have been used in the prehistoric period as well. In addition, four sites are located on the Halasarna plain, some very close to the present coastline (Map 3, nos. 10, 14, 18, and 31). Their positions suggest that the alluvial plain was almost as large in the Neolithic and EBA periods as it is today. The general scarcity of large prehistoric sites on the plain may be explained partly in terms of alluvial processes and partly by the obscuring effects of heavier occupations from the Archaic until the Late Roman period. Thus, the identification and the size of prehistoric sites in this area can be assessed only through excavations and not by a surface survey.

20

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Overall, 32 findspots have produced evidence of various types of use during the Neolithic and EBA periods within the HSP (Map 3). The survey suggests that there were approximately two Neolithic–EBA sites per km2, but alluviation on the Halasarna plain and the heavy occupation of the

region in Hellenistic, Early Christian, and more recent historical periods should be taken under serious consideration. Hence, the site density revealed by the HSP should be considered a minimum figure for this area and for Kos in general.

Chapter 2 Endnotes 1. Georgiadis 2005–2006, forthcoming.

2. Kokkorou-Alevra and Kopanias, eds., forthcoming.

3

Pottery Fabrics

The HSP recovered 2,975 prehistoric sherds from 26 locations across the survey region (Table 3; Maps 2, 3). At most sites, as many sherds as possible were collected in order to reconstruct the extent of their dispersal in space. At Nerantzia and Koukos, however, only diagnostic sherds were collected because of time constraints, and this variation in the collection method should be taken into account in the interpretation of the finds. The largest quantity of sherds was collected at Koutlousi Upper Hill. The total from this site exceeds the numbers of sherds from all other site assemblages and causes some distortion of the overall pottery analysis. The sherds recovered from different sites reveal diverse characteristics of the local pottery. The sherds from the Halasarna region tend to be hard and robust, with very few that are soft and crumbly. A preference for open vessels is evident at Koutounis, Tsangaris, Nerantzia, and Koutounis Hill, while closed forms were more common at Koutlousi (Table 3). The thicknesses of the sherds varies enormously from 0.3

to 3.5 cm, with those in the range of 0.7–1.1 cm occurring most frequently. While there are some variations between sites, the differences do not seem to be significant. We have arbitrarily divided sherds into thin (0.3–1.0 cm) and thick (1.1–3.4 cm) categories. The thin sherds represent the fine and semi-fine wares, which come mainly from open vessels. The thick sherds are mostly from semi-coarse and coarse closed shapes. The thin sherds predominate at most of the sites. At Koutlousi Upper Hill, Tsangaris, Koukos, and Koutounis two-thirds of the sherds are thin and the rest are thick, while at Koutounis Hill and Nerantzia there is a more balanced representation of thin and thick vessels. At Koutlousi Lower Hill, which appears to have been used exclusively in the EBA, thick sherds dominate the local assemblage. This divergence should be viewed within the specific context of Koutlousi Lower Hill, which appears, on the basis of pottery analysis, to have had a special character.

22

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Clay Fabrics and Inclusions The vast majority of the prehistoric sherds recovered at Halasarna contained a number of different inclusions in their fabrics. It is not always clear whether these inclusions derived from the clay bed or were added by the potters during the preparation of the pottery. Most common were small white inclusions, which represent the remains of stones calcified during the firing of the vessel; similar treatment is attested at Alimnia.1 The white inclusions are found at all sites and are attested in 98.7% of the samples from Halasarna. Almost as common are very small black particles, which were found in 95.7% of all sherds. The frequencies were somewhat lower at sites outside Koutlousi, however, fluctuating from 92.8% at Nerantzia to 86% at Koutounis. The most common type of mineral inclusion found in the prehistoric sherd assemblages from the Halasarna area is quartz. Its use as a tempering ingredient is well attested at other sites in the Aegean such as Kephala,2 Hagia Eirene I,3 EC Phylakopi,4 Ftelia,5 Panormos,6 Daskaleio-Kavos, EC Naxos, EC Paros, and EC Ios,7 Kato Akrotiri,8 and EC Markiani (for the chronology and regional locations of sites, see Tables 1 and 2).9 Quartz is also a common component of the fabrics at Hagios Phokas,10 Giali,11 Nisyros,12 LN–EBA Simi,13 LN– EBA Kolimbia Theotokos on Rhodes,14 LN–EBA Alimnia,15 LN–EBA Chalki,16 LN–EBA Kar pathos,17 FN southern coastal and inland Crete,18 EBA Yortan,19 LCh and EBA Miletos,20 LN Kömüradasi,21 and LCh and EBA Aphrodisias.22 The importance of quartz in the clay in relation to its use as cooking ware is unclear, but parallels exist.23 At Halasarna quartz is found in 74% of all prehistoric sherds, allowing us to divide the assemblages into two broad categories, quartz-rich and non-quartz wares. At most sites the quartz-rich category was very popular, but Tsangaris is an exception (Table 3), with quartz-rich sherds totaling just over half of the assemblage. In some coarse sherds there is so much quartz in their fabrics that I have called them quartz ware. It is important to note that the upper layers of the clay deposits in the Halasarna region are mixed with much quartz, a rock type that is absent in the deeper levels.24 This observation suggests a conscious choice by

the potters, a possibility that is strengthened by the different percentages of quartz-rich and non-quartz sherds. As there were many clay sources in this region, the presence of quartz in the clay argues that there was not much concern for using better quality clay and that the surface layers of the sources were exploited. The quartz pieces are predominantly transparent, but less commonly there are some with a yellowish-brown tinge and some that are milky white in color. The latter two varieties are more common in the clay of the southern Dodecanesian islands.25 White quartz is also reported in sherds from EBA Tsilimpiri on Kos.26 During my fieldwalk across Kos I consistently recognized quartz in the prehistoric sherds at Kastello, the hill east of Panagia Tsoukalaria, Mesaria, Misonisi, Hagios Ioannis, Kastro Palaiopyli, Vouno, and northwest of Aspri Petra cave. Other rock inclusions were also frequently used to temper the fabric of the vessels. The types and quantities of stones present in the clay vary extensively. At Koutlousi 95.6% of the sherds contained stone, but different percentages were observed elsewhere (Table 3). Rock inclusions are very common at Koukos, Koutounis Hill, and Nerantzia, common at Koutounis, and limited at Tsangaris. The stones vary in size, with diameters of 0.1–0.6 cm, and their shapes are irregular. In a comparable Neolithic assemblage from Lerna, the calcareous ware contained somewhat smaller rocks with diameters of 0.1–0.5 cm.27 At Koutlousi the majority of the sherds have stones of one color, with white rocks, possibly limestone, being most common, followed by gray and red inclusions that were most probably pieces of local chert. Other black and brown inclusions may also be chert, as in the case of a prehistoric sherd from AphandouParthenonas and Kolimbia Theotokos on Rhodes.28 Less frequent is the combination of two or more stones, usually white and some other component. The high percentage of one type of stone in the sherds suggests that the potters made a conscious choice to use a specific type of tempering material. In some cases they may have deliberately mixed different clay types from multiple clay sources. The use of small stones for tempering the clay varies from site to site, strongly suggesting the presence of

POTTERY FABRICS

local workshops with different raw material choices and preferences. A petrographic analysis could be used in the future to test hypotheses regarding the use of clay sources and their possible mixing. The popularity of small stones in the clay is also reported in other Neolithic Dodecanesian sites such as Kalythies cave, Alimnia, Partheni, and Giali,29 as well as in LN to EBA sherds from Karpathos.30 In addition to using rock tempers, potters in the Halasarna area also used straw for forming the vessel walls and increasing the strength of the clay (Kt.86, Pl. 11). Straw voids are attested in 60.5% of all sherds collected at Halasarna, although this picture is distorted by the high percentage of strawtempered pottery from Koutlousi. While there appears to have been a specific local preference for this tempering technique at Koutlousi, the frequency of straw use is not the same at neighboring sites such as Koutounis and Nerantzia (Table 3). At Karpathos straw marks are also attested, but according to Melas straw was not used deliberately for tempering.31 Straw marks are also attested on the Greek mainland on some pottery from FN Hagios Dimitrios,32 some of the FN coarse wares from the Athenian Agora,33 a few LN sherds from Nea Makri,34 and on some sherds from most of the FN sites in Attica.35 Sherds with straw marks are found at Kephala in very limited quantities,36 in Hagio Gala Upper cave to a limited extent, more frequently in the Lower cave and at LN–FN Emporio (less frequently in the EBA phases),37 and in the coarser ware from Tigani.38 In the Dodecanese they are attested at Partheni,39 Giali,40 possibly Chrysocheroi and Daskalio cave on Kalymnos,41 LBA Khokhlakoi and EBA Katavros on Nisyros,42 EB I Kastro tou Hagiou Ioannou and Vathy Elliniko on Astypalaia,43 Kastro on Tilos,44 Simi,45 Kalythies cave, Archangelos and LN–EBA Kolimbia Theotokos on Rhodes,46 LN/FN Leftoporos and LN–EB I Kourouklos on Karpathos,47 and possibly at EB II Troulli.48 They are found at some FN sites on the southern and eastern coasts of Crete as well.49 In western Anatolia, straw marks occur at Bozdağ,50 LCh and EBA Miletos,51 LCh Kömüradasi,52 LCh and EBA Aphrodisias,53 Early Chalcolithic (ECh), LCh, and EBA Girmeler cave,54 LCh and EBA Beycesultan,55 LN, LCh, and EBA Ulucak Höyük,56 LCh Beşiktepe and Kum Tepe,57 and Troy I–II (only in the baking pans).58

23

The use of straw temper is thus definitely a common characteristic of LN to EBA pottery production in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia. There are only two occurrences of small pieces of wood being used to strengthen the clay, one in the body of a closed vessel from Koutounis Lower Hill and the other in N.11, part of a cup rim. The small piece of wood can be seen in the break on the latter item, which can be dated to the EB II late–III early period. A similar practice has been noted on two sherds from Alimnia59 and on a few sherds, mainly FN, from three sites in Attica.60

Mica Mica is an almost omnipresent component of the pottery assemblages around Halasarna. There are only 14 sherds without mica, i.e., 0.5% of the total, and these are either imports or the mica content is too small to be visible with the naked eye. The presence of gold mica in LBA sherds on Kos has long been known and discussed, while limited silver mica has also been noted.61 In the Halasarna region three distinct varieties of mica have been identified. By far the most common is silver mica, which occurs in 96.3% of the micaceous sherds. It is present in very small particles, but there are rare occurrences of larger flakes. Silver mica is found along with other inclusions such as quartz, rocks, and straw. Gold mica is also present in 71 sherds, or 2.4% of the micaceous ware, and it occurs as large flakes. This type of mica is attested in LN II–FN I cheese pot sherds and continues in EB II late–III early sherds, arguing against a chronological difference in mica preferences. Gold mica has a more restricted distribution, appearing at Koutlousi, Nerantzia, and in single sherds at other sites including Koukos, Eleona, Tholos, K.22.43, and K.21.54. The concentration of gold mica at the first two sites, and at Nerantzia in particular, indicates that the clay source, possibly located in the northeastern part of the region closer to Nerantzia, was more accessible for these two sites. A mixture of silver and gold mica occurred in 38 sherds, i.e., 1.3% of the total collected. It is attested mainly at Koutlousi (1.2%), Nerantzia (7.2%), and in one sherd each at Koukos, Tholos, and K.10.34. The popularity of silver mica argues for the presence of several clay

24

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

beds with this component at Halasarna. Gold mica, as already suggested, may have come from a couple of clay sources closer to Nerantzia, but it is also possible that pottery with gold mica was imported to Halasarna from other Koan regions. In the prehistoric Dodecanese there are limited reports of any type of mica. It was rarely found at Karpathos and is considered to be an import, although its character is not discussed.62 It is present at EB I Agrelidi Kangelo at Astypalaia,63 and it occurs in a few EBA sherds from Miloi and Trakhia on Chalki,64 Malona on Rhodes,65 Panormitis on Simi,66 and at all prehistoric sites on Nisyros.67 Micaceous ware has been reported at EC Phylakopi,68 Panormos,69 and Akrotiri, where it was imported.70 At Daskaleio-Kavos mica is often attested, with quartz, amounting to 16%–18% of the overall pottery assemblage.71 At this site silver mica is more common than gold. The micaceous fabrics were most probably imported from Naxos, Ios, and/or Paros.72 Silver mica also appears to be very common in LCh and EBA pottery from Miletos73 and LN and EBA Kömüradasi.74 At Kato Akrotiri it occurs in only ca. 0.3% of the sherds,75 but it is common in Saliagos,76 Kephala,77 Hagia Eirene II,78 Thermi (in all ware classes),79 EBA Yortan,80 and to some extent at LN, LCh, and EBA Ulucak Höyük.81 The use of mica as temper was common in EN pottery from western Anatolia.82 Silver and gold mica inclusions have been reported in eastern Crete at Azoria (ca. 1%), and gold mica on its own at ca. 1% has been recovered also.83 Gold mica has been observed at Kolonna, Hagia Eirene, Mt. Kynthos, Paroikia, Mikre Vigla, and other sites on Naxos as well as at Daskaleio-Kavos on Keros.84 It has also been found at Emporio, where it appeared from phases X to II, but the EBA examples are believed to have been imported, with examples of gold and silver mica in phases II and I possibly originating from the Cyclades, while at Hagio Gala cave gold and silver mica found in a jar is thought to have been local.85 Additionally, gold and silver mica inclusions were observed in a single LN bowl sherd from Kömüradasi.86 They were also noted in the EB III ware from Daskalio cave on Kalymnos,87 while in the Neolithic wares gold mica was more common than silver.88 Silver mica and less frequent occurrences of gold were attested in sherds from Misonisi and Hagios Theologos north, while gold

mica was noted in the sherds from Vouno and Laftonero on Kos.

Obsidian Ware Sherds with relatively large, shiny black angular stones resembling obsidian have been recovered in some numbers in the Halasarna area. This pottery is called “obsidian ware,” but it is not clear whether the shiny black stones were obsidian pieces, feldspar, or hornblend. Such inclusions are found in limited numbers at Troy I middle and late, with fewer examples in phase II. The latter, identified as scored ware, were found in sherds from large storage jars.89 At Emporio there were also a few examples, all from large jars or pithoi in phases VII–IV and II.90 They are considered to be imports most probably from Anatolia at both sites. At Kömüradasi a small EB II clay loomweight appears to contain small obsidian pieces as well.91 The dates from these three sites suggest that the obsidian ware was most popular in the EB I and II periods, but at Emporio there are a few FN II examples as well. Studies in the southern Aegean have shown that Melian obsidian and pitchstone, a lesser quality obsidian, were used as temper in local EBA pottery production at Phylakopi. These inclusions also occurred at Akrotiri, mainly in Melian bowls, and they were also found in a few pots from Grotta92 and Crete.93 Clay analyses on Giali have shown that obsidian of better quality, resembling that from Melos but local in origin, was used as temper in pottery production.94 Moreover, a new source of obsidian found in the Kephalos area may have been used to obtain temper, or small pieces of this obsidian may have been part of the local clay beds. Alternatively, if identified by petrographic analysis, the presence of hornblend could be indicative of andesite or granite in the clay, while feldspar might indicate the presence of metamorphic rocks such as marble. Thus, these inclusions could suggest a provenance for “obsidian ware” within Kos or Nisyros. In 2007–2008 a local potter, Fondas Chryssopoulos, experimented with the addition of broken pieces of Giali obsidian in his clay. He did not find it good for making wheelmade pots; in fact he complained that it damaged his hands in the process of building the vessels. Following his observation,

POTTERY FABRICS

one understands why obsidian ware is not attested in wheelmade products of the MBA and LBA. Nevertheless, the properties of obsidian and its effects would have been different in handmade pottery. There are 79 pieces of “obsidian ware” overall from Halasarna, representing 2.7% of the prehistoric sherds recovered in this region. Most of them were collected at Koutlousi, Koukos, and Nerantzia, with relatively high percentages observed at the latter two sites (Table 3). It appears that 60% of the sherds belong to closed vessels and 40% to open, contrasting with the case at Troy and Emporio, where only the remnants of closed storage vessels have been recovered, and Akrotiri, where they were found only in Melian bowls. Their thickness falls within the range of 0.6–1.1 cm, but 25% of them are thicker, measuring 1.2–2.4 cm. The other inclusions, i.e., quartz, rocks, and mica, are similar to those found in other locally produced sherds, and thus it is not clear whether the obsidian ware was imported from other Koan sites or not. In the Halasarna area this ware occurs in LN II–FN I, but it is more commonly attested in the EB I–III early periods. Its period of use at Halasarna is more or less consistent with the phases in which it was found at Emporio and Giali. One example of “obsidian ware,” Kt.68, stands out from the others because its particles resemble those of Giali obsidian. The rest find few parallels with examples from other Dodecanesian sites such as those from Giali,95 FN Zotikou and FN Krios on Nisyros, FN or EBA Panormitis on Simi, and FN Pefkia on Chalki.96 It still remains unclear whether the “obsidian ware” was imported from Giali or Nisyros or if it came from Kos itself. Petrographic analyses will help us to identify the clay and

25

inclusion types and their origin and, in turn, to understand better the issues of local production and/or exchange. These issues are also related to the possible Halasarnan provenance of various nonlocal clay types found at Giali.97 The variety of shapes and the inclusions of its fabric suggest that a source in close proximity existed for this pottery fabric.

Notable Absences from the Halasarna Fabric Repertoire There is no visible evidence for the use of grog as a temper in the Halasarna pottery, possibly due to the presence of quartz and stones in the clay. Without the use of a microscope however, its presence cannot be ruled out altogether. It is also noteworthy that the so-called, ill-defined oatmeal ware, which has been recovered in some quantity at several sites across Astypalaia and Rhodes, was not present at Halasarna.98 This fabric probably belongs to the FN II and/or EB I period, with Hope Simpson and Lazenby preferring the latter date.99 It is quite distinctive when compared with other fabrics and has been noted only in the southwestern part of Rhodes so far, at Siana-Hagios Phokas and Katavia-Hagios Minas.100 It also occurs at Alimnia, where it may be of 2nd millennium date101 and possibly at EBA Trakhia on Chalki;102 I have also observed one sherd of it at Seskli. In addition, there is no evidence in the vicinity of Halasarna of the “cake-like” ware observed at Alimnia and Chalki.103 Thus, these wares may have been local products of limited distribution and/or products that were not imported in the Halasarna region.

Fabric Colors The local clay sources in the Halasarna area produce pottery with red and brown colors.104 The predominant color of prehistoric vessels in the Halasarna region is brown, but black, gray, and red fabrics are common as well, and a number of sherd surfaces show combinations or diverse shades of these colors. Reddish brown, brownish gray, yellowish red, and yellowish or orangish brown are the

most common shades. Buff and pink sherds are unusual, but they occur occasionally. Overall, darker colors such as black, gray, and brown tend to be earlier in date, mainly Neolithic and to some extent EBA, but during the later period red and yellow shades became more common. A similar preference for brown, black, red, and gray colors is attested at Ftelia.105 Pink sherds

26

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

resulting from misfiring or kiln accidents have been reported at Saliagos.106 Pinkish-buff surfaces are also attested on sherds at Hagia Eirene III, representing 1.2% of the assemblage from this phase; this pottery was imported from Euboea.107 Pinkish clay has also been reported at EBA Miloi and Trakhia on Chalki.108 Sherds with mottled surfaces also occur occasionally, making up ca. 4% of the Halasarna sample. Mottled surfaces are characteristic of the FN period in southern mainland Greece109 and Emporio VII–VI,110 but they also continue in the local EBA tradition at Halasarna. They are more common at Koutlousi and Nerantzia than at the rest of the sites. Gray is the dominant color of the clay core of the sherds, suggesting incomplete oxidation. Other common core colors include brown, buff, black, red, reddish brown, yellowish red, and brownish gray. Although the vessels walls tend to have a uniform color, often the external side has a different color from the internal one. While the frequency of this characteristic varies from site to site, it is clear that about half or even more of the sherds in the sample have different colors on opposite sides (Table 3). These vessels may have been placed upside down in the firing pit, whereas those with uniform color were placed upright so that air circulated normally around them.111 Thus, the vases were stacked in two different ways in the firing pit, with the first method being slightly more common.

Black Burnished Ware Black burnished ware is rare at the Halasarna sites, accounting for 0.4% of the pottery assemblage. Single sherds were found at Tsangaris, Koutounis, and Koutlousi Lower Hill, while 10 sherds came from Koutlousi Upper Hill. Most of the examples are lightly burnished, except for T.1, part of a closed globular vessel with black slip and very shiny external burnishing (Pl. 11), and Ktn.1, part of a bowl that was slipped and burnished on both sides (Pl. 11). Black burnished ware is broadly distributed at LN and FN sites across southern Greece.112 In Anatolia, however, it is more common during the LCh period, or the 4th millennium B.C.113 There are two distinct traditions in western Anatolia, one centered at Kum Tepe Ib and another at Beycesultan; the latter has influenced other

southwestern Anatolian sites like Akhisar and Balikesir.114 In the eastern Aegean the fabric is well known at Emporio X–IX, but it is more common in VII–VI115 and also at Tigani III,116 Kalythies cave III,117 and Koumelo cave I.118 These sites appear to have closer affinities to the Beycesultan tradition as well. Interestingly enough, no black burnished sherds have been recovered at Giali. Their absence suggests that the limited finds from the Halasarna area predate the main FN occupation at Giali. The quality of the two Halasarna examples and the lack of quartz and straw marks in their fabrics make them appear similar to the Tigani examples. Perhaps this pottery type was locally produced in limited quantities as at other Dodecanesian sites. The two strongly burnished sherds from Halasarna seem to be part of the Beycesultan black burnished tradition, possibly dating to the FN I period. The lightly burnished sherds are not slipped, and they may belong either to the FN I period, like the two sherds discussed above, or to the FN II period, like the examples from Koumelo cave II and Alimnia.119 Alternatively, they may derive from the EBA period, as in the case of examples from Thermi I–IVa,120 Emporio II,121 and more rare instances at Markiani I–II.122

Orange Ware The fabric and distinctive orange or orangebrown color of some sherds separates them from the norm at Halasarna. This type of pottery could be called orange ware and has been found in limited numbers at Koutounis (5 sherds), Koutounis Hill (3), Koutlousi Upper Hill (50), Koutlousi Lower Hill (8), and Nerantzia (1). Despite their absolute numbers, orange ware sherds comprise higher percentages of the total assemblages at Koutounis, Koutounis Hill, and Koutlousi Lower Hill than of the Koutlousi Upper Hill pottery collection. Their thicknesses strongly suggest that they belong to jars and large storage vessels. They represent ca. 2.2% of all the sherds recovered. There are only two diagnostic sherds, and these date to the EB II and EB II late–III early phases. Similar finds of orange ware are known from various sites in the Cyclades, including Hagia Eirene I–III (where they all seem to be imports),123

POTTERY FABRICS

Saliagos,124 Daskaleio-Kavos,125 and EC I/II–III early Kato Akrotiri.126 In the eastern Aegean islands they are reported at Tigani,127 EBA Saria, EBA Poli on Kasos,128 Malona and Siana on Rhodes, and EB I Astypalaia (although the last-mentioned examples have an oatmeal fabric).129 On Kos other EBA examples, with some diagnostic sherds belonging to the EB II period, are also reported at Troulli, Askloupi, Tsilimpiri, and Palaiopyli.130 Hence, an EB II–III early date is proposed at least for the Koan variety of the orange ware.

Yellow Mottled Ware

27

to be a mainland Greek product, possibly from the Argolid.131 Yellow mottled ware was employed to produce a number of shapes, but the most prominent was the sauceboat, the only shape extensively exported. In the Cyclades yellow mottled sauceboats have been recovered at Hagia Eirene II–III, Syros, and Daskaleio-Kavos.132 The Koutlousi example (10YR 6/3) is very close in its Munsell color to those from Hagia Eirene II (10YR 8/4).133 The absence of straw as a clay temper further indicates that the Halasarna specimen was an import, not a local imitation. It is clear from the shape of the vessel and the character of the fabric that this sauceboat had a southern mainland Greek provenance.

Special mention should be made of a yellow mottled ware sauceboat rim, Kt.62, which is considered

Surface Treatment The most common surface treatment applied to enhance the appearance of a vessel was burnishing. In the Halasarna region the pots were burnished without the prior use of slip, in a technique referred to as “mechanical slip” by Furness.134 This technique was widely applied in the eastern Aegean.135 At Tsangaris and Koutounis burnished pots were favored, while at Koukos, Nerantzia, Koutounis Hill, and Koutlousi they were far less common (Table 3). Overall, the sherds with burnish represent ca. 20.4% of the total assemblage. Burnishing practices have different effects, with non-shiny, lightly shiny, and very shiny results. The brightness of the burnishing observed on sherds is partly due to the intensity of the application and partly due to factors of preservation. Non-shiny and lightly shiny types appear to be the most common. Typically only one of the surfaces of a vessel is burnished rather than both, as is evident in Table 3. Burnishing on the external surface was more popular at Nerantzia, Koutounis Hill, Tsangaris, and Koukos, while at Koutounis the proportions of internal and external burnishing were more balanced, and at Koutlousi there was a slight preference for burnishing on the interior surface. Comparable percentages are evident at Akrotiri, where 44% of the sherds had a burnished exterior and 31% a burnished interior.136 At Kato Akrotiri burnished

sherds were rare, less than 1%.137 Variations in the application of burnishing were sometimes combined with the different colors on the walls of the same pot, while further differences in treatment are evident in the rough and burnished ware discussed below. There thus appears to have been a trend toward diverse handling of internal and external surfaces. The most popular colors found in burnished ware are brown and reddish brown, while grayish brown, gray, yellowish red, and mottled shades were also common. Other colors found in very limited numbers include red, buff, yellowish brown, and black. This range is not too different from that observed at Giali, where reddish and brown colors were preferred,138 but at Kalythies cave red colors, some of them mottled, along with brown colors, were most common.139 Brown burnished wares are common in all LN and FN phases of sites in the Dodecanese.140 Burnished wares occur in brown and reddish-brown colors in Markiani II.141 Gray burnished wares have been recovered from Koumelo cave II,142 and more rarely at LN Poli143 and Markiani I–II.144 The finds from the Dodecanesian sites suggest a FN II date for burnished pottery, but a continuation of this ware in EB I and later, as seen at Markiani, cannot be ruled out. Dark burnished wares are characteristic of the LN and

28

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

FN periods in the Aegean,145 but some of them continued in the EBA; most of these cannot be attributed to more specific periods. Buff burnished pottery, likely FN II in date, is attested at Koumelo cave II, Alimnia, Partheni,146 and Kourouklos on Karpathos.147 A rare surface alteration that occurred unintentionally and before firing was the impression of fingerprints, as seen on a body sherd from a closed vessel from Koutlousi and on a small handle and a base from Nerantzia. Fingerprints are not uncommon in the Neolithic pottery tradition.148 One interesting postfiring treatment, the presence of mend holes on body sherds, has been noted as Halasarna. Their occurrence is rare, with one nondiagnostic example from the body of a closed vessel, Kt.190, and another on a bowl rim, Kt.Lh.1 (Pl. 11). Similar treatment has been observed at FN Hagios Dimitrios,149 LN Alepotrypa,150 FN Agora (on bowls),151 FN Thorikos,152 LN–FN Kitsos cave,153 LN–FN Pyrgos Vravrona and Zuma Kaziki,154 EN Nea Makri,155 FN Plakari,156 Kephala (on large jars),157 EC Phylakopi,158 Saliagos (on bowls),159 Akrotiri (on two open vases and one pithos),160 EN/MN and LN II levels at the Cave of the Cyclops,161 Hagio Gala Upper cave, upper levels and Emporio IX–VII, VI/V, V/IV and II (on bowls and jars, with one example of a pithos with a larger hole from Emporio phase IV),162 Tigani I,163 and Daskalio cave.164 These mending holes are more commonly attested in LN and FN contexts, but as there are EB I–II examples, they cannot provide a firm dating for the pot on their own.

Scored Ware Occasionally striations of various numbers, density, and intensity, most horizontally made, are observed on the surface of mainly coarse or semicoarse vessels (Ktn.116, Pl. 11). Pottery with such marks may be called scored ware, which amounts to 5.2% of the overall assemblage of prehistoric sherds from the Halasarna region. Scored ware is found in a number of sites across the Aegean in Neolithic and EBA contexts.165 In central Anatolia it is common during the LCh and EBA166 and at Troy from phase Id onward.167 Striation marks are found at the Heraion of Samos on one sherd,168 Iasos,169 Kastro tou Hagiou Ioannou and Kastro

Vayi on Astypalaia,170 and Partheni.171 On Crete this type of pottery is also known as scored ware, and it was used from the LN/FN period until the EM I phase.172 On Kos striation marks on EBA sherds have been noted frequently at Troulli, Askloupi, Tsilimpiri, Palaiopyli, Linopotis Piyi, and Aspri Petra cave.173 The occurrence of scored ware varies among the Halasarna sites; no examples were recovered at Koutounis Hill and Koukos, and they were rare at Koutlousi and Nerantzia but relatively common at Tsangaris and Koutounis. This variable distribution attests to the local character of pottery traditions among the Halasarna sites.

Rough and Burnished Ware Rough and burnished ware consists of a small group of pottery that is distinct from the coarse ware found in all settlements and whose characteristics are unrelated to the preservation conditions of the sherds. The term describes a class of pottery on which the internal surface is burnished, while the exterior is left intentionally rough. There are also other sherds with a well-smoothed internal surface and a rough exterior, but they will not be included in this category. One version of the rough and burnished ware has grass impressions on the exterior, possibly representing a rough kind of decoration (unnumbered, Pl. 11). A similar treatment of the vessel exterior can be seen in the matt or straw impressions found only on cheese pots at Partheni.174 Examples of rough and burnished ware are most common at Koutlousi, where 11 examples were found, two of which belong to cheese pots. One sherd was recovered at Nerantzia, and two were found at Koutounis. Sherds of rough and burnished ware can be dated from the LN until the EB II late–III early period, most likely representing a long local pottery tradition centered at Koutlousi.

Slip The use of slip is rather uncommon in the pottery from Halasarna. It is found in only 82 cases, i.e., 2.8% of the total sherd assemblage. This is a very low percentage when compared with other Aegean Neolithic and EBA sites such as Markiani III–IV,175

POTTERY FABRICS

but it is consistent with frequencies observed at other LN and FN sites in the Dodecanese176 and at EC Kato Akrotiri.177 The number of slipped sherds varies among sites. At Tsangaris and Koutounis they are relatively common, while at Nerantzia and Koutounis Hill they occur less frequently, and at Koukos and Koutlousi they are rare (Table 3). The most common slip colors are red and brown, followed by shades of white to buff, gray, reddish brown, yellowish red, pink, and black (see T.1 and Ktn.1, the two examples with black slip and burnishing discussed above). Although not all of the slipped ware can be dated, the diagnostic examples suggest it was present in both the Neolithic and the EBA. The sherds with brown and reddish-brown slips find parallels at Panormos,178 Daskaleio-Kavos,179 Markiani II,180 and EBA Misonisi on Kos.181 The red-slipped sherds can be divided into four broad categories, the slipped, the slipped and burnished, the glazed (Urfirnis), and the crusted ware (to be discussed in the decoration section in Ch. 4). On the first type, which belongs mainly to the EBA, the slip was well applied in a thin layer like a wash. It may have been related to the red-slipped wheelmade and handmade wares found in Anatolian EB 3 contexts182 and at EB 2–4 Aphrodisias.183 Redslipped pottery is also found at Markiani II and in the Kampos EC I/II group in the Cyclades.184 Unfortunately no diagnostic examples have been recovered, but an EBA date is very probable. The second red-slipped type (N.32, Pl. 12) has a surface that is burnished, and it has a thicker slip that cracks and flakes easily.185 Parallels come from the FN Agora,186 Hagia Eirene I,187 Tigani,188 FN Kalymnos (from all three caves),189 Koumelo cave I,190 Partheni,191 Leftoporos,192 and LCh 3 Beycesultan,193 suggesting a date of FN I for this type of surface treatment. Both the burnished and slipped wares are most probably underrepresented overall in the Halasarna assemblage due to the weathering conditions that affected sherds on the surface. The red-glazed Urfirnis ware (T.7, Pl. 12) is common on the Greek mainland and the Cyclades in EB II194 but rare in the Dodecanese. Nonetheless, it is attested in eastern Aegean contexts and belongs to the EB II early phase, as Cosmopoulos argues.195 Its rarity at Halasarna is matched by its limited occurrence at Kato Akrotiri.196 It is difficult to argue that it was a foreign import, however, since it is

29

commonly attested in EB II burial contexts on Kos, with straw marks visible in the fabric. As it appears that the use of straw continued well into the EB II period on Kos, this pottery could have had a local or regional provenance. Special mention should be made of the white to buff slips, which can be divided into two types: a thick version and a thin, diluted, almost milky application (unnumbered and N.1, Pl. 12). The thick variety is also seen at the FN Agora,197 Daskaleio-Kavos,198 Emporio X–IV and II–I (covering all periods from LN II to EB II),199 and LCh 2 and EB 1–3 Beycesultan.200 The two datable examples from Halasarna belong to LN II and EB II. The diluted, milky slip is more common in EBA contexts such as EH I Eutresis,201 EH II Agora,202 EC Phylakopi,203 EC II–III early Akrotiri,204 Emporio V–IV and II,205 Troy II early,206 EB 2–4 Aphrodisias,207 and EB II late in the eastern Aegean.208 The diagnostic sherds with milky slip from Halasarna are dated to the LN–FN periods and the EBA. Thus, it appears that both buff slips were used during the Neolithic and EBA phases. The pink-slipped sherds may be related to similar wares in western Anatolia. Parallels are attested at EH I Eutresis,209 EC I/II–III early Kato Akrotiri,210 Troy II late (mainly in wheelmade versions),211 many EBA western Anatolian sites,212 Beycesultan XIII,213 LCh 2–4 and EB 2–4 Aphrodisias,214 EB II Vathy Elliniko,215 and EB II Troulli.216 The only diagnostic pink-slipped sherd from Halasarna appears to belong to the LN II–FN I period, closer to the LCh Aphrodisias examples, rather than to the EBA.

Straw and Mat Impressions Numerous straw marks not related to the use of straw as temper are preserved on the bases of cheese pots (Kt.137, Pl. 12). The impressions on bases N.23 and Kt.138 suggest that they were placed on a ragged mat or a bunch of straw, which could have acted as a kind of mold for the base. A similar treatment may be attested on the exteriors of open vessels of rough and burnished ware, as discussed above. The marks on the bases from Halasarna are reminiscent of the vine leaf impressions found on EBA bases from southern mainland Greece, Crete, and especially from the Cyclades.217

30

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

At Kalythies cave218 and Giali219 mat or basket impressions are commonly attested on the bases. At Alimnia there were also basket and mat imprints, but the latter appeared ragged, which is a local peculiarity.220 At Kitsos cave in Attica few bases have basket, mat, or straw impressions.221 At Emporio basketry marks were found on some rims and bases.222 Mat impressions are reported on jar and cheese pot bases from Tigani.223 At Partheni mat or straw impressions are attested on some of external surfaces,224 as was the case at Petras Kephala on Crete.225 At Ftelia only straw imprints are found.226 The bases from the Halasarna region resemble the ragged examples from Alimnia and the straw imprints from Partheni, Petras Kephala,

Ftelia, and Kitsos cave, but not those of Rhodes, Giali, and Emporio. Possibly there were different local techniques for making the pots with such impressions. Mat impressions on bases are a wider phenomenon in southern mainland Greece, Crete, the Cyclades, and the Dodecanese, especially during the LN, FN, and EBA times.227 The only base from Halasarna with a definite mat impression is Kt.170, which does not belong to a cheese pot but rather to a bowl of uncertain date, either FN or EBA. The mat type appears to belong to the plain-weave matting attested at Kephala,228 Hagia Eirene II,229 EBA Akrotiri,230 Daskaleio-Kavos,231 Markiani,232 Alimnia,233 and Giali.234

Discussion A common element in pottery production throughout the Dodecanese appears to have been the use of straw as a temper. The use of small pieces of wood, as well as the presence of grain impressions,235 quartz inclusions, and scoring on pottery, are also characteristics of a wider Dodecanesian pottery tradition, suggesting close cultural ties between the sites in this region. This technological koine is also attested at some FN coastal sites in Crete.236 The question of whether the similarities in pottery are evidence for migration or close cultural interaction is open to debate, but there were definitely shared ideas and close contacts among communities in the southeastern Aegean. Pottery produced in the vicinity of Halasarna typically shows the use of quartz, small stones, and straw temper, with rare occurrences of wood. The clay was micaceous and scoring was also occasionally applied. All of these Halasarna fabric characteristics are attested on the vases deposited in EBA graves in central Kos, although there is no mention of the straw marks.237 The presence of quartz and mica in the clay places the Halasarna region within the wider technological tradition of fine clay use in western Anatolia during LCh and EBA times.238 The pottery from the Halasarna regions diverges to some extent from the wider Dodecanesian koine, however, as grain impressions are entirely lacking from the pottery, while scoring on the surfaces was not very popular. Moreover, the

presence of more than one type of mica appears to have been a distinctive characteristic of Halasarna pottery production and local clay sources. Interestingly, Lloyd and Mellaart note the use of straw in southern Anatolian pottery and remark that this was a new element introduced at the beginning of the LCh period, possibly from northern or northwestern Anatolia, e.g., the Akhisar-Manisa area.239 Straw was already used, however, during the ECh and LCh phases at Girmeler cave in southwestern Anatolia.240 It was also widely employed in southeastern Anatolia at Hakemi Use from the Anatolian LN period.241 The use of straw was common at Horum Höyük in the same region, Tell Afis in northwestern Syria, and Çadir Höyük in northcentral Anatolia in the LCh period.242 Erdoğu argues that straw temper was a common element in the EN (Aegean chronology) pottery in western Anatolia.243 In fact, during the Anatolian LN period at Ulucak Höyük, straw was employed in the majority of the pottery produced; this practice continued in the LCh but was significantly reduced during the EBA period.244 The presence of straw temper in the pottery from Hagio Gala Upper cave, more or less contemporary with ECh Anatolia, suggests that its use had spread to the Aegean by the MN period, but it was not as common as at Ulucak Höyük. This is somewhat surprising given that these two sites were relatively close to each other. Moreover, no report on the use

POTTERY FABRICS

of straw comes from either Hagios Petros in the Sporades or Tou Papa to Choma, which were roughly contemporary with Hagio Gala cave. Residents of the coastal site of Nea Makri in Attica did not use straw in EN and MN pottery production, phases 1–8, but they adopted it occasionally during the LN period, phases 9–11.245 Nonetheless, at EN Knossos some of the sherds contained vegetal temper in their fabric,246 strongly suggesting that this technique was known in the Aegean from a very early date. It was also observed at EN Achilleion and Prodromos in Thessaly.247 It seems that the use of straw temper was well known from an early period, but its popularity was diverse. The current information that we have is rather patchy, but a more coherent picture may emerge in the future. The lack of well-studied MN assemblages from the Dodecanese makes it difficult to determine if the technique of using straw temper came from elsewhere, i.e., mainland Greece, Crete, or the northeastern Aegean/northwestern Anatolia

31

region, or whether it was also locally practiced at this time. By the LN I period, however, it was employed in the eastern Aegean, especially in the dark burnished ware.248 It was also used to a limited extent at the western part of the Aegean, more particularly in the Attica-Kephala cultural area, but it was rare farther inland. During the EBA straw temper is rarely attested in the Aegean, and at Emporio its use significantly decreased in the local pottery production in comparison to the LN–FN phases. Its use seems to have been restricted to the southeastern Aegean. Nevertheless, at Miletos and Kömüradasi it was not uncommon. In the Konya region it was as prevalent in the EB 1–2 pottery tradition, as in that of the LCh period.249 Its use continued until EB 1 at Çadir Höyük in north-central Anatolia,250 and it may be attested in the EBA at Girmeler cave.251 In the Halasarna area there was a decrease in its use in the EBA, but it remained an important technique, suggesting that there was continuity in the local pottery tradition.

Chapter 3 Endnotes 1. Sampson 1987, 80. 2. At Kephala it is a regular feature in the clay; Coleman 1977, 9. 3. Wilson 1999, 9. 4. Vaughan and Williams 2007, 117–118. 5. At Ftelia it is very common; Aloupi 2002, 282; Mexi 2002, 307; Sampson 2002, 39. 6. Angelopoulou 2008, 151. 7. At Daskaleio-Kavos quartz-tempered sherds comprise 27%–37% of the local assemblage; Broodbank 2000b, 335–336, fig. 9; 2007, 120–126, tables 6.4, 6.5. 8. At Kato Akrotiri it represents less than 2% of the total sherds; Yiannouli 2002, 13. 9. Vaughan 2006, 100–101, table 7.3. It is more common at EC Markiani than at Kato Akrotiri. 10. Sampson 1987, 109. 11. Sampson 1988b, 106; Katsarou, Sampson, and Dimou 2002, 112–113. 12. Melas 1988, 288, 290, 292. 13. Melas 1988, 295–299; Farmakidou 2003, 297. 14. Melas 1988, 300. 15. Melas 1988, 302–304. 16. Melas 1988, 304, 307. 17. Melas 1985, 84. 18. Nowicki 2002, 53–54; Haggis et al. 2007, 677–679.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Kâmil 1982, 15–19. Parzinger 1989, 416. Voigtländer 1986, 638–640. Joukowsky 1986, 297. Perlès 2001, 216 n. 34. I was thus informed by F. Chryssopoulos, a local potter. K. Nowicki, pers. comm. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58. Vitelli 2007, 75–76, 81, 87. Melas 1988, 300–301. Sampson 1987, 23, 80, 88; 1988b, 75. Melas 1985, 84. Melas 1985, 84. Zachos 2008, 16. Immerwhar 1971, 13. Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, 99, fig. 52:9–50. Georgiadis 2010, 16. Coleman 1977, 9. Hood 1981–1982, 14, 29, 167. Felsch 1988. Sampson 1987, 88. Sampson 1988b, figs. 73–77. Nowicki 2002, 54; Benzi 2008, 87.

32 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE Melas 1988, 289, 292. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 163, 166. Melas 1988, 293. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 171. Sampson 1987, 23, 71; Melas 1988, 300. Melas 1985, 68–69. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55. Nowicki 2002, 53; Haggis et al. 2007, 679. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 171. Parzinger 1989, figs. 1:2, 3, 5–7; 2:2, 5–9; 3:7, 8, 11. Voigtländer 1986, 638–640, figs. 17–19. Joukowsky 1986, 294–295, 297, fig. 275:5. French 2008, 198. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 73, 75, 106, 117, 135, 200. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, 19, 38–39, 98, 100. Yakar 1985, 122. Blegen et al. 1950, 56, 224, fig. 407:II-363. Sampson 1987, 80. Georgiadis 2010, 16. Marthari, Marketou, and Jones 1990, 175; Mountjoy 1999, 1076. Melas 1985, 84. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 167. Melas 1988, 307–308. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 152. Melas 1985, 296–297, 299. Melas 1988, 287–292. Vaughan and Williams 2007, 118. Angelopoulou 2008, 151. Vaughan 1990, 476–478. Broodbank 2000b, 336–337, fig. 9; 2007, 125–126, tables 6.4, 6.5. Broodbank 2007, 120, 125–126. Parzinger 1989, 416. Voigtländer 1986, 638–640. Yiannouli 2002, 13, table 7.4. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 34. Coleman 1977, 9. Wilson 1999, 24, 84. Lamb 1936, 76. Kâmil 1982, 15–19. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, 19, 38–39, 98, 100. Erdoğu 2003, 13. Haggis et al. 2007, 677–679. Broodbank 2007, 126. Hood 1981–1982, 14, 29, 167, 245, 308, 358, 434, 471, fig. 209:1826. Voigtländer 1986, 638. Benzi 1997, 384, 390.

88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.

Benzi 2008, 87. Blegen et al. 1950, 39, 53–54, 222. Hood 1981–1982, 166, 308, 358, 434. Voigtländer 1986, 640, no. 16, fig. 18:16. Vaughan 1990, 474–476, 481–482, 485; Vaughan and Williams 2007, 105, 114–116, 119, 124. Katsarou, Sampson, and Dimou 2002, 115. Sampson 1988b, 75; Katsarou, Sampson, and Dimou 2002, 112–113, 115. Sampson 1988b, 75, 106. Melas 1988, 290, 292, 297, 304, fig. 8:11, 19. Katsarou, Sampson, and Dimou 2002, 115. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 146, 152, 161, 163– 167. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 163. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 146–148. Melas 1988, 303–304. Melas 1988, 308. Melas 1988, 302, 306–307. The closest white clay source is in the Kephalos region (F. Chryssopoulos, pers. comm.). Sampson 2002, 105, table 2. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 36. Wilson 1999, 141, table 3:1. Melas 1988, 307, 309. Phelps 2004, 104. Hood 1981–1982, 302–303. E. Faber, pers. comm. Phelps 2004, 70–76. French 1965, 88; Sampson 1987, 58–60. French 1961, 101–102, fig. 1; 1967, 57–58; 1969, 59– 60; Yakar 1985, 123. Hood 1981–1982, 166, 303–304. Felsch 1988, 51. Sampson 1987, 32. Sampson 1987, 73. Sampson 1987, 73, 83. Lamb 1936, 73–76, 79. Hood 1981–1982, 434. Karantzali 2006, 101. Wilson 1999, 19, 84, 138. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 36. Broodbank 2000b, fig. 9. Yiannouli 2002, 11. Furness 1956, 183. Melas 1985, 84. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 146, 152, 161, 163– 167. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55–58, 60.

POTTERY FABRICS 131. Pullen 1985, 256–257; MacGillivray 2008, 165, 174, fig. 4.5. 132. Wilson 1999, 76–77, 134; Broodbank 2000b, 337; 2007, 134–135. 133. Wilson 1999, 76. 134. Furness 1956, 184. 135. Sampson 1987, 31; 1988b, 102. 136. Sotirakopoulou 1999, chart 10. 137. Yiannouli 2002, 13. 138. Sampson 1988b, 102. 139. Sampson 1987, 31. 140. Melas 1985, 84–85; Sampson 1987, 31, 80, 82, 88; 1988b, 102. 141. Karantzali 2006, 107–108. 142. Sampson 1987, 73. 143. Melas 1985, 84. 144. Karantzali 2006, 101. 145. Hood 1981–1982, 37, 166; Sampson 2002, 39, table 2. 146. Sampson 1987, 73, 82–83, 88. 147. Melas 1985, 68, 85. 148. Vitelli 2007, 6. 149. Zachos 2008, 16. 150. Papathanassopoulos 1971, fig. 3. 151. Immerwahr 1971, 11, pls. 3:24, 100:7. 152. Spitaels 1982, 37, fig. 1.12. 153. Lambert 1981, pls. 33:4/14, 34:4/175, 37:3/188. 154. Georgiadis 2010, 5, 13. 155. Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, figs. 5:2–23, 17:4–3, 27:6–1. 156. Keller 1982, 56, figs. 2.7:P113, 2.8:P62. 157. Coleman 1977, 10, pls. 79:170, 80:136, 81:G, 91:E. 158. Atkinson et al. 1904, 192, pl. 40:21. 159. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 35:10, pl. 27:c. 160. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 72–73, pls. 171–173. 161. Sampson 2008a, 58, figs. 2.7:2, 2.16:181–183, 2.37:633–640. 162. Furness 1956, pl. 21:1; Hood 1981–1982, figs. 20:99; 36:229; 128:205, 215, 221A; 150:590; 161:824; 187:1287; 220:1982; 226:2227; pls. 32:260; 39b:top row, second from left; 47:590. 163. Felsch 1988, pls. 13.4:lower row, 17:107. 164. Furness 1956, 192–193, fig. 10:11, 12, 15; Benzi 1997, 384, pl. 1:a. 165. Coleman 1977, pl. 91:E–J; Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 151; Betancourt 1985, 31; Sotirakopoulou 1999, 80–81; Yiannouli 2002, 13. 166. Mellaart 1963, 224–226, fig. 13:1–18; French 1965, 88. 167. Blegen et al. 1950, 39, 45. 168. Milojčić 1961, pl. 31:2. 169. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 171. 170. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 163, 165. 171. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 52–53.

172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182.

183. 184. 185.

186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213.

33

Betancourt 1985, 31. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55–58, 60; 1973, 171. Sampson 1987, 88–90. Birtacha 2006, 131, table 7.11; Eskitzioglou 2006, 139, table 7.15. Sampson 1987, 23, 71–72, 80, 88; 1988b, 75, 102. Yiannouli 2002, 13. Angelopoulou 2008, 151. Broodbank 2007, 134. Karantzali 2006, 108. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 199–200; French 1967, 61; 1969, 65–66; Yakar 1985, 124–125; Benzi 1997, 384– 388; Sotirakopoulou 1999, 70. Joukowsky 1986, 358, 360, 362. Karantzali 2006, 108. The case of Kt.11 represents a variable technique of manufacture of the slipped and burnished pottery. On this bowl sherd, the internal part was initially burnished and a red slip was added later. This practice has been attested at other Neolithic sites as well (Vitelli 2007, 7), including FN Hagios Dimitrios (Zachos 2008, 16). Immerwahr 1971, 4–9. Wilson 1999, 15. Furness 1956, 187. Furness 1956, 192–193; Benzi 2008, 88. Sampson 1987, 72. Sampson 1987, 88. Melas 1985, 85. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 91. Barber and MacGillivray 1980, 150. Cosmopoulos 1991, 51. Yiannouli 2002, 11. Immerwahr 1971, 11. Broodbank 2007, 134. Hood 1981–1982, 166, 243–244, 308, 433–435, 545. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 85, 116, 135, 200. Goldman 1931, 83. Immerwhar 1971, 11. Vaughan and Williams 2007, 99. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 72. Hood 1981–1982, 358–359, 434–435. Blegen et al. 1950, 223–224. Joukowsky 1986, 358, 360, 362. Cosmopoulos 1991, 51–52. Goldman 1931, 83. Yiannouli 2002, 11–13. Blegen et al. 1950, 221. French 1967, 65; 1969, 67. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 177–179, map 7.

34 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227.

228. 229. 230. 231. 232.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE Joukowsky 1986, 352, 354, 358, 360, 362. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 166. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57. J. Renfrew 2006, 196, pl. 48:c–f. Sampson 1987, 30. Sampson 1988b, 96. Sampson 1987, 81–82, pl. 45. Lambert 1981, pl. 24. Hood 1981–1982, 248. Furness 1956, 181–182. Sampson 1987, 88–90, pl. 48:α. Nowicki 2002, 59. Sampson 2002, 64. Carington Smith 1977, 122–124; Mpeloyianni 2004, chart 1; Phelps 2004, 120; Labriola 2008, 309, 316–318, figs. 2, 3. Carington Smith 1977, 119–121, pls. 46:K, 90:C. Wilson 1999, pls. 45:II-39–42; 46:II-43–48; 61:II-452; 62:II-453, II-462, II-463; 71:II-783; 73. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 204–206, fig. 67:β, pl. 272; Mpeloyianni 2004, 445, fig. 19. J. Renfrew 2007, 374, fig. 10.17:727. J. Renfrew 2006, 197–199, fig. 8.16:a.

233. Sampson 1987, 81–82, pl. 45:α. 234. Sampson 1988b, fig. 68β:1, 3, 7, 10, pls. 81–85. 235. Halstead and Jones 1987, 142–143; Sampson 1987, 23, 71, 80, 88, pl. 25; 1988b, 210. 236. Nowicki 2002, 59. 237. Marketou 2004, 23–24. 238. Yakar 1985, 124. 239. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, 106. 240. French 2008, 198. 241. Tekin 2007, 163. 242. Fletcher 2007, 193, 196, table 1; Steadman et al. 2008, 64, 68, 79–83. 243. Erdoğu 2003, 13. 244. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, 19, 38–39, 98, 100. 245. Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, 99, fig. 52:9–50. 246. Tomkins, Day, and Kilikoglou 2004, 52, fig. 2.1:g. 247. Perlès 2001, 211 n. 28. 248. Yakar 1985, 122. 249. Mellaart 1963, 199, 201, 211, 220, 224. 250. Steadman et al. 2008, 82–83. 251. French 2008, 198.

4

Pottery Shapes

In this chapter I present a discussion of open and closed vessels, cheese pots, and diagnostic body parts (handles and lugs, bases and feet, and decoration) found in the Halasarna survey assemblage. The

description of the shapes is accompanied by a discussion of parallels from elsewhere in the Aegean and Anatolia and their chronological significance.

Open Vessels Bowls Deep and medium bowls with straight walls and straight or slightly flaring rims have been recovered in considerable numbers from the Halasarna survey (Kt.9–Kt.11, Kt.20, Fig. 1). The majority have a simple rounded rim. At least 22 examples can be assigned to this category with certainty. These come mainly from Koutlousi, including examples Kt.1–Kt.5, Kt.7–Kt.10, and Kt.12–Kt.21. Example Kt.6 has a whitish slip, while Kt.11 has a red slip. Bowl N.1, which also has a whitish slip, belongs to this category, although it has an uneven rim and body, possibly a result of poor production (Pl. 12). Similar bowls are known from LN–FN mainland

Greek sites. Among the parallels are the gray ware bowls from Gonia, Corinth, and Klenia. This shape also continues in the EBA.1 Other examples are known from EH I/II and EH II Manika2 and LN–FN Skoteini cave,3 as well as FN Katalimata in Crete.4 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene II,5 Kephala, where examples have been found in both decorated and undecorated versions,6 and Phylakopi A2–B.7 Similar examples in both painted and unpainted versions are known on Saliagos.8 Further instances come from Ftelia,9 EC II Akrotiri,10 Daskaleio-Kavos,11 and Markiani IV.12 In the northern Aegean, examples come from EB I Palamari13 and EN/MN and LN II contexts at the Cave of the

36

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Cyclops.14 In the northeastern Aegean, similar finds have been recovered from Poliochni Blue advanced,15 Emporio X–II,16 and Tigani I.17 Western Anatolian parallels have been found at LCh 1 Beycesultan18 and LN Kömüradasi.19 Finally, in the Dodecanese other examples in unpainted and painted versions come from Kalythies cave,20 Koumelo cave I–II,21 LN–FN Laftira,22 LN–FN Koukoumia,23 LN–FN Prasonisi,24 Alimnia,25 FN Trakheia,26 Partheni,27 and LN–FN and EBA Giali.28 As attested by the number of examples cited here, this bowl shape seems to have been very popular at the LN and FN sites of the Dodecanese and Samos, as well as other contemporary Neolithic insular sites. The shape continued into the EBA in the Cyclades, on the Greek mainland, and, most importantly, in one example from Giali. In some of these examples the treatment of the clay appears closer to that seen in the EBA; thus, they seem to belong to a rather broad horizon extending from the LN possibly into EB II. Stratigraphic evidence is needed to clarify the extent to which this bowl type continued in the EBA. Shallow bowls with straight walls and straight rims are a common type at Halasarna (Kt.22, Fig. 1). There are four examples from the survey area, Kt.22–Kt.24 and N.2. Parallels for this bowl type are found all across the Aegean beginning in the LN. Examples from the mainland or nearby are known from LN–FN Argos, Alepotrypa, Gonia, Klenia, and Corinth (in painted versions),29 EH II Manika,30 LN–FN Skoteini cave,31 and EH III Kolonna on Aegina.32 Examples from Crete come from EM II Malia33 and EM II Knossos,34 while Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene III,35 Phylakopi A2,36 Mt. Kynthos B,37 Saliagos,38 Ftelia,39 Zas cave,40 EC III early Akrotiri,41 and EC II–III early Kato Akrotiri.42 Parallels from the northeastern Aegean islands come from Poliochni Black–Green and Yellow,43 Hagio Gala Lower and Upper cave, Emporio X–II,44 Heraion,45 and Tigani III–IV,46 while examples from the Dodecanese come from Kalythies cave (in both unpainted and painted versions)47 and Alimnia.48 Finally, a western Anatolian example is known from Troy I–IV.49 The longevity of this bowl type from the LN to the EB III is evident at a number of sites across the Aegean, and thus no more specific dating can be proposed. Shallow bowls with flaring walls and simple round rims are also found at Halasarna

(Kt.27–Kt.29, Fig. 1). Eight examples were recovered: Kt.25–Kt.31 and N.3. Parallels for this bowl type are attested on the mainland at LN Gonia and Corinth50 and at LN Skoteini cave in Euboea.51 Cycladic examples come from Kephala,52 Saliagos,53 Ftelia,54 and LN Grotta,55 while in the northern Aegean islands, similar forms have been recovered from the Cave of the Cyclops,56 Poliochni Black–Green,57 Emporio VII–VI,58 Heraion,59 and Tigani IV.60 Western Anatolian examples are known from LCh 1–4 Beycesultan, in painted and unpainted versions,61 and also from LCh 1–2 Bağbaşi.62 Examples from the Dodecanese have been recovered from Kalythies cave (in both unpainted and painted versions),63 Alimnia,64 and Giali.65 This bowl type is found in the Aegean during the LN and FN periods, but it seems to have been popular in different areas during different phases. The closest parallels to the Halasarna examples come from Bağbaşi, Kalythies, Alimnia, and Giali, suggesting a LN I–FN I date for this shape, but its continuation into the FN II period cannot be excluded, as attested at EBA Samos (Heraion). Another example of this type, Kt.32 (Fig. 1), needs separate treatment. It represents a case of the open flaring bowls found in the Kastri-Lefkandi I phase. Parallels are known from the mainland at Lerna III,66 EH II Lithares,67 and Peukakia phases 3 and 7 (with incisions on the rims).68 Other examples from the Aegean derive from EM II Debla in Crete,69 Hagia Eirene III in the Cyclades,70 and the northeastern Aegean islands, where examples are known from Emporio I71 and Heraion.72 All of these examples belong to the EB II late–III early period. Kk.1 (Fig. 1) represents a bowl form with a straight body, a slight carination in the upper part of the body, and an incurving pointed rim. Similar examples come from EH II Manika in mainland Greece,73 and there are several Cycladic examples from Hagia Eirene II,74 Mt. Kynthos,75 and Panormos.76 In the northeastern Aegean islands, examples have been found at Poliochni Blue,77 Emporio V–IV and II–I,78 and Heraion I.79 Western Anatolian examples are known from Kum Tepe IB and IC,80 Troy Ia–h,81 EBA Torbali and Gavurtepe,82 and EB 1 and 2 Beycesultan.83 This bowl type appeared in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia in the EB I phase and remained a common shape in EB II, when it spread to the western part of the Aegean. The parallels, which indicate an eastern

POTTERY SHAPES

Aegean influence, strongly suggest that the Halasarna example should be dated to EB I–II. Bowls with straight walls and flaring rims that are considerably thickened and everted are exemplified in two cases, Kt.33 and Kt.34 (Fig. 1). This form appears to have been rare, and the shape is not entirely clear. The rim forms a kind of lug that can be either vertically perforated or solid. Similar rim treatment is seen on bowls with slashes on the rim from the LN II mainland site of Limnes cave84 and in examples from EH II Tiryns.85 Parallels from Emporio II include a jar with a button on the rim and a bowl form with a vertical perforation on a lug (phases VI/V, V/IV and II).86 Other examples from the northeastern Aegean islands are found in Poliochni Blue87 and Heraion I.88 Similar bowls without perforations are known from Hagia Eirene II and III in the Cyclades,89 while western Anatolian examples come from Troy I (with perforation),90 LCh 4 Beycesultan,91 EB II Kömüradasi,92 and EB I–II Iasos.93 The lack of any evidence of perforation in the breakage of the lug of the Halasarna example suggests that it was probably solid rather than perforated, closer to the Hagia Eirene II example. Although there are Neolithic predecessors of this bowl type, the evidence from most of the examples in close geographical proximity would place these bowls in the EB I–II period. One example of a bowl with straight walls and a thickened round everted rim, a rare form at Halasarna, is represented by Kk.2 from Koukos (Fig. 1). Similar rims have been found in the Cyclades at Kephala on small jars.94 Northeastern Aegean examples are known from Poliochni Black and early Blue,95 Emporio VII and VI/V,96 and Tigani IV,97 while examples from the Dodecanese come from Kalythies cave,98 Alimnia,99 and Partheni.100 All the sites are dated consistently within the FN period, and this rim type belongs to bowls. The Alimnia and Partheni examples have been dated initially to FN II, while the later layers at Kalythies cave date to the FN I. Based primarily on the better dated and stratified sites outside the Dodecanese, and secondarily on the initial date of the Dodecanesian sites, a FN I–II date is proposed. Bowls with straight or slightly curving walls and upturned, pointed rims are represented by two examples, N.4, which has straight walls and a slightly thickened rim (Fig. 1), and Kt.Lh.1, which has curving walls and a post-firing hole (Pl. 11).

37

Parallels for this type are attested on the mainland or nearby at Manika101 and Kolonna II and III,102 while Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene III,103 Mt. Kynthos A/B,104 EC II–III early Akrotiri,105 and Daskaleio-Kavos.106 In the northeastern Aegean islands, Poliochni Yellow,107 Emporio X, V, IV(?) and II (mainly the last),108 and Heraion109 have produced similar examples. The bowl with the straight wall, N.4, finds its best parallel at Emporio IV(?), and a tentative EB I date could be proposed for it. The example with curved walls, Kt.Lh.1, appears to be of a style that was very widespread and popular across the Aegean during the EB II–III early period. Bowls with curved walls and incurving rims are a characteristic EBA shape110 on the Greek mainland, the islands, and in parts of Anatolia. Still, only five examples are known from Halasarna: Kt.35, Kt.36, and Ktn.2, with rough surfaces, Ktn.3, which has a scored external surface and a burnished internal one, and T.2, which is Urfirnis, having a red glazed slip (Fig. 1). Mainland parallels for this bowl type have been recovered at Lerna III and IV,111 EH II Lithares,112 EH II Eutresis,113 EH II–III Manika (both in the settlement and the cemetery),114 and EH Kolonna.115 In the Cyclades, examples are found at Hagia Eirene II–III,116 Kephala,117 Phylakopi A1–2,118 Mt. Kynthos B,119 Ftelia,120 EC I–II Palati, EC I–II Stephanos, and Panormos on Naxos,121 EC I/II–II Kouphonisia and DaskaleioKavos,122 EC II–III early Akrotiri,123 and Markiani I–IV, especially phases III–IV.124 An example from the Sporades was found at EB III Palamari,125 while northeastern Aegean parallels are known from Poliochni Blue and Red,126 Hagio Gala Upper cave upper levels, Emporio X–I,127 Heraion,128 and Tigani I–II.129 Western Anatolian examples come from Troy I–IV130 and EB 2 Aphrodisias,131 while in the Dodecanese, parallels are known from Kalythies cave,132 Koumelo cave,133 Alimnia,134 Partheni,135 FN and EBA Giali,136 and EB III Daskalio cave, where the examples occur in a red-slipped and burnished variety.137 Examples from Asomatos on Rhodes and Serrayia on Kos are of the same shape but wheel-made,138 and they also date to EB III. Although there are LN–FN precedents for this bowl type at Kephala, Hagio Gala, Emporio, Kalythies, and elsewhere, it becomes more popular during EB II–III early and continues in red-slipped ware during EB III late at Phylakopi, Lerna, and

38

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kolonna. In the eastern Aegean the examples are predominantly EB II–III late. The fact that the Halasarna examples are neither wheelmade nor red slipped suggests an EB II–III early date for them. T.2 is a special case since it represents a red Urfirnis bowl with a nice paint applied on both its surfaces, allowing us to date it to the EB II early phase. Bowls with curved walls and upturned straight rims are relatively common at Halasarna (Kt.37, Kt.39, N.6, Fig. 2). There seem to be two varieties of this bowl type, one with a round and round/flat rim, of which there are six examples Kt.37–Kt.40, N.5, and Kk.3, and another with a canted rim, represented by one example, N.6. Similar mainland forms are attested at Lerna III139 and EH II–III Manika,140 while Cycladic parallels are known from Hagia Eirene I–III,141 Kephala,142 Phylakopi A1–2,143 Ftelia,144 EC I–II Palati, EC I–II Stephanos and Panormos on Naxos,145 EC I/II–II Kouphonisia,146 and Markiani II–III.147 From the northeastern Aegean islands, examples have been found at Poliochni Black–Red,148 Hagio Gala Upper cave upper and lower levels, Emporio X–I,149 and Tigani I–III.150 Examples from the Dodecanese are known from Kalythies cave,151 Koumelo cave,152 Alimnia,153 Partheni,154 FN I Daskalio cave,155 and FN Giali.156 This bowl type seems to have been popular from the LN period onward, and thus it is difficult to date the Halasarna examples more precisely. Nonetheless, in the southeastern Aegean area they are more popular during the LN and FN periods. The canted rim example, however, seems to have occurred in narrower chronological framework, with parallels attested at Lerna III,157 Poliochni Green phase 2,158 and Emporio II,159 suggesting an EB II dated for this type of bowl rim. Bowls with straight walls and upturned rims as exemplified by N.7 and Kk.4 (Fig. 2) are uncommon at Halasarna. Similar examples are found on the mainland at Lerna III160 and Eutresis V,161 while Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene II,162 Phylakopi A1,163 Mt. Kynthos A and B,164 EC II–IIIA Akrotiri,165 EC I/II Kouphonisia Agrilia (in the form of a fruit bowl),166 and EC II–III Kato Akrotiri.167 The form also occurs at Lefkandi I and EH II early Manika on Euboea,168 as well as EB III Palamari in the Sporades.169 Northeastern Aegean parallels are known from Poliochni Green170 and Emporio I,171 while in western Anatolia examples have been found at Troy IV–V.172 Similar examples

but with rolled rims are also attested at Kum Tepe IB.173 These examples suggest that this type of bowl rim must belong to the EB II late–III period. Bowls with slightly curved walls and incurving, internally thickened rims are a relatively common type at Halasarna, with four examples of this rim having been recovered, including T.3, Ktn.4, Kt.Lh.2, and N.8, the last with gray slip (Fig. 2). They are found at four different sites in Halasarna: Tsangaris, Koutounis, Koutlousi Lower Hill and Nerantzia, a distribution suggesting that this was a common type in this region. Parallels are found on the mainland at Lerna in EH I and phase III,174 EH II Lithares,175 EH II Eutresis,176 Peukakia-Magoula phases 1–7 and EB III early,177 and EH II–III Manika.178 In the Cyclades, parallels have been attested at Hagia Eirene II and III,179 Phylakopi A2–B,180 Mt. Kynthos A,181 EC I/II–II late Panormos,182 EC II Akrotiri,183 Daskaleio-Kavos,184 and Markiani IV,185 while in the Sporades an EB II example was recovered at Molos on Skyros.186 Other parallels are known from Troy I–II in western Anatolia187 and from Heraion in the eastern Aegean.188 These examples place this bowl shape in the EB II period. Bowls with straight walls and straight thickened rims are another form attested at Halasarna. Four examples have been recovered, including T.4, which has a brown slip and a straight flat rim, Kt.41, Kt.42 (which has an internal thickening just below the rim), and Kk.5, with a rim that is trianglular in section (Fig. 2). Similar rims have been found on the mainland at Lerna III–IV,189 EH II Lithares,190 Peukakia-Magoula phases 3, 5–7, and EB III early,191 and Manika EH II.192 In Crete they are found in Tombs 1 and 9 in the cemetery at Pseira, dated to the EM IIA and B periods.193 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene II194 and Phylakopi B,195 and others are known from Troy II196 and Emporio V–IV.197 Thus, an EB II date would seem appropriate for the examples from the Halasarna area. Bowls with slightly curving walls and a separated, slightly flaring rim or beaded lip form a category that is similar to LN beaded lip types from southern Greece. One example of this type, Kt.43 (Fig. 2), which has mottled gray and brown surfaces, has been recovered at Koutlousi. Parallels in decorated (matt painted) and plain versions (gray ware) are attested in LN I–II contexts at Corinth,

POTTERY SHAPES

Argos, and Klenia in southern mainland Greece,198 and further mainland examples come from LN I and FN Franchthi.199 In the Cyclades a painted version is known from Saliagos,200 while other examples come from LN Grotta201 and Ftelia.202 Northeastern Aegean parallels appear at Hagio Gala Upper cave lower and upper levels and Emporio VII,203 while elsewhere in the Dodecanese examples are known from the Kalythies cave,204 Alimnia,205 Partheni,206 and Giali.207 This bowl type was very popular on the Greek mainland in LN I–II, and there is one example from FN Franchthi, but in the islands only a few examples are known, also from LN I–II contexts. On Chios the Hagio Gala examples can be dated to the MN period, while the shape is considered a characteristic of the Early Neolithic in western Anatolia.208 The example from Giali could belong to either LN II or FN I, but the examples from the Kalythies cave suggest an earlier date for this bowl type in the Dodecanese. Therefore, the example from Koutlousi can most likely be placed in the MN–LN period. Bowls with a curving body and a slightly flaring, externally thickened, -type rim are found in two instances at Halasarna, O.1 and Kt.44 (Fig. 2). The first example is wheelmade, while the latter is decorated, and for that reason it will be discussed in more detail in the section on thumb-impressed decoration below. Mainland parallels have been recovered from EH II Lithares209 and EH II Manika,210 while Cycladic parallels come from Kephala,211 Ftelia,212 EC II–III early Akrotiri,213 and Markiani IV.214 In the northeastern Aegean islands, examples have been found at Poliochni Yellow (but this example is internally thickened),215 as well as Emporio VII–VI216 and Tigani IV.217 Western Anatolian examples come from LCh 1–2 Bağbaşi218 and LCh 1 and 3 Beycesultan,219 while in the Dodecanese instances of this form have been recovered from Partheni220 and Giali.221 The Akrotiri, Poliochni, and Lithares examples are thickened internally, in contrast to the specimens from Manika, Kephala, Ftelia, Emporio, Tigani, Beycesultan, Bağbaşi, Partheni, and Giali. Most of the eastern Aegean and western Anatolian examples belong to the LN–FN period. The proximity of Bağbaşi, Partheni, and Giali to Kos, in conjunction with the position of the thickening on the rim, would suggest a LN I–FN I date for this type at Halasarna. Nonetheless, the

39

presence of this bowl type in a wheelmade version and the proximity of Halasarna to Markiani suggest an EB III early date. Wide-mouthed bowls with a slightly S-shaped body curvature have been recovered in four cases from Koutlousi, Kt.45–Kt.48 (Fig. 2). These have either pointed or round rims. Parallels have been recovered on the mainland at LN Skoteini cave,222 while examples with crusted decoration are known from Saliagos in the Cyclades,223 others come from Ftelia,224 and painted versions have been found at LN Akrotiri.225 In the northeastern Aegean islands, examples of this type are known from LN II at the Cave of the Cyclops,226 Hagio Gala Upper cave, lower and upper levels,227 and Tigani III–IV,228 while in the Dodecanese the type is represented at Kalythies cave,229 Koumelo cave,230 Alimnia,231 Partheni,232 FN II Daskalio cave,233 and Giali.234 This type of bowl is common in LN I–II in the Cyclades and at Hagio Gala, but in the Dodecanese it may have appeared in Kalythies I, and it continued to be popular in FN I on Giali. Thus, a LN II–FN I date seems appropriate for this type of bowl at Koutlousi. Bowls with S-shaped body curvature and flaring rims are uncommon, but four examples were found in the Halasarna region: Kt.49, Kt.50 (with a whitish slip), Kt.51, and Kt.52 (with a reddishbrown slip), all from Koutlousi (Fig. 2). This particular type is differentiated from the previous group by the curvature of the body and the characteristic flaring rim. The shape of this vessel could have belonged to a jar form as well, but the thickness, which varies from 0.6 cm to 0.8 cm, strongly suggests that a bowl type is represented, an interpretation that is supported by numerous contemporary parallels. Similar forms have been recovered on the mainland at LN Skoteini cave235 and LN Grotta236 and Ftelia in the Cyclades.237 Northeastern Aegean examples come from the EN/MN deposits of the Cave of the Cyclops,238 Hagio Gala Upper and Lower cave,239 and Tigani II.240 Examples from the Dodecanese come from the Kalythies cave (although some of these are classified as closed vessels),241 Koumelo cave I,242 Alimnia,243 Partheni,244 and Giali.245 The shape seems to have been particularly popular at Ftelia, Hagio Gala cave, Kalythies cave, and Giali and less so at the rest of the Dodecanesian sites and Tigani. Moreover, it appears to be a characteristic EN

40

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

shape in western Anatolia and Tenedos, according to Erdoğu.246 There are also numerous bowls of this type at Giali, suggesting it belonged to a local style extending into the Halasarna area and more particularly into Koutlousi. With regard to dating, one should take into account the fact that this shape had a long history and already existed at LN II sites in the Dodecanese and beyond. A LN II–FN I horizon is proposed for this bowl type at Koutlousi, as with the previous category. Bowls with straight walls and a T-shaped rim are uncommon at Halasarna, the only example being T.5 (Fig. 2). Parallels are found on Crete at EM IIA Malia247 and in the mainland area at EH II early Hagios Dimitrios,248 Lerna III,249 EH II Tiryns,250 EH II Kolonna,251 EH I–II Eutresis,252 PeukakiaMagoula phases 2–7 and EB III early,253 and EH II–III Manika.254 In the Cyclades parallels have been recovered at Hagia Eirene III,255 Mt. Kynthos A,256 EC II–III early Akrotiri,257 Daskaleio-Kavos,258 and Kato Akrotiri,259 while in the northeastern Aegean, there are examples from Poliochni Yellow260 and Heraion.261 The Halasarna example seems to belong to the chronological horizon of the EB II–III early period. Bowls with rolled rims are rare in the Dodecanese, and only one example has been recovered at Halasarna, Kt.53 (Fig. 2). Parallels come mainly from northwestern Anatolia, where they are believed to originate in the FN period, in particular at Kum Tepe IB–C.262 They are diffused across other sites in the northeastern Aegean, such as Myrina I,263 Poliochni Black–Green,264 and Emporio VII–VI and V–IV (one example).265 On the Greek mainland they are found in Thessaly, Attica (including Aegina), Corinthia, Argolid, Arcadia, Laconia, and Acarnania.266 At EB I–II Lithares they are attested in all phases of occupation.267 In the Cyclades they have been recovered from FN II Paoura,268 Phylakopi A1,269 FN and EC I Grotta,270 Zas cave,271 EC I/II or EC II early Panormos,272 EC II Kouphonisia,273 and all EBA phases at Akrotiri.274 In the Dodecanese the only examples come from FN II Daskalio cave275 and Hagios Theologos north (a single instance). Dating this rim form is a difficult task, since rolled rims are found mainly from FN II to EH I in the eastern Aegean, with the exception of a few from Poliochni Green. In the Cyclades, however, they date from FN II to EB II. The shape persists into EB III at sites like Phylakopi and

Akrotiri. Based on the fabric and the coarse character of the Halasarna example, along with the Daskalio cave parallels, a FN II date is proposed.

Bowls with Handles Bowls with a S-shaped body that flares at its upper part and has a slightly thickened rim with horizontal handles are represented by one example, Kt.54 (Fig. 3). Parallels are found on Crete at EM II Knossos (but the carination is not preserved),276 as well as on the mainland at Lerna IV.277 Parallels have been found in the Cyclades at Kephala (where the example is a pedestal bowl)278 and at Panormos (with the body curving and an incurving rim).279 In the northeastern Aegean islands examples come from LN II deposits at the Cave of the Cyclops (but with straight body)280 and Blue, Green, and Yellow Poliochni (where a vertical handle occurs only in the last-mentioned phase).281 An example from Emporio VII–VI has a more flaring body; the shape was more common at this site in phases V–I, but these examples displayed a local preference for warts and upraised rims.282 The Poliochni Yellow, Lerna IV, and Emporio V–I examples, along with the horizontal handle and the bowl shape, argue in favor of an EB II–III date rather than an earlier one. Bowls with a high-swung vertical loop handle seem to have been relatively common at Halasarna. The handles begin on the rim, rising almost vertically and forming a loop that ends at the body of the vessel. Kt.55 and Kt.56 (Fig. 3) belong to bowls with straight walls and a simple rim that thickens around the point where the handle extends vertically from the bowl’s rim. In both cases the handle seems to have an ovoid strap shape. The lower lunate-shaped break on Kt.55 suggests the position on the body where the handle would have ended. High-swung vertical handles are also found in the Cyclades at Kephala283 and Ftelia.284 Mainland examples come from LN II Skoteini cave,285 while a parallel from the Sporades is known from the LN II deposits at the Cave of the Cyclops.286 Other parallels come from LN Gülpinar, where the example is of a different shape and has decoration,287 LN II Kizilbel,288 and LCh 2 Beycesultan in western Anatolia.289 In the northeastern Aegean examples have been found at Myrina Black and early Blue,290 Poliochni Black,291 Hagio Gala Upper and Lower

POTTERY SHAPES

cave, Emporio IX–VII and V–II,292 and Tigani II–III.293 Similar handle arrangements have been found in the Dodecanese at Kalythies cave phase II,294 Alimnia,295 Partheni (possibly with a different handle arrangement),296 Daskalio cave,297 and Giali.298 This handle type is common on bowls during both LN II and FN I across the Aegean. Both the Halasarna examples can be placed within a wider LN II–FN I chronological horizon. Bowl Kt.57 (Fig. 3) belongs to the same broad category of bowls with a high-swung vertical loop handle, but it displays a notable difference—the bowl is incurving, and the handle begins vertically from the rim. Bowls with similar handles and body arrangements are attested on the mainland at Lerna IV (but in a smaller version),299 EH II Kaloyerovrysi (type B),300 EH II Manika,301 and PeukakiaMagoula phases 1–4.302 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene II,303 and there are instances from the Sporades at Palamari.304 Northeastern Aegean examples are known from Myrina Black,305 Poliochni Black, Blue, and Green,306 and Emporio V–IV, II, and I (in most cases with incised decoration),307 Tigani I,308 and Heraion III (with a twisted handle arrangement).309 A western Anatolian example comes from EB 2 Beycesultan.310 The shape of the vessel and its rim suggests an EB I–II date, most probably the latter phase, for this bowl type. A bowl with one or two handles and a curved body, on which the handle starts just below the incurving rim and ends lower on the body of the vessel, is found in only one case, T.6. This example has a semicircular handle section (Fig. 3). The shape is not very different from the cups described below; the difference lies in the handle form, the fabric, the firing, and the surface of this sherd. The closest mainland parallels come from FN Hagios Dimitrios,311 LN Asea,312 and FN Argos (with mottled surface),313 while on Crete similar examples are known from Knossos VIA–V.314 Western Anatolian parallels come from Canhasan 1.315 In the northeastern Aegean, parallels are attested at Poliochni Black,316 Hagio Gala Upper cave upper level,317 and Tigani I,318 but in the Hagio Gala example the rim is straight rather than incurving and in the Tigani example the handle starts from a lower point under the rim. All shapes at Tigani, however, are generally close to the Halasarna example, as well as to an example from Giali.319 The mottled fabric

41

represented at Halasarna is unique so far in the assemblages collected in the survey, but it is paralleled by the fabrics with a mottled surface effect known from Emporio VIII–VI320 and by Dodecanesian examples from Partheni321 and Giali.322 These occurrences suggest the existence of a regional fabric type. The popularity of this bowl type at Tigani reveals a close interaction with Kos, while the presence of the same mottled surface treatment at Emporio suggests that ideas were shared across the eastern Aegean. The surface treatment suggests the application of a cloth for smoothing the external surface, while burnishing marks are clear on the inside. The Halasarna example could be dated to LN I–II based on stylistic comparisons with the examples from Tigani, Knossos, Hagio Gala, and Canhasan. A carinated bowl with a vertical lug that extends above the rim has been recovered at Koutounis (Ktn.5, Fig. 3). This example is burnished both internally and externally and belongs to a type of bowl with handles so far known only from Tigani III.323 It is the only example that has been recovered outside Samos. Elsewhere, only a few fragments from Ftelia vaguely resemble this bowl type.324 Bowl Ktn.5 is different from most examples from Tigani, as its carination is less obvious. Instead it has a more rounded body, similar to Tigani no. 327, but its lug is not as low on the body.325 Bowls nos. 50 and 54 from Partheni on Leros have a similar vertical lug below the rim,326 but there is no extension toward the rim, while the rim is flaring rather than straight. If the new chronology of Partheni is correct, there may have been earlier versions of this type.327 Bowl Ktn.5 should be dated to the FN I period based on the proposed chronology for Tigani. Its shape may be a local version of a tradition from Samos, attesting to the degree of contact between the two islands.

Dipper The dipper is an unusual vessel shape, represented at Halasarna by only a single example, Kt.58 (Fig. 3). It differs from the bowls with a high-swung vertical loop handle in that the strap handle is an extension of the vessel’s body, which does not thicken, as is normally the case with the

42

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

bowls. Dippers are a rarity in mainland Greece, with only a few examples coming mainly from Sesklo,328 LN II Corinth,329 and LN I–II Skoteini cave (two occurrences).330 From the Sporades, there are two examples dating to MN and LN II from the Cave of the Cyclops,331 while in the eastern Aegean, three parallels come from Emporio V–IV.332 Elsewhere in the Dodecanese, three examples have been found at Kalythies cave,333 and two others come from Giali; the latter are stylistically earlier than the main phase of the settlement’s occupation in FN I.334 Hence, most of the available parallels suggest a LN II date for this dipper, rather than a later (EB I) date like the examples from Emporio.

Scoop A very unusual form of a scoop, Kt.59, was recovered from Koutlousi (Fig. 4). The vessel shape, which is unique among the Halasarna examples, is that of a bowl with a handle that is almost vertical and begins on the rim, forming a highswung loop and ending on the body of the vessel. The shape closely resembles the bowls with highswung loop handles seen earlier, but it is distinctive inasmuch as it has an asymmetrical rim that starts descending gradually after the handle. The asymmetrical rim is a relatively common feature at the Cycladic site of Ftelia (LN II)335 and on the mainland at Skoteini cave (LN II).336 High-swung vertical handles on bowls are also found on the mainland at LN II Limnes cave337 and LN II Skoteini cave,338 while Cycladic examples are known from Kephala339 and Ftelia.340 Parallels in the Sporades come from EN/MN and LN II deposits at the Cave of the Cyclops,341 while western Anatolian examples have been found at LN Gülpinar (but of different shape and with decoration),342 as well as LN II Kizilbel.343 In the northeastern Aegean, examples of this scoop come from Myrina Black and early Blue,344 Poliochni Black,345 Hagio Gala Upper and Lower cave, Emporio IX–VII and V–II,346 and Tigani II–III.347 Similar handle arrangements can be found in LN II contexts in the Dodecanese at Kalythies cave phase II,348 Alimnia,349 Partheni (possibly with different handle arrangement),350 Daskalio cave,351 and Giali.352 This vessel shape may possibly have been a predecessor

to the incised FN scoops found at Kephala,353 in Thessaly,354 and occasionally in southern Greece at the Agora, Corinth, and Halieis during the FN period.355 The handle is common in both LN II and FN I across the Aegean, but the asymmetrical rims on bowls seem to be a LN II characteristic, placing this specific bowl shape in the LN II period.

Cups One-handled cups with an incurving rim and a vertical handle that starts just below the rim are also recovered at Halasarna. There are two examples, Kt.Lh.3, with a strap handle that is ovoid in section and N.9, with a flat strap handle (Fig. 4). Parallels for this cup type are attested on the mainland at Lerna III,356 EH II Tiryns,357 EH II–III Eutresis,358 and EH II Manika.359 Cretan examples come from EM II Hagia Kyriaki360 and EM IIA Myrtos, where there are painted versions.361 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene II and III,362 Mt. Kynthos A/B,363 and probably EB III Palamari,364 while northeastern Aegean parallels are known from Poliochni Green, Red, and Yellow,365 Thermi IV,366 Emporio III,367 and EB II Heraion (in the form of open jars).368 Parallels in western Anatolia are known from Troy IId, f, and g through Troy IV (in the form of cup and deep basin-like jar shapes of larger size),369 LCh 2 and EB4 Aphrodisias (with a LCh2 example almost identical to Kt.Lh.3),370 and at EBA Giali in the Dodecanese.371 Doumas includes this shape in the Phylakopi B pottery group,372 and thus a date in EB II late–III early would seem probable for this vessel type. Cup Kt.60 is a one-handled cup with thin walls and an almost rectangular handle that starts from the rim and ends at the middle of its body (Fig. 4). The shape resembles the examples described above, but it has an upturned rim, it is thinner, and the handle begins from the rim and angles downward. The closest parallel comes from Lerna III;373 it is an uncommon EH II shape, but it is found on the mainland at EH II Manika, where some of the examples have a different handle shape.374 In the Cyclades, parallels have been found at Hagia Eirene II and III,375 while western Anatolian examples are found at Troy I, shape A 31,376 and northeastern Aegean examples are known from Thermi II or III377 and Emporio V–IV.378 Another example from the Dodecanese

POTTERY SHAPES

comes from Daskalio cave.379 The above examples suggest an EB I–II horizon for this cup shape, but the fabric, with limited inclusions, and the treatment, well burnished on both sides, of the Koutlousi specimen suggest an EB II date instead. Cup Kt.61 is an example of a one-handled cup with an upraised rim on which the strap handle begins on the highest point of the rim on its external side and forms a vertical handle (Fig. 4). Similarly shaped cups come from Lerna IV on the mainland (although the Lerna example does not have the raised rim)380 and Peukakia-Magoula phases 3, 4, and 7.381 Parallels are found at EB I Beycesultan382 and EB II Müskebi383 in western Anatolia and at EBA Giali in the Dodecanese.384 A similar cup handle has been recovered at Pontamos on Chalki, but this example belongs to an ovalmouthed jar with traces of black paint and is dated to MM II–III.385 The closest parallel, a cup that is more cylindrical in shape, comes from an EH II tomb at Lake Vouliagmeni in Perachora.386 The Halasarna example seems to belong to an EB II chronological horizon rather than to a later period. One or two handled cups with straight, almost vertical, bodies and flaring rims are uncommon, with only two examples from Halasarna (e.g., N.11, Fig. 4). Although two varieties are identified, one with a round rim, N.10, and one with a pointed rim, N.11, both categories are known in the same cup type. Similar types of cups have been recovered on or near the mainland at EH Eutresis,387 EH III Manika,388 Lefkandi I,389 and Kolonna II.390 Cycladic parallels come from Hagia Eirene III,391 Phylakopi A2,392 Akrotiraki,393 Mt. Kynthos B (on bell-shaped cups, although most have a very flaring pointed rim),394 Paroikia,395 Panormos,396 EC II late–III early Akrotiri (on two-handled bell-shaped cups),397 and Markiani IV.398 Examples have been found on Crete at Lebena,399 while parallels in the Sporades are known from Palamari III.400 In the northeastern Aegean, examples of this type come from Poliochni Red (but without a flaring rim) and Yellow,401 Emporio VII–IV (on bowls) and I (on tankards),402 and Heraion,403 while western Anatolian parallels are attested at EB 4 Aphrodisias.404 This type of cup belongs to the so-called Kastri and Lefkandi I groups, possibly originating in western Anatolia or the northeastern Aegean, and should be placed in the EB II late–III early phase.

43

Sauceboats Although the sauceboat is a typical EB shape in mainland Greece and the Cyclades, in the Dodecanese it is considered an unusual vessel type. There are four examples, three from Koutlousi, Kt.62–Kt.64, and one from Nerantzia, N.12 (Fig. 4). In all of these, part of the body and the ascending rim is preserved. They have been recognized as sauceboats because of their form, thickness (0.5–0.7 cm), and the presence of burnishing either internally or on both sides. The first two from Koutlousi have almost straight rims, while Kt.64 and N.12 have incurving rims. Parallels are widespread in mainland Greece, coming from sites such as EH II early Hagios Dimitrios,405 Lerna III (where type 2 seems to be closer to the Koutlousi example (Kt.64) due to the steep ascending rim),406 EH II Tiryns,407 EH II Lithares,408 EH I–III Eutresis,409 EH II Manika (where buff burnished surfaces are common),410 EH II Kaloyerovrysi,411 and Kolonna II–III.412 In the Cyclades they were equally popular but with a preference for painted versions, which have been recovered at Hagia Eirene II–III,413 EC II Chalandriani,414 Phylakopi A2,415 Mt. Kynthos A,416 EC II early or EC I/II Hagioi Anargyroi (belonging to the Kampos group),417 EC II Panormos,418 EC II Mikre Vigla,419 Daskaleio-Kavos,420 EC II–III Akrotiri,421 Kato Akrotiri,422 and Markiani IV.423 They were also found in limited numbers in Crete at EM II Platyvola424 and EM II Knossos425 and at eastern Aegean sites such as Palamari II–III,426 Poliochni Green,427 Troy I middle and late,428 and Thermi V.429 The sauceboat type predominates in mainland Greece and the Cyclades in EB II but persists at some sites in EB III as well. The shape was uncommon both in Crete and the eastern Aegean,430 deriving mainly from EB II contexts except at Palamari, where the examples are later. The most appropriate date for the sauceboats from the Halasarna region would be the EB II period.

Basins Piece T.7 is a single example of a rectangular basin rim with an almost vertical body and red and burnished lustrous paint (Urfirnis) on both surfaces (Fig. 4; Pl. 12). The shape represents a vessel

44

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

with a rim diameter of more than 30 cm, as seen in several of the examples from the Cyclades, especially the EC II vessels nos. Ξ73 and Ξ67 from Akrotiri431 and others from Markiani IV.432 At Manika on the mainland there are similar rims that date to the EH I/II and EH II periods,433 but they belong mostly to deep bowls and have thinner walls than T.7. The thick red slip, burnished to a high luster, is a characteristic of EH I but not EH II pottery in the Argolid;434 it is common at EH I and II Lithares,435 EH II Eutresis phases VII–VIII,436 and EH II Kaloyerovrysi.437 Cycladic examples are known in fine ware at Mt. Kynthos A (and for the basin shape see also Mt. Kynthos A/B)438 and Panormos.439 In western Anatolia, examples are found at Troy I late and II early.440 Red-slipped lustrous paint appears on wheelmade Koan examples from Askloupi graves T.1 and T.2,441 which are controversially dated to EB II442 or EB III.443 A handmade red-slipped and burnished example that most probably belongs to EB II comes from Aspri Petra cave.444 In general good quality lustrous (Urfirnis) paint was used in EB II early, while its quality became poorer, covering only parts of the vessel, in the later phase.445 Both the shape of the vessel and the surface treatment place this sherd in the EB II early period. The presence of straw in the clay argues that it was a local product, and the whitish color of the clay could also point to its being a local product rather than a mainland Greek import. Fondas Chryssopoulos has informed me that white clay sources exist in the Kephalos area, and this pot may have been a product of this region. Basins with straight or slightly curving bodies and thickened rims have been found only at Koukos (Kk.6). Two of them are internally pointed (Kk.7, Kk.8; Fig. 5). Cycladic parallels for this basin type are known from Hagia Eirene II and III,446 Mt. Kynthos A/B,447 Panormos,448 EC II–III early Akrotiri,449 EC II–III early Kato Akrotiri (but without thickened rims),450 and Markiani IV.451 They also occur at Emporio II in the northeastern Aegean.452 This shape can be safely placed within the EB II–III early period.

Pedestal Bowls Possibly the most intriguing sherds recovered during the Halasarna survey are two parts of a

pedestal bowl from Koutlousi, Kt.65 and Kt.66, belonging to two different vessels (Fig. 5). They belong to a rare variety of a pedestal bowl with a curving lower bowl profile that is considerably deeper than the usual fruitstands. Sampson has called this vessel a rechaud,453 but its shape does not support a function either as a cooler or a warming vase.454 Thus far this vessel has been recognized on the mainland at Sarakenos cave,455 LN II Skoteini cave,456 and Franchthi.457 Another possible example in a painted version comes from the Agora, but its description, as well as the images provided, is unclear.458 Cycladic parallels are known from Ftelia.459 The Halasarna examples are unique due to their asymmetrical rims, which are similar in shape to the oblique mouth attested on incised FN scoops. This asymmetrical rim form is relatively common on the mainland at LN II Skoteini cave460 and at Ftelia in the Cyclades.461 Scoops with their characteristic rims were popular on the mainland at Sesklo,462 the Agora,463 Corinth IV, Halieis,464 and Franchthi.465 In the Cyclades they occur at Kephala, mainly in the cemetery and secondarily in the settlement,466 and in the Dodecanese they are found at Daskalio cave.467 The vessel’s mouth form and the fact that the interior is burnished while the exterior is less well treated do not support Sampson’s hypothesis regarding its function in food processing. Its character was more related to display. Possibly it was a predecessor to the FN scoop or a missing link between the fruitstand shape and the scoop. The vessel type should be dated to LN II (early) both for its shape and for its unusual rim. It is a local variety of a fruitstand with a deep bowl. There is also a simpler form of a pedestal bowl recovered from Koutlousi, Kt.67 (Fig. 5). Part of the curving side wall, lightly burnished with a mottled surface in gray and reddish brown, and part of the bowl base are preserved. The point where the pedestal joined the bowl is broken in a very distinctive manner. On the mainland similar forms with concave bodies occurred at LN I–II Argos, Corinth, Klenia, and LN II–FN I Alepotrypa;468 other examples have been found at LN I–II Aria469 and LN I–II Skoteini cave (in both matt-painted decoration and burnished varieties).470 Cycladic examples come from Kephala,471 Saliagos,472 LN Grotta (a painted example),473 and Ftelia (in both decorated and undecorated versions),474 while northeastern

POTTERY SHAPES

Aegean examples are known from Tigani III475 and Dodecanesian instances at LN II Giali.476 These examples suggest that this pedestal bowl type was common in the Aegean mainly during LN I–II, although at Kephala and Tigani III they seem to survive into FN I. Although the Giali example and the

45

previous idiosyncratic pedestal bowl type suggest a LN II date for the type overall, Kt.67 belongs to a wider LN I–II horizon, as do the examples from many of the Greek mainland sites, Skoteini cave, Saliagos, Grotta, and Ftelia.

Closed Vessels Pyxis

Jugs

Pyxis Kt.68 is a rim sherd of undecorated obsidian ware with a vertical lug starting from the rim (Fig. 5). In the Cyclades this shape belongs to a cylindrical pyxis, a type characteristic of the Pelos group and dated to the transitional period at the end of FN II and the beginning of EB I.477 Examples come from Melos and Naxos,478 including the Naxos localities of Keli,479 Akrotiri,480 Hagios Stephanos,481 and Phiontas,482 as well as Lakkoudes,483 Naoussa,484 Zoumbaria,485 Panagia on Paros,486 Antiparos,487 Vathy on Siphnos,488 Pelos,489 Kalogries,490 and other Cycladic sites (three Pelos phase examples from unknown locations).491 Examples from the northeastern Aegean come from Poliochni Blue492 and Emporio VII–V,493 while western Anatolian parallels are known from Troy Ib,494 possibly Kum Tepe IB,495 and LCh 4 Beycesultan (with a double lug).496 There are also a few earlier examples belonging to the FN period at Hagio Gala Upper cave,497 Alimnia,498 and Koumelo cave.499 The most interesting parallel is perhaps the one with a similar shape and fabric recovered at Krios on Nisyros.500 Melas dates this sherd to the Neolithic period,501 although most of the parallels he cites belong to EB I (the Poliochni Blue period). In terms of chronology the vast majority of the above examples belong to the FN II–EB I horizon, overlapping with the Pelos phase. In regard to shape and lack of decoration, the closest parallels for the Halasarna vessel come from Naoussa (an example dated to EC I)502 and Krios. Thus, a FN II/EB I transitional phase or an EB I early (Pelos phase) date would be appropriate for this vessel.

Rims from broad-mouthed jugs are represented in the Halasarna region by five examples, Kt.69 (with a brown slip), Kt.70, and Kt.71 (Fig. 5), Kt.Lh.4, and N.13. They belong to a jug type with a more or less horizontal rim, that slightly ascends closer to the spout. The first two are burnished only internally and the latter two only externally. Their thickness ranges from 0.7 to 1.2 cm. Parallels for this particular jug type are attested on the mainland at Lerna III, where the example is closer to the square-mouthed jug,503 and at EH II Lithares.504 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene III,505 EC II late Antiparos,506 EC II late Kouphonisia,507 EC II–III early Akrotiri,508 and EC I–II late Kato Akrotiri;509 the shape is believed to be a characteristic of the Amorgos Group.510 Another example from an unknown provenance is dated to the Kastri phase.511 Similar forms are also found in the northeastern Aegean at Thermi,512 Emporio VII–V and II,513 and Tigani IV,514 while western Anatolian parallels are known from Troy I early,515 EB II late–III early Yortan,516 EB 2–3 Karataş phases V–VI,517 EB I–II Iasos,518 and EB II Müskebi.519 Although this type of jug seems to appear in FN II at Emporio and Tigani, it is more common in the rest of the Aegean during the EB I–II late period,520 in particular at Iasos and Müskebi. Consequently, based on the EBA frequency of this shape as well as the dating of the jug handles that were recovered at Halasarna, an EB I–II date is proposed for the Halasarna examples.

46

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Open Jars A medium to large deep jar with a vertical upper body, a vertical round rim, convex lower body, and (probably) a flat base is represented by Kt.72 and Kt.73 (Fig. 6). On these sherds the handles were horizontal, slightly ovoid in section, and placed at the point where the upper body meets the lower part of the vase. Jar N.24, from which the body and the horizontal handle are preserved, has a body shape identical to the two previous examples. Jars Kt.74 and Kt.75 have the same body form (Fig. 6; Pl. 12), but they have pointed rims that are closer to Emporio II bowl rims rather than jars.521 No handles were preserved on these sherds, and overall they are thicker than Kt.72 and Kt.73, suggesting a slight variation in form. Similar type of jars (but with a thin and incurving upper body) have been recovered at EH II Kolonna522 and FN Skoteini cave on the mainland.523 Cycladic examples are known from Hagioi Anargyroi524 and Panormos525 on Naxos, where the jars have a more spherical body but still resemble the Halasarna type. From Mt. Kynthos A/B there is a jar type with a similar lower profile curve and horizontal handles, but the upper body is incurving rather than straight.526 Similar forms from the northeastern Aegean and western Anatolia come from Troy II–III, especially shape C21 or a hybrid between C21 and C22, but these have vertical instead of horizontal handles,527 as also seen in Thermi V528 and Emporio IV and I examples.529 The closest parallels, in various sizes, come from Poliochni Red.530 Although there are some similar vessel forms in the eastern Aegean and the Cyclades, they seem to be scarce and generalized, suggesting a local development of this jar type. The surface colors of the Halasarna vessels are mottled gray and yellowish red, and they have a slightly uneven external surface texture. The same surface treatment and mottled effect (gray and black with reddish-brown colors) is seen in the nubbly ware fabric at Troy IIc–g,531 and thus there may have been a connection between these two regions during the Troy II phase. The available parallels for this deep open jar with horizontal handles suggest an EB II late–III early date. Another jar category represented by two examples, N.14 and Kt.76, is an open, hole-mouthed form with a curved body, no neck, and an incurving

thickened rim (Kt.76, Fig. 6). Similar examples have been found on the mainland at FN Hagios Dimitrios,532 EH II Lithares (on bowl rims),533 and Peukakia-Magoula phase 5.534 There are Cretan parallels at EM II Knossos.535 Cycladic parallels are known from Hagia Eirene II,536 Phylakopi A2,537 Mt. Kynthos A/B,538 Panormos,539 EC II–III early Akrotiri,540 Daskaleio-Kavos,541 and Ftelia.542 Eastern Aegean examples come from Emporio X–VIII,543 and in the Dodecanese there are examples of this type at Kalythies cave,544 Koumelo cave,545 Alimnia,546 Partheni,547 FN II Daskalio cave,548 and Giali.549 The date for this jar type should be determined by its FN Dodecanesian and eastern Aegean parallels rather than by later Aegean EBA examples, and therefore a FN I–II date is proposed.

Closed Jars Jars with a spreading neck and simple rim seem to be a relatively common type at Halasarna (Kt.77–Kt.79, Kt.82, Kt.84, Fig. 6). There are 12 examples of this jar shape, 10 from Koutlousi (Kt.77–Kt.79, all with a whitish slip), Kt.80–Kt.86 (Kt.85 and Kt.86 with burnishing on the neck interior), and two from Nerantzia (N.15, N.16). Parallels for this type are found on the mainland at LN Corinth and FN Alepotrypa,550 EH II Lithares,551 and they also occur at EM II Ellenes and EM I–II Hagia Eirene on Crete.552 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene II,553 Phylakopi A2,554 Saliagos (in a painted version),555 EC II Kleidos,556 Panormos,557 Ftelia,558 and Markiani II.559 Northeastern Aegean examples are known from the Cave of the Cyclops in EN/MN and LN II560 and from Poliochni Blue (in the form of amphora necks),561 Thermi III or IV and V (also on amphoras),562 Hagio Gala Upper cave upper levels, Emporio VIII and (mainly) V–I,563 and Heraion.564 Western Anatolian parallels come from Troy I early (shape C3) and II–IV (shapes C11, C12),565 as well from LCh 1 Aphrodisias.566 Dodecanesian examples are known from Kalythies cave567 and Alimnia.568 In the LN and FN period, this type of jar is found only sporadically in southern Greece and the Aegean islands, but during EB I–II it became very popular across the Aegean. Therefore, an EB I–II date is proposed for this jar shape.

POTTERY SHAPES

Jars with a spreading neck and flaring rim have been recovered occasionally at Halasarna (Kt.89, Kt.91, Fig. 6). There are seven examples: Kt.87–Kt.89, Kt.90 (obsidian ware), Kt.91 (orange ware), Kt.92, and Kt.93. Similar types of jars are attested on the mainland at EH II early Hagios Dimitrios,569 EH II Lithares,570 and EH II Manika,571 while on Crete they are found at EM I–IIA Sphoungaras.572 Cycladic parallels have been found at Hagia Eirene II,573 Phylakopi A2,574 EC II Kleidos,575 Panormos,576 Mikre Vigla,577 EC I/II Agrilia,578 Mt. Kynthos A/B,579 EC II–III early Akrotiri,580 Daskaleio-Kavos,581 and EC II Amorgos.582 In the northeastern Aegean islands, examples come from the Cave of the Cyclops in LN II,583 Poliochni Yellow,584 Hagio Gala Upper cave upper levels and Emporio IX–I,585 Tigani IV,586 and Heraion.587 Western Anatolian examples are known from Troy II–IV (shapes C9–C11 and C13–C15).588 This jar shape was popular throughout the EB II across the Aegean, but in its eastern part (i.e., Heraion, Poliochni, Troy, and Akrotiri) it continues in use at least until EB III early. Therefore, an EB II–III early date is proposed for this jar shape. Jars with spreading neck and flaring, internally thickened rim are rare, and Kt.94 (Fig. 6), which has a buff slip, is the only example known from Halasarna. Similar instances of this rim type come from both bowls and jars. The bowl rims come from EH II Manika on the mainland,589 Markiani II in the Cyclades,590 and Emporio VII–VI in the northeastern Aegean.591 Parallel jar forms have been recovered in the Cyclades at Mt. Kynthos A/B (on pithoi),592 EC II–III early Akrotiri,593 EC I–III Kato Akrotiri,594 and Markiani II.595 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Emporio II.596 This jar type has a long duration from EB I to III early in the Cyclades, mainland Greece and the northeastern Aegean, but most of the vessels have an everted rim.597 The contexts of the examples mentioned above, which are all similar to Kt.94 in the presence of an internally thickened, flaring rim, argue for an EB II date. Jars with cylindrical necks are relatively common (Kt.95, Kt.97, Kt.98, N.17, N.18, Fig. 7). Some have straight or slightly flaring rims, such as examples Kt.95–Kt.97 and N.17. Others, such as Kt.98, N.18, and Kk.10, have straight but slightly thickened rims. This jar type has mainland parallels

47

at EH II Lithares, where the examples are identified as jugs and hydriai,598 and at Manika,599 as well as in the Cyclades at Hagia Eirene III,600 Phylakopi A1 (with flaring rims),601 and EC I/II–II late Kleidos (with flaring rims).602 In the northeastern Aegean, similar examples come from the Cave of the Cyclops in LN II,603 Poliochni Blue advanced (with flaring rims) and Green (with a thickened rim),604 Thermi IV,605 Emporio VII–I (but mainly from V onward, with examples of both flaring and straight thickened rims),606 and Heraion I–III (with both flaring and straight thickened rims).607 This type of jar was common across the Aegean during EB I and EB II, and the Halasarna examples should be placed in this chronological horizon. Jars with cylindrical necks and flaring rims are recovered in two varieties (Kt.99, Kt.100, Fig. 7). Kt.99 has a pointed rim and a gray/buff slip, while Kt.100 has a round rim with a brown slip. Similar examples of this uncommon jar type come from Manika608 on the mainland and from Poliochni Blue advanced609 and Emporio IX–VIII, V–IV, and II in the eastern Aegean.610 This jar type appeared in the FN period but became more popular during the EB I–II chronological horizon, especially in the eastern Aegean. An EB I–II date could be proposed in view of the above examples, but a FN date cannot be dismissed. Jars with almost cylindrical necks and flaring, thickened rims are a rare variety, with only two examples from Halasarna, Kt.101 and T.8 (T.8, Fig. 7). Parallels for this type of jar rim are attested on the mainland at EH II Eutresis611 and in the eastern Aegean at Poliochni Blue advanced, where the example is an amphora or jar rim,612 and Emporio II.613 The thickness and size of the Halasarna rims indicate that they belong to a jar form. A date in the EB II period seems most likely. Jars with an incurving neck and rim are represented by only two specimens, a thick version, Kt.102 (with a whitish slip), and Kk.10, which has a flat rim (Fig. 7). Similar examples come from LN Klenia on the mainland614 and Ftelia in the Cyclades.615 They also occur in the LN II deposits of the Cave of the Cyclops,616 Hagio Gala Upper cave, lower and upper levels, Emporio X–V,617 and Tigani III–IV618 in the northeastern Aegean. In the Dodecanese examples come from Kalythies cave,619 Koumelo cave I,620 LN II–FN I Koukoumia,621 LN II

48

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Prasonisi,622 Partheni,623 FN II Daskalio cave and Choiromandres cave,624 and Giali.625 Hence, in the Dodecanese this jar shape appears to have become popular during the LN II–FN II period.

Collared-Neck Jars Collared-neck jars with a flaring neck and rim are rare, with only one example coming from Koutlousi, Kt.103 (Fig. 7). Mainland parallels for this type have been recovered from EH II Manika,626 while Cycladic examples come from EC I Pelos,627 Phylakopi A1,628 EC I Zoumbaria,629 EC I Leivadi,630 EC I Paros (without provenance),631 EC I Antiparos,632 EC I Akrotiri,633 EC I Grotta,634 EC I/II Hagioi Anargyroi,635 EC I Katsoprinas,636 EC I/II Moutsouna,637 EC I Mikre Vigla,638 EC I from Naxos (without provenance),639 EC I/II Ano Kouphonisi,640 EC I Akrotiri,641 Daskaleio-Kavos,642 EC I Kato Akrotiri,643 and Markiani I–II.644 The Cycladic examples are known in both decorated and undecorated versions and belong to the GrottaPelos and Kampos Groups as defined by Doumas.645 From the northeastern Aegean examples are known from Emporio VII–III.646 In Anatolia they are found at Troy II and III in the shape C 28.647 This type of collared-neck jar belongs to the Cycladic tradition, within the Grotta-Pelos and Kampos horizon, as confirmed by the dating of the Emporio example. It is probably a local imitation of the Cycladic shape and may be dated to the EB I–I/II phase. Collared-neck jars with a flaring neck and everted rim are characteristic of what has been defined as the Amorgos group.648 A single example, N.19, has been recovered at Nerantzia (Fig. 7). Similar examples have been found on the mainland at EH II–III Manika.649 In the Cyclades parallels occur at EC II Avdeli,650 Panormos,651 EC II Tzavaris on Ano Kouphonisi,652 EC II Kato Akrotiri,653 EC II Stavros654 and EC II Dokathismata on Amorgos,655 and EC II Chalandriani;656 there are also three EC II examples from unknown Cycladic sites.657 Western Anatolian examples come from Troy II and III658 and EB II Iasos,659 and there is a Koan example from Askloupi.660 The rim of the Nerantzia example is closest to the Amorgos example, and

this observation, in conjunction with the proximity of Kos to Amorgos and Iasos, allows us to infer that N.19 belongs to the EB II late phase. Two collared-neck jars with a round everted rim have been collected from the vicinity of Halasarna, Ktn.6 and Kt.104 (Fig. 7). Parallels are attested in the Cyclades at Panormos,661 EC II Kouphonisi,662 and Markiani II where they are slipped as Ktn.6.663 This collared-neck jar type belongs to the Daskaleio-Kavos-Syros phase, and the Halasarna examples should be dated to the EB II period. Globular jars with collared necks have been recovered at Koutlousi in limited numbers. There are two such examples, Kt.105 and Kt.106 (Fig. 7), the latter of which is obsidian ware. Parallels have been found on the mainland at LN Corinth, LN Klenia, and FN Alepotrypa,664 while Cycladic examples come from Kephala,665 Saliagos,666 and Ftelia.667 In the northeastern Aegean, parallels are known from the Cave of the Cyclops in LN II,668 Hagio Gala Upper cave, upper levels, Emporio IX–VIII, V, and III–I,669 and Tigani III,670 while in the Dodecanese the type is known at Kalythies cave,671 Koumelo cave II,672 Alimnia,673 Partheni,674 and Giali.675 In the Dodecanese, Samos, Chios, the Cyclades, and mainland Greece the common chronological horizon of use for this jar type is LN II–FN I. At Emporio the shape survives into the EB I–II phases, but the Koutlousi examples fit better within the Dodecanesian LN II–FN I framework.

Amphora Sherd Kt.107 is from a medium to large amphora-shaped jar of a very distinct form, with a globular body and a flaring neck (Fig. 7). It has a vertical oval handle that is well placed at the maximum curve of the globular body and at the point where the main body meets the neck. The result is an elegant S-shaped profile. Amphorae or amphorashaped jars with S-shaped bodies and vertical handles are attested on the mainland at Lerna IV (although this example has a different handle shape),676 EH I Eutresis,677 EH II Lithares,678 and EB II Manika (an example that is smaller in size and thinner).679 This style of amphora is also attested at EM II Ellenes on Crete680 and in the northeastern

POTTERY SHAPES

Aegean at Poliochni Black advanced, Green, and Red,681 Myrina Blue advanced,682 Thermi I–II and V,683 and Emporio IV.684 In western Anatolia similar examples are known from Troy I (especially shape A42, but this is a tankard and smaller in size),685 and the shape seems to have been particularly popular at EB 2–3 Karataş, phases IV–VI.686 It also appears in the Dodecanese at FN II Koumelo cave.687 Kt.107 seems to be a development from the FN II Koumelo cave, Myrina Blue advanced, Poliochni Black and Blue, Troy I, Thermi I–II, Emporio IV, and Eutresis shapes to a distinct jar form that spreads to the south mainly during EB II. The Halasarna example finds its closest parallel at Poliochni Green.688 It is an EB I–II product of a local workshop, reflecting eastern Aegean trends that probably still affected Lerna and Karataş in the following period.

Pithoid Jars Three examples of pithoid jars without necks and with everted projecting rims have been recovered in the Halasarna region, Kt.108, which is an obsidian ware, Kt.Lh.5, and Kt.Lh.6 (Fig. 8). Similar jar forms have been recovered from mainland Greece at EH II Tiryns689 and EH II Lithares,690 while Cycladic parallels come from Hagia Eirene II,691 Phylakopi A2,692 Mt. Kynthos A/B,693 EC II–III Akrotiri,694 Daskaleio-Kavos,695 and Markiani IV.696 Northeastern Aegean examples have been recovered from Poliochni Blue advanced and Green,697 Emporio IV–I,698 and Heraion.699 They are also found at Troy II in western Anatolia.700 Although this pithos form appears during EB I in the northeastern Aegean, i.e., at Poliochni and Emporio, it becomes more widespread throughout the Aegean in the EB II–III early period. Pithoid jars without necks and with everted round rims are exemplified by Kt.109, Kt.Lh.7, and Kt.Lh.8 (Fig. 8). This form is attested on the mainland at LN/EB I Talioti,701 EH I Eutresis,702 and EH II Lithares,703 while Cycladic parallels come from Hagia Eirene II,704 Mt. Kynthos A/B (although the rims of these examples are flattened rather than round),705 EC Mikre Vigla,706 Panormos,707 EC II–III Akrotiri,708 and Markiani II and

49

IV (but it is unclear whether the latter has a neck).709 This vessel type appeared in EB I in mainland Greece, but it became more widespread and popular during EB II and III. It seems that the round rim was more common in EB II, while the flattened version was favored from the later EB II to the EB III period. Thus, the Koutlousi examples may be dated to the EB II period rather than later. A pithoid jar without a neck and with a straight flat rim, Kt.Lh.9, was found at Koutlousi lower hill (Fig. 8). Similar examples have been attested in the Cyclades at Phylakopi B,710 Mt. Kynthos A/B,711 and Panormos.712 Although this is an uncommon pithos rim shape, the available evidence suggests an EB II late–III early date. Sherd N.20, a pithoid jar with a spreading neck and a simple, almost rectangular, rim, was recovered at Nerantzia, (Fig. 8). Similar examples can be found on the mainland at EH II Lithares,713 in the Cyclades at Phylakopi B714 and EC II–III early Akrotiri,715 and in the northeastern Aegean islands at Emporio VI, IV, and II–I.716 This shape is a thicker version of a similarly shaped jar, but it has an idiosyncratic rim. It can be dated to the EB II and could possibly have survived into the EB III early period, as suggested by the Akrotiri and Phylakopi examples. Another pithoid jar with a short cylindrical neck and an everted round rim, N.21, also comes from Nerantzia (Fig. 8). Parallels for this pithos type can be found in mainland Greece at EH II early Hagios Dimitrios717 and in the Cyclades at Hagia Eirene II,718 Panormos,719 and Markiani IV (although it is unclear if this particular example has a neck).720 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Poliochni Blue advanced (with a different rim shape), Green, and Red,721 Emporio VIII/VI, IV, and I (but in most cases with different rim shape),722 and Heraion II (but it is unclear if this example has a neck).723 The examples noted above strongly suggest an EB I–II date for N.21. During the EB I period this type seems to have been confined mainly to the northeastern Aegean, while in EB II it became more widespread across the Aegean. It is possible that the Nerantzia specimen belongs to this later phase.

50

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Cheese Pots The cheese pot is an enigmatic pottery type whose name is more of a convention than an indication of its actual use, which remains unclear. In shape it is a circular, roughly made pan with a large diameter, in some cases asymmetrical, with a series of perforations under the rim. Cheese pots are often thick and uneven, bearing clear evidence of striations on their rough external side, but they often have a smoothed interior.724 There are some unperforated examples of this vessel and other cases in which a handle has been placed in its interior.725 Cheese pots apparently make their first appearance in the Aegean islands during the LN II period. They have been found in large numbers at Ftelia, especially in the later strata,726 and in lesser numbers at Emporio X–VIII and VII–VI, as well as Hagio Gala Upper cave.727 In mainland Greece cheese pots are limited in both numbers and distribution; they have been found in FN deposits at the Agora,728 FN Kitsos cave,729 FN Thorikos,730 FN Plakari,731 EBA Asea,732 Klenia, Alepotrypa, Corinth,733 Lerna II,734 FN southern Argolid sites,735 LN Sarakenos cave,736 and both LN–FN and EBA Peukakia.737 They also occur in EB I contexts at Korakovouni and Zagani in Attica.738 Cheese pots are most commonly found in the Aegean islands, at sites like FN Skoteini cave on Euboea,739 FN Aegina in the Saronic Gulf,740 the Cycladic sites of Kephala, Paoura, FN Sykamias and Hagia Eirene I on Kea,741 FN Marmouritsa on Andros,742 EC Phylakopi,743 FN and EC Grotta,744 Antiparos cave,745 Mavrispilia,746 FN Koukounaries,747 EC Kouphonisi,748 FN Akrotiri,749 and EC Kato Akrotiri.750 Cheese pots are also known in the northeastern Aegean islands at Poliochni Black and Blue,751 pre-Black Myrina,752 Tigani III–IV,753 and Heraion,754 all of these belonging either to the FN or the EB I–II periods. In western Anatolia cheese pots have been found at LN Gülpinar,755 LCh Miletos,756 LN Kömüradasi,757 Beşiktepe,758 LN II–FN I Karaburun and LN II Kizilbel,759 LCh 1–2 Aphrodisias,760 and in FN and EBA strata at Beycesultan, Kum Tepe, and Troy I.761 In addition, cheese pots have been found in FN contexts at a number of sites in Crete, including Palaikastro Petsophas, Plakalona, Xerokampos Amatou, Livari Katharades, Kalamafki Kypia,

Petras Kephala, Panagia Paplinou Rousso Charakas, Vainia Stavromenos, Dermatos Kastrokephala, Gianniou Plati, Sellia Kephala, Atsipades Korakias, Palaiochora Nerovolakoi, Knossos, Phaistos, Nerokourou, and Gortyn.762 Cheese pots have been found at several sites in the Dodecanese, in large numbers at some. In several examples from Alimnia and Partheni on Leros, their exterior bears evidence of the basketry or straw on which the pots were placed before firing.763 Originally, Sampson believed that this vessel type was characteristic of LAN 4, or FN II, and thus examples from Alimnia, Partheni, and Giali were dated to that phase.764 After the Ftelia excavation, however, he revised the dating of these sites, and a LAN 2 (LN II) date for all three sites was proposed, with a continuation of occupation into LAN 3 (FN I) at Giali.765 Kalythies cave is the only well-stratified Dodecanesian site with cheese pots. No examples from Koumelo cave have been discovered. The vases occur sporadically in the upper strata of the Kalythies cave, phase II (LN II), but most belong to phase III, i.e., the FN I period.766 Cheese pots have also been recovered from unstratified sites such as Prasonisi, Koukoumia and Anagros on Rhodes,767 Kastro tou Hagiou Ioannou and Kastro Vayi on Astypalaia,768 Vathy, Daskalio cave and Choiromandres cave on Kalymnos,769 Pyrgoussa,770 and possibly Poli.771 On Kos cheese pots have been found at Askloupi,772 Tsilimpiri,773 and Aspri Petra cave in larger numbers.774 In the Halasarna region cheese pots have been recovered from four sites. There is one example from Koutounis Hill, at least two from Koukos, two from Nerantzia, and 29 from Koutlousi (Figs. 8–10). Cheese pots represent more than 1% of all prehistoric sherds collected from this region, and they constitute a significant proportion of the diagnostic sherds. The majority are reddish brown in color, but other colors exist as well, such as red, yellowish red, brown, and brown-gray. These colors are close to those of the cheese pots recovered at Partheni775 but unlike the ones from Ftelia.776 The thickness of their walls range mainly between 0.8 and 1.1 cm, but there are few that are thinner (0.7 cm), as well as several thicker ones (up to 1.4 cm). The external surfaces tend to be rough, with deep

POTTERY SHAPES

horizontal and, in some cases, slightly oblique striation lines, as well as many straw impressions. The striations were made by a blunt object using a local technique that has not been reported from the rest of the Dodecanesian islands, Ftelia, Tigani, or Emporio. The internal surface is usually smoothed and of higher quality than the external, as seen at Ftelia.777 Sherd Kt.110, for example, has a rough external surface and a lightly burnished interior, while Kt.111 (Fig. 8) has a rough interior and an exterior covered with a red/pink slip. Sherds Kt.112, Kt.113, Kk.11 (Fig. 8), and Kk.12 reveal that their perforations were opened from the internal side, since lumps of clay are found next to the perforations on the exterior. These were not smoothed by the potters, unlike the examples from Ftelia.778 The cheese pots from the Halasarna area can be divided into perforated and unperforated examples. The majority are perforated, but Ktn.7 (Fig. 8) and Kt.114–Kt.117 (Kt.116, Fig.8; Pl. 11) are unperforated. These examples have the same characteristics in regard to shape, color, surface treatment, and fabric as the perforated ones, e.g., no. 385 from Ftelia.779 Sherd Kt.111 (Fig. 8), on which three unsuccessful attempts to make holes have been preserved, should also be added to the list of unperforated cheese pots. In the case of Kt.118, of the four attempts at perforation, only one was successful (Fig. 9), and this was so small that it cannot be said to have had a practical purpose, as was also the case with examples from Ftelia,780 Giali,781 and several eastern Cretan sites.782 Thus, it is clear that perforation was an important but not always a functional element of these coarse vessels. The majority of the preserved cheese pot fragments are rims, but there are also some body sherds (e.g., Kt.111, Kt.117, Kt.119–Kt.121 and the possibly unperforated Kk.13–Kk.15) and a few bases. The rims are more commonly round and wavy rather than straight, similar to the ones recovered from Ftelia783 and Giali.784 Twenty-five rims have been found: Kk.11, Kk.12, Kt.110, Kt.112–Kt.116, Kt.118, Kt.122–Kt.135, Ktn.7, and N.22 (Figs. 8–10; Pl. 12). Most of the cheese pots have straight (vertical and outward-leaning) walls, and all end in straight or flaring rims. There are only two cases of incurving bodies with simple rims, Kt.125 and the unperforated Kt.116, similar to nos. 105 and 182 from Giali.785 The forms from Ftelia,786 Alimnia,787 Partheni (mainly shapes 1 and

51

2),788 and Giali789 are very similar. The rims are all round except for Kt.130 and Kt.118, which are flat. Sherd Kt.111, a body fragment, shows three attempts to make holes, which, as is not the case in all the other Halasarna examples, were not in a row. Similar instances are known from Ftelia,790 FN Palaiochora Nerolakoi, and FN Petsophas on Crete.791 This cheese pot body has a slip on its interior surface where the holes are visible, and it is rough on the unperforated exterior, like the examples from Ftelia and the Cretan sites. Sherds Kt.136–Kt.138 and N.23 are flat curving bases, as shown by their fabric, thickness, color, and surface treatment (Fig. 10; Pl. 12). Similar bases have been found at Partheni,792 Giali,793 and farther afield at Ftelia.794 The bases can be helpful in dating the cheese pots and are considered further in the discussion of bases below. The cheese pots from the Halasarna region have three main characteristics: the occurrence of striations in forming their bodies, the use of a mat or straw in forming their bases, and a reddish-brown color. These three elements argue for the existence of a local workshop using specific techniques for making this type of vessel. Koutlousi could have functioned as a center of manufacture for cheese pots, since most of them were found there. The best parallels in shape and fabric occur in LN II–FN II contexts. For the Halasarna region a FN I–II date is preferred, given the proximity of the area and its likely relationships to Giali, the more securely dated Kalythies cave III, Alimnia, and Partheni. The perforations in the pots are relatively small, with diameters of a few millimeters, similar to the rest of the examples from the Dodecanese. Cheese pots have also been found at a number of Cretan sites in contexts assigned to the latest FN phase,795 FN IV in the new chronology, which adds further support for the dating of the Halasarna examples.796 Sherd N.22 is an important and so far unique cheese pot fragment (Fig. 10; Pl. 12). It is the thickest (1.1–1.6 cm) of all those recovered in the Halasarna area, and it has smoothed surfaces of a dark gray color, making it a distinct piece. Furthermore, it preserves part of an upraised rim, with parallels from Ftelia,797 Tigani III,798 Emporio VI,799 and Giali.800 Similar thick examples without an upraised rim are also known from the Myrina pre-Black phase.801 The tradition of upraised rims

52

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

or tab handles seems to be confined mainly to the LN II period in the Dodecanese, as discussed below. In view of the chronology of the raised rim tradition, the related examples from Giali, Ftelia, and Myrina, and their differences from the other cheese pots in the Halasarna area, a LN II–FN I date for N.22 is proposed. The term cheese pot has been used because of parallels with Anatolian vessels in which cheese was made, but this functional interpretation cannot be sustained for the vases discussed here.802 According to Sampson,803 the fact that these vessels were not found at inland sites connected with animal husbandry but instead appear more frequently at coastal sites like Partheni suggests an association with fishing activities. Nonetheless, analyses conducted on these vessels have not confirmed the presence of marine products.804 Sampson suggests that a net was tied to the holes in order to protect the external part of the vessel and possibly to keep its contents cool.805 Liaros proposes, based on ethnographic parallels, that the cheese pots were used as beehives,

which would explain why they do not occur at all contemporary settlements in Attica.806 The problem with this hypothesis is that all the cheese pots were recovered from settlement contexts and in some cases from within buildings, as seen at Ftelia,807 Alimnia,808 and Giali,809 rather than in open fields as one would expect for beehives. Moreover, sites like the coastal Partheni and Ftelia or Kalythies cave would hardly have been ideal for beekeeping. Also, the majority of the holes are too small in size for bees, at least in the Halasarna examples and others from the Dodecanese. Moreover, the unperforated varieties of cheese pots would be difficult to explain by this hypothesis. There is still no satisfactory explanation for the use of the cheese pot vessel; it can only be suggested that it was multifunctional, the perforations being a useful but not always necessary accessory. Their small size, at least in the eastern Aegean, may have been related to the presence of liquids or a need for ventilation.

Handles and Lugs Horizontal Handles Horizontal handles are a common feature of the pottery recovered from the Halasarna survey (Fig. 10). There are different types of handle sections, including circular, semicircular, oval, and strap forms. Circular/semicircular horizontal handles are common on bowls and jars, possibly wide-mouthed vessels, as in the cases of Kt.139 and N.24, which belong to the open deep jar type discussed above, and O.2, which was smoothed. Handle Kk.16, on which a reddish-brown slip had been applied, is almost rectangular. Sherd Kt.140 is a strap push-through handle; this specimen was well burnished (Fig. 10). Parallels of horizontal handles have been recovered on the mainland at EH II late Hagios Dimitrios,810 EH II Hagios Stephanos,811 Lerna III and IV,812 EH II Tiryns,813 EH III Eutresis,814 and Peukakia-Magoula phase 7 early to late.815 Cretan examples on bowls and jars come from EM IIA–B Myrtos,816 and Cycladic examples are found at Hagia Eirene II–III,817 Phylakopi B,818 Mt. Kynthos A/B phase,819 EC II late Panormos,820 Daskaleio-Kavos,821 and

Markiani II and IV.822 Northeastern Aegean parallels are known from Poliochni Green and Red823 and Emporio, mainly during phases V–IV and less often in II.824 Western Anatolian parallels are found at Troy from phase II late, especially on C15 type of jars and on some bowls,825 EB I–II Iasos,826 EB II Miletos,827 and LCh 2 Aphrodisias.828 In the Dodecanese these handles are found at Daskalio cave829 and Aspri Petra.830 Horizontal handles seem to appear in EB I and continue thereafter, as the evidence from Emporio suggests. The popularity of horizontal handles at Halasarna is seen also in the finds from Aspri Petra, suggesting that they were widely used, perhaps throughout Kos. The above evidence argues for an EB II–III early date for the Halasarna examples. Sherd Kt.139 (Fig. 10) has an exact parallel at EH II Manika, although this example belongs to a far smaller jar,831 and it also resembles handles from Emporio V–IV jars.832 A possible EB I(–II) date may be suggested for the handle, since it seems closer to the eastern Aegean tradition. Due to its shape, N.24 (Fig. 10) can be also securely dated to EB II

POTTERY SHAPES

late–III early. Parallels for the semicircular handle Kk.16 (Fig. 10) were recovered at Lerna IV, but the Lerna examples are painted,833 which suggests an EB III date. The oval handle O.2 (Fig. 10) is also observed at Lerna IV (but in a painted version)834 and at Emporio VII.835 Sherd Kt.140 (Fig. 10), a strap handle, has parallels at Kephala,836 EH I–II Lithares,837 EH II Manika,838 and EM IIB Myrtos.839 Its push-through character, in conjunction with the examples cited above, argues for an EB I–II date. Horizontal raised or loop handles (Figs. 10:Ktn.h.1, 11:Kk.17; Pl. 13:Kt.141) are mainly an EBA type, belonging to a series of vessel shapes such as bowls, jars, and tripod vases. Handles Ktn.h.1, Kk.17, and Kt.141 have a horizontal loop or trumpet shape and are oval in section, lightly burnished, and extend from the body of a closed vessel, which is most probably a jar. The latter of the Halasarna examples is larger in size than the other two. Parallels for this handle type are found on bowls from the mainland at Peukakia-Magoula phase 7840 and at Lerna, where they also appear on bowls and narrow-necked jars dating to EH II–III.841 In the eastern Aegean they are found at Poliochni Green, Red, and (mainly) Yellow,842 Thermi IV–V,843 Emporio (especially in phases V–IV and II),844 and Heraion.845 In western Anatolia they are found at Troy on bowls mainly from phase I middle and on jars in phases II–IV846 and at EB 3 Aphrodisias.847 Examples from the Dodecanese come from Aspri Petra cave848 and LB I Serrayia.849 This handle is can be dated to EB II–III on the basis of parallels from the eastern Aegean sites noted above.

Vertical Handles Sherd O.3 is a cylindrical handle that possibly belongs to a cup or a small bowl (Fig. 11). Parallels have been recovered from mainland Greece at Lerna III and IV850 and EH II Lithares;851 they also occur at EM IIB Myrtos on Crete.852 In the Cyclades similar handles are attributed to the Phylakopi B phase,853 but they are also attested at Hagia Eirene II854 and Daskaleio-Kavos, the latter example possibly coming from a jug.855 In the Sporades they are found at EB II Palamari856 and in western Anatolia at Troy I middle.857 Two other examples come from a MBA context at Lakos on

53

Karpathos; one of these is attributed to a small jug.858 An EB II–III early date is most likely for this type of handle. Vertical cylindrical handles are otherwise uncommon at Halasarna, with only two examples having been found, one at Nerantzia and one at Koutlousi (N.25, Kt.142, Fig. 11). The first belongs to a tankard shape with either one or two handles and a handle diameter of 0.7 cm. The latter handle, which has a diameter of 1.7 cm, comes from either a large two-handled tankard or a depas amphikypellon. Similar specimens appear mainly in western Anatolia, especially at Troy, where shape A39 (onehandled) was used during Troy II–IV, A43 (twohandled) characterized phase II but was rare in III, and shape A45 (depas amphikypellon) was in use during Troy II–III; all varieties were found in handmade and wheelmade versions.859 Other western Anatolian examples are known from Küllüoba, Yortan, Iasos, Beycesultan, Tomb of Protesilaos,860 EB 4 Aphrodisias,861 Bahçetepe,862 and EB 3 Karataş phase VI.863 Parallels in the northeastern Aegean islands come from Poliochni Red and Yellow for the depas,864 Thermi,865 Emporio II–I,866 and Heraion.867 In the Cyclades and the western Aegean the one-handled variety was preferred. Examples have been found at EH III Manika868 and Kolonna III.869 Cycladic examples come from Hagia Eirene III (from both tankards and depata),870 Akrotiraki on Siphnos,871 Chalandriani,872 Mt. Kynthos B,873 Paroikia,874 Panormos,875 Akrotiri,876 Markiani IV (on a depas),877 and Palamari.878 The handle also occurs at Lebena on Crete.879 On the Greek mainland they are most common in Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, and Thessaly during EH II–III,880 and they are also found at Peukakia-Magoula phase 7881 and Lerna IV.882 In the Dodecanese two examples come from Daskalio cave, but the first is smaller in size and of a different fabric,883 while the second example from Daskalio,884 as well as one from Serrayia,885 seems to be of EB III late date. The origin of these vessel types is either western Anatolia or the northeastern Aegean. The handle form dates to the EB II–III horizon, often with different local chronological occurrences.886 It is clear that the two handles from Halasarna should be placed in the EB II late or EB III early period, and they belong, respectively, to a one- or two-handled tankard and (most probably) to a depas.

54

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

A number of handles belonging to jugs reveal a local preference for the attachment of one end of the handle to the rim (Fig. 11). Six of these handles have been recovered, three at Nerantzia (N.26–N.28) and three at Koutlousi (Kt.143–Kt.145), and they have either a circular or an oval section. These handles may belong either to a beaked spout or to a cut-away neck jug type. Parallels are found on the mainland at EH I–II Eutresis,887 in an EH II tomb at Lake Vouliagmeni in Perachora,888 tombs at EH Corinth,889 Lerna IV,890 the EB II Dokos shipwreck (but without the button),891 and the Manika cemetery.892 Cretan parallels come from EM IIA Gournia (where the example is painted),893 EM I and I/II Pyrgos (in painted and unpainted versions),894 and EM I Kanli-Kastelli.895 Parallels from the Cyclades are known from Hagia Eirene II and III (but without the incised decorations on the handle),896 EC II late Spedos,897 EC II Kleidos,898 Kato Akrotiri,899 EC II late Antiparos,900 and the Phylakopi B phase.901 Such handles also occur in the northeastern Aegean at Poliochni, where high-swung handles on jugs were popular from the Blue to Red period,902 Thermi I–V,903 Tigani IV,904 and Heraion.905 At Emporio in phases VII–IV and in the MBA this type of jug had circular and oval sections, while more rectangular sections were found in phases II–I.906 Further examples also occur at a number of sites in western Anatolia. The handle and vessel shape is attested at Troy I,907 EB 3 Yortan,908 EB 2 Beycesultan,909 EB 3–4 Aphrodisias,910 and EB II Miletos.911 At Karataş in southwestern Anatolia jugs similar to the one described were very popular,912 appearing in a variety of shapes in all EBA phases but mainly in EB II. Examples from EB I–II Iasos in coastal southwestern Anatolia, where both the beaked spout and the cut-away neck jugs with oval and circular handles were found.913 The EB II jugs from Müskebi have a similar arrangement of the handle, but in these examples it is higher swung near the rim.914 The example from Nisyros most probably belongs in the same phase.915 The same preference for jug handles ending on the rim is attested in the Dodecanese at Thermi through all periods of the EBA.916 A jug with a similar handle has been recovered from Askloupi T.3, and this example, along with another from T.4, probably dates to EB II or III.917 These jug handle types seem to be more popular in the EB I and II phases, but at some sites they continue in EB III. The dating of the finds from sites closest to

Halasarna, i.e., those on Kos and others at Nisyros, Müskebi, Iasos, and Heraion, as well as the examples from the Greek mainland, Aegean islands, and western Anatolia, suggests an EB I–II date for these handles. Handle Kt.145 (Fig. 11) finds an exact parallel on jug handles from EB 2 Yortan,918 which is contemporary in Aegean terms with Troy I and Thermi I–III, i.e., Aegean EB I and Poliochni Green and Red,919 further supporting an EB I–II date. Other vertical handles illustrated in Figure 12 (T.10, Kt.147) belong to closed vessels, either jars or jugs. Some have oval handle sections, as seen with Kk.18, T.9, T.10, N.29 (with a red slip), and N.30, which comes from just below the rim or on the belly and is a thin oval. Other speciments include O.4, Kt.146 (an obsidian ware), Kt.147, which possibly comes from an open jar, Kt.148, a strap-like handle probably from an open jar, and Kt.149, a kidney-shaped example from a jar. These handles constitute a broader category, and it is unclear to what vessel type they belong or where the handles terminate. On the mainland such handles appear mainly on jugs, with examples coming from Peukakia-Magoula phases 3 and 7;920 they are also found at Kolonna VIII–IX.921 In the Cyclades they occcur at Phylakopi B,922 Spedos,923 EC II Kleidos,924 EC II Kato Kouphonisi,925 Akrotiri,926 and Hagia Eirene II (kidney-shaped handles on jars).927 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Poliochni Black to Yellow,928 Thermi I–V,929 Emporio VII–I,930 and Tigani IV.931 Western Anatolian parallels are attested at Troy, where the handle is found on a variety of jug and jar shapes throughout the EBA.932 In general these handle types seem to occur in all periods of the EBA but especially in the EB II period. Kt.146 finds its closest parallel, however, at Tigani I and III933 and can be dated to the FN period. Sherd N.31, a strap-tubular vertical handle, belongs to an uncommon type of hole-mouthed spherical jar (Fig. 12). This type is found in the Cretan pottery tradition and was used variously as a storage or cooking vessel. The Nerantzia example was probably very close to the Cretan shape. A similar handle has been found on the hill east of Hagia Varvara, suggesting a wider use of this shape on Kos. A parallel comes from EM I Kephala-Petras,934 suggesting an EB I date for this vessel shape. Sherd N.32, a kidney-shaped vertical handle belonging to a jar, is burnished and has a red slip (Fig.

POTTERY SHAPES

12; Pl. 12). Mainland parallels for this handle type come from FN I–II Alepotrypa935 and the FN Agora, the latter example belonging to a large ovoid biconical jar with the same surface treatment.936 There is also a Cycladic parallel from Kephala.937 Red burnished ware is well represented during the FN period in the Agora,938 Kephala,939 and in FN mainland Greece in general.940 It also occurred at the same time in the northeastern Aegean at Hagio Gala Lower and Upper cave941 and in the Dodecanese at Kalythies cave, Koumelo I,942 and Giali.943 In shape and surface treatment these examples suggest a FN I date, with clear influence on the form coming from the Attica-Kephala region. Push-through handles were used on small- and medium-sized jars and/or jugs. Six examples have been found at Halasarna. Kt.73, Kt.140, and Kt.141, discussed earlier, are horizontal handles from open and closed jars (Pl. 13). Kt.150 and N.33 are both vertical handles, and Kt.151, discussed below, is a vertical ribbed handle. The push-through technique was employed to produce a stronger attachment of the handle to the body. Push-through handles have been recovered on the mainland at EH II–III Eutresis944 and Hagios Kosmas.945 On Crete they are found in Pseira T.1, belonging to the FN–EM and EM I–II phases.946 In the Cyclades they are found at Phylakopi B (with rather long plugs in vertical handles, which are less common than horizontal ones),947 Kephala,948 and Daskaleio-Kavos.949 In the northeastern Aegean they occur at Thermi III–IVa on Class B jugs,950 Emporio VII, V–IV, II (the only phase in which they were common), and I.951 In western Anatolia they occur at Troy I early and middle,952 EB I Miletos,953 LN Kömüradasi,954 LCh Bağbaşi,955 and EB I–II Iasos.956 The pushthrough technique was used in the eastern Aegean from the FN period onward, but it became more common in the EBA, as attested by the Emporio and Iasos examples, which are of EB II date. Therefore, an EB I–II date will be proposed for the Halasarna examples. Another type of vertical handle with a low round vertical rib is exemplified by Kt.151, also a push-through handle from either to a jar or a jug (Fig. 12). Parallels for the ribbed form may be seen on a jar from EH I Eutresis on the mainland,957 on jugs from Emporio VI–IV in the northeastern Aegean,958 and on vessels from Troy I in western Anatolia.959 These examples strongly suggest an EB I date for the Halasarna handle.

55

Vertical jar handles became more popular in the EBA, with nine examples found at Halasarna. Some of them, such as N.34, N.35, Ktn.8, T.11, Kt.152, Kt.153, and possibly Kt.154 (which has a curving body), belong to closed jars (Figs. 12:N.34, T.11, 13:Kt.152, Kt.153). Others, such as O.5 (with possibly more vertical walls), belong to more open forms. In view of its handle shape and thickness, Kt.155 most probably belongs to the open category. This type of handle, variably circular, semicircular, or slightly oval in section, appears to have been common on jars with vessel thicknesses of 0.8–1.3 cm. Similar examples are found on jars at Troy beginning in phase I and throughout the EBA.960 Other examples come from Kolonna961 and Hagia Eirene III, although at the latter site they have more clay on the interior of the vase.962 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Poliochni Yellow,963 Emporio V–IV and II,964 and Heraion.965 Additional western Anatolian examples are found on jars and pithoi from EB III early Küllüoba,966 LCh 4 Beycesultan,967 and LCh 1, LCh 3, EB 1, EB 3, and EB 4 Aphrodisias.968 In the Dodecanese similar examples come from LN II Partheni969 and EBA Aspri Petra cave.970 This handle shape definitely originates in LN and FN Anatolia. Nevertheless, an EBA date, probably EB II–III, is proposed for the Halasarna handles, since they are more popular at Troy from phase II and at EB 4 Aphrodisias. They appear at Samos, Kalymnos, and probably Kos from EB II as well. The popularity of this handle shape can be seen in the numbers of the handles as well as their distribution at many EB settlements across the Halasarna region. Another handle type belonging to jars or jugs is the vertical strap handle with upraised edges, such as O.6 (Pl. 13). Parallels for this type of handle have been found on the mainland at EH Asea,971 EH II Lithares,972 Peukakia-Magoula phase 3 (a specimen from a jug),973 and EH II Manika.974 In the Cyclades they occur at Kephala975 and Saliagos.976 Northeastern Aegean examples are known at Poliochni Blue advanced,977 Emporio VII and II (the phase VII example belonging to a jug),978 and Thermi II.979 They also occur at Troy I.980 The shape and the form of the Halasarna example seems to be closest to the EB I–II examples from Lithares, Peukakia-Magoula, Troy, Thermi, and Emporio II.

56

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Sherd N.36 is a rare vertical rectangular handle from a jar or jug (Fig. 13). It has only a few parallels, including examples from mainland Greece at EH II Hagios Stephanos,981 several from the northeastern Aegean at Emporio X, VIII, and VII–IV (when they are most common),982 and others from Beycesultan in LCh 4.983 In the Dodecanese there is an example from Giali with a horn on top.984 As already noted, the Nerantzia rectangular handle appears to belong to a jar or jug vessel. The contexts of the Emporio and Beycesultan handles suggest a FN II–EB I date for this rare type. The LN and FN excavated sites in the Dodecanese have not yielded jugs among their pottery repertoire, however. Thus, with the present evidence, an EB I date will be proposed for N.36, but future finds might necessitate a revision to an earlier date. Sherd Kt.156 is the sole example from Halasarna of a vertical ribbon loop handle belonging to a jar (Fig. 13). Similar handles have been found on the mainland at Lerna III, where the jar body is more globular than the Halasarna example,985 while an EH I specimen was found by the southern Argolid Survey;986 still other examples come from EH II Eutresis,987 Lithares,988 Manika III,989 Kaloyerovrysi (EH I and EH II type A pottery),990 and Peukakia-Magoula phase 2.991 A Cycladic parallel comes from Markiani IV,992 while northeastern Aegean examples occur at Palamari I,993 Poliochni Blue advanced,994 Thermi II, III or IV, and V,995 and Emporio V–IV and I (but these are larger versions).996 Other parallels come from Troy I (type C17).997 A date in EB I–II would seem appropriate for this handle type. Vertical handles belonging to pithoi are known in three varieties: the strap, the oval, and the circular forms (Figs. 14, 15). The thickness of the pithos walls is 1.7–2.2 cm; N.37 has a thickness of 2.6 cm. Three strap handles have been recovered. N.37 has very thick and straight walls, and the strap handle is depressed in the middle (Fig. 14). The other two, Kt.157 (Fig. 14) and O.7, have a similar shape with a straight body. Other large pithoi with strap handles of more or less the same size have been found on the mainland at Sesklo,998 Lerna IV,999 and FN Hagios Dimitrios.1000 Strap handles were used during the FN period in the Peloponnese1001 and at Skoteini cave on Euboea.1002 In the Cyclades at Kephala1003 and Saliagos.1004 In

the Cyclades, however, they also occur in later, EC II–III contexts at Akrotiri.1005 Examples from the northeastern Aegean come from Tigani III.1006 In the Dodecanese they occur at LN or FN Leftoporos (but with a knob on top),1007 Alimnia,1008 FN Daskalio cave,1009 and Giali (where the FN pithos handles were observed to be triangular in section, especially sherd 317, which has the same shape as the Halasarna pithos handle).1010 A possible FN I–II date could be proposed for both the Halasarna vertical strap pithos handle types, given the proximity of Halasarna to sites like Giali, Daskalio, and to some extent, Alimnia. Nonetheless, similar examples occur elsewhere in EB II–III contexts. A single example of a vertical pithos handle with a circular section was collected from Nerantzia. This sherd, N.38, had a reddish-brown slip (Fig. 15). Parallels for this handle type are attested on mainland Greece at Lerna IV (but in a vertical version).1011 In the northeastern Aegean they occur at Poliochni Red and Yellow,1012 possibly Emporio IV (possibly from a different vessel shape),1013 and Heraion (section unclear).1014 In western Anatolia they are found at Troy I late–II, especially on the jar type C10.1015 A date in the EB I–II horizon would seem appropriate for these handles in view of the close parallels from sites such as Emporio and Troy. There are three examples of oval pithos handles: N.39, Kt.158, and Kt.159 (Fig. 15). These handles are short in length, wide, and quite thick, attributes that make them distinctive from other pithos examples. Similar specimens, in most cases with horns on the upper part of the handle, can be found at Kephala,1016 Saliagos,1017 and Ftelia in the Cyclades,1018 as well as in the northeastern Aegean at Poliochni Black1019 and Tigani I and III.1020 Western Anatolian parallels come from LCh Bağbaşi1021 and Beycesultan LCh 4,1022 while in the Dodecanese they are known at Kalythies cave,1023 Koumelo cave,1024 Peukoi,1025 Partheni,1026 and Giali.1027 This pithos handle type begins at least as early as LN II, when a horn was placed on it, and it continued throughout the FN. The lack of horn and the close parallels with examples from Poliochni, western Anatolia, Tigani, Partheni, and Giali argue for a FN I–II date for the Halasarna examples. Sherd N.40 is a piece of a pithos with part of a hor-izontal handle preserved (Fig. 15). In addition to the rare placement of the handle, its irregular,

POTTERY SHAPES

diamond-shaped section is unusual. Pithoi with horizontal handles are atypical, and parallels are attested only at Phylakopi B,1028 Panormos,1029 EC II–III early Akrotiri in the Cyclades (with strap and triangular section handles),1030 and at Heraion III–IV in the northeastern Aegean (but these examples are of smaller size).1031 Thus, an EB II–III early date is proposed for this pithos.

Lugs Lugs are a very common element in LN and EBA vases of different forms. Piece Kt.160 is a vertical lug that probably belongs to a bowl (Fig. 16). Parallels for this lug type are found in the northeastern Aegean at Hagio Gala Upper and Lower caves and at Emporio in LN phases X–VI and EBA phases V–I.1032 It seems, however, that at both Hagio Gala and Emporio an oval form was preferred in the LN, while a circular lug was characteristic of the EBA. Other parallels come from Kephala,1033 Saliagos,1034 and Ftelia1035 in the Cyclades. A lug from Poliochni Black in the northeastern Aegean is not as close to the rim.1036 In the Dodecanese, rare examples come from Kalythies cave1037 and Giali.1038 These examples suggest that the Halasarna lug belongs to the LN II–FN I horizon. Sherd Kt.161 is a rectangular vertical lug that probably belongs to a small jar (Pl. 13). Similar lugs have been attested at FN I Asea on the mainland,1039 Emporio VI–IV in the northeastern Aegean,1040 Bağbaşi LCh 2–3 in western Anatolia (in thicker versions),1041 as well as on Giali in the Dodecanese.1042 Given the proximity of Halasarna to Bağbaşi and Giali, and the Asea and Emporio VI dates, a FN I–II date is proposed for this lug. Sherd Kt.162 is a horizontal horn-shaped lug with a slightly upraised upper part, possibly a horn. It is partly broken and belongs to a bowl (Fig. 16). Similar lugs have been recovered from the mainland at LN–LCh Peukakia-Magoula,1043 Asea,1044 FN I Klenia,1045 FN Agora,1046 and LN II Skoteini cave.1047 Cycladic examples come from Saliagos1048 and Ftelia (especially nos. 690 and 847).1049 In the Northern Sporades they have been recovered from LN II deposits at the Cave of the Cyclops.1050 Dodecanesian parallels come from Alimnia1051 and

57

Giali.1052 These examples suggest that this lug type was common in the LN and FN periods in the Aegean. Sherd Kt.163 is also a horizontal lug with a small horn, also from a bowl (Fig. 16). Similar lugs have been recovered in mainland Greece at MN Omvriaki I and Phthiotis.1053 In the Cyclades there are examples from Saliagos (but without the small horn)1054 and Ftelia (but one of them was unperforated).1055 At Kalythies cave and Koumelo cave in the Dodecanese, horizontal lugs are more popular than vertical ones, but they are not horned like those from Halasarna.1056 It is possible that these lugs are an expression of a broader style of horned handles prevalent in the Dodecanese and beyond during the MN and LN.1057 The Halasarna lug seems to belong to the MN–LN era rather than to a later period. Sherd Kt.164 is part of a vertical lug with rectangular shape (Fig. 16). This lug seems to have been placed on the rim of a bowl, since the lower part is thicker and there is nothing to support its position on the body of a vessel. Parallels are found at EH II Strephi in Elis1058 and in EBA Macedonia in mainland Greece.1059 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Poliochni Blue (where the lug has two horns and probably a larger perforation),1060 Emporio IV (no. 1893, with the lug having the proper shape and size but two perforations), Emporio II (where nos. 2377 and 2390 tend to be larger, more rectangular in shape and just an extension of the vessel body),1061 and Heraion I.1062 In the Dodecanese, parallels are known from Giali (no. 221), where the example belongs to a cheese pot and is of larger size and more rectangular in shape1063 but seems close to the form that Kt.164 must have had in relation to the bowl rim. Thus, it seems that the Halasarna lug can be dated to EB I, since the closest parallels are from Emporio IV and Heraion I rather than from FN Giali. Lugs that extend from the rims of bowls, also known as tab or horn handles, are a common feature in the LN Aegean in both perforated and unperforated forms. They seem to have been popular on the mainland at FN Hagios Dimitrios,1064 LN and FN Franchthi cave,1065 and LN Skoteini cave.1066 On Crete they occur at Partira1067 and Nerokourou,1068 and in the Cyclades they are found at Saliagos,1069

58

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Ftelia,1070 Grotta,1071 LN II Skoteini cave,1072 and Kephala.1073 In the northeastern Aegean there are possible parallels from EB I Pouria on Skyros1074 and other examples from Poliochni Blue,1075 Thermi,1076 Hagio Gala Upper cave and Emporio (phase X and from V onward),1077 and Tigani I–II and IV.1078 Western Anatolian parallels come from Troy during phases I middle and late1079 and LCh 3 Aphrodisias.1080 In the Dodecanese they have been recovered from Kalythies cave II–III (where examples occur in both painted and unpainted versions),1081 Partheni,1082 LN Daskalio and Choiromandres caves on Kalymnos,1083 Giali,1084 and Askloupi.1085 Sherd Ktn.h.2 (Fig. 16) is part of an unperforated tab or horn handle resembling no. 613 from Kalythies cave in shape.1086 Similarities in the shape of the lug can also be recognized in several EB II examples from Thermi,1087 but these rims are almost always thickened and have a small external vertical or horizontal lug. The same characteristics can be seen in most of the examples from EBA Emporio and Troy. Chronologically, tab or horn handles seem to belong to a common LN II horizon that includes the material from Kalythies cave II, Partheni, Giali, Saliagos, Ftelia, Tigani I, Hagio Gala Upper cave, Emporio X, LCh 3 Aphrodisias, and possibly Grotta, but they also continue in FN I,

as seen at Tigani III, Askloupi, and possibly in Crete. The horn or tab handle Ktn.h.2, along with its closest parallels, should be attributed to the LN II horizon. Sherd Kt.165 is an example of a horn or tab handle that also belongs to a bowl (Fig. 16). This shape is far simpler than the previous one. Sherd Kt.165 displays a low rise from the rim, projecting from the main vessel body at a different angle, since the body is slightly incurving and the lug is flaring. This characteristic is seen at Lerna II,1088 Kephala,1089 Ftelia,1090 and Emporio V–IV,1091 but in both cases the horizontal lug or vertical handle was placed below the raised rim. Still, this simpler raised rim shape is more akin to the Lerna II, Kephala, Pouria, Troy I, and Emporio V–IV tradition rather than to the example from Ftelia, thus placing it in the FN II–EB I period. An EB I date may be more likely in view of the pinkish-gray color and fabric of the clay, i.e., the fact that it is roughly burnished. Sherd Kt.166 (Fig. 16) seems to belong to the same category, but the upper part of the raised rim is broken. It could have been part of a tab/horn handle or the beginning of a rising handle, which probably would have belonged to a dipper.

Bases and Feet Of the 15 bases recovered during the Halasarna survey, only seven are discussed here, as the others have been covered in separate sections concerned with their decoration, or the specific type of vessel to which they belong (i.e., cheese pots).

Flat Bases Flat bases are the most common type found in the survey. They can be divided into two varieties, the first of which includes bases with angular edges and straight walls, such as Kt.167, which belongs to a large jar, and Kt.168, which has a mat impression and also belongs to a bowl (Fig. 16). This type of base is common in the Cyclades at Kephala,1092 Saliagos,1093 Ftelia,1094 EC Akrotiri,1095 Daskaleio-Kavos,1096 and Markiani II–III.1097 It is

found in the northeastern Aegean at Emporio from phases X to IV1098 and at Tigani III.1099 Western Anatolian parallels come from Bağbaşi1100 and Kizilbel,1101 while Dodecanesian examples have been recovered from Kalythies cave,1102 Koumelo cave,1103 Alimnia,1104 Partheni,1105 Kallikatsou,1106 and Giali.1107 To the second category belong flat bases with round edges and curved walls, such as Kt.169, which probably belongs to a jar, Kt.170, possibly part of a jar or jug, and O.8, which probably belongs to a bowl (Fig. 16). These bases occur in the Cyclades at Kephala,1108 Saliagos,1109 Ftelia,1110 EC Akrotiri,1111 Daskaleio-Kavos,1112 and Markiani II–IV.1113 In the northeastern Aegean they are found at Emporio X–VIII, V–IV, and II1114 and Tigani I and IV.1115 Parallels have been found in western

POTTERY SHAPES

Anatolia at Bağbaşi1116 and Karaburun.1117 In the Dodecanese such bases have been recovered from Kalythies cave,1118 Koumelo cave I,1119 Alimnia,1120 Partheni,1121 Giali,1122 and Hagios Phokas.1123 All four bases described in the cheese pot section belong to this broad category. On the Greek mainland flat bases of both types occurred, but those with a sharp angle and straight walls were characteristic of the LN period.1124 Flat bases seem to have been popular in the Dodecanese from LN I to FN I, but since there is no significant quantity of local EBA material, it is difficult to determine whether they remained popular in the EBA as well. Nevertheless, the evidence from Lithares,1125 Kaloyerovrysi,1126 Manika,1127 Mt. Kynthos,1128 Emporio, Akrotiri, and a number of mainland sites strongly suggests that they were also common in EBA. Thus, they are not good indicators of chronology on their own. There are two examples of a thick flat base with thin incurving walls, Kt.171 (Fig. 16) and Kt.172. For this unusual base type there are EH III or MH I parallels on the mainland at the Agora (in a rather thin version)1129 and in the Cyclades at EC III Melos, where a similar arrangement of base and wall belongs to two connected conical pyxides (also in a thinner version).1130 Both of the Melian examples have either painted or incised decoration. Two plain examples come from Hagia Eirene II,1131 and others have been found at EC I/II Kouphonisia, Agrilia, and Tzavaris.1132 On Crete conical pyxides seem to be relatively popular, with four examples coming from a burial cave dated to EM I/II at Pyrgos; only one of these is decorated.1133 Other Cretan examples come from the burial cave at Kanli Kastelli (EM I/II),1134 and many have been recovered from the EM I/IIA Hagia Photia cemetery.1135 Additionally, at Hagia Eirene III there are two pans that have a similar base arrangement, but the walls of the vessels are very thick, and they also have handles.1136 The resemblance of the Halasarna base to the Kampos group conical pyxis suggests that it was a local imitation with a rather thick base. It should be assigned to the EB I/II horizon based on the Kouphonisia and Cretan parallels, rather than to a later tradition seen at Hagia Eirene. Base Kt.173 is an uncommon type of flat, splayed base with a round edge, above which it

59

remains thick and then meets a thinner, outward curved wall, (Fig. 17). The closest parallels to this base come from the southern Argolid (probably of EH II date)1137 and from Akrotiri in the Cyclades.1138 They are also in general similar to base type 7 represented in phases IX–VIII and VI–II at Emporio in the northeastern Aegean1139 and at Kallikatsou in the Dodecanese, but no clear date exists for this example.1140 It is very difficult to date the Halasarna base, but it seems that a general EBA date, if not specifically EB II, would be appropriate. Sherds Kt.174 and N.41 (Fig. 17) are two examples of flat differentiated bases that both probably belong to jars. This type of base finds parallels on the mainland at EH II sites of Lithares1141 and Manika.1142 In the Cyclades it occurs on examples from EC Akrotiri1143 and on bowls from Markiani II.1144 In the northeastern Aegean such bases occur sporadically at Emporio in phases VII and IV and more commonly in II and I.1145 All these examples strongly suggest an EB II date for this base type.

Sunken Bases Only one example of a sunken base, Kt.175 (Fig. 17), was recovered at Halasarna. It belonged to a closed vessel. This type of base is found on the mainland at EH I Halieis1146 and at Lerna III;1147 other FN and (mainly) EH I examples were recovered the southern Argolid survey.1148 Parallels in the Cyclades come from Hagia Eirene III,1149 Saliagos,1150 Ftelia,1151 EC Akrotiri,1152 DaskaleioKavos,1153 and Markiani II.1154 Northeastern Aegean parallels have been found at Poliochni Green1155 and at Emporio from periods X to IV, with a single example from period II.1156 This type of base is common from the LN to the EBA.

Feet from Tripod Vessels Feet from tripod cooking vessels are represented by two examples, Kt.176, with a round section and a straight shape, and N.42, which has an oval section and inclines and points at its lowest part (Fig. 17). Cretan examples are known from EM IIA

60

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Myrtos,1157 and Cycladic parallels have been found at Hagia Eirene III1158 and EC Akrotiri.1159 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Poliochni Blue to Yellow,1160 Thermi in all periods,1161 EBA Chalakies, Prophetes Elias and Makara on Lesbos,1162 and Emporio (beginning in phase IV but mainly from V to II).1163 In western Anatolia tripod

vessels were common at Kum Tepe,1164 LCh Bağbaşi,1165 EB I–II Iasos,1166 and Troy I–III and V (mainly the EB I period).1167 In the Dodecanese such feet are found at EBA Pefkia and Plakera on Chalki1168 and at EBA Askloupi.1169 The contexts of these examples strongly suggest that the feet date to EB I and II.

Decoration Painted Decoration Crusted decoration had widespread popularity in the LN Aegean.1170 It was a short-lived phenomenon, however, due to its impractical character. The paint—red, white, or both—was applied after the initial firing of the vessels, which were then refired at a low temperature. As a result, the surface of the vases became flaked, with an easily removed crust. Several refirings may have taken place in order to repaint a vase and retain its vibrant color. At Ftelia in the Cyclades a polychrome application of crusted colors was preferred1171 and is represented in all levels of occupation at the site during the LN I period (5th millennium B.C.). This polychrome decoration was not universally popular, as monochrome paint was also used at mainland sites such as FN Hagios Dimitrios,1172 FN Thorikos,1173 and Phaistos and Knossos on Crete.1174 Other monochrome examples come from Cycladic sites such as Kephala,1175 Kanaki and another unknown site on Melos,1176 Saliagos in its latest phase,1177 Zas cave,1178 Grotta,1179 and Koukounaries,1180 as well as Emporio1181 and Tigani1182 in the northeastern Aegean. Crusted wares are scarce across the Peloponnese, concentrated mainly in the northeastern region, with other occurrences at Astakos in Aitolia and Lefkas.1183 They seem more common at sites in Thessaly during the late Sesklo and Rachmani phases,1184 in Macedonia at Servia, Megalo Nisi Galanis, Kapoutzedes, and Kritsana, and in Thrace at Sitagroi II–III.1185 Some of these examples belong to the very end of LN I, but they became more widespread and abundant in the first part of LN II or the FN.1186 At Alimnia in the Dodecanese a semi-coarse category of pottery with a flaked red paint has been recovered, but the excavator was uncertain if it was crusted ware or not.1187 On Kos

examples of crusted decoration were recovered from two sites, Koutounis and Koutounis Hill, which are located quite close to one another. The examples represent bowls with well-burnished interiors and red crust on the exteriors, not unlike the mainland Greek examples.1188 Sherd Ktn.h.3 is part of the body and neck of a convex-globular bowl or open jar on which the red crust is partly preserved. It has parallels in shape at Klenia, Lerna, and Franchthi.1189 Sherds Ktn.9– Ktn.11 (Ktn. 11, Pl. 13) all have a red crust preserved on parts of the external surface, suggesting that the exterior decoration was monochrome, while the interior surface was well burnished with mottled shades of brown, reddish brown, and gray. They all have a curved body and could possibly belong to the same type vessel, an open convex-globular bowl; however, they do not join to each other. Their shape is similar to Ktn.h.3 and examples from Klenia, Lerna, and Franchthi. Sherd Ktn.12 (Fig. 17) is the raised base of a bowl, oval in shape and coated with red crust even on the bottom of the base.1190 The shape of the base has parallels at Kalythies cave,1191 Ftelia,1192 Saliagos,1193 Giali,1194 and Kephala (where bases are oval rather than round).1195 This base and three other body sherds may have belonged to a single bowl. The friable character of the clay, the monochrome decoration, and the shape place these pieces in the Kephala FN I horizon. Most of the examples, four in total, were found in Koutounis, suggesting that this was the production center for this pottery type, at least in the Halasarna region. Sherd Kt.177 is a unique example of patterned decoration recovered from Koutlousi (Fig. 17; Pl. 13). It belongs to a closed vessel, most probably a jar, and the evidence from the preserved piece suggests that the whole external body was decorated. The paint, black on brown, was applied in a horizontal

POTTERY SHAPES

manner, but rather carelessly, forming abstract bands rather than symmetrical ones. The closest parallels in colors and design are found in western Anatolia at Canhasan in the 2B phase, where it also appears on jars, and the majority of examples are from neck parts.1196 An analogous design on the neck of an askos comes from Lerna I in a reddish-brown color.1197 Similar careless designs on red patterned ware have been reported in the Dodecanese at the Kalythies cave in its MN phase.1198 Another such example comes from Aspri Petra cave, where a light brown-on-dark brown patterned sherd with similar decoration (but vertical rather than horizontal) was found.1199 A similar pattern of irregular horizontal bands was found on a jar from Hagio Gala Lower cave, but the added color is white and sandy, added after the burnishing.1200 Several painted sherds with careless horizontal bands have been attested at MN Hagios Petros in red or reddish-brown colors on a cream background.1201 Canhasan’s 2B phase is dated to the transition from the ECh to the Middle Chalcolithic (MCh) period, which is equivalent to the end of the MN period in Aegean terms and contemporary with the Lerna I and Kalythies cave examples. At Canhasan both black/brown patterned ware and red patterned ware belong to the same phase. Although the Hagio Gala Lower cave example is of EN–MN date, it is proposed here that the patterned ware from Koutlousi was of late MN date in accordance with the Lerna, Kalythies cave, Canhasan, and Hagios Petros parallels. This sherd appears to be the earliest recovered in the Halasarna region.

Incised Decoration Incisions are perhaps the most common form of decoration, having been applied on vessels of all types and across all periods. At Hagio Gala and Emporio on Chios, for example, they were found in all periods LN and EBA occupation.1202 In the LN Dodecanese they were rarely found at Kalythies cave (where there is a preference for punctuated motifs) and absent at all other sites.1203 At Halasarna there are four sherds with incised decoration, three of which belong to closed vessels (Kt. 178–Kt.180, Fig. 17). Sherd Kt.178 has four shallow, parallel incisions 0.3 cm wide placed

61

horizontally. Sherd Kt.179 has two shallow parallel horizontal incisions. These incisions are farther apart when compared with the previous example but have the same width. Sherd Kt.180 preserves a shallow single incision measuring 0.2 cm in width; this was possibly placed horizontally, in view of the thickness of the sherd wall. The horizontal arrangement of incisions seen at Halasarna is rather uncommon. Broadly similar examples are attested on the mainland at FN Hagios Dimitrios1204 and EH Lithares.1205 On Crete parallels are found at Hagios Onouphrios, Marathokephalo, Platyvola, and Kanli-Kastelli.1206 Cycladic examples occur at Hagia Eirene II–III,1207 on a krateriskos at Kouphonisi,1208 and at Akrotiri on closed vessels with relatively thin walls.1209 In the northeastern Aegean parallels are known from Emporio II.1210 Broad shallow horizontal or diagonal incisions on jars are common on the mainland at Nea Makri in phase 121211 and in the northeastern Aegean at Hagio Gala Upper cave.1212 The first two examples from Halasarna represent a unified tradition of decoration within the local repertoire, both probably belonging to EB II–III early. The third example, with broad and shallow incisions, is more likely, however, to belong to the LN II period, closer in time to the Nea Makri and Hagio Gala Upper cave examples. Spherical pyxides were popular in the Cyclades during the Grotta-Pelos period (EC I)1213 and the Kampos phase (EC I/II).1214 Sherd T.12 from the Halasarna survey is a rim of a spherical pyxis with a rather large diameter, ca.15 cm, and shallow diagonal grooves (Fig. 17; Pl. 13). There are parallels from Crete at EM II Malia1215 and numerous plain examples from EM I/II Hagia Photia.1216 In the Cyclades they occur at EC II Daskaleio-Kavos (where the example has a similar shape and size but is undecorated)1217 and EC I Akrotiri on Naxos.1218 At Pyrgos on Paros a parallel specimen dated to EC I has been found with similar shape and decoration identical to T.12.1219 Similar decoration on different vessel type comes from Leivadi cemetery on Despotiko, dated to EC I–II.1220 Hence, it is proposed here that T.12 dates to EB I on the basis of the shape and the decoration of the vessel, rather than to EB I/II, when plain spherical pyxides were preferred.

62

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Relief Relief decoration was used in different ways on a number of vessel types. There are two broad categories of relief ornaments: ribs and buttons (or warts). Relief decoration is found mainly on pithoi, large jars, jugs, and cooking pots. At Emporio, both of these decorative motifs were common in phases X–I.1221 Relief ribs were a common decoration in the LN and EBA. They occur on pottery from mainland sites such as the Cave of Nestor, Asea, Kastria, Corinth, Kionia, Klenia, Franchthi, Lerna, Sphakovouni, Kamenitsa, Kouphovouno, Alepotrypa, Kouphiero, and Sarakenos cave (the last of which is of FN II date),1222 FN deposits at the Agora,1223 Lithares,1224 LN II and FN II Skoteini cave,1225 and Manika II.1226 They are also found at MM IA Knossos1227 on Crete. Cycladic examples are known from Kephala,1228 Paoura,1229 Saliagos,1230 Mt. Kynthos A/B,1231 Ftelia,1232 Akrotiri,1233 and Daskaleio-Kavos.1234 Northeastern Aegean parallels come from Poliochni Blue to Yellow,1235 Thermi,1236 Hagio Gala Lower and Upper caves and Emporio (mostly during phases X–VIII, V–IV and II),1237 Tigani III–IV,1238 and Heraion.1239 Western Anatolian examples have been recovered from Troy II–V (shape C5)1240 and EB 2 Karataş phase V.1241 Relief ribs are very rare in the Dodecanese. One example (on a bizarrely shaped rim) comes from Kalythies cave,1242 and another (which possibly functioned as a lug) was found at Koumelo cave II.1243 Another example from Daskalio cave belongs to the EB III late period.1244 Only one sherd with relief decoration, found at Koutlousi, was recovered in the Halasarna survey. Sherd Kt.181 is part of a pithoid vase with a straight body; it has a relief rib on the external part of the rim and a vertical one intersecting it (Fig. 17). Identical examples come from Emporio VII and II1245 and from the FN Agora,1246 suggesting a date of either FN II or EB II. Buttons were common throughout the LN and the EBA. Several examples of circular or oval shape come from southern mainland LN sites,1247 EH Hagios Kosmas,1248 and LN and FN Skoteini cave.1249 In the Cyclades, there are a number of Neolithic examples from Kephala,1250 Saliagos,1251 and Ftelia;1252 EC II instances come from Kleidos on Naxos1253 and Kato Kouphonisi.1254 Northeastern Aegean parallels have been found at Poliochni

Black, Blue, and Green (mainly under the rim),1255 Thermi I–II and IV–V (on jugs and cups),1256 Hagio Gala Upper and Lower caves and Emporio X–I,1257 and Tigani I–II and IV (in limited numbers).1258 Western Anatolian examples come from Troy I.1259 In the Dodecanese buttons have been found on pottery from Kalythies cave, where they were popular on open vessels, on which they tended to be closer to rims but in some cases occurred lower on the body.1260 Other Dodecanesian examples come from Koumelo cave, Alimnia, and Partheni (where buttons tended to be just below the rim of the open vase).1261 At Giali buttons were uncommon, but they were occasionally placed on the body of the vessel.1262 Sherd Kt.182 belongs to a bowl with an angular body. It has an upturned button at the point where the upper and the lower body meet. Similar buttons are known from Emporio V–IV and II.1263 The shape of the bowl and the position of the button place this sherd in the EB I–II period. Sherd Kt.183 is part of the carinated body of a closed vessel with an upturned button. The body fragment probably belongs to a jug. It has parallels at Daskaleio-Kavos in the Cyclades1264 and at Emporio V–IV and II in the eastern Aegean.1265 Western Anatolian examples are found mainly on jugs from Troy I–II,1266 EB 1–3 Yortan,1267 and EB 1–2 Beycesultan.1268 The placement of buttons on closed vessels, and on jugs in particular, appears to have become common in the EB I–II period. Sherd Kt.184 is possibly part of a bowl decorated with a circular button that had a round top. Similarly shaped buttons have been found on bowls at EH II Hagios Kosmas on the mainland1269 and at Ftelia in the Cyclades.1270 In the northeastern Aegean they occur on cups at both Poliochni Blue1271 and Thermi I–II and IV–V,1272 as well as at Emporio (where they were found mainly on jars in phase X and on bowls, jars, and jugs in phases V–IV)1273 and Tigani I–II.1274 The preference for round-topped circular buttons on open vessels, most probably bowls, seems to date to the LN II and EB I–II periods. The Halasarna example could belong to either of these periods. Sherd Kt.185 is a rare case of a possible bowl fragment with a roughly made, slightly oval button with a sunken top (Fig. 18). On the mainland one comparably sized button with a sunken top comes from Lerna III,1275 one from EH I Eutresis,1276 one

POTTERY SHAPES

each from LN–FN and EH II Peukakia,1277 and one from LN I–II Skoteini cave.1278 In the Cyclades, five are known from Kephala (one or two of which may be oval)1279 and one from Saliagos.1280 In the northeastern Aegean two come from Poliochni Blue (these are associated with incisions),1281 four from Emporio (one from phase X and two from IV),1282 and one from Tigani I,1283 but all of these were circular rather than oval in shape. There are two examples from Troy I in western Anatolia.1284 The shape is more common in southern mainland Greece and Skoteini cave,1285 Hagio Gala Lower and Upper caves (either in horizontal or vertical position),1286 Partheni (similar to the Hagio Gala examples),1287 and Emporio V–IV.1288 The examples with a button top arrangement and an oval shape attested in southern mainland Greece, Hagio Gala Lower cave, and Partheni fall within the LN II–FN I horizon, while examples from Skoteini cave, Saliagos, Emporio X, and Tigani I support a LN II date for the button with a sunken top. At Kephala, however, this form seems to survive into the following FN I, while the Peukakia examples fall within the wider LN–FN era, and later they appear at EH I Eutresis, Troy I, Poliochni Blue, Emporio IV, and Lerna III. It seems likely that the Halasarna sherd belongs to the earlier part of this horizon, i.e., LN II, given the proximity of Kos to Tigani, Saliagos, and Emporio in contrast to Kephala, Poliochni, Troy, or mainland Greece. There is a further variety of sherds on which two decorative techniques were used—both relief buttons and incisions. Sherd Kt.186, which has a brown slip, belongs to a closed vessel. It has a circular button with round top, and parts of four parallel shallow incisions are preserved above it. A similar arrangement is seen on pottery from EH II Lithares1289 and LN Skoteini cave on the mainland, but these examples have deep intersecting incisions,1290 while instances from LN Nea Makri (phase 11) have more incised lines.1291 In the Northern Sporades similar incised decoration is attested at the Cave of the Cyclops in LN II.1292 Northeastern Aegean examples are found at Thermi I–IVa (with two sets of incised lines),1293 Emporio VIII (with two sets of parallel lines and the button set close to either the rim or the neck of the vessel), and Emporio V–IV (again with two sets of parallel incised lines).1294 In western Anatolia such decoration has been found at EB 2

63

Beycesultan.1295 The incisions on sherd Kt.186 are considerably different in terms of depth and width from the examples discussed in the incised decoration section above; they resemble most the instances from Tigani II–III.1296 The Halasarna decoration seems to be a local variation of the above examples. A date in LN II–FN I could be proposed on the grounds of the sherd’s fabric, the number of LN sites with similar decoration, and the fact that the incisions were shallow and thin.

Thumb Impressions Sherd Kt.187, the rim of a thick pithos, is the only example of a sherd with two shallow thumb impressions (Fig. 18). This sherd belongs to a type of pithos without a neck, found in both decorated and undecorated varieties.1297 The closest parallels in shape come from FN Alepotrypa (also with thumb impressions on the rim)1298 and Lerna III (with slightly different decoration).1299 Parallels can be seen in the Cyclades at Hagia Eirene,1300 Kephala (with thumb impressions on the rim),1301 Phylakopi A2–B,1302 Saliagos (again with thumb impressions on the rim),1303 Mt. Kynthos A/B (as a general vessel shape),1304 Ftelia (with thumb impressions on the rim),1305 and Mikre Vigla.1306 On Giali in the Dodecanese nos. 245 and 291 are closest in form, and no. 70 is closest in decoration.1307 The best parallels for the motif on the Halasarna sherd come from EH Limnes cave,1308 Lerna III and IV,1309 and EH II Kaloyerovrysi (type A) on the mainland,1310 from EM IIA Nopigeia on Crete,1311 from Kephala1312 and Ftelia1313 in the Cyclades, and from Tigani III–IV in the northeastern Aegean.1314 In view of the combination of shape and decoration seen on the Halasarna sherd, a date in the LN II–FN I horizon would seem appropriate. Sherd Kt.44 is a bowl with a curving body and a slightly flaring, externally thickened -type rim with external thumb-impressed decoration (Fig. 2). Its shape was discussed in the section on bowls above. This sherd is an example of rough and burnished ware, which is described in Chapter 3. Its surface is rough and anomalous, decorated in a rather unusual manner, with irregular thumb impressions across all of the preserved body (Pl. 13). This decoration technique has parallels in some of the Barbotine ware that appeared in EN Thessaly

64

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

and continued in the MN phase on bowls.1315 A similar thumb-impressed decoration is found at FN Euripides cave on Salamis (on a closed vessel, possibly a pithos),1316 LN Knossos,1317 and Ftelia (on pithoid jars and a bowl).1318 Nevertheless, in decoration and vessel type Kt.44 best resembles the examples from Ftelia, and thus a LN date seems most likely.

Decorated Handles Horizontal slashed handles belonging to jars probably originated in the Cyclades, but they are widely distributed across the Aegean. Sherd Kt.Lh.10 (Fig. 18) is part of a slashed horizontal handle made from a well-smoothed red clay that contained very little silver mica, unlike most of the Halasarna examples. Parallels are found on Kythera and at Knossos on Crete.1319 Cycladic examples occur at Paoura,1320 Hagia Eirene II and III,1321 Kastri,1322 Mt. Kynthos A/B,1323 EC I/II–II Mikre Vigla,1324 Panormos and Ailas,1325 Pyrgos on Paros,1326 Hagioi Anargyroi,1327 Phylakopi and Samari on Melos,1328 Paroikia,1329 Apeiranthos,1330 Daskaleio-Kavos,1331 Akrotiri,1332 at a few sites across Amorgos,1333 and at Markiani II and IV (from collared-neck jars).1334 Northeastern Aegean examples come from Emporio II,1335 Emporio V–IV,1336 and Heraion.1337 In the Dodecanese they are found on Astypalaia.1338 The evidence from all of these sites supports an EB II date for the slashed handles, which also survived in EC III early in the case of Markiani. The Halasarna handle seems to be an EC II Cycladic import rather than a local product. There are two cases of vertical handles with holes. The first is N.43, which possibly belonged to a jar or a jug. It has a semicircular shape with six preserved circular holes that were deep but not perforated (Fig. 18; Pl. 13). The second, N.44, possibly belongs to a jar or a jug with a vertical strap ovoid handle, which has one perforated hole and parts of two or three others (Fig. 18; Pl. 13). The perforations are circular, conical in section, with diameters of 0.5 cm on top and 0.3 cm on the lower part of the handle. They were made from top to bottom. The shape of the holes and their arrangement appears to be more or less the same on both examples. This kind of handle decoration was most

probably made on vessels of a particular form. Two strap handles from EH II Hagios Dimitrios have a number of holes.1339 An EH II strap handle from Lithares has two holes,1340 as does a strap handle from Saliagos.1341 This handle shape appeared in some numbers at Emporio VIII and continued thereafter; approximately the same decoration was found on tab handles of phases IX and VIII.1342 Similar decoration incised in oval form on vertical and horizontal handles comes from Emporio V–IV,1343 while the examples from Kephala1344 and FN II Skoteini cave,1345 which have cylindrical handles that normally belong to scoops, are decorated with abstract incisions. An example from Akrotiri has a similar decoration to the Halasarna specimens, but the handle is of a horizontal tubular shape.1346 On Crete this type of decoration is found on strap handles from LN Knossos strata I and II1347 and from FN II Vainia Stavromenos.1348 Another handle with circular holes comes from Vouno on Kos,1349 but this is a strap-shaped example with a single row of holes; it is dated to the EBA. Daskalio cave yielded a strap handle with several non-perforated dots belonging to a jar.1350 The Halasarna example does not have the kind of well-defined pattern seen on the Emporio examples, nor does it belong to a scoop with a cylindrical handle; it is closer to the Vouno piece. The handle shape, however, is closer to the examples from Emporio. The simplicity of the decoration and the parallels with Emporio V–IV suggest that these sherds may date to the EB I period, but an earlier date may be supported by the Skoteini cave, Kephala, Knossos, and Vainia Stavromenos examples. The Vouno, Halasarna, and possibly the Daskalio cave handles attest to a local Koan-Kalymnian preference for vertical handles with circular holes as decoration. Another decoration seen on vertical handles is a small vertical ridge. It occurs on the handle Ktn.13, which has an oval section and most probably belongs to a jar (Fig. 18). This type of decoration does not appear to have been very popular. Parallels have been found only at FN II Skoteini cave on the mainland (but these examples have a rather wide ridge),1351 at Hagia Eirene I1352 and Kephala1353 in the Cyclades, and at Tigani II in the northeastern Aegean.1354 A FN I–II date is thus proposed for the Halasarna example.

POTTERY SHAPES

65

Chapter 4 Endnotes 1. Phelps 2004, 78, figs. 31:1, 4; 36:12; 38:28; 44:4, 20; 49:10, 11. 2. Sampson 1985a, 131, type 9, figs. 6:P54, 7:P59, 26:T17, pl. 10:9. 3. Sampson 1993c, pls. 15:fifth from top, 29:fifth column from left. 4. Nowicki 2002, fig. 4:6–8, 10, 11, 14–16. 5. Caskey 1972, fig. 3:B35. 6. Coleman 1977, pls. 27:F; 28:D, F, M; 40:A. 7. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 149, figs. 5.7:7; 5.10:3–6, 9, 10. 8. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 35:21; 36:10, 13; 41:1; 49:1, 10; 50:2, 4, 14; 52:2; 55:5, 18, 22. 9. Sampson 2002, figs. 21; 22; 23:11, 39, 62; 24:first and second row, 49, 65; 28:40, 63; 32:509–511. 10. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 109, fig. 21ε, pl. 55. 11. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.6:47. 12. Eskitzioglou 2006, 140, fig. 7.16:11, 12. 13. Parlama 1984, fig. 6.2. 14. Sampson 2008a, figs. 2.1:I.2, I.5, II.1, II.8; 2.3:III.1, 2, III.6–8. 15. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 28:d, k; 34:a–f; 35:a–f, h, i. 16. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 120:32–42; 142:436, 441; 163:851–870; 197:1414, 1416. 17. Felsch 1988, pls. 51:16; 53:49, 50; 54:77. 18. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.1:40, 41. 19. Voigtländer 1986, 640, no. 16, fig. 18:16. 20. Sampson 1987, figs. 7:19, 26, 29–31, 34, 35, 37; 8; 9:63–78; 35:331, 336, 340, 360; 37:366, 368, 370, 372, 378; 51:576; 52:589–591; 53:599; 54:611; 56:620, 622; 57:632; 58:636; 59:644, 647–649; 60:651–655, 660–662, 665. 21. Sampson 1987, figs. 85:8; 91:55, 66. 22. Sampson 1987, fig. 140:1, 2. 23. Sampson 1987, fig. 140:18, 19. 24. Sampson 1987, 141:27. 25. Sampson 1987, figs. 101:5, 19, 20; 102:22; 103:37–40; 104:58–61; 107:74, 75, 77; 108:85–89, 92, 94; 110:99, 101–105, 107, 109. 26. Sampson 1987, fig. 151:23. 27. Sampson 1987, figs. 117:9, 10, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25; 118:31, 34. 28. Sampson 1988b, 84, figs. 21:40–42; 23:53–55, 58, 60; 27:102; 31:138, 140; 34:163, 167; 39:194, 195; 41:205; 48:239; 50:252; 53:270, 274. 29. Phelps 2004, figs. 36:12; 37:3, 12, 15; 49:1, 9; 54:1, 3, 7, as well as from EH II Eutresis; see Caskey and Caskey 1960, fig. 11:VIII.1, VIII.21.

30. Sampson 1985a, 133, type 19; 1988a, figs. 77:168.5760, 127α. 31. Sampson 1993c, pls. 15:first from top, 29:first column from left. 32. Walter and Felten 1981, fig. 95. 33. Karantzali 1996, fig. 68:P2903, P2494. 34. Karantzali 1996, fig. 79:t4. 35. Caskey 1972, fig. 6:C3–5, C34, pl. 81:C36. 36. Karantzali 1996, fig. 55:P245. 37. MacGillivray 1980, 24, fig. 7:430. 38. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 36:7. 39. Sampson 2002, figs. 23:62, 24:third row except for second. 40. Zachos 1987, fig. 2:lower row left. 41. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 91–93, figs. 4–9, pls. 19–27. 42. Yiannouli 2002, 15, 21–22, 24, figs. 7, 12. 43. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 8:e; 34:d–f, h, i; II, pl. 223:b. 44. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 5:4; 120:43–53; 142:447–448, 450; 163:871–876; 197:1417–1418. 45. Milojčić 1961, pls. 37:48; 46:2, 4. 46. Furness 1956, fig. 4:46; Felsch 1988, pls. 68:359; 69:384; 71:430–439; 79:31,4; 82:UP35. 47. Sampson 1987, figs. 35:337; 52:584, 587; 57:633; 59:643. 48. Sampson 1987, fig. 109. 49. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 223a:A1, 370a:A1; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 43:A1, 183:1. 50. Phelps 2004, figs. 36:5, 13; 37:11. 51. Sampson 1993c, pl. 15:ninth from top. 52. Coleman 1977, pl. 28:E. 53. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 35:11, 12; 36:7; 49:2–5; 50:1, 3, 5; 51; 52:1, 3, 4. 54. Sampson 2002, figs. 23:first two rows, 25, 65, sixth row first two from left; 24:second from third row, sixth row the first three and the last. 55. Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 1:1. 56. Sampson 2008a, fig. 2.4:III.26. 57. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 7:c, k; 34:g, j; 35:g; 119; 120:a–c. 58. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 142:451, 452. 59. Milojčić 1961, pls. 38:19–21, 24, 30–31; 40:8, 13, 14, 27. 60. Felsch 1988, pls. 68:362, 367, 368; 69:381, 382, 385–387, 393–395; 71:440, 441; 78:F69, F72; 79:39,2; 83:UP47, UP48. 61. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, figs. P.1:32, 36, 37, 43, 47; P.2:1, 19; P.5:8, 11; P.6:4, 5; P.7:3, 4, 18, 20, 31, 32; P.8:2, 19, 21–23; P.9:8; P.10:10; P.12:1.

66 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE Eslick 1992, pls. 16:7; 17:8, 11, 13. Sampson 1987, figs. 6:1, 7, 8; 7:27; 35:330; 58:639. Sampson 1987, figs. 104:56, 108:92. Sampson 1988b, figs. 23:55, 59; 29:122; 35:170; 52:263; 54:281. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.93:type 1, last from top. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 10:β, δ. Christmann 1996, pls. 20:1, 22:6–9, 62:2, 75:21, 77:5, 78:4, 102:2. Karantzali 1996, fig. 91:E3 59. Wilson 1999, pl. 37:III-538, III-548. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 247:2525, 2526. Milojčić 1961, pl. 38:19. Sampson 1985a, figs. 9α:9, 14:A2, 19:K1, pls. 10:5, 16:16. Caskey 1972, fig. 3:B25; Wilson 1999, pls. 6:II-25, 16:II484. MacGillivray 1980, fig. 4:417. Angelopoulou 2003, fig. 13:third from top. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 26:k; Traverso 1997, pl. 13. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 166:947, 949, 950; 167:984; 169:1943; 198:1464; 220:1971, 1972, 1975; 224:2122, 2123; 228:2253; 243:2492. Milojčić 1961, pls. 35:15, 28, 68; 36:4; 37:2, 76;46:13, 16. Sperling 1976, figs. 15:543–546; 19:614, 615; 20:652; 23:717. Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 258; 259; 260:2, 11, 13, 14; 261:3. French 1997, figs. 6:6, 15; 7. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, figs. P.14:20; P.15:16, 38; P.23:7; P.37:4. Sampson 1997, figs. 44:616; 48:732. Müller [1938] 1976, figs. 10, 26:10. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 161:844, 164:915, 203:1606, 240:2413. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 27:a, 35:i. Milojčić 1961, pl. 37:1. Wilson 1999, pls. 16:II-76, II-499; 33:III-357. Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 259:A10 1c, 262:21, 264:20. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.12:11. Voigtländer 1986, 640, no. 14, fig. 18:14. Pecorella 1984, fig. 1:3. Coleman 1977, pl. 32:B. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 4:e, n; 5:s; 7:d; 10:p, q. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 145:527, 534, 542, 556. Felsch 1988, pls. 69:392, 72:447. Sampson 1987, fig. 7:24. Sampson 1987, fig. 101:13.

100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114.

115. 116.

117. 118. 119. 120. 121.

122. 123. 124.

125. 126. 127.

128. 129. 130.

Sampson 1987, fig. 117:16. Sampson 1985a, 133, no. 19. Walter and Felten 1981, fig. 83, pls. 81:99, 100; 86:144. Caskey 1972, fig. 6:C6. MacGillivray 1980, fig. 10:25. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 95–96, figs. 6:ΔΟ.36, 11α. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.6:37. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pls. 104:a–i, 105:a–c. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 121:56, 163:864, 197:1425, 198:1485–1491, 220:1970, 222:2066, 234:2353. Milojčić 1961, pl. 43:34. Sampson 1988b, 106. Rutter 1995, ill. S-14:second from left; Wiencke 2000, fig. II.76:b–d, 1. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 150–151, figs. 1α:third from left, 6α:first to fourth from left. Goldman 1931, 104, fig. 133:1. Sampson 1985a, 134, chart 16:2, 3, 5, figs. 6:P49; 7:P61; 14:A3, A10; 16δ:2; 21:K48, K53; 23:90, 91, K93, K94; 24:K112, K113, K123; 24δ:Γ15; 24ε:Γ29; 24ζ:Π14; 26:T3, T21; 29:T57, T58, T62, T63; 30:T72. Walter and Felten 1981, pl. 102:270, 271. Caskey 1972, 372, figs. 5:C13; 6:C11, C19; pl. 81:C12; Wilson 1999, pls. 8:II-124; 18:II-579, II-583, II-584; 20:II-657; 23:III-19–III-22, III-55, III-56; 25:III-99; 34:III-395. Coleman 1977, pl. 27:62, 99. Karantzali 1996, fig. 52:e, f; Renfrew and Evans 2007, 139, 150, figs. 5.3:5, 5.7:20. MacGillivary 1979, 14, fig. 11:91; 1980, 23, fig. 7:91. Sampson 2002, figs. 27:996, 30:995. Karantzali 1996, figs. 1:i; 2:a, b; 10:MNat6114; 15:MAp.339, MAp.803; 17:Sz6, Sz7, Sx24, Sx27, Sx29; 18; 20:Sx23; Angelopoulou 2008, fig. 16.2:1, 2, 7, 8. Karantzali 1996, figs. 26:MN4609, 32:a; Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.6:38. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 96–98, figs. 11–14, pls. 31–34. Birtacha 2006 134, fig. 7.13:7–12; Eskitzioglou 2006, 140, fig. 7.16:13–16; Karantzali 2006, 102–104, 114– 116, figs. 7.1:5–7, 7.7:2–4. Parlama 1984, 93. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 16:e; 17:a–c, j, p; 26:h–j, m, n; 27:I; 29:a–c, e, f; 140:b. Hood 1981–1982, 175, 253, figs. 23; 98:6, 7; 118:12; 122:95–102, 105–107, 109; 144:480–487; 165:928, 933, 938; 166:929–931, 935–937; 195:1372–1376; 197:1448–1452; 220:1957–1959; 224:2113–2116; 242. Milojčić 1961, pls. 22:9; 38:40; 40:1; 42:13; 43:28, 20, 31, 40; 45:5. Felsch 1988, pls. 51:17–19, 37, 38; 52:43; 53:62; 54:81–84; 55:87, 92, 102; 76:F7; 81:UP1, UP17. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 263, 264; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, pls. 154a:A16, 156, 157, 176:32.103.

POTTERY SHAPES 131. Joukowsky 1986, figs. 407:2, 3; 419:20, 22, 25, 27. 132. Sampson 1987, figs. 11:99, 101, 109, 114, 116; 15:163; 36:363; 37:371, 373, 377, 380; 38:393, 395a–396; 51:571–575, 577; 53:594, 595, 597, 602; 57:630. 133. Sampson 1987, figs. 85:4; 86:11–13; 88:28, 33; 89:44–49; 90:52; 91:57, 60, 63. 134. Sampson 1987, fig. 108:84. 135. Sampson 1987, fig. 118:48. 136. Sampson 1988b, figs. 24:61–63; 26:86, 90; 27:94. 137. Benzi 1997, 384, pl. 1:a–c. 138. Marketou 1990a, 41–42. 139. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.76:a. 140. Sampson 1985a, figs. 4:P15; 6:P45, P54; 7:P58; 21:K47; 24:K114; 24δ:Γ42. 141. Caskey 1972, fig. 6:C10, C18; Wilson 1999, pls. 4:I135, I-139; 5:I-191; 6:II-26, II-31; 7:II-105; 22:II-793; 23:III-48, III-49, III-57, III-61, III-62, III-67. 142. Coleman 1977, pls. 27:D, 27; 28:B. 143. Karantzali 1996, fig. 53:d; Renfrew and Evans 2007, 139, figs. 5.3:3, 4; 5.6:6, 7. 144. Sampson 2002, figs. 25:79, 210; 26:997; 27; 29; 30; 33:221. 145. Karantzali 1996, figs. 1:a–h; 11:MNat6125, MNat3115; 20:Sx4, Sx14. 146. Karantzali 1996, figs. 26:MN4612; 28a:MN4828, b. 147. Birtacha 2006, 134–135, fig. 7.13:18–21; Karantzali 2006, 114, fig. 7.6:14, 16–17. 148. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 8:a–d; 10:u; 14; 15; 16:a–d; 17:d–i, k–o, q; 26:a–g; 74:b; 111:h; 121:f, g, i, 1; 130:h. 149. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 16:50–53; 21; 22; 121; 143; 164; 165:922–927; 195:1368–1372; 197:1414–1417; 211:1838, 1839; 220:1953–1956; 224:2112; 241:2440–2455. 150. Felsch 1988, pls. 50; 52:42, 48; 53:57, 61, 65; 54:83; 61:242; 76:F4, F6, F10, F19, F20; 77:F53; 80:F59, F62; 81:UP1–4, UP8–10; 82:UP25, UP26. 151. Sampson 1987, figs. 6:16; 7:26, 28, 29; 10; 14:151, 156; 15:161; 35:332, 338, 341, 342, 356; 38:388–392, 394, 395; 52:582, 583, 586, 591; 53:598; 54:605–607. 152. Sampson 1987, figs. 85:1; 88:30; 90:43, 50, 51. 153. Sampson 1987, fig. 103:41, 42, 45. 154. Sampson 1987, fig. 118:46, 47, 49. 155. Benzi 2008, 91, figs. 13, 14. 156. Sampson 1988b, fig. 24:64. 157. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.76:h. 158. Cultraro 1997, fig. 5:9. 159. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 224:2129. 160. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.76:e. 161. Caskey and Caskey 1960, fig. 7:V.3. 162. Caskey 1972, figs. 3:B24, B32; 4:B54. 163. Karantzali 1996, figs. 53:a–c, 55:P316; Renfrew and Evans 2007, 136, fig. 5.1:5.

164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177.

178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196.

67

MacGillivray 1980, figs. 4:49, 7:171. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 94–95, fig. 10β, pl. 29. Karantzali 1996, 27–28, fig. 22:e. Yiannouli 2002, 19, fig. 10. Sampson 1985a, 194, fig. 53δ:1. Parlama 1984, 93, fig. 6:4a. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 111:f–k; Cultraro 1997, fig. 6:5. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 246:2507. Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 154a:A12; 177:4, 5; 256:2. Sperling 1976, figs. 13:407; 14:512; 15:537, 543, 545. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.1:P1–P4. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 151, figs. 4α:first and second from left, 4β:second and fourth from left. Caskey and Caskey 1960, fig. 11:8. Christmann 1996, pls. 1:11, 13, 14; 4:10; 5:11; 11:4, 6, 9–11; 13:13; 15:16, 17, 22, 23; 16:16, 19; 26:1; 29:3; 30:7; 34:14, 24, 25; 39:15; 43:2; 56:19; 57:22, 23; 60:4, 9, 11, 15, 16; 72:11, 12; 74:5; 77:17; 82:4, 5; 93:7; 102:12; 106:5, 6, 9, 11; 117:13–15; 118:3; 123:1, 3, 9, 10; 126:16, 19; 129:6; 131:14, 16, 17, 19, 22; 132:12, 13; 134:11, 12. Sampson 1985a, figs. 19:K1; 21:K39, K64; 22:K88; 24:K115; 26:T27; 28:T40, pl. 10:8. Caskey 1972, 366, fig. 4:B55, B58; Wilson 1999, pls. 7:II-118, 8:II-140, 76:III-112. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 141, 147, 150, 169, figs. 5.4:13; 5.6:1; 5.8:10; 5.14:8, 9. Karantzali 1996, fig. 45:a, j. Karantzali 1996, figs. 17:Sx7; 21:Sx21, Sx34; Angelopoulou 2008, figs. 16.2:9, 16.3:21. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 111–112, fig. 23γ:Γ119, Δ134, Φ95. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.7:50–54. Eskitzioglou 2006, 140, fig. 7.18:8. Parlama 1984, fig. 5:7. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 264:6, 12; 412:23; 414:13, 26. Milojčić 1961, pl. 37:3. Rutter 1995, 376, ill. S-13:2; Wiencke 2000, 538, fig. II.76:f. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 151, fig. 4α:fourth and fifth from left. Christmann 1996, pls. 24:18; 27:9, 11; 37:13; 39:17; 40:21; 45:8; 52:14; 64:20; 71:12; 75:2; 111:1; 136:8. Sampson 1985a, figs. 14:A11, 21:K37, 28:T43. Betancourt and Davaras 2003, 13, 77, pls. 24:1.88; 39:9.33, 9.34. Caskey 1972, 366, fig. 4:B59; Wilson 1999, pls. 8:II138, 16:II-508, 18:II-593. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 172, fig. 5.18:6, 7. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 413:33, 414:35.

68

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

197. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 170:1055, 1065, 1095. 198. Phelps 2004, 71, figs. 27:8–14, 16, 18, 19; 31:20, 27; 38:4; 39:14, 23; 93:3, 4. 199. Vitelli 1999, figs. 6:a–d, 45:e. 200. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 48:13. 201. Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 1:4, 5, 7, 8. 202. Sampson 2002, figs. 30:top row first from left, 35:24. 203. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 16:56, 27:157, 145:532. 204. Sampson 1987, figs. 12:124, 39:408. 205. Sampson 1987, fig. 104:51. 206. Sampson 1987, figs. 117:19, 121:69. 207. Sampson 1988b, fig. 29:123. 208. Erdoğu 2003, 14–15. 209. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 152, fig. 8α:fifth and sixth from left, pl. 32:α, β. 210. Sampson 1985a, figs. 14:A6, 19:K6, 24ζ:Π1, 27:T33. 211. Coleman 1977, pl. 28:H. 212. Sampson 2002, fig. 23:1002. 213. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 104–105, 112–113, figs. 21α:Ξ29, 23δ:Ξ343, pl. 60:Ξ343. 214. Eskitzioglou 2006, 140, fig. 7.18:4, 6. 215. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pl. 223:a. 216. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 149:615, 620. 217. Felsch 1988, pl. 72:447–451. 218. Eslick 1992, pls. 16:3; 17:15, 18–20. 219. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, pls. 1:28, 33; 9:9. 220. Sampson 1987, fig. 117:16, 17, 19. 221. Sampson 1988b, fig. 29:126. 222. Sampson 1993c, pl. 15:11th from top. 223. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 56:19. 224. Sampson 2002, 39, fig. 36:third row first to fifth from left. 225. Sotirakopoulou 1999, fig. 3:ΑΠ.26, Φ237. 226. Sampson 2008a, fig. 2.21:271, 281. 227. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 16:56–67; 17:71, 73; 27:164, 165. 228. Felsch 1988, pls. 65:299, 67:352, 69:396, 78:F61–63. 229. Sampson 1987, figs. 6:15, 12:123–132, 13:134–149, 39:402–408, 40:415, 59:640. 230. Sampson 1987, figs. 88:27, 91:58. 231. Sampson 1987, figs. 101:2, 4; 103:35. 232. Sampson 1987, figs. 117:23, 119:50, 121:65. 233. Benzi 2008, 93, fig. 25. 234. Sampson 1988b, figs. 19:11; 21:30–34; 22:48–51; 23:54–56, 59; 31:134, 143; 37:179; 40:199; 51:259. 235. Sampson 1993c, pl. 15:third from top. 236. Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 1:4, 5, 7, 8. 237. Sampson 2002, 50, figs. 25:205; 26:217; 28:1010–1012; 34:391, 553; 35; 39. 238. Sampson 2008a, fig. 2.9:49–51, 54. 239. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 6:16, 17; 16:56; 17:75.

240. Furness 1956, 184, fig. 8:5; Felsch 1988, pl. 65:300. 241. Sampson 1987, 25, figs. 12:122; 13:133; 20:214; 26:263, 267, 268; 32:second row third from left; 38:386, 387; 39:397, 401; 40:410–414, 416; 46:493, 497, 499; 47:505, 506; 58:638; pl. I:4. 242. Sampson 1987, figs. 90:53, 95:second row first from left. 243. Sampson 1987, figs. 101:13, 17; 111:third row first from left. 244. Sampson 1987, figs. 121:63, 129:fourth row second from left. 245. Sampson 1988b, 83–84, figs. 19:6, 13; 29:116, 118–120, 123, 127, 128; 34:164; 69:11, 12. 246. Erdoğu 2003, 14–16. 247. Karantzali 1996, fig. 69:P417, P426. 248. Zachos 2008, fig. 45:651/81, 25/83. 249. Wiencke 2000, 538, fig. II.76:m–p. 250. Müller [1938] 1976, fig. 26:3, 4. 251. Walter and Felten 1981, fig. 78. 252. Goldman 1931, 102, fig. 133:14; Caskey and Caskey 1960, 142, 145, figs. 4:III.11, III.12; 11:VIII.57. 253. Christmann 1996, pls. 5:10–14; 21:10–12; 22:16; 26:2; 28:20; 35:1–7; 38:17; 40:15; 42:14, 17, 24; 43:6, 9; 49:25, 27; 50:2–5, 7, 9–11, 13; 56:12, 13, 16, 18; 57:19; 62:18; 66:18; 67:3, 4; 77:20; 86:21; 87:2–5; 91:2, 4; 93:9, 10; 95:5; 97:6–11; 98:8; 102:6; 105:7; 106:15; 107:11–13; 113:8; 117:10–12; 123:2, 4–8; 129:10–16; 131:18; 132:10, 12; 134:9. 254. Sampson 1985a, figs. 22:K88; 24ε:Γ34, Γ38; 24ζ:Π4; 26:T1; pl. 11:23. 255. Wilson 1999, pl. 26:III-115. 256. MacGillivray 1980, 36, fig. 13:383. 257. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 412–413, fig. 23δ, pl. 60. 258. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.7:55. 259. Yiannouli 2002, fig. 19:KA93/19. 260. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pl. 223a:fourth from left. 261. Milojčić 1961, pl. 44:9. 262. Sperling 1976, figs. 13:303, 304, 405–408; 14:501–517; 15:535–546; 19:601–608; 20:637–647, 649–652; 23:702, 710. 263. Dova 1997, 284, fig. 4, pl. 2. 264. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 4:s; 14:d–f; 110:a, d, g. 265. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 143:469; 144:491, 499, 501; 148; 166:953. 266. Phelps 2004, 118, figs. 56:8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16; 96:1, 2; Vitelli 2007, fig. 83. 267. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 150, fig. 1γ:third and fourth from left. 268. Caskey 1972, fig. 1:P2. 269. Karantzali 1996, figs. 53:a, b; 55:P249; Renfrew and Evans 2007, 136, fig. 5.1:1–4, 6, 7. 270. Hadjianastasiou 1988, 12; Karantzali 1996, fig. 1:a, c, d, g. 271. Zachos 1987, 696. 272. Karantzali 1996, fig. 21:Sx24.

POTTERY SHAPES 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.

283. 284.

285.

286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310.

Karantzali 1996, figs. 27:a, 28:d. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 100–102, figs. 16β, 17, pls. 37–43. Benzi 2008, 93, figs. 28, 29. Karantzali 1996, fig. 79:t11. Rutter 1995, 381, fig. 68:925. Coleman 1977, pl. 30:B. Angelopoulou 2008, fig. 16.3:15. Sampson 2008a, 34, fig. 2.18:225.2. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 34:j, 35:g, 121:h; II, pl. 206:b; Cultraro 1997, fig. 4:13. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 149:624, 627; 164:918; 172:1104, 1124, 1127; 200:1561, 1563; 224:2133; 246:2516; pl. 108:2516. Coleman 1977, 14, pl. 38:k–p. Sampson 2002, figs. 18:21; 19:49; 20:12; 40:868; 46:220; 47; 80:687, 689; 86:125, 196; 88:96, 107, 118, first from left on third row. Sampson 1993c, figs. 32:29; 34:61; 37:172, 194; 38:198; 39:228; 45:409, 413; 48:66; 60:62; 68:135–137; pls. 20:first from left in second row, third from left in third row; 23:second from left in fifth row; 28. Sampson 2006, fig. 107; 2008a, fig. 2.30:462, 464. Takaöglu 2006, 295, figs. 6:1–8; 7. Eslick 1992, 69, pl. 74:2. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.6:7, 25, 26. Dova 2003, figs. 4:7, 8; 5:7. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 3:a; 6:f; 7:f, r; 8:a–c. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 5:8; 8:1; 13:1; 24:135; 29:171; 121:76, 93; 123:156; 127:188; 143:474, 479. Furness 1956, fig. 3:F19, F20; Felsch 1988, pls. 14:60; 30:5, 6; 58:158; 64:272; 66:327a; 76:F19, F20. Sampson 1987, figs. 33:second from left in second row, 53:593. Sampson 1987, figs. 102:33, 111:first from left in second row. Sampson 1987, fig. 120:61. Furness 1956, fig. 10:8. Sampson 1988b, chart 7, figs. 24:69, 42:213, 69:21. Rutter 1995, ill.S-4:4. Sampson 1993a, fig. 31:60. Sampson 1985a, fig. 20:K24. Christmann 1996, pls. 1:16, 10:20, 20:15, 27:2. Wilson 1999, pl. 47:II-100, II-101. Doumas and Angelopoulou 1997, 549, fig. 14. Dova 1997, fig. 8. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 8:a–c; 31:c; 40:e; 120:d, e; Cultraro 1997, figs. 4:25, 5:14. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 106:1, 167:1017, 169:1018, 200:1566, 245:2503, pl. 95:2503. Felsch 1988, pl. 66:327a. Milojčić 1961, pl. 48:21. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, figs. P.22:9, P.24:11.

311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338.

339. 340.

341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349.

69

Zachos 2008, fig. 22:31/83, 56/82. Holmberg 1944, 37, fig. 35:b. Phelps 2004, fig. 51:15. Evans 1964, fig. 40:2; Tomkins 2007, fig. 1.7:1. French 2005, figs. 1; 2; 5; 176:15, 16; 177:2–4. Tiné 1997c, pl. 6:g. Hood 1981–1982, 37, fig. 22:114. Felsch 1988, pls. 12:5; 14:4; 16:1, 2; 51:38; 53:66; 54:81; 81:UP17. Sampson 1988b, fig. 33:156(49). Hood 1981–1982, 243, 302–303. Sampson 1987, 80. Sampson 1988b, 75. Felsch 1988, pls. 23:2; 28:3, 4; 32:1; 29:1, 2; 34:1, 2; 34:8. Sampson 2002, fig. 112:815, 842, 843. Felsch 1988, pl. 34:8. Sampson 1987, pl. 119. Sampson 2006, 230. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 273, fig. 197. Phelps 2004, 93, figs. 41:21, 86:5. Sampson 1993c, figs. 37:194, 48:66. Sampson 2006, fig. 107; 2008a, 39–40, figs. 2.10:81.2, 2.22:292, 299, 302, pl. 22:292, 294. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 173:1136, 1138, 1139, pl. 65d:1136, 1138, 1139. Sampson 1987, figs. 42:443, 447; 43:449. Sampson 1988b, 230, figs. 24:69, 42:213. Sampson 2002, figs. 18:types 10, 22; 19:44; 25:205; 47; 215:215; 2006, 181–182, fig. 170. Sampson 1993c, chart 19:89–91, figs. 33:43, 76:13, 78. Sampson 1997, 131, fig. 38. Sampson 1993c, figs. 32:29; 34:61; 37:172, 194; 38:198; 39:228; 45:409, 413; 60:62; 68:135–137; pls. 20:first from left in second row, third from left in third row; 23:second from left in the fifth row; 28. Coleman 1977, 14, pl. 38:k–p. Sampson 2002, 59–61, figs. 18:21; 19:49; 20:12; 40:868; 46:220; 47; 80:687, 689; 86:125, 196; 88:96, 107, 118, first from left on third row. Sampson 2006, fig. 107; 2008a, figs. 2.10:81.2, 2.22:302. Takaöglu 2006, 295, figs. 6:1–8, 7. Eslick 1992, 69, pl. 74:2. Dova 2003, figs. 4:7, 8; 5:7. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 3:a; 6:f; 7:f, r; 8:a–c. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 5:8; 8:1; 13:1; 24:135; 29:171; 121:76, 93; 123:156; 127:188; 143:474, 479. Furness 1956, fig. 3:F19, F20; Felsch 1988, pls. 14:60; 30:5, 6; 58:158; 64:272; 66:327a; 76:F19, F20. Sampson 1987, figs. 33:second from left in second row, 53:593. Sampson 1987, figs. 102:33, 111:first from left in second row.

70 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 379. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE Sampson 1987, fig. 120:61. Furness 1956, fig. 10:8. Sampson 1988b, chart 7, figs. 24:69, 42:213, 69:21. Coleman 1977, 16–17, pls. 36, 82, 83. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 206, pl. 16:3. Phelps 2004, 114. Wiencke 2000, 554–555, figs. II.11:199, II.12:218, II.68:1159, II.82. Müller [1938] 1976, fig. 5, pl. 6:2. Goldman 1931, fig. 162; Caskey and Caskey 1960, pl. 51:VIII.59. Sampson 1985a, figs. 27:T29, 28:T51. Karantzali 1996, 148–149, fig. 84b. Warren 1972, fig. 38:P8, P9. Wilson 1999, pl. 7:II-98, II-99, and especially pls. 7:II103, 26:III-100. MacGillivray 1980, 32, fig. 12:245. Parlama 1984, fig. 12:1, 3. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 120:f, g, 147:b; II, 203:b, f. Lamb 1936, 122, pl. 36:391. Hood 1981–1982, 429, no. 1392A, fig. 196. Milojčić 1961, pls. 35:1, 19; 36:16, 21; 43:11, 47. Blegen et al. 1950, 235, figs. 59b:C19, 154b:C19, 370b:C19, 377:35.552, 399. Joukowsky 1986, 396, figs. 221, 222, 393:4. Sampson 1988b, 106, fig. 26:92. Doumas 1977, 24, fig. 13:d, f. Wiencke 2000, 554–555, figs. II.11:199, II.12:218, II.68:1159, II.82. Sampson 1985a, figs. 4:P26, 27:T29, 28:T52; 1988a, figs. 14:15, 20:3; Karantzali 1996, fig. 160:M.4, M.10. Wilson 1999, pls. 7:II-100, 85:III-296. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 223a:A31, 226:33.693. Lamb 1936, pl. 8:165. Hood 1981–1982, 385, fig. 173:1134, pl. 58b:first from left in top row. Furness 1956, pl. 18:15. Rutter 1995, ill. S-4:2, fig. 9:241. Christmann 1996, pls. 12:5, 17:7, 27:5, 74:14. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.14:9. Vermeule 1964, 248, fig. 5:first from left in second row. Sampson 1988b, fig. 26:87. Melas 1988, 307, fig. 14:6. Hatzipouliou-Kalliri 1983, 372, pl. 41:Π301. Goldman 1931, fig. 138. Sampson 1985a, fig. 60, pl. 87:α; 1988a, fig. 90:49. Rutter 1979, 7, table 2, fig. 1:3, 4. Walter and Felten 1981, pl. 90:89. Caskey 1972, fig. 6:C2, C41, pl. 90:C1, C42–44; Wilson 1999, pl. 35:III-455.

392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402.

403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409.

410. 411. 412. 413.

414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427.

Renfrew and Evans 2007, fig. 5.7:22. Tsountas 1899, pl. 9:11. MacGillivray 1980, 20–22, fig. 7:421. Overbeck 1989, 6, nos. 13–15, fig. 6:a, b. Doumas 1977, fig. 11:c. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 125–130, figs. 34α:Γ40, Φ134, ΑΠ.32, ΑΠ.33; 34β:Ξ271, Ξ394, Δ269, Ξ306. Eskitzioglou 2006, 143, fig. 7.19:1, 2, 5. Renfrew 1972, fig. 20.4:2. Parlama 1984, fig. 12:Π.3. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 147:b; II, pl. 208:a–i. Hood 1981–1982, 557–559, figs. 149:617, 618, 621, 622; 172:1102, 1104–1107, 1109; 248:2532–2536; pl. 109:2532, 2536. Milojčić 1961, pls. 39:23, 28; 47:8, 12. Joukowsky 1986, 396, fig. 331. Zachos 2008, figs. 56, 57. Wiencke 2000, 584–592, fig. II.92. Müller [1938] 1976, pls. 3, 4. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 156, pl. 43. Goldman 1931, figs. 117, 118, 126:3, 127, 129, 130, 151:1, 154:1, 166:5, 6, pl. 4:1; Caskey and Caskey 1960, pls. 48:VIII.36; 49:VIII.7, 15, 35, 43, 44; 51:VIII.27. Sampson 1985a, 143–146, fig. 34:55, 56; 1988a, fig. 71:155.5812, pl. 109. Sampson 1993a, fig. 42:9. Walter and Felten 1981, 152, no. 83, pls. 79:83–86, 80:91, 82:112–114, 84:125–128. Caskey 1972, fig. 3:B17–B19, pls. 77:B2–B11, 78:B16, B70; Wilson 1999, pls. 19, 20:II-621, II-625, II-626, II677. Tsountas 1899, 113; Karantzali 1996, figs. 40:a, 42:d; Fitton 1999, fig. 33. Evans and Renfrew 1984, fig. 1:b, d; Renfrew and Evans 2007, 148–149, fig. 5.7:1, 3. MacGillivray 1980, 12–14, figs. 3; 4:51, 52; more like nos. 290 and 432. Doumas 1977, 19, fig. 8:1, pls. 27:c, 45:c. Renfrew 1972, 532, fig. 20.4:5; Karantzali 1996, fig. 15:Map.52. Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, fig. 5:11. Renfrew 1972, 531–532; Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.5:2, 4, 9, 14, 17, 21. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 115–122, fig. 25, pls. 67–72. Renfrew 1972, 157; Doumas 1977, 23, fig. 12:d. Eskitzioglou 2006, 146–149, fig. 7.21:1–3, pl. 36:c. Karantzali 1996, fig. 88:MC2020. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 121. Parlama 1984, 91–93, fig. 11, pl. 32:upper; Theochari and Parlama 1997, figs. 12–14. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 129:c, 130:g; Cultraro 1997, fig. 3.

POTTERY SHAPES 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469.

Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 252:5, 12, 17. Lamb 1936, fig. 32:521. Cosmopoulos 1991, 40–41, table 4.4. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 113, figs. 23ε–24α, pls. 61–63. Eskitzioglou 2006, 143, fig. 7.18:2. Sampson 1985a, 35, 131, types 9, 147, figs. 6:P54, 7:P59, 26:T17, pl. 10:9. Pullen 1995, 11, 20. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 150. Goldman 1931, 83, 97; Caskey and Caskey 1960, 150–151, 153. Sampson 1993a, 74. MacGillivray 1980, 9–10, fig. 13:252. Angelopoulou 2008, fig. 16.4:24. Blegen et al. 1950, 53, 220–221. Morricone 1972–1973, 264, 267, figs. 213:1268; 217:1270, 1271. Marketou 1990a, 40; Davis 1992, 747; La Rosa 2001, 52–53. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57; Sampson 1988b, 229. Levi 1925–1926, 288, 291–292, fig. 75; Sampson 1988b, 230. Cosmopoulos 1991, 37–38. Caskey 1972, fig. 4:B58, B63; Wilson 1999, pl. 27:III118. MacGillivray 1979, 14, 23, figs. 13:100, 14:251. Angelopoulou 2008, fig. 16.4:25, 26. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 114, fig. 24:γ, pl. 65. Yiannouli 2002, 22–23, fig. 13. Eskitzioglou 2006, fig. 7.18:3. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 198:1475, 1478, 1480. Sampson 2002, 71. Aloupi 2002, 289. Sampson 2002, 72. Sampson 1993c, 102, chart 21, figs. 79–82, pls. 90, 91. Sampson 2006, 202. Immerwahr 1971, 33, pls. 7:86, 69:86. Sampson 2002, 71–73, figs. 63–67. Sampson 1993c, 89–91, chart 19, figs. 33:43, 76:13, 78. Sampson 2002, figs. 18:types 10, 22; 19:44; 25:47, 205; 215:215; 2006, 181–182, fig. 170. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 206, pl. 16:3. Immerwahr 1971, pl. 8:111–124. Phelps 2004, 114. Vitelli 1999, fig. 85. Coleman 1977, 16–17, pls. 36, 82, 83. Furness 1956, pl. 19:19. Phelps 2004, 70–71, 77–78, figs. 25:13, 30:15–19. Dousougli 1998, pls. 23:30, 38:132, 56:A, 58:A.

71

470. Sampson 1993c, figs. 55:24, 26; 56:1–3; pl. 23:first column third from top. 471. Coleman 1977, 13–15, pls. 30, 75 (especially AW), 76:A, 165*. 472. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 31:1, 2, 4; 32:1, 5; 38:2; 48:10–13; 49:6. 473. Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 3:7. 474. Sampson 2002, figs. 93:5, 35, 37, 45, 211; 94:278; 114:492; 115:503. 475. Felsch 1988, pls. 62:264, 67:328. 476. Sampson 1988b, 102, fig. 33:157(58). 477. Doumas 1977, 16, fig. 3:c, d; Karantzali 1996, 94. 478. Karantzali 1996, figs. 102:a–c, f; 103:a. 479. Karantzali 1996, fig. 6:a, b, f. 480. Doumas 1977, pls. 28:f; 30:b, c; 32:j; 33:n; Karantzali 1996, figs. 4d:MN1970, 4e:MN1966, 5:g. 481. Karantzali 1996, fig. 7:e. 482. Karantzali 1996, fig. 16b:MN187. 483. Doumas 1977, pl. 25:a, e; Karantzali 1996, fig. 4a. 484. Karantzali 1996, fig. 35b:MN1406. 485. Karantzali 1996, fig. 36c:MP1402. 486. Karantzali 1996, fig. 34b:MNat4784. 487. Fitton 1999, fig. 12. 488. Karantzali 1996, fig. 50a:MNat4960. 489. Karantzali 1996, fig. 58a:MNat5696. 490. Karantzali 1996, fig. 59b. 491. Doumas 1984, pls. 9, 10, 12. 492. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 27:b, 28:j, 31:i. 493. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 143:459; 144:483, 486; 364:916; pl. 54:486. 494. Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 237:31. 495. Sperling 1976, fig. 17:422. 496. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.12:11. 497. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 40:265. 498. Sampson 1987, figs. 106:146, 107:79. 499. Sampson 1987, fig. 86:12. 500. Melas 1988, fig. 8:19, pl. 54b:1. 501. Melas 1988, 292. 502. Karantzali 1996, 31. 503. Wiencke 2000, 569–572, figs. 2:31:P583, 2:87:left. 504. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 158, fig. 16:β, γ. 505. Wilson 1999, pl. 27:III-131, III-133. 506. Renfrew 1972, 534, pl. 9:6. 507. Karantzali 1996, fig. 29c:MN5791. 508. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 176–177, fig. 58γ:A3/25, ΑΠ.10, pl. 207. 509. Karantzali 1996, figs. 60B:MNat 4753, 60C. 510. Doumas 1977, 23, fig. 12:a–c; Fitton 1999, fig. 37:right. 511. Doumas 1984, 150, fig. 184.

72

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

512. Lamb 1936, pls. 9:390; 36:288, 327, 328; 37:390, 477. 513. Hood 1981–1982, 186–187, figs. 150:638, 642, 645; 153:637, 646; 173:1143–1145; 201:1571; pls. 51:a, d; 81g:first row first from left. 514. Felsch 1988, pl. 77:F40. 515. Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 228:35.759. 516. Kâmil 1982, fig. 36:113. 517. Warner 1994, pls. 163:a, e; 164:c; 168:a; 169:c; 172:b; 177:f, g. 518. Pecorella 1984, pl. 43:173. 519. Vermeule 1964, fig. 248:first row right. 520. Cosmopoulos 1991, 41; Angelopoulou 2003, 167–168, fig. 10. 521. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 224:2132. 522. Walter and Felten 1981, fig. 97. 523. Sampson 1993c, pl. 31:fifth row first from left. 524. Doumas 1977, 18–19, fig. 7b. 525. Karantzali 1996, 124, figs. 119:h-120:a. 526. MacGillivray 1980, 41, fig. 15:46. 527. Blegen et al. 1950, 235, fig. 400; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 30, fig. 77. 528. Lamb 1936, fig. 29a:second from right in second row, pl. 37:519, 582. 529. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 179:1194, 249:2554, pl. 72:1194. 530. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 646, pl. 160:a–d. 531. Blegen et al. 1950, 223. 532. Zachos 2008, fig. 25:Δ3, Δ40/81. 533. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 4b:second and fourth from left. 534. Christmann 1996, pl. 31:14. 535. Karantzali 1996, fig. 79:t18. 536. Caskey 1972, fig. 4:B63. 537. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 147, fig. 5.6:2, 5. 538. MacGillivray 1979, 14, 23, figs. 13:100, 14:251; 1980, 32–35, fig. 12:186, 188, 191, 193, 194, 235, 237, 238, 376. 539. Karantzali 1996, fig. 120:a, b. 540. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 114, figs. 24:γ, 28:Ξ352, pl. 65. 541. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.10:93, 105. 542. Sampson 2002, fig. 48:50. 543. Hood 1981–1982, 268–271, figs. 127:181; 128:207, 209, 210, 218. 544. Sampson 1987, 26, no. 6, figs. 24:242, 33:fourth row middle. 545. Sampson 1987, 71, no. 11, figs. 87:85, 95:fourth row, fifth row second. 546. Sampson 1987, fig. 111:fifth row second, third. 547. Sampson 1987, 88, no. 10, fig. 129:fourth row first. 548. Furness 1956, fig. 10:10; Benzi 2008, 96–97, fig. 40. 549. Sampson 1988b, 77, no. 4, chart 6:21, figs. 31:139, 34:166. 550. Phelps 2004, figs. 28:1, 3; 55:6. 551. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 16:δ.

552. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 559. 560. 561. 562. 563.

564. 565.

566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571.

572. 573. 574. 575. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. 583. 584. 585.

586. 587. 588.

Karantzali 1996, figs. 83:c, 86:MC27, MC643. Wilson 1999, pls. 9:II-205, 21:II-729. Renfrew and Evans 2007, fig. 5.8:6. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 56:20. Karantzali 1996, fig. 14:MAp.25. Karantzali 1996, fig. 20:Sx16. Sampson 2002, figs. 42:1039, 50:880. Karantzali 2006, 113, fig. 7.5:17. Sampson 2008a, figs. 2.12:118; 2.13:124; 2.24:357, 368; 2.25:380. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 51–53, 54:a, e, k, 1. Lamb 1936, pls. 13:487, 36:311. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 36:228; 37:218; 129:243; 182:1235, 1236; 183:1239, 1240; 184:1266–1268, 1270, 1274; 185:d; 186:1272, 1273; 196:1406; 203:1591, 1601, 1606; 204:1626–1628, 1630; 209:1820; 248:2533–2535. Milojčić 1961, pls. 37:6, 44, 45; 40:14, 27. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 223b:C3; 229:36.83; 265:7; 370a:C11, C12; 395–397; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 45a:C11, C12;154b:C11, C12. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 384:71–73. Sampson 1987, figs. 21:221, 50:557. Sampson 1987, fig. 15:73. Zachos 2008, fig. 64:154/81, 156/81. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 16:β. Sampson 1985a, figs. 3:P7, P8; 9α:1, 3, 11; 15:A14, A16; 16:T11, T15; 19:K16, K21; 21:K52; 22:K76, K77, K81, K86; 23:K96, K99; 24δ:Γ18; 24ε:Γ31; 27:T.30. Karantzali 1996, fig. 62c:MH3781. Caskey 1972, fig. 3:B42. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 136, fig. 5.8:5. Karantzali 1996, fig. 14:Map.244. Karantzali 1996, fig. 20:Sx16, Sx20. Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, fig. 6:24. Karantzali 1996, fig. 23e:MN4631. MacGillivray 1980, fig. 11:42, 43, 371. Sotirakopoulou 1999, figs. 40β:B53, B60, Γ84; 43:Φ231. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.8:78. Marangou 1984, fig. 12. Sampson 2008a, fig. 2.24:346. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pl. 224:f. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 36:223–225; 37:227; 129:230; 132:283, 285; 155:681, 686, 690, 719, 721–723; 156:705, 707–709; 181:1213; 182:1235; 183:1262, 1266–1269; 204:1628, 1632–1634; 219:1928, 1931, 1932; 223:2093; 225:2154; 226:2227, 2230; 229:2279; 251:2586–2588. Felsch 1988, pl. 73:476–479. Milojčić 1961, pls. 36:22; 37:46, 72; 40:2, 7; 42:10. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 370a:C9–C11; 370β:C15; 389:a; 390:35.431; 391–393; 394:35.492, 35.430; 395:35.656, 35.607; 396:35.548; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 59b:C10; 75; 154b:C9–11, C13, C14; 163–165.

POTTERY SHAPES 589. 590. 591. 592. 593. 594. 595. 596. 597. 598. 599. 600. 601. 602. 603. 604. 605. 606.

607. 608. 609. 610.

611. 612. 613. 614. 615. 616. 617.

618. 619. 620. 621. 622. 623. 624. 625. 626. 627.

Sampson 1985a, fig. 14:A6. Karantzali 2006, fig. 7.8:9. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 145:527, 149:612. MacGillivray 1980, fig. 15:396. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 149–151, fig. 44β:B76. Yiannouli 2002, 33–34, fig. 21:K15/3st2. Karantzali 2006, 112, fig. 7.5:15. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 227:2244. Yiannouli 2002, 33–34; Karantzali 2006, 112. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 16:γ, θ, ι. Sampson 1985a, pl. 13. Wilson 1999, pl. 28:III-147. Karantzali 1996, 26, fig. 52:a. Karantzali 1996, 26, fig. 14:MAp.244. Sampson 2008a, fig. 2.24:344, 369. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 54:a, 78:a, 133:f. Lamb 1936, pl. 37:443. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 155:677; 180:a; 181:1213–1216; 184:1247, 1248, 1250; 186:1249, 1272; 196:1394A; 203:1591; 204:1608, 1610, 1613, 1625; 215:1887; 223:2087; 226:2214; 229:2276; 250:2565, 2566, 2575, 2576; 251:2578. Milojčić 1961, pls. 35:16, 25, 83; 40:2; 42:19. Sampson 1985a, pl. 13. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 54:b, k, 1; 78:f. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 132:287, 288, 291; 180:a; 184:1250, 1266; 186:1249, 1252, 1263; 215:1887, 1890; 219:1928; 221:2010; 223:2088; 229:2279; 250:2576. Caskey and Caskey 1960, fig. 11:9. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 54:c. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 222:2067. Phelps 2004, fig. 55:5. Sampson 2002, figs. 48:50, 51:813. Sampson 2008a, figs. 2.24:362, 2.25:381. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 17:69; 29:168–170; 30:174–178; 31:180–183; 127:181, 183, 185, 192–194; 128:207, 209–211, 222; 130:251, 252, 258; 131: 265, 272, 276, 280; 155:659; 156:662, 672; 179:1231; 181:1196, 1198, 1203, 1204; 184:1244. Felsch 1988, pls. 65:297, 68:379. Sampson 1987, fig. 24:241, 242. Sampson 1987, fig. 87:85. Sampson 1987, fig. 140:13. Sampson 1987, fig. 141:26. Sampson 1987, fig. 121:66. Benzi 2008, 96–97, figs. 41, 44. Sampson 1988b, figs. 31:139, 34:166, 49:247, 54:284, 69β:4. Sampson 1985a, figs. 24γ:Γ5, 27:T31. Karantzali 1996, fig. 58:b.

73

628. Atkinson et al. 1904, figs. 67, 69; Renfrew and Evans 2007, 138, fig. 5.2:1. 629. Karantzali 1996, fig. 36c:MP1397–1399, MP1401. 630. Karantzali 1996, fig. 36:b. 631. Karantzali 1996, fig. 35b:MN2072. 632. Karantzali 1996, fig. 35a:MP1403; Fitton 1999, figs. 13, 14. 633. Doumas 1977, 91, pl. 31:d; Karantzali 1996, fig. 5b:MN1961. 634. Renfrew 1972, 155, fig. 10.2:7. 635. Doumas 1977, 109, pl. 37:a. 636. Karantzali 1996, fig. 12b:MN268. 637. Karantzali 1996, fig. 16a:MAp.1009. 638. Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, fig. 5:10. 639. Karantzali 1996, fig. 9:MNat6112. 640. Karantzali 1996, fig. 22:d. 641. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 161–163, fig. 47:δ, pl. 183. 642. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.10:104. 643. Yiannouli 2002, fig. 22:K15/2d2. 644. Karantzali 2006, 106, 112, figs. 7.2:8, 7.5:14. 645. Doumas 1977, 16, 18, fig. 3:f–h, 6:f; 1984, 32, 37–40; Fitton 1999, 27. 646. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 155:683–685, 687; 156:704, 731–733; 181:1218, 1224, 1225; 183:1254, 1261, 1265; 196:1399; 231:2331. 647. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 370b:C28; 403:36.742, 36.849; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 30, fig. 59b:C28. 648. Doumas 1977, 23, fig. 12:h. 649. Sampson 1985a, 32, figs. 4:P30; 24ζ:Π1; 1988a, 32, 65, 164. 650. Doumas 1977, 124, pl. 49:j. 651. Karantzali 1996, 25, fig. 21:a; Angelopoulou 2008, fig. 16.6:10. 652. Karantzali 1996, 28, fig. 29:b. 653. Karantzali 1996, 41, fig. 60:g; Yiannouli 2002, 34–35, fig. 22. 654. Karantzali 1996, 41, fig. 60:b. 655. Karantzali 1996, 2, fig. 21:a. 656. Karantzali 1996, fig. 41:a, f. 657. Doumas 1984, pls. 189, 191, 192. 658. Blegen et al. 1950, 236, no. C28, figs. 370b, 401:35.515; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 30, fig. 59b:C28. 659. Pecorella 1984, pls. 32:120, 43:170. 660. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55, fig. 7:1. 661. Angelopoulou 2006, fig. 29; 2008, fig. 16.6:9. 662. Karantzali 1996, 106, figs. 109:e, 109A. 663. Karantzali 2006, 109–112, figs. 1, 2. 664. Phelps 2004, figs. 33:12, 18, 19; 41:7, 15; 58:1, 3, 5. 665. Coleman 1977, pls. 32:N, 33:134. 666. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 53:4.

74

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

667. Sampson 2002, figs. 32:1030, 41:72, 43:53, 44:512, 1038. 668. Sampson 2008a, figs. 2.23:327, 329, 338, 339; 2.24:370. 669. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 31:189; 34:205, 207, 211; 35:215, 216; 37:226; 128:216, 219, 223; 130:257; 181:1205; 184:1246–1248; 196:1393A, 1394A; 203:1588, 1589, 1596, 1597; 204:1608–1613; 223:2081, 2082; 225:2143; 229:2275, 2276; 237:2396; 250:2564–2568, 2570, 2571. 670. Felsch 1988, pl. 65:298. 671. Sampson 1987, figs. 17:173–175; 18:177–182, 192; 19:197, 202; 20:212, 213; 21:222; 24:240; 25:250; 27:272; 46:490, 495, 500, 501; 47:504, 511, 512; 48:526; 50:553, 554, 570. 672. Sampson 1987, fig. 91:67. 673. Sampson 1987, figs. 103:44; 105:65, 66, 69; 110:97. 674. Sampson 1987, fig. 124:92. 675. Sampson 1988b, figs. 29:123, 129; 31:133; 39:189; 41:202; 48:237; 51:255; 55:288; 69β:2, 10. 676. Rutter 1995, 401–402, ill.S-15:1, figs. 103:1245, 119:1379. 677. Goldman 1931, fig. 103. 678. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, pl. 37:γ. 679. Sampson 1985a, figs. 7:P60, 22:K84, 24δ:Γ10, 35:43. 680. Karantzali 1996, 84, 138, fig. 86:MC643. 681. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 5:g, o, w; 7:n; 51; 52:a, f; 53:a, c; 122:g; 150:a, g. 682. Acheilara, 1997, 307, ill. 6; Dova 2003, fig. 7:5. 683. Lamb 1936, figs. 26:amphora, type 3; 29a:amphora 1, pl. 13:487. 684. Hood 1981–1982, 197, figs. 101:46, 182:1235, 183:1239. 685. Blegen et al. 1950, 64, fig. 267:35.542. 686. Warner 1994, pls. 162:h, I; 163:g; 168:h; 174:b; 178:b, c; 179:b. 687. Sampson 1987, fig. 92:73. 688. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 123:c. 689. Müller [1938] 1976, figs. 35; 64:2, 3. 690. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 15:α, δ, ε. 691. Wilson 1999, pl. 12:II-327. 692. Atkinson et al. 1904, 96–97, pl. 34:1. 693. MacGillivray 1980, 39–41, figs. 15:268, 394, 395; 16. 694. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 149–151, figs. 44β:B91, A3/46, Δ78; 46:α. 695. Broodbank 2007, figs. 6.8:76; 6.9:83, 87, 88. 696. Eskitzioglou 2006, 151, fig. 7:23:4, 6. 697. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 54:f, 77:f, g, i; Cultraro 1997, fig. 4:20. 698. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 187:1284, 1285, 1290–1292, 1295; 204:1642; 231:2333; 251:2590. 699. Milojčić 1961, pl. 48:38. 700. Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 414:20. 701. Weisshaar 1990, 8, 28, pl. 7.

702. 703. 704. 705. 706. 707. 708. 709. 710. 711. 712. 713. 714. 715. 716. 717. 718. 719. 720. 721. 722. 723. 724. 725. 726. 727. 728. 729. 730. 731. 732. 733. 734. 735. 736. 737.

738. 739. 740. 741.

Goldman 1931, fig. 108. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 15:β, γ, ι. Wilson 1999, pl. 12:II-325, II-326. MacGillivray 1980, 39–41, fig. 13:270, 271. Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, 74, fig. 6:25–29. Angelopoulou 2006, fig. 24. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 149–151, figs. 44β:B76, Δ210; 56. Eskitzioglou 2006, 151, fig. 7.23:4; Karantzali 2006, 126, 128, figs. 7.11:7, 7.12:5. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 173, fig. 5.19. MacGillivray 1980, 39–41, fig. 15:268. Angelopoulou 2006, fig. 25; 2008, fig. 16.5:3. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 15:ο. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 173, fig. 5.21. Sotirakopoulou 1999, fig. 43:Φ171, Φ175, Φ176. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 157:747, 187:1293, 225:2158, 229:2284, 251:2586–2588, pl. 76:1293. Zachos 2008, figs. 64:1119/81; 66:904/82, 322/82. Wilson 1999, pl. 12:II-327, II-331. Angelopoulou 2003, fig. 27:top. Eskitzioglou 2006, 151, fig. 7.23:4. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 77:f; 130:j; 133:a, b. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 157:744; 187:1291, 1284, 1285; 251:2590. Milojčić 1961, pls. 43:25, 48:38. Sampson 1987, 81; 2002, 61. Hood 1981–1982, 247–248; Sampson 2002, 61–70. Sampson 2002, 61–70; 2006, 182–183, fig. 171, pls. 12:5; 13:1, 2. Hood 1981–1982, 37, 247–249, 309, figs. 19:91–93, 119, 141, pl. 30. Immerwahr 1971, pls. 12:184–186, 188; 13:214. Karali 1981, fig. 230. Spitaels 1982, fig. 1.15:47. Keller 1982, 60, figs. 2.12:P68, P124; 2.14. Holmberg 1944, fig. 82:c. Phelps 2004, 115–116. Vitelli 2007, fig. 91:b. Pullen 1995, fig. 2:22. Sampson 2002, 64. Christmann 1996, pls. 1:18; 70:7; 71:9, 13, 14; 72:16–18; 75:3, 4, 7; 76:11; 80:1–4; 84:2, 3, 5, 6; 89:6; 91:14; 95:11, 12; 106:25–27; 134:16, 18; 139:19. Liaros 2003, 239–240, figs. 5:K VII, K 23, K 26; 6:K VII, K 23, K 24, K 26, K 27. Sampson 1993c, 166, figs. 187, 188. Walter and Felten 1981, pl. 78:65–71. Caskey 1972, 360, fig. 2:A15, A16; Coleman 1977, 17, pls. 37:F–J, 84:A–N, V; Wilson 1999, 7, pl. 3:I-98–I112; Nowicki 2002, 54–59.

POTTERY SHAPES 742. 743. 744. 745. 746. 747. 748. 749. 750. 751. 752. 753. 754. 755. 756. 757. 758. 759. 760. 761. 762. 763. 764. 765. 766. 767. 768. 769. 770. 771. 772. 773. 774. 775. 776. 777. 778. 779. 780. 781. 782. 783.

Koutsoukou 1993, 101, fig. 3:10. Renfrew 1972, 141; Karantzali 1996, fig. 121:a. Hadjianastasiou 1988, 17; Karantzali 1996, fig. 120:d. Sampson 2006, 201. Belmont and Renfrew 1964, 395, pl. 127:9. Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, 39, fig. 10:1–8; KatsarouTzeveleki and Schilardi 2006, 196. Karantzali 1996, 124–125 n. 14. Sotirakopoulou 2008a, 123, fig. 14.4. Yiannouli 2002, 29–30. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 41:b; Tiné 1997c, pl. 6:c. Dova 1997, fig. 6; 2003, fig. 3:11, 12. Felsch 1988, pls. 35:8; 40:2, 3; 61:243; 70: 424, 425; 74:481, 482. Milojčić 1961, pls. 35:74, 40:25, 44:17. Takaöglu 2006, 301, fig. 11:32. Voigtländer 1982, fig. 2:8, 9; Parzinger 1989, fig. 3:1. Voigtländer 1986, 640, no. 11, fig. 18:11. Dova 1997, 288 n. 27. Eslick 1992, pls. 73:26, 75:14, 110:d, 111:d. Joukowsky 1986, figs. 377:48, 389:9. Sampson 1987, 31; Nowicki 2002, 59. Vagnetti 1996, 32, fig. 2:4; Nowicki 2002, 20–49, 54–59; Papadatos 2008, 262, fig. 15.4:f. Sampson 1987, 81, 89–90; 1988b, 96. Sampson 1987, 30, 86, 92–93; 1988b, 102, 232. Sampson 2006, 230, 232, 235. Sampson 1987, 30. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 163, 165, fig. 9:5, pl. 44a:3; Sampson 1987, 31. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 163, 165, pls. 44a:3, 44b:1. Burton Brown 1947; Furness 1956, 193; Benzi 2008, 96, figs 37, 38. Sampson 2006, 242. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 69–70; Melas 1985, 86. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57, pl. 20b:4. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58, fig. 7:8. Levi 1925–1926, 294–295, fig. 82. Sampson 1987, 89. Sampson 2002, 61. Sampson 2002, 61. Sampson 2002, 62. Sampson 2002, fig. 61. Sampson 2002, 63. Sampson 1988b, 96. Nowicki 2002, fig. 32:3–8, 11–13, 15, 19. Sampson 2002, 64.

784. 785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 791. 792. 793. 794. 795. 796. 797. 798. 799. 800. 801. 802. 803. 804. 805. 806. 807. 808. 809. 810. 811. 812.

813. 814. 815. 816. 817. 818. 819. 820. 821. 822. 823. 824.

75

Sampson 1988b, 96. Sampson 1988b, figs. 28:105, 37:182. Sampson 2002, 63. Sampson 1987, fig. 102:24–32. Sampson 1987, 90, figs. 126–128. Sampson 1988b, 100. Sampson 2002, figs. 56:348, 351, 357; 57:359; 60:376. Nowicki 2002, fig. 32:4, 15. Sampson 1987, figs. 126:99, 102, 103, 107; 127:110, 112. Sampson 1988b, chart 8:bases 1, 2. Sampson 2002, figs. 57:366; 58:362, 372; 60:386; 61: 375, 384. Nowicki 2002, 59. Papadatos 2008, 262, fig. 15.4:f. Sampson 2002, 63–64, figs. 58:374, 59:383, 60:377, 61:385. Felsch 1988, pl. 35:8. Hood 1981–1982, 309, fig. 141:432. Sampson 1988b, 96–100. Dova 2003, 103, fig. 3:11, 12. Sampson 1988b, 100. Sampson 1988b, 100. Sampson 2002, 64. Sampson 1988b, 100, fig. 68γ; 2002, 63. Liaros 2003, 240. Sampson 2002, 65, table 1. Sampson 1987, 79–80. Sampson 1988b, 54. Zachos 2008, fig. 43:55/81. MacGillivray 2008, 172, fig. 4.11:216. Rutter 1995, ills. S-13:1, 2, 4, S-17:1, 5, figs. 50:729, 63:857; Wiencke 2000, figs. II.9:161, II.28:537, II.57:895, II.85:3var, pl. 17:P999. Müller [1938] 1976, pl. 10:1, 6. Goldman 1931, figs. 157, 159. Christmann 1996, pls. 71:23, 90:2. Warren 1972, figs. 38:P11, 77, 78, 88:P681, 90. Wilson 1999, pls. 9:II-196; 24:III-78; 27:III-94, III-141; 50:II-196 (without the stamped decoration). Renfrew and Evans 2007, 173, fig. 5.18:12, 13. MacGillivray 1980, fig. 15:46. Karantzali 1996, figs. 18:Sx25, 21a:MN5028. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.15:198, 199. Eskitzioglou 2006, 151, fig. 7.24:5–7; Karantzali 2006, 128, fig. 7.12:1. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 623, 641, pls. 124:d, e; 150:c; 162:a. Hood 1981–1982, 198, 414, figs. 101:47C, 104:B, 168:1031, 169:1038, 190, 225:2251, pl. 73:1240.

76

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

825. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 370a:C15, 390:35.431, 396:35.489, 412:22. 826. Pecorella 1984, fig. 8:59. 827. Parzinger 1989, fig. 3:10. 828. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 393:1, 25a. 829. Furness 1956, 188, fig. 10:1. 830. Levi 1925–1926, figs. 78; 88:B, C. 831. Sampson 1985a, fig. 24ζ:Π13. 832. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 182:1234, 183:1243. 833. Rutter 1995, figs. 20:373, 21:375, 37:580, 43:721, 71:952, 72:955, 73:956, 89:1099, 116:1348. 834. Rutter 1995, fig. 43:720. 835. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 480, pl. 46:480. 836. Coleman 1977, pl. 38:C. 837. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, pl. 48:a. 838. Karantzali 1996, fig. 160:M7. 839. Warren 1972, fig. 89. 840. Christmann 1996, pl. 72:6. 841. Rutter 1995, ills. S-13:3, S-17:2a. 842. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 115:o, 142:a, 150:c; II, pl. 205:d, f–h. 843. Lamb 1936, pl. 33:6a, b. 844. Hood 1981–1982, 458, figs. 165:925, 168:1031, 206, pl. 83b. 845. Milojčić 1961, pls. 35:18, 41:23. 846. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 59–60; 154–156; 238; 247:39; 370a:C12, C13; 397; 398; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 74:34.288; 164: 33.115, 37.888; 165; 170:9. 847. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 408:7. 848. Levi 1925–1926, 300, figs. 88:bottom, 88A. 849. Morricone 1972–1973, figs. 273:a, 301, 302. 850. Rutter 1995, 318, ill. S-4:2; Wiencke 2000, 554–555, figs. 2.11:199, 2.68:1159, II.82. 851. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 160, pl. 60:ξ. 852. Warren 1972, fig. 64:P360, P365, P367. 853. Doumas 1977, fig. 13d. 854. Wilson 1999, pls. 20:II-631; 47:II-98, II-102, II-103. 855. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.16:219. 856. Theochari and Parlama 1997, 354, fig. 14:first in the second row. 857. Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 247:21. 858. Melas 1985, 66, fig. 85:656, 659. 859. Blegen et al. 1950, 64, 229, figs. 380–382; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 25–26, 126, 242, figs. 68, 69; Mangani 1997, figs. 5, 6. 860. Efe and Ilasli 1997, pl. 3:7–11; Sotirakopoulou 1997, 531; Eskitzioglou 2006, 145. 861. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 426:9, 10. 862. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 509:1, 4. 863. Warner 1994, pl. 165:a.

864. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 639, pl. 143:a–f, k; II, pls. 191:a–e, 192:a–e. 865. Lamb 1936, 134, pl. 13:599. 866. Hood 1981–1982, 556–558, fig. 248:2537, pl. 107. 867. Milojčić 1961, pls. 15:6; 21:1; 28:7; 39:8; 47:4, 6, 7, 9. 868. Sampson 1985a, 255, figs. 59, 59α:25, 64α:58, 84, 85α:α; 1988a, fig. 91:48; 1993b, fig. 2:b. 869. Walter and Felten 1981, 155, pl. 85:130. 870. Caskey 1972, 370, 372–373, fig. 6:C45–48, pl. 80:C1, C9, C42–C44; Wilson and Eliot 1984, 78; Karantzali 1996, fig. 115:MK1176; Wilson 1999, pls. 30:III-244, III-247, III-259; 33:III-320, III-336, III-340; 63:II-482; 87:III-327–III-329, III-335–III-338. 871. Tsountas 1899, 75, pl. 9:11. 872. Tsountas 1899, 93, pl. 9:5, 7. 873. MacGillivray 1980, 19–20, fig. 5:14, 58, 63, 119, 299, 434; 1984, fig. 1:b. 874. Overbeck 1989, 6, fig. 6:a, b. 875. Karantzali 1996, fig. 115:MN5027; Angelopoulou 2008, fig. 16.4:31. 876. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 125–129, fig. 34α, pls. 88–90. 877. Eskitzioglou 2006, fig. 7.19:8. 878. Parlama 1984, 93, 321–322. 879. Renfrew 1972, 533, fig. 20.4:2. 880. Doumas and Angelopoulou 1997, 546, fig. 6; Sotirakopoulou 1999, 126–127. 881. Christmann 1996, pls. 90:22, 94:4, 100:1, 103:14. 882. Rutter 1995, 270–307. 883. Benzi 1997, 386, pl. 1d. 884. Benzi 1997, 386, pl. 1e. 885. Marketou 1990a, 41, fig. 2. 886. Hood 1981–1982, 557; Sotirakopoulou 1999, 127–128; Angelopoulou 2003, figs. 1–3. 887. Goldman 1931, 86, fig. 117:3, 6; Caskey and Caskey 1960, pl. 51:VIII.28. 888. Hatzipouliou-Kalliri 1983, 370, pl. 39:Π281, Π284, Π287, Π292, Π295. 889. Heermance and Lord 1897, 319–320, 322, figs. I:1–7, II:4. 890. Rutter 1995, 391, fig. 7:P115. 891. Papathanassopoulos et al. 1990, 12–13, fig. 19:α, β. 892. Sampson 1988a, fig. 32. 893. Karantzali 1996, fig. 62b:MH3726. 894. Karantzali 1996, figs. 71:MH7531, MH7533; 72:MH7532, MH7534. 895. Karantzali 1996, fig. 77a:MH10815, MH10821, MH10849. 896. Wilson 1999, pls. 35:III-421, III-422; 65:II-570. 897. Karantzali 1996, fig. 13:MAp.525. 898. Karantzali 1996, fig. 14:MAp.32.

POTTERY SHAPES 899. Tsountas 1898, 166–167, pl. 9:19, 20; Karantzali 1996, figs. 60B:MNat4753; 60C:MNat4752, MNat 4754. 900. Fitton 1999, pl. 37:right. 901. Doumas 1977, 23, figs. 12:a–c, 13:i, 23, 24. 902. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 42:a; 43:a, d; 44:b; 122:j; 144:a, b, g; 145:d; 149:a. 903. Lamb 1936, pls. 8:69, 70, 139, 140, 161, 163, 253; 9:296, 390; 10:560, 571; 12; 35:12, 14, 18, 22, 70, 99, 101, 115, 117, 128, 129, 139, 140, 204, 233; 36:234, 251, 252, 287, 288, 296 327, 347; 37:413, 415. 904. Felsch 1988, pls. 39:6; 40:1; 42.2:464; 45:6; 73:463, 464. 905. Milojčić 1961, pls. 21:7, 37:21. 906. Hood 1981–1982, 186–188, figs. 99:23, 24, 325; 150:638, 642, 645; 151; 152:section 1; 153:637, 639, 646; 174:1145, 1149, 1151–1155; 177:1164; 257:2658; pl. 67:1149, 1150, 1151–1155, 1164. 907. Schliemann [1881] 1976, figs. 360, 1154; Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 227:35.649. 908. Kâmil 1982, 50–51, figs. 36:113–117; 38:38; 46:172; 52:188; 53:189, 190; 81:279. 909. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, figs. P.32:1, 3; P.40:6. 910. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 411:2–4. 911. Parzinger 1989, fig. 3:11. 912. Warner 1994, pls. 162:e; 163:a, b, e, f; 164:a, c, e, g; 165:f, g; 168:a–c, j; 169:b, c; 172:b; 173:i; 174:c, g, h; 75:f; 176:a, e, h; 177:e–g; 179:e, h; 180:a, b, h; 181:a, b; 182:b, f. 913. Pecorella 1984, figs. 2:18–20, 3, 13:41, 15:2–4, pl. 33:123. 914. Vermeule 1964, 245–249. 915. Sampson 1988b, fig. 91:2. 916. Lamb 1936, figs. 26, 28, 29, pls. 8:70; 10:560, 571; 12:12, 14, 15, 115, 117, 233, 252, 288. 917. Morricone 1972–1973, 268, figs. 219, 223:second row, 269. 918. Kâmil 1982, 45, no. 166, fig. 66:220. 919. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 128:i. 920. Christmann 1996, pls. 21:23; 63:9, 11. 921. Walter and Felten 1981, pls. 82:115; 84:123, 124. 922. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 173, figs. 5.19, 5.21. 923. Karantzali 1996, fig. 13:MAp.525, MAp.831. 924. Karantzali 1996, fig. 14:MAp.32. 925. Karantzali 1996, figs. 27b:MN4562, 29:MN5791. 926. Sotirakopoulou 1999, pl. 206:A3/20; 2008a, fig. 14.11. 927. Wilson 1999, pls. 6:II-11, 69:II-726. 928. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 1:3; 4:p; 7:o; 42–47; 122:j, k, m; 123; 144:f, g; 151:a; II, pls. 207–210. 929. Lamb 1936, pls. 8:24, 25, 58, 69, 70, 73, 139, 140, 161, 163, 253; 9:296, 390; 10:560, 571; 12; 13:597, 599; 35:12, 14, 18, 22, 70, 99, 101, 115, 117, 128, 129, 139, 140, 204, 233; 36:234, 251, 252, 287, 288, 296 327, 347; 37:413, 415.

77

930. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 108; 150:638, 645, 717; 152; 160:802; 176–178; 201:1572; 203:1598, 1599; 206:1712–1716 (but only sections); 212:1843, 1846; 214:1868; 221:2023; 230:2305; 233:2343; 237:2393, 2394; 249:2547, 2548, 2555; pls. 67–69, 71:a-3. 931. Felsch 1988, pls. 40.2:465; 43:3, 4; 53:67; 54:81. 932. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 130:B1–B4, B6–B8, B12–B23, 131a:C1, C2, C5–C7, C16. 933. Felsch 1988, pls. 54:74, 60:238. 934. Papadatos, forthcoming. 935. Phelps 2004, figs. 51:30; 58:3, 5; 60:5. 936. Immerwahr 1971, 23, fig. 8, pl. 1:8. 937. Coleman 1977, 16, pls. 33:97, 134; 78:97, 134, 135, 137; 84:BD. 938. Immerwahr 1971, 4–9. 939. Coleman 1977, 9–10. 940. Phelps 2004, 112. 941. Hood 1981–1982, 14, 29, 37. 942. Sampson 1987, 31–32, 72. 943. Sampson 1988b, 102. 944. Goldman 1931, 120, fig. 164. 945. Mylonas 1959, 126. 946. Betancourt and Davaras 2003, 12, pl. 23:1.53, 1.61–1.70. 947. Renfrew and Evans 2007, figs. 5.11:3, 5, 6; 5.12; 5.13:4; 5.15:1; 5.16; 5.17:3, 4; 5.18:12. 948. Coleman 1977, pl. 38:C. 949. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.16:217. 950. Lamb 1936, 79. 951. Hood 1981–1982, 216, 417, pl. 79a:right. 952. Blegen et al. 1950, 65. 953. Voigtländer 1982, fig. 5:25. 954. Voigtländer 1986, 640, nos. 10, 12, fig. 18:10, 12. 955. Eslick 1992, pl. 105:e. 956. Pecorella 1984, fig. 17:47. 957. Goldman 1931, fig. 115:1. 958. Hood 1981–1982, 209, figs. 108:14, 153:651. 959. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 236:15, 16, 21; 247:28, 29, 31. 960. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 223b:C16–C18; 229:36.736, 35.543; 250:11; 267:35.538; 370b:C16, C19, C21, C22; 399–400; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, figs. 59b:C19, C21; 74:35.516; 76–77; 45a:C16, C18; 45b:C19, C21, C22; 166; 167:32.1167, 33.177, 37.1229; 238:C22. 961. Walter and Felten 1981, pl. 89:172, XVI. 962. Wilson 1999, pl. 25:III-94, III-97. 963. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pls. 213, 214:b, 216:a. 964. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 179:1194; 182:1235; 203:1590, 1598; pls. 72:1184, 73:1235. 965. Milojčić 1961, pls. 36:16, 22; 43:11; 44:12. 966. Efe 2007, fig. 11:b.

78

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

967. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.13:1, 4, 5, 7–9. 968. Joukowsky 1986, figs. 371; 373; 384:28, 32, 36; 385:7, 14, 17, 24; 402:39; 405:9; 427:1, 4–9. 969. Sampson 1987, 89, fig. 123:86, 91. 970. Levi 1925–1926, 295–298, figs. 83–86. 971. Holmberg 1944, fig. 70:e. 972. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, pl. 61:γ, ε. 973. Christmann 1996, pls. 12:6, 16:22. 974. Sampson 1985a, fig. 20:K25. 975. Coleman 1977, pl. 84:AL, AR. 976. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 58:1, pl. 30b:fourth in the lower row. 977. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 59:c; Traverso 1997, pl. 17:n. 978. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 2268, pls. 52a:first row third from left, 97:2268, 104:2394. 979. Lamb 1936, pl. 34:1. 980. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 245:2, 6, 12; 247:23, 26, 27, 33; 248:3. 981. MacGillivray 2008, 168, fig. 4.8:147. 982. Hood 1981–1982, 208–209, figs. 104:7, 8; 108:10; 150:717; 160:802; 174:1155; 178:1188; 179:1190; 182:1235, 1236. 983. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.11:6. 984. Sampson 1988b, 96, chart 7:fifth column from left, fig. 33:155. 985. Wiencke 2000, figs. II.6:65; II.11:202, 203; II.86:5. 986. Runnels 1995, fig. 11:180. 987. Goldman 1931, fig. 150:2. 988. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 160–161, pl. 29. 989. Sampson 1985a, 141, fig. 19:K7, pl. 14. 990. Sampson 1993a, figs. 15:55, 26:57. 991. Christmann 1996, pls. 7:14, 9:8. 992. Eskitzioglou 2006, 151, fig. 7.23:8. 993. Parlama 1984, 91. 994. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 59:d, g. 995. Lamb 1936, pls. 34:1, 36:311, 37:582. 996. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 178:1184; 191:1210; 212: 1846; 249:2548, 2554. 997. Blegen et al. 1950, 70, figs. 265:14; 267:35.543; 229:35.543; 248:11, 13. 998. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 277, fig. 207. 999. Rutter 1995, 460, pls. 4d:P250, 12a:P621–P623. 1000. Zachos 2008, pl. 18:862/81. 1001. Phelps 2004, 118–119, figs. 58:3, 5; 60:9, 12; 101:2, 4, 11, 17. 1002. Sampson 1993c, 185–186, fig. 191:3. 1003. Coleman 1977, 16, pls. 33:134, 135; 35; 78; 79. 1004. Evans and Renfrew 1968, pl. 30a:first in the lower row. 1005. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 158–159, fig. 52, pls. 170, 280.

1006. Felsch 1988, pl. 22.2:188. 1007. Melas 1985, figs. 35:786, 87:786. 1008. Sampson 1987, fig. 110:111. 1009. Furness 1956, 189, pl. XVIII:8, 9. 1010. Sampson 1988b, 30, 94–96, chart 7, figs. 68; 56:297, 298; 61:300; 66; 75; 79. 1011. Rutter 1995, 460, pl. 12:P624. 1012. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 164:a; II, pl. 218:e. 1013. Hood 1981–1982, 411, fig. 187:1287. 1014. Milojčić 1961, pl. 37:69, 80, 85. 1015. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 250:10, 391–394. 1016. Coleman 1977, pls. 35:137, 78:137. 1017. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 45:6, 8. 1018. Sampson 2002, figs. 83:89, 92; 84:111, 270, 294; 85:98, 182, 201, 271; 86:108. 1019. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 2:g, 7:o. 1020. Felsch 1988, pls. 52:38a, 60:238, 65:304. 1021. Eslick 1992, pls. 24:63, 25:65. 1022. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.13:1, 9. 1023. Sampson 1987, figs. 17:170; 20:211; 22:230; 23:235, 239; 24:244. 1024. Sampson 1987, fig. 85:5. 1025. Sampson 1987, fig. 141:24. 1026. Sampson 1987, fig. 123:91. 1027. Sampson 1988b, 94–96, chart 7, figs. 45:222, 51:256, 64, 66:left. 1028. Renfrew and Evans 2007, 173, fig. 5.20. 1029. Angelopoulou 2008, 158–159, fig. 16.12. 1030. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 157–159, figs. 49:Δ294, 56. 1031. Milojčić 1961, pls. 26:4; 40:5, 7; 41:30; 42:10, 12. 1032. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 8:4, 14:1, 105:25, 106:32a. 1033. Coleman 1977, pl. 29:K. 1034. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 57:4, pl. 30b:first from left in second row. 1035. Sampson 2002, figs. 80:683, 95:670, 96:136, 97:701, 134. 1036. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 5:n. 1037. Sampson 1987, figs. 27:278, 29:295. 1038. Sampson 1988b, fig. 24:70. 1039. Phelps 2004, fig. 54:17. 1040. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 105:27, 106:31c, 158:771, 179:1232, 192:1323. 1041. Eslick 1992, pls. 103:d, 104:a. 1042. Sampson 1988b, fig. 65; 2006, fig. 238. 1043. Christmann 1996, pl. 141:1, 16. 1044. Holmberg 1944, figs. 37:d, 38:a. 1045. Phelps 2004, fig. 51:3. 1046. Immerwahr 1971, pl. 13:197. 1047. Sampson 1993c, fig. 92:1.

POTTERY SHAPES 1048. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 38:1, 57:6. 1049. Sampson 2002, figs. 87:722, 723; 100:690; 101:704; 112:847. 1050. Sampson 2008a, fig. 2.31:477. 1051. Sampson 1987, figs. 101:6, 105:68. 1052. Sampson 1988b, fig. 24:68. 1053. Sampson 1981, 110, fig. 7:50. 1054. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 57:1. 1055. Sampson 2002, fig. 112:847, 870. 1056. Sampson 1987, 29, 72. 1057. Sampson 1987, 27–28. 1058. Koumouzelis 1980, fig. 9:7. 1059. Mylonas [1928] 1975, 95, fig. 73:b. 1060. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 39:c. 1061. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 236:2377, 2390; pls. 70:1893; 102:2377, 2390. 1062. Milojčić 1961, pl. 37:1. 1063. Sampson 1988b, fig. 59:221, pl. 63:second from left in top row. 1064. Zachos 2008, fig. 20:152/82. 1065. Vitelli 1999, figs. 4:e, 58:i, 59:c, 65:a, d. 1066. Sampson 1993c, fig. 48:56. 1067. Vagnetti and Belli 1978, pl. 7:2, 152. 1068. Vagnetti 1996, 31–32, fig. 1.5. 1069. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 39, fig. 58:3–13, pl. 31a. 1070. Sampson 2002, 98–99, fig. 110:179, 620–623, 628–631. 1071. Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 2:14, 15, 17. 1072. Sampson 1993c, figs. 34:77, 48:56, 66. 1073. Coleman 1977, pls. 27:138; 28:104; 29:N, P; 30:B. 1074. Parlama 1984, fig. 6:4. 1075. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 28:d. 1076. Lamb 1936, fig. 27, pls. 10:iii, 11:8, 32:1–6. 1077. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 38:205, 207, 237; 105:209, 210; 106:283, 284, 383; 172:384, 414, 415. 1078. Furness 1956, 181 fig. 9:183, 184; Felsch 1988, pls. 71:445; 79:3a–i, 4a–c. 1079. Blegen et al. 1950, 58–59, figs. 246:6–8; 249:1–8; 253:18, 19; 257. 1080. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 396:9. 1081. Sampson 1987, 29, 62, figs. 54:612, 613; 55:616; pl. I:9. 1082. Sampson 1987, fig. 118:43. 1083. Benzi 2008, 89, figs. 5–8. 1084. Sampson 1988b, figs. 24:69, 36:169, 45:221, 46:226. 1085. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57, fig. 7:6. 1086. Sampson 1987, fig. 54, pl. 16:a. 1087. Lamb 1936, 32, nos. 1–6, pl. 10:111. 1088. Vitelli 2007, 374, fig. 95:g. 1089. Coleman 1977, pl. 29:N. 1090. Sampson 2002, fig. 110:621.

79

1091. Hood 1981–1982, 384, pl. 58:1118. 1092. Coleman 1977, pls. 33:134, 35:146, 39:L, 40:G–J, 43:75. 1093. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 34:2, 5; 35:2, 4, 7, 12, 15, 21; 54:10. 1094. Sampson 2002, figs. 90:240, 255, 256, 258, 261, 289; 91:207, 237, 245, 248, 250, 265. 1095. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 203–204, figs. 65β:Β50, Δ147, Δ174, Δ273, Γ13, Ξ107; 66:Ξ92, Ξ102, Φ90, Φ121, Φ182. 1096. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.12:137–140. 1097. Birtacha 2006, fig. 7.14:8; Karantzali 2006, fig. 7.9:7. 1098. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 67a, 109:6B, 110:6B. 1099. Felsch 1988, pls. 78:F65; 80:59, 60; 82:UP26, UP33, UP34. 1100. Eslick 1992, pls. 51:191–195, 52:201. 1101. Eslick 1992, pl. 75:21. 1102. Sampson 1987, figs. 15:157; 16:165; 28:284, 288, 289; 40:409. 1103. Sampson 1987, figs. 86:26; 88:31; 92:71, 74. 1104. Sampson 1987, fig. 103:48. 1105. Sampson 1987, fig. 119:53, 55, 56. 1106. Sampson 1987, fig. 151:6. 1107. Sampson 1988b, pls. 35:173, 174; 53:277; 54:283, 285. 1108. Coleman 1977, pls. 27:E, F, G, 27, 34*, 62, 99, 138; 32:166*; 35:137, 170; 39:F. 1109. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 34:1, 3, 4; 35:1, 3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16–20; 36:12–14; 54:12, 13. 1110. Sampson 2002, figs. 90:259; 91:268; 92:262, 264. 1111. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 203–204, figs. 65β:Δ233, Δ268, Δ273, ΠΤ.19; 66:A7, Δ146, Ξ93, Ξ94, Ξ110, Ξ111, Ξ113, Ξ115, Ξ161, Ξ239, Ξ317, Ξ366, Φ211. 1112. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.12:130–132, 137, 141, 146, 152, 153, 155. 1113. Birtacha 2006, fig. 7.14:8; Eskitzioglou 2006, figs. 7.18:9, 7.21:5, 7.24:8–10; Karantzali 2006, figs. 7.9:8, 9; 7.12:1. 1114. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 109:6C, 110:6C. 1115. Felsch 1988, pls. 74:495; 75:500; 76:F1; 77:F41, F42; 79:1, 3, 27, 37; 81:AA1928; 83:UP48. 1116. Eslick 1992, pls. 51:177–190; 52:197–200, 203, 210. 1117. Eslick 1992, pl. 72:21. 1118. Sampson 1987, 30, figs. 13:141; 14:152; 16:165; 30:302, 304, 305, 307, 309; 31:318; 42:446, 447; 43:449; 44:467; 45:477, 481, 482; 51:579. 1119. Sampson 1987, 72, figs. 86:22–24, 88:34. 1120. Sampson 1987, 81, figs. 103:46, 104:62, 105:70, 109:96. 1121. Sampson 1987, 89, figs. 119:50, 54; 120:58–60, 62. 1122. Sampson 1988b, chart 9:10, fig. 44, pls. 22:48; 25:76, 77; 39:191; 43:214, 217. 1123. Sampson 1987, 14, 17. 1124. Phelps 2004, 92, figs. 38:32, 41:26.

80

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

1125. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 159, fig. 2:α–θ, λ, µ, pls. 52:α, δ, ε, 53. 1126. Sampson 1993a, 31, 51. 1127. Sampson 1985a, chart 15:first column second from top, figs. 3:11, 19:K20. 1128. MacGillivray 1980, figs. 4:20, 5:104, 7:430, 10. 1129. Immerwahr 1971, 72, pl. 70:253. 1130. Karantzali 1996, 39, 96, fig. 57:MNat 5695. 1131. Wilson 1999, pls. 10:II-253, 12:II-312. 1132. Karantzali 1996, 96, figs. 22b:MN4889, 29a:MN4814. 1133. Karantzali 1996, fig. 70:MH7467, MH7469–MH7471. 1134. Karantzali 1996, fig. 76b:MH10835. 1135. Davaras and Betancourt 2004, figs. 11:3.6; 19:7.4; 30:11.2; 39:16.4; 42:17.3, 17.10; 46:19.13; 53:22.6; 55:23.1; 68:28.5; 73:29.4, 29.15, 29.19; 77:32.2a; 80:33.1; 86:35.4; 100:41.9; 113:46.3; 115:48.1; 119:49.3, 49.8; 123:52.2a, 52.3; 126:53.1; 141:62.15; 144:64.6; 146:65.5; 159:71.3; 161:72.3; 166:74.1, 75.5; 172:78.2; 181:83.7, 83.8; 185:85.15, 85.22; 190:87.4; 193:88.2; 194:89.8; 198:92.10; 202:93.1; 210:97.3; 212:98.7; 219:100.5; 223:102.8; 226:103.6+8; 229:104.1; 231:106.3; 248:114.1; 252:116.4; 275:129.1; 279:131:1, 131:2; 286:135:2; 198:139.6; 301:140.4, 140.17; 315:146.8; 331:153.1; 334:154:9; 340:156.7, 156.8; 341:1576.6; 349:160.1–160.3; 354:162.7; 356:163A.19; 368:167:4; 382:176.1; 387:177.6, 177.8; 391:178.1; 393:179.12; 397:180.1; 400:181.5; 416:187.6; 431:193.8; 436:195.5; 440:196.2; 453:202.2; 461:206.8; 476:213.18; 502:222.2; 524:233.4; 542:244.4. 1136. Wilson 1999, pl. 129:III-187, III-188. 1137. Pullen 1995, fig. 34:611, 615. 1138. Sotirakopoulou 1999, fig. 66:Φ201. 1139. Hood 1981–1982, 221, figs. 109:7; 110:7; 136:373, 375. 1140. Sampson 1987, 113, fig. 151:6. 1141. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 2:ι, κ. 1142. Sampson 1985a, chart 15:first column first on top, fig. 22:K89. 1143. Sotirakopoulou 1999, figs. 66:Φ201; 67β:Δ213, Δ265. 1144. Karantzali 2006, figs. 7.9:2, 3; 7.13:13. 1145. Hood 1981–1982, 221, figs. 109:8B, 110:8B, 204:1647, 208:1753, 252:2607. 1146. Pullen 2000, 145, 147, fig. 9:8. 1147. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.78:d. 1148. Pullen 1995, figs. 3:41, 12:189–191. 1149. Wilson 1999, pl. 33:III-339. 1150. Evans and Renfrew 1968, figs. 39:7, 53:12. 1151. Sampson 2002, fig. 94:249, 260. 1152. Sotirakopoulou 1999, fig. 65β: Γ13, Δ74, ΔΟ.30, Ξ107, Ξ360. 1153. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.14:192. 1154. Karantzali 2006, fig. 7.7:4. 1155. Cultraro 1997, fig. 4:24.

1156. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 109:5B, 110:5B. 1157. Warren 1972, fig. 63:7. 1158. Wilson 1999, fig. 78:III-180. 1159. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 203–204, fig. 66:A4, pl. 258. 1160. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 69–73, 132, 141:a, 142, 154–157, 219. 1161. Lamb 1936, figs. 26, 29, pl. 9:210. 1162. Lambrianides and Spencer 1997b, 106–107, figs. 7:4, 12:16, 14. 1163. Hood 1981–1982, 221, 329, 393–395, 448, figs. 109:9; 110:9; 150:653; 178; 202:1580, 1582; 208:1756; 212:1844; pls. 46:654, 655; 70:1176; 71; 84:1580A. 1164. Sperling 1976, figs. 8:109, 116; 9:218–220. 1165. Eslick 1992, 73, pl. 105:a. 1166. Pecorella 1984, fig. 13:47, 48. 1167. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 223a:A17; 223b:D24; 233:37.1138; 235:25–29; 237:33–35; 242:13–23; 245:34–37; 248:15–19; 371:12–21; 406:36.1151; 59b:D24; 238:D24; 243:35.1090. 1168. Melas 1988, 305–306, fig. 13:3, 8, 9. 1169. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 57. 1170. Voutiropoulos 2002, 131. 1171. Sampson 2002, 156; Voutiropoulos 2002, 131–139. 1172. Zachos 2008, 17–20, map 4. 1173. Spitaels 1982, 31, 38. 1174. Vagnetti and Belli 1978, 127, 132. 1175. Coleman 1977, 10–11. 1176. Broodbank 2000a, 154. 1177. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 36; Broodbank 2000a, 163. 1178. Zachos 1987, 696; 1999, 153. 1179. Hadjianastasiou 1988, 17; Sampson 2002, 156. 1180. Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, 37; Katsarou-Tzeveleki and Schilardi 2006, 196. 1181. Hood 1981–1982, 225, 227. 1182. Felsch 1988, 57, 59–60. 1183. Phelps 2004, 110. 1184. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 244–249; Coleman 1977, 10; Hauptmann 1981, 116–118; Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, 37. 1185. Yiouni 2001, 15–16. 1186. Phelps 2004, 111. 1187. Sampson 1987, 81. 1188. Phelps 2004, 110. 1189. Phelps 2004, figs. 50:10, 12, 17, 18; 95:5. 1190. Phelps 2004, 110, fig. 50:16. 1191. Sampson 1987, figs. 30:319, 324; 45:485. 1192. Sampson 2002, figs. 92:197, 266; 290:257. 1193. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 54:5. 1194. Sampson 1988b, chart 9:5, fig. 28:108.

POTTERY SHAPES 1195. Coleman 1977, 19, pl. 39:J. 1196. French 2005, 20, figs. 68:1, 8, 15; 69:16; 70:3, 5, 6, 9, 11; 71:1, 2, 6. 1197. Vitelli 2007, 320, fig. 68:o. 1198. Sampson 1987, 42–43; Mavridis 2006, 68–70. 1199. Levi 1925–1926, 302, pl. 19:11. 1200. Hood 1981–1982, 19, fig. 7:30, pl. 7b:30. 1201. Efstratiou 1985, fig. 51:first row right. 1202. Hood 1981–1982, 23, 60–61, 227–238, figs. 111–117, pls. 77:c, 10:d. 1203. Sampson 1987, 43. 1204. Zachos 2008, 20. 1205. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 163, pl. 74:γ, δ. 1206. Karantzali 1996, figs. 7:c, 77a:third from left on top row, 82a:MH13, 82b:MH2032, 87:first row, 102:e, 128:f. 1207. Wilson 1999, pls. 66:II-601–II-604, 78:III-176, 81:III222. 1208. Karantzali 1996, fig. 109:d. 1209. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 215–216, fig. 72:α, pl. 326: Γ77, Ξ279. 1210. Hood 1981–1982, pl. 89f:bottom row. 1211. Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, fig. 64:12–60. 1212. Furness 1956, pls. 21:16, 18; 23:16–18, 21; Hood 1981–1982, 60–61, pl. 10d:162, 163. 1213. Doumas 1977, 16, fig. 3:e; Karantzali 1996, 96, figs. 103:f, 104:a. 1214. Cosmopoulos 1991, 47. 1215. Karantzali 1996, fig. 68:P2050. 1216. Davaras and Betancourt 2004, figs. 4:1.2, 1.5; 9:2A.35; 11:3.12; 15:5.1, 5.2; 17:6.1; 19:7.14; 23:9.2; 26:10B.6, 10B.13; 28:10A.12, 10A.13; 33:13A.2; 37:15.3a; 42:17.4; 46:19.6; 48:20.1; 53:22.3; 57:24.3; 61:25.1; 62:26.1; 65:27.4a; 73:29.9; 75:30.3+30; 86:35.6; 89:36.1; 109:44.2; 111:45.7, 45.13; 126:53.3, 53.16; 129:56.5; 133:58.2; 136:59.1, 59.8; 141:62.6, 62.7; 144:64.1; 148:66.1; 152:68.9; 155:69.1, 69.2; 157:70:10, 70.11; 175:79.4; 176:80.4, 80.5; 180:82.5; 185:85.6; 193:88.12; 197:90.12; 198:91.5, 92.11; 204:95.2; 207:96.4; 212:98.11; 221:101.2; 223:102.5; 231:106.1, 106.6; 244:112.4; 252:116.5; 255:117.1; 263:122.9b; 268:125:3+7; 297:138.2; 312:145.5; 328:152.9; 334:154.3; 155.2; 349:160.7; 350:161.2; 354:162.2; 356:163B1, 136B2; 362:165.9; 368:167.1; 372:168.6, 172.2; 381:175.3; 382:176.2; 387:177.2; 391:1762+6; 404:182.1; 409:184.1; 419:188.1; 424:191.4; 448:200.9; 457:203.13, 207.1; 469:210.3; 476:213.15, 213.16; 482:215.1; 489:217.3; 492:218.3; 502:222.3; 505:223.3; 508:225:5; 512:226.4, 226.6; 514.227.1; 519:229.1; 530:237.1; 539:242.13b; 542:244.3. 1217. Karantzali 1996, 29, fig. 32:b. 1218. Doumas 1977, 90, pl. 30:a. 1219. Karantzali 1996, 30, fig. 33a. 1220. Karantzali 1996, fig. 36:a. 1221. Hood 1981–1982, 238–239.

81

1222. Sampson 2002, 78; Phelps 2004, 116, figs. 57:1; 60:4, 6, 7, 10, 14; 99:1, 2, 4, 5, 10–12. 1223. Immerwahr 1971, pls. 4:33, 34; 10:149–156. 1224. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 162, pl. 66. 1225. Sampson 1993c, 100–102, figs. 87–89, 164, 165, 180, 181:11–14, 189:9. 1226. Sampson 1985a, 49, 141, 183, pl. 15:A20, A21. 1227. MacGillivray 1984, 73. 1228. Coleman 1977, pls. 46:B; 80:64; 84:BO, BU; 89:AW, AY, AZ, BA, BB. 1229. Caskey 1972, pl. 76:P18. 1230. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 43:1, 2. 1231. MacGillivray 1979, fig. 13:185, pl. 9:185. 1232. Sampson 2002, 78–79, fig. 73. 1233. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 221–222, figs. 75:γ; 76:α, β, pls. 347–349. 1234. Broodbank 2007, 142–143, fig. 6.19:349. 1235. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 62:a, e–g; 63:d, e, h, i; 126:g, k; 161:e; 195:d; 197:b, g; 198:g, h; 212:c. 1236. Lamb 1936, pl. 17:a–g. 1237. Hood 1981–1982, 61–62, figs. 42; 147:1146, 1147; 200:1564; pls. 6:45; 7:d, e, g; 8:a, b, d; 36:295, 299, 300, 303, 305–307; 39:358; 66:e; 81:e, upper two rows. 1238. Felsch 1988, pls. 25:245, 246; 61:250; 62:256–258; 64:290; 66:306; 71:446; 74:491; 77:F45. 1239. Milojčić 1961, pls. 32:1–5; 40:28, 31; 48:31. 1240. Blegen et al. 1950, 241, figs. 389:35.485, 390:35.490; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 81:III-147; 164:37.1226; 170:11; 172:16, 17, 20; 179:6; 244:23; 247:36–38. 1241. Warner 1994, pls. 165:g; 178:h; 179:a, f. 1242. Sampson 1987, fig. 15:100. 1243. Sampson 1987, fig. 91:65. 1244. Benzi 1997, 386–388, pl. 2:c. 1245. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 203:1592, 1593. 1246. Immerwahr 1971, pl. 4:33, 34. 1247. Phelps 2004, 75, fig. 27:4, 7. 1248. Karantzali 1996, fig. 154:a, c. 1249. Sampson 1993c, 114, 161, figs. 115, 183:5–8. 1250. Coleman 1977, 14, pl. 89:AF–AP. 1251. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 43, figs. 42:3, 12; 43:13, 14; pls. 27a:right in top and lower row, 28a:top row, 28b:middle row. 1252. Sampson 2002, fig. 106. 1253. Karantzali 1996, fig. 14:MAp.63. 1254. Karantzali 1996, fig. 27b:MN4562. 1255. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 6:w, x; 16:a–c; 17:f–k; 26:i; 121:h, j, k. 1256. Lamb 1936, figs. 26:jugs:6, cups:1; 29:cups:2. 1257. Hood 1981–1982, 24, figs. 10, 15, 138, 193, 238, 239. 1258. Felsch 1988, pls. 81:UP2–UP4, UP19; 83:UP53.

82

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

1259. Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 237:1, 2, 5. 1260. Sampson 1987, 29, figs. 7:20; 8:47; 11:102, 108; 42:446; 54:615. 1261. Sampson 1987, 72, 81, 89. 1262. Sampson 1988b, 96, figs. 32:153, 58:269, pl. 28:107, 110. 1263. Hood 1981–1982, 423, 467–468, figs. 193:3, 198:1510, 207:1738. 1264. Broodbank 2007, fig. 6.19:350. 1265. Hood 1981–1982, 239, 390–393, 461–462, 538, figs. 176, 177, 207:1735, 237:2392, pl. 103:2420, 2392, 2540. 1266. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 223a:B18, 370a:B18. 1267. Kâmil 1982, figs. 25:18, 21, 24; 26:29, 32, 36, 38; 27:40, 42, 48, 49; 28:55; 32:68, 69; 36:120–123; 37:133, 134; 39:140; 43:155–157; 45:165, 166; 47:176; 55:194; 78:260, 262; 81:280; 94:27. 1268. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, figs. P.14:31, P.16:1, P.17:7, P.31:5, P.32:2–5, P.40:6. 1269. Karantzali 1996, fig. 154:a, c. 1270. Sampson 2002, figs. 106:588; 111:177, 598. 1271. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 26:j. 1272. Lamb 1936, figs. 26:cups:1; 29:cups:2, pl. 8:24. 1273. Hood 1981–1982, 291, 423, figs. 138:2, 169:1046, 193:1, pl. 60:1046. 1274. Felsch 1988, pl. 81:UP2–UP4, UP19. 1275. Wiencke 2000, fig. 2.16:P297. 1276. Goldman 1931, fig. 100:1. 1277. Christmann 1996, pls. 71:27, 141:15. 1278. Sampson 1993c, 114, fig. 115:5. 1279. Coleman 1977, 13, pl. 89:AL–AP. 1280. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 43, fig. 43:13. 1281. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pls. 37:j, 38:k. 1282. Hood 1981–1982, 291, 423, figs. 138:5, 193:2B, pls. 38:382, 79b:first from left. 1283. Felsch 1988, 208, pl. 79:38,1. 1284. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 245:30, 247:8. 1285. Sampson 1993c, 114; Phelps 2004, 75. 1286. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 10:3, 4; 15:3, 4. 1287. Sampson 1987, 89, figs. 121:63, 123:88. 1288. Hood 1981–1982, 239, fig. 193:5. 1289. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, pl. 72:ζ. 1290. Sampson 1993c, figs. 80:35, 83:5. 1291. Pantelidou-Gofa 1995, fig. 56:11–45. 1292. Sampson 2008a, 63–64, fig. 2.42:710, 711. 1293. Lamb 1936, pl. 35:14. 1294. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 111:5, 112:34, 115:3, pl. 75b:third from left in middle row. 1295. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, fig. P.31:1, 10. 1296. Felsch 1988, pls. 20.4:156, 23.1:213. 1297. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 149–151. 1298. Phelps 2004, fig. 60:1.

1299. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.70:P1226. 1300. Wilson 1999, pls. 12:II-326, 26:III-102. 1301. Coleman 1977, pl. 34:J. 1302. Atkinson et al. 1904, 96–97, 249, pl. 34:1. 1303. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 40:18. 1304. MacGillivray 1980, 39–44, fig. 15:268, 394. 1305. Sampson 2002, fig. 77:528, 529. 1306. Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, 74, fig. 6:25–29. 1307. Sampson 1988b, figs. 48:245, 57:291, 68b:70. 1308. Sampson 1997, fig. 66:399. 1309. Rutter 1995, 461; Wiencke 2000, fig. 102:c. 1310. Sampson 1993a, fig. 25:29. 1311. Karantzali 1996, fig. 97:second from left in first row. 1312. Coleman 1977, pl. 89. 1313. Sampson 2002, 81–82, figs. 76–78. 1314. Felsch 1988, pls. 22.4:195, 38.10:377, 42.4:483. 1315. Theocharis 1962, 81, pl. 10:first and second from left in first row; 1967, 157–158, pl. 27B:second from left in row one and two; Gallis 1992, 42. 1316. Mari 2001, 225, figs. 54:178, 94:178. 1317. Evans 1964, 229, fig. 36:15. 1318. Sampson 2002, 76, figs. 71:775; 72:776, 926. 1319. Coldstream and Huxley 1972, 80, pl. 17:55; Karantzali 1996, fig. 80:d. 1320. Caskey 1972, pl. 76:P17. 1321. Caskey 1972, pl. 79:B44; Wilson 1999, pls. 50:II215–II-218; 78:III-155, III-156; 91:III-502. 1322. Tsountas 1899, 122. 1323. MacGillivray 1980, figs. 15:392, 20. 1324. Barber and Hadjianastasiou 1989, 74, nos. 30, 31, pl. 16β. 1325. MacGillivray 1980, 44 n.133; Karantzali 1996, figs. 21a:MN5028, MN5029; 120a:Sx25. 1326. Tsountas 1898, 174, pl. 9:37. 1327. Doumas 1977, 118, pl. XLIV:e. 1328. Atkinson et al. 1904, 86. 1329. Overbeck 1989, 6. 1330. Karantzali 1996, fig. 16:d.3. 1331. Karantzali 1996, fig. 32:c; Broodbank 2000b, fig. 7; 2007, figs. 6.15:201, 202; 6.16:203. 1332. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 210–212, pls. 302–308. 1333. Marangou 1984, 100, figs. 2–4, 7–9. 1334. Eskitzioglou 2006, 140, fig. 7.21:9–11; Karantzali 2006, 128, fig. 7.12:2, 3. 1335. Hood 1981–1982, 215–216, fig. 206:1717, 1719. 1336. Hood 1981–1982, pls. 73:1233, 78a:first in second row. 1337. Milojčić 1961, pls. 16:3; 24:1; 40:16, 17; 44:3; 48:33. 1338. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, pl. 44:D2. 1339. Zachos 2008, pl. 48:B47, 1179/81. 1340. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, pl. 61:η.

POTTERY SHAPES 1341. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 45:2, pl. 30b:middle row right. 1342. Hood 1981–1982, 284, figs. 104:4, 108:6, pl. 37:331, 333. 1343. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 116:3, 182:1233, pls. 73:1233, 79d:fifth from left in first row. 1344. Coleman 1977, pls. 36:c, 83:AD. 1345. Sampson 1993c, fig. 178:8. 1346. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 207, pl. 286:A3/32.

1347. Evans 1964, 227, pl. 52:9, 11. 1348. Nowicki 2002, 59, 63, fig. 30:21. 1349. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, fig. 7:9. 1350. Furness 1956, 191, pl. 19:18. 1351. Sampson 1993c, fig. 179:12, 15. 1352. Wilson 1999, pl. 41:I-62. 1353. Coleman 1977, pl. 78:134. 1354. Felsch 1988, pls. 20:160, 161; 58:160, 161.

83

5

The Pottery of Halasarna in Chronological and Regional Perspective The Halasarna pottery assemblage is important for two main reasons: typology and technique. The typology is comprised of forms that date from the MN late period until EB III, a chronological framework that is only partly represented elsewhere in the Dodecanese. Thus, the Halasarna finds constitute

the first body of material covering a period of more than three millennia from a single area. The techniques evinced in this pottery attest to the continuity of local manufacturing practices and the cultural relationships between the Halasarna region and other parts of the Aegean.

The Neolithic Period Middle Neolithic Pottery Very few diagnostic sherds can be definitely assigned to the MN period. One of them comes from a closed vessel of black-on-brown patterned ware, found at Koutlousi (Kt.177). The type of decoration is on this example is rare. It is contemporary with finds from Kalythies cave and Canhasan, most likely dating to a late phase of the MN. This is the earliest diagnostic sherd from this region, making Koutlousi the earliest Neolithic open-air settlement in the Dodecanese. Two other sherds, one from a bowl with slightly curving walls and a beaded lip

(Kt.43), the other a horizontal horn-shaped lug belonging also to a bowl (Kt.163), both from Koutlousi, can be dated to the MN and LN periods.

Late Neolithic Pottery The pottery from this period and others can be divided into types that were only used during this particular phase and those that continued in use in subsequently. A few diagnostics from the Halasarna region date specifically to the LN period. Among these are two

86

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

pedestal bowls from Koutlousi (Kt.65, Kt.66) and a bowl with a handle and curved body from Tsangaris (T.6), both of which can dated within the LN I–II period. A curving bowl with a -type rim and thumb-impressed decoration on the exterior (Kt.44) resembles examples from Ftelia belonging to this phase, which covers a rather long time span. The deep pedestal bowl (rechaud) from Koutlousi provides the most specific dating, LN II early, although the earliest examples of this type argue for continuity from the late MN to the LN phases. Other characteristic LN II shapes are the dipper and the scoop (Kt.58, Kt.59), and a tab handle from Koutounis Hill (Ktn.h.2) and a bowl with a sunken button (Kt.185) also belong to the same chronological period. The Halasarna pots discussed here display a commonality in type and shape with finds from contemporary sites in the Cyclades and mainland Greece.1 It is unclear what form of contact with mainland Greece took place, i.e., whether it was direct or, more likely, filtered through the Cyclades. Still, there are strong similarities in a number of pottery elements. The same close relationship also appears to exist with the pottery tradition of other Dodecanesian sites. Strong ties had already been established with Tigani on Samos and with Neolithic sites on Chios. Relations with Anatolian pottery traditions also existed, but they were more limited in comparison to those attested with other areas. There are also a number of shapes that originated in the LN period and continued into FN and even EBA times. Some of these forms, such as the shallow bowls with flaring walls and simple rims (Fig. 1), were seen in LN I and continued into the earlier FN phase. Many more shapes, including the wide-mouthed bowls with S-shaped bodies (Kt.45–Kt.48), S-shaped bowls (Kt.49–Kt.52), and bowls with a high-swung vertical loop handle (Kt.55, Kt.56; Figs. 2, 3), appeared in LN II and continued into the FN I period. To the same chronological horizon also belongs a jar with an incurving neck and rim (Kt.102, Kk.10), globular jars with collared necks (Kt.105, Kt.106), a vertical lug from a bowl (Kt.160), a body fragment with relief button and incisions (Kt.186), and a pithos rim with shallow thumb impressions (Kt.187). One more important shape that probably originated in LN II, at least in the Dodecanese, was the cheese

pot. This particular pottery type is widespread across the Aegean and appears to be more popular in the Dodecanese than in mainland Greece, the Cyclades, the eastern Aegean islands, or Crete. In the Dodecanese cheese pots are attested more commonly in FN I than in earlier periods, and they may have continued in use in the later FN phase. The importance of the cheese pots and the controversy regarding their date has been discussed in Chapter 4. The example from Nerantzia (N.22) represents the earliest diagnostic material from this site. Other Neolithic shapes also continued well into the EBA, such as shallow, medium, and tall bowls with straight walls (Kt.1–Kt.21, N.1) and simple rims, as well as flat bases with straight and curved walls (K.167–Kt.170, O.8). The pottery that spans both the LN and FN periods suggests that close ties existed with several areas. There are many common elements with mainland Greece (especially Euboea), the Cyclades, other Dodecanesian sites, Samos, and Chios. Contacts with Anatolia are evident, but they appear not to have been as frequent as those with the aforementioned regions.

Final Neolithic Pottery The sherds described in the last section attest to the continuity of the local pottery tradition from the LN to the FN period. Furthermore, they argue for a gradual change in styles from one phase to another, unlike developments on mainland Greece and in the Cyclades. At the same time, new pottery types that appeared throughout the Aegean in the FN I period, such as crusted monochrome decoration, were introduced (Ktn.9–Ktn.12, Ktn.h.3). Mottled surfaces also appeared in this phase, but only in small numbers. The most important aspect of the mottled ware is that it links the Halasarna area with a wider FN Aegean context, and with mainland Greece in particular. Additionally, black burnished ware belongs to this phase, and it reveals close contacts with Tigani and the wider southwestern Anatolian pottery tradition, extending as far as Beycesultan (T.1, Ktn.1). The carinated bowl with a vertical lug (Ktn.5), which was either imported from Tigani or was a local imitation of Tigani examples, and a kidney-shaped vertical handle with red slip (N.32), most probably

THE POTTERY OF HALASARNA IN CHRONOLOGICAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

imported from the Attica-Kephala area, also date to this period. Other shapes, such as the bowl with straight wall and thickened, round, everted rim (Kk.2), bowl with rolled rim (Kt.53), pithoi with vertical oval handles (N.39, Kt.158, Kt.159), a rectangularly shaped vertical lug (Kt.161), and a vertical jar handle with shallow vertical ridge (Ktn.13), are characteristic of the entire FN period. The open jars with curving bodies and incurving rims (N.14, Kt.76) recovered from the Halasarna area reveal a common FN Dodecanesian tradition that was shared with Rhodes, Alimnia, Giali, and Partheni. The red-slipped and burnished ware is also part of the FN pottery tradition and has affinities with the Dodecanese, Samos, Anatolia, and Attica-Kephala. The buff burnished and gray burnished wares belong to the FN II period, and the latter may have continued into the EBA as well. There was no significant change in relations between the Halasarna area and mainland Greece, the Cyclades, the rest of the Dodecanese, and Samos in the FN. In fact, there is further evidence

87

of contact in this period, such as sherds of possibly imported pottery, e.g., one from the Attica-Kephala region (Ktn.5) and one from Tigani (N.32). Relations with Chios appear to have been close as well, and the same can be argued for Anatolia. In the FN phase more evidence appears for interaction with Lemnos and Crete. With regard to Crete, one needs to mention the widespread introduction there of the cheese pot and of pottery techniques that originated in the Dodecanese, as observed at coastal sites in eastern Crete.2 The preference for dark burnished ware in both LN and FN phases brings the Halasarna area within the contemporary cultural framework of the Aegean, from the Greek mainland to western Anatolia. The same can be proposed for the appearance of larger containers such as jars and pithoi in local assemblages. These forms argue for the development of new socioeconomic conditions, similar to those seen in southern mainland Greece and the FN Koumelo cave.3

The Early Bronze Age Early Bronze I Pottery The EBA in the Dodecanese is not well known, especially in its first two phases. Early Bronze I is rather elusive, but fortunately there are a few diagnostic sherds in the Halasarna assemblage that provide useful insights. Tab handles belong to this phase, but they also have close affinities to the previous period, and the same can be argued for the handles with holes belonging to jars or jugs. New shapes appear in the repertoire, such as the cylindrical and spherical pyxides (Kt.68, T.12) paralleled in the early EC I pottery tradition of the Pelos group, suggesting very close cultural contacts with the Cyclades. A strap-tubular vertical handle that belongs to a spherical jar (N.31) is paralleled in this period in eastern Crete. Two vertical handles, one ribbed (Kt.151) and the other rectangular (N.36), from jars or jugs can also be dated to the same phase, along with a horizontal cylindrical handle from a small jar (Kt.139) and a vertical rectangular lug from a bowl (Kt.164). Furthermore, two more vertical handles with holes from Nerantzia possibly

date to this phase (N.43, N.44). A collared-neck jar with a flaring neck and rim (Kt.103) also dates to this period or to the EB I/II transitional phase. The flat bases with incurving bodies (Kt.171, Kt.172) are parts of pyxides, which have close parallels in the transitional EC I to II Kampos phase of the Cyclades, toward the transition from EB I to II. There are many similarities between the pottery from Halasarna and that found in mainland Greece, Chios, and the Cyclades in particular. Many Cycladic shapes of the EC I Pelos and Kampos phases are attested at Halasarna. There were also very close ties with Anatolia, other Dodecanesian sites, the northern Aegean, and Crete. The limited contacts attested with Samos may be explained largely by the scarcity of EB I finds recovered at the Heraion. Several pottery shapes are common in both the EB I and II phases, a fact that emphasizes the strong continuity between these periods. A bowl with a high shoulder and incurving rim (Kk.1), bowls with straight walls and considerably thickened rims (Kt.33, Kt.34), a bowl with a high-swung vertical

88

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

loop handle (Kt.57), broad-mouthed jugs (Kt.69– Kt.71, Kt.Lh.4, N.13), jars with spreading necks (Kt.77–Kt.86, N.15, N.16), and jars with cylindrical necks (Kt.95–Kt.98, N.17, N.18, Kk.10) belong to this period. The amphora-shaped jar (Kt.107) is a new shape that appears in EB I–II. A number of handles belonging to jugs and jars, such as a vertical strap handle with upraised edges (O.6), a vertical ribbon loop jar handle (Kt.156), a vertical circular pithos handle (N.38), and vertical push-through handles (Kt.73, Kt.140, Kt.141, Kt.150, Kt.151, N.33), all date to this long phase. The same applies to the tripod cooking vessel feet (Kt.176, N.42), a button that belongs to a carinated bowl (Kt.182), and another button recovered on a closed vessel (Kt.183). The EB I pottery reveals close ties with two main areas: the west, i.e., the Cyclades and mainland Greece, and the north, i.e., the northeastern Aegean islands and Anatolia. For the latter region there are many parallels with finds from the sites of Emporio, Thermi, Poliochni, and Troy. Contact with Samos remained close, but not as frequent as with the aforementioned sites, while there were more common elements with Crete than ever before. The parallels with other Dodecanesian sites are very limited for this period.

Early Bronze II Pottery A large proportion of the pottery finds from the Halasarna sites belongs to the EB II period. A basin and a bowl with curved walls and incurving rims have a red Urfirnis monochrome color and can be dated to the early phase of EB II (T.2, T.7). Although the Urfirnis decoration occurs only at Tsangaris, its presence suggests that this region was in close contact with mainland Greece and the Cyclades and participated in the pottery developments of those regions. Other diagnostic shapes belonging to the EB II period include a bowl with curved wall and straight canted rim (N.6), bowls with curved walls and incurving, internally thickened rims (T.3, Ktn.4, Kt.Lh.2, N.8), and bowls with straight walls and thickened rims (T.4, Kt.41, Kt.42, Kk.5). Similarly, a carinated bowl with a vertical handle (Kt.57), a one-handled cup with rectangular handle (Kt.60), and a one-handled cup with an upraised rim (Kt.61) also date to this

period. The presence of sauceboats (Kt.62–Kt.64, N.12) is equally important, suggesting the adoption of certain mainland Greek and Cycladic shapes in the local repertoire. The presence of a yellow mottled sauceboat at Koutlousi (Kt.62) is very significant, as it may have been imported either directly or indirectly from mainland Greece. Early Bronze II pottery types also include a jar with spreading neck and flaring internally thickened rim (Kt.94), as well as collared-neck jars with everted rims, which belong to the Keros-Syros Cycladic tradition (Ktn.6, Kt.104). There are also various pithoid jars, some without a neck but with an everted rim (Kt.109, Kt.Lh.7, Kt.Lh.8), one with a spreading neck and an almost rectangular rim (N.20), and one with a short cylindrical neck and an everted rim (N.21). To the same period belong vertical handles from closed vases (Kt.147–Kt.149, Kk.18, T.9, T.10, N.29, N.30, O.4) and flat differentiated bases (Kt.174, N.41). The only decorated example are is a horizontal slashed handle (Kt.Lh.10). This handle most certainly represents an import from the Cyclades, belonging to the EC II pottery tradition. A collared-neck jar with a flaring neck and everted rim (N.19) is dated to the EB II late phase. This shape may be attributed to the so-called Amorgos pottery group. The EB II material attests to the very close relations and interaction of the Halasarna region with the Cyclades and mainland Greece, as seen in the similarities in pottery shapes, the numerous parallels, and the imports from these areas. At the same time, important links continued with sites in the northeastern Aegean islands as well as Anatolia. This is clearly evident in the cases of Emporio and Troy and, to a lesser extent, at other sites such as Poliochni, the Heraion, and Thermi. There are few EB II parallels with sites in the rest of the Dodecanese, and contacts with Crete were limited in comparison to the aforementioned areas. Several pottery shapes that were common throughout the EB II period continued to be used in the EB III early phase as well. Such types include bowls with curved walls and incurving rims (Kt.35, Kt.36, Ktn.2, Ktn.3), bowls with straight or slightly curving walls and upturned pointed rims (N.4, Kt.Lh.1), bowls with straight walls and T-shaped rims (T.5), and basins with straight or slightly curving bodies and thickened rims (Kk.7, Kk.8). Among the closed vessels, the same observation

THE POTTERY OF HALASARNA IN CHRONOLOGICAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

applies to an open jar with curved body and incurving thickened rim (N.14, Kt.76), jars with a spreading neck and flaring rim (Kt.87–Kt.93), and pithoid jars without neck and with everted projecting rims (Kt.108, Kt.Lh.5, Kt.Lh.6). Some horizontal handles (Kt.139, Kt.140, O.2, Kk.16), a vertical cylindrical handle from a cup (O.3), and a horizontal pithos handle (N.40) belong to the EB II–III early period. There are also a few shapes that originated in the EB II and continued throughout the EB III phase, such as a bowl with a slightly carinated body, thickened rim, and horizontal handles (Kt.54), the horizontal raised or loop handles (Ktn.h.1, Kk.17, Kt.141), and the vertical jar handles (Kt.152–Kt.155, T.11, Ktn.8, N.34, N.35, O.5). The shapes with a longer span of use reveal close links with the Cyclades and mainland Greece. Close ties also existed with the eastern Aegean islands and Anatolia, i.e., sites such as Emporio, Poliochni, the Heraion, and Troy. More parallels and common shapes are found in Crete, while some parallels occurred occasionally at other Dodecanesian sites.

Early Bronze II Late–III Early Pottery The EB II late–III early phase corresponds to what is known as the Kastri phase in the Cyclades and Lefkandi I in mainland Greece. It is a transitional period during which a number of new shapes were introduced from Anatolia, while others developed from local types. Most of these shapes appeared in the Aegean during the EB II late phase but continued to be used in the EB III early period as well. The lack of well-stratified assemblages has caused problems in the dating of this phase, as discussed in Chapter 1. A blend of old and new forms is evident in this period, as we have seen in the previous section. Pots that can be dated to EB II late–III early include bowls with straight walls and upturned rims (N.7, Kk.4), a shallow bowl with a rather flaring body and rim (Kt.32), a cup with one or two handles, vertical body, and flaring rim (Kt.Lh.3, N.9), and one-handled cups with incurving rims and vertical handles below the rim (N.10, N.11). To the same phase belong the deep open jars with close affinities to the Trojan nubbly ware

89

(Kt.72–Kt.75, N.24). The parallels from Troy strongly suggest close ties with the Halasarna region, but they were locally produced, shown by the differences in colors and the presence of horizontal handles in Halasarna instead of vertical ones at Troy. A pithoid jar without a neck and with a flat rim (Kt.Lh.9), a horizontal handle with circular section (N.24), as well as vertical cylindrical handles from either tankards or depata amphikypella (N.25, Kt.142) may date to the same period. The relations between the Halasarna region, the Cyclades, and mainland Greece remained as close as before. Contacts and interaction with the eastern Aegean and Anatolia were also very important, as is evident at specific sites such as Emporio, Poliochni, the Heraion, Troy, and Skyros. The close ties with Troy, which led to the adoption of a specific pottery type with some local differentiations, have been discussed above. These new elements reveal the ingenuity of the local potters as well as the filtering process that was taking place with some of the new pottery types. New shapes are introduced from areas outside Kos, but they are incorporated into the local repertoire and manufactured by the local potters. Relations with Thermi decreased, as this site ceased to be in use by the end of the EB II period. Parallels and similarities in pottery shapes were still shared with Crete, as seen in the previous phases. The same can be argued for other contemporary Dodecanesian sites.

Early Bronze III Pottery Material that can be safely attributed to the EB III period is very limited and very difficult to recognize. A bowl with curving body and a slightly flaring, externally thickened, -type rim (O.1) was recovered at K.21.54, a small site west of Koukos. It can be dated to the EB III early period, and it is the first example of wheelmade pottery known from the Halasarna region, although the potter’s wheel may have been introduced already in the EB II phase elsewhere on Kos. One semicircular horizontal handle recovered at Koukos (Kk.16) also belongs to the EB III period and shows parallels with Lerna IV and Phylakopi I. These few sherds represent the latest prehistoric occupation in the Halasarna area, which appears to have been sparse and limited to a very few sites.

90

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Local Pottery Techniques The techniques used in making the pottery of the Halasarna region is as important as the chronological types outlined above because they reveal a remarkable continuity in local production methods. The main distinctive local elements remained largely unchanged from the LN until the end of the EBA. The pottery was handmade, using clay with silver mica inclusions Transparent quartz pieces were added to strengthen the walls and straw was used as a temper for forming and fortifying the clay. The use of straw in the dark burnished ware was a common element in the LN and FN pottery of the eastern Aegean4 and in pottery dating from the EN in western Anatolia.5 The pots were relatively thick, ranging from 0.7 to 1.2 cm, mainly semi-fine, semi-coarse, and coarse, with a limited occurrence of fine ware, suggesting that local potters produced robust vessels for storage, cooking, and everyday use. In the EBA the darker surfaces, of the Neolithic wares—black, gray, and brown— were replaced by more red and yellowish shades. At the same time there was a tendency for less quartz and straw to be used in the pottery, although these tempers were still common. The presence of straw marks on the red Urfirnis sherds T.1 and T.4 emphasizes the longevity of this technique, which continued into EB II, and underlines the character of the local production. Some of these elements were shared throughout the wider Dodecanesian region at least during the Neolithic period. Their continuity into the EBA cannot be supported or rejected with the evidence currently available from locations outside Kos.

Still, some of these pot-making techniques, especially the use of quartz and mica in the clay, attest to a tradition shared in the Dodecanese, and with some coastal sites in eastern Crete, several of the Cycladic islands, and, more importantly, in a broad area of western Anatolia. These common characteristics argue for a close cultural interaction between these regions. The presence of mat and straw impressions reveals similarities in production processes with contemporary Aegean sites. The existence of obsidian ware, which has parallels in the Cyclades and the eastern Aegean, is important and points toward a local or a nearby source for the obsidian inclusions. The use of burnishing without slip seen at Halasarna is a well-known eastern Aegean technique. The use of a slip is minimal, as is the presence of painted or other types of decoration. The occurrence of the rough and burnished ware appears to have been a local characteristic, but whether it was part of a wider tradition can only be determined after thorough future pottery studies in this region. Innovations can be seen mainly in the introduction of new shapes from neighboring areas such as the Cyclades and the eastern Aegean. Some decorated styles of Neolithic and EBA date, such as the pattern-burnished, the crusted ware, and the Urfirnis, were also locally produced. The same can be said of the introduction of black ware and orange ware. Another innovation in the manufacture of pottery was the use of push-through handles in closed vessels, a tradition that came to Halasarna from the eastern Aegean.

Cultural Relations with Other Areas The geographical position of Kos in the Aegean allows easy access and interaction with several different regions. With its roughly rectangular shape and east–west orientation, the island forms a crossroads with the Cyclades to the west and nearby Anatolia to the east. On a north–south axis, most of the Dodecanesian islands and Crete are located to the south, while to the north, through the eastern coastal corridor, the northeastern Aegean islands

and northwestern Anatolia can easily be reached. The location of Kos is definitely not isolated—it lies, rather, at a very strategic point in the Aegean. Thus it was accessible to other islands and mainland areas from the LN period onward. While contacts and interaction were physically easy, however, their character and intensity were entirely based on conscious sociocultural decisions.

THE POTTERY OF HALASARNA IN CHRONOLOGICAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The degree of pottery interaction between Kos and the Cyclades from the LN period onward is almost surprising in view of the more limited affinities between the excavated Neolithic sites on Rhodes and Alimnia and contemporaneous sites in the Cyclades, as well as the rather limited similarities between the Cyclades and other Dodecanesian sites in the EBA. Parallels between finds from Halasarna and Cycladic sites can be clearly seen in all well-published Neolithic Cycladic assemblages, such as those from Ftelia, Saliagos, Grotta, and even Kephala at the west end of the Cyclades. Many shapes are adopted and others imported from the Cyclades, especially during the EBA. During the EB II and III early phases, which are quantitatively well represented in the finds from Halasarna, there seem to have been close ceramic ties with Amorgos and Thera. Their geographical proximity must definitely have been a factor in this interaction. Kos appears to have been very closely related to the Cyclades, but by no means should it be considered as Cycladic in cultural terms since it retained many eastern Aegean elements as well as local idiosyncrasies. Equally close ties are attested between the Halasarna region and mainland Greece. Mainland Greek trends were filtered through the Cyclades and reached Kos probably during the LN, but the imported jar from the Attica-Kephala cultural area (Ktn.5) and the mottled ware (Kt.62) suggest that beginning in the FN period these contacts may have become more intense and perhaps more direct. This relationship between the regions can also be seen in EB II, when the sauceboat was introduced into the local ceramic repertoire and one example was actually imported from the Greek mainland. Kos’s relations with the other Dodecanesian sites were very close during the Neolithic. This is especially evident from the MN period in the cave finds on Rhodes, as well as in finds from the neighboring island of Giali. Several shapes were common to both areas, supporting an argument for the existence of a regional style. There were also differences, however, particularly in comparison with Rhodes, suggesting the existence of distinct local pottery traditions as well as close contacts. There were certainly closer ties during this period with Giali, as most of the pottery types and shapes found there6 may also be identified in the Neolithic repertoire of the Halasarna sites. This

91

close relation with Giali marks a cultural region that is further confirmed by imported Koan pottery found on Giali, as well as by the obsidian and andesite exported from Giali to Kos. During the EBA the lack of large assemblages from other sites does not allow good comparisons to be made, but the few finds from Nisyros, Aspri Petra cave, Daskalio cave, Müskebi, and Iasos argue for many similarities. All these sites are very close to Kos and appear to have flourished in the EBA, and although the finds are limited, they would seem to represent a cultural area with many common elements in their pottery traditions. Although Crete was closer to Kos than a number of the northern Aegean sites, relations with this island were not particularly close. The first evidence of interaction comes from the FN period, but in subsequent EBA phases most of the similarities in shapes reflect the presence of common types shared between Crete and the Cyclades. Possibly a conscious cultural choice is indicated by this limited interaction, with the Cretans and/or the Koans not being interested in having close ties with one another. Halasarna had very close relations with the eastern Aegean islands to the north and Samos in particular from the LN period. These were intensified during the FN, when actual imports or imitations of Samian pottery shapes were found in the Halasarna region. This relationship did not change during the EBA, but it was not as intense as it had been before, nor was it as strong as the connections with the Cyclades. The ties between Halasarna and Chios were as important as those with Samos during the Neolithic period, and in contrast to the situation with Samos, the same level of interaction continued between Halasarna and Emporio during the EBA. The contacts with other eastern Aegean island sites were very limited during the Neolithic period, with very few common types appearing at FN Lemnos. This situation changed in the EBA, when many common pottery elements developed in the pottery of Halasarna and Poliochni and, to a lesser extent, in the pottery of Thermi and even in that of Skyros during the latter part of this era. Relations with Anatolia appear to have been limited during the Neolithic period, as most of the excavated sites were located far from Kos in inland locations. Certain similarities can be detected as far inland as Canhasan in central southern Anatolia and

92

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

as early as the mid 6th millennium B.C., however. Furthermore, the limited published LCh material from Kiliktepe and Miletos suggests close affinities with the wider Milesian area. Relations with inland sites such as Aphrodisias, Beycesultan, and sites in the Elmali plain seem to have been more general and limited, especially during the FN phases. This pattern changed radically during the EBA, as

suggested by the published finds from sites such as Iasos and Müskebi that were located closer to Kos and by the more frequent contacts between Kos and the northern Aegean. A number of shapes were shared with a number of inland communities in northwestern and western Anatolia, but primarily with Troy.

Conclusions The Halasarna pottery tradition displays many local characteristics in its techniques and the preference for certain pot types that persisted over time. Concurrently, it shared a number of elements with wider pottery-making traditions attested at contemporary sites in the central and eastern Aegean and in western Anatolia. The Neolithic phases were dominated by bowls with more or less straight bodies and by various jars. The open shape with uneven rim was another characteristic of this period, mostly in the form of bowls with tab handles. In the FN period cheese pots were common, while in FN II large pithoi appeared. The only decorated pottery of this period was the crusted ware. In the Neolithic Halasarna, and possibly Kos as a whole, appears to have followed some of the wider trends that were current in the Aegean, with common shapes and wares being employed, the most characteristic of which was the dark burnished ware. The lack of painted pots should not come as a surprise, since they were almost absent in other open-air sites in the Dodecanese such as Leftoporos, Alimnia, Giali, and Partheni, while they were common only at LN Kalythies cave and rare at Koumelo cave. Although the sample of sites is limited, this difference in depositing painted vessels between caves and openair sites may have been related to different modes of consumption and different meanings attached to these sites in the Dodecanese. In the EBA some older shapes changed and new ones were introduced into the local repertoire, with influences coming from the Cyclades as much as from the eastern Aegean.7 Bowls had more curved bodies, and some had incurved rims, while jars were made with more vertical handles, collared jars became popular, and pithoi were more common. Pyxides appeared for the first time in EB I and

sauceboats in EB II, revealing contacts with the Cyclades and mainland Greece. Open jars, cups, closed vessels with push-through handles, and jugs with vertical handles starting from the rim were shapes more common in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia, and particularly in areas such as the Troad, Chios, and Samos. The preferences for the last-mentioned shape and for the horizontal handle were local characteristics of Halasarna. The presence of a few locally made red Urfirnis pots suggests that the technique was known to the local potters, but it was not very popular. In general the pottery production from the Neolithic to the EBA did not change considerably. There was not much of a difference in the techniques of production, apart from the introduction of a few new diagnostic shapes. There was no radical change in the pottery between FN and EBA, in contrast to the situation in the Cyclades, Crete, and mainland Greece. Mottled pottery continued to be produced during the EBA, following the FN tradition. Kos appears to have been closer to the eastern Aegean islands in this tradition, particularly to Samos and Chios. Pottery production in the Halasarna region was conservative in matters of shape, decoration, pottery-making techniques, and surface treatment, incorporating only some of the trends attested in the Cyclades and mainland Greece. This conservatism makes it difficult in many cases to determine the date of the sherds without stratification. The persistence in pottery-making techniques argues for a number of well-established workshops with many common traditions. Still, there was also diversity in the pottery found at different sites. For example, cheese pots were not found at Tsangaris and Koutounis Hill, crusted ware existed only at Koutounis and Koutounis Hill, pattern-burnished

THE POTTERY OF HALASARNA IN CHRONOLOGICAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

occurred only at Koutlousi, and Urfirnis only at Tsangaris. The number of diagnostic sherds from most of the sites is too inadequate, however, to forcefully argue this point or to make a more explicit analysis of the workshop characteristics of each site. Still, a comparison of the fabric characteristics yields some interesting observations. At Tsangaris most of the vessels had thin walls and belonged to open shapes. Their clay had the lowest percentage of inclusions, either because the potters exploited a good clay source nearby or they purified their clay thoroughly. The latter case appears more likely when viewed in conjunction with the thin vessel walls and the fact that Tsangaris had the highest frequency of surface treatments, e.g., burnished, scored, and/or slipped. The Tsangaris pottery assemblage consisted mainly of fine and semi-fine wares, which occurred with the next highest frequency at Koutounis. The rest of the sites appear to have had mostly coarser wares. The contrast in pottery quality between Koutounis and Koutounis Hill, despite their close proximity, is an important one. The close relationship between the pottery workshops of Koutlousi and Nerantzia can be seen mainly in their clay preparation techniques. In addition to the use of a common clay source containing gold mica, their

pottery also reveals a high percentage of both quartz and small stones. At the same time they diverged in the use of straw, which was relatively common at Koutlousi but not at Nerantzia. Furthermore, their assemblages display the same preference for burnishing and scoring surface treatment, but at Nerantzia there was also a preference for the use of slip, which was not common at Koutlousi. Moreover, the firing at Nerantzia was more careful, and the majority of its local products had a uniform color, unlike the pottery from most of the other sites. These observations reveal that pottery workshops with common manufacturing techniques existed at both Koutlousi and Nerantzia. Their interaction was close, and they shared many practices, but their pottery also displays differences that demarcate their individual characters. The evidence is not as clear for the relationship between Koutounis and Koutounis Hill, even though these sites are the same distance from each other as Koutlousi and Nerantzia. In this case a specialization in finer wares at Koutounis and coarser wares at Koutounis Hill could be tentatively proposed. At the same time they shared a stronger preference for orange ware than is seen at any other site in the Halasarna area.

Chapter 5 Endnotes 1. Sotirakopoulou 2008b, 533–537. 2. Nowicki 2002, 59. 3. Sampson 1987, 72. 4. Yakar 1985, 122.

93

5. Erdoğu 2003, 14–16. 6. Sampson 1988b, charts 5, 6, fig. 69. 7. Contra Sampson 1987, 119.

6

Chipped Stone

Altogether 411 pieces of chipped stone were recovered from 18 sites during the course of the HSP (Map 5). Most were found in association with sherds, but at a few locations, such as K.14.03, K.16.42–51, K.25.22, and K.08.88, a very few pieces of chipped stone were collected on their own. It is interesting to note that in surveys undertaken in Melos and Laconia the sites at which only chipped stone (obsidian) was recovered have been dated to the LN/FN period.1 Three varieties of material were used for making chipped stone tools: quartz, with six examples (1.5% of the assemblage; Kt.C.2, Pl. 14), chert, with 19 examples (4.5% of the assemblage; Kk.C.19, Pl. 14), and obsidian, with 386 examples (94% of the total assemblage). Quartz is locally available. Although its quality as a material for chipped tools is poor, it was still used occasionally throughout prehistoric Greece. Chert is of better quality and is found in a number of colors—mainly brownish red, gray blue, brown, and, more rarely, gray and black—in the Halasarna region. Small nodules of the first three of these chert color types can be seen in the Halasarna area. The predominance of obsidian comes as no surprise in this part

of the Aegean, especially in view of the finds from the excavations of various Neolithic sites across the Dodecanese.2 Nonetheless, the character of the obsidian from the Halasarna region is surprising, as only 13 pieces are from Melos, representing only 3.3% of the obsidian assemblage (Kt.C.7, Pl. 14). There are 373 examples from Giali, representing 96.4% of the total obsidian assemblage (Kt.C.4, Pl. 14). Three of them could have come from Kephalos (unnumbered flake and N.C.4 [Pl. 14]), and one piece is most probably from Anatolia or from the second and less common (0.25%) Giali variety (O.C.9, Pl. 14).3 Although the quality of the Giali obsidian is poorer than the Melian, chipped stone tools were made from Giali obsidian in both irregular and regular shapes. Irregular shapes are more frequent, and they tend to be flakes or one-edged blades. The regular shapes are fewer, due to the spherulites found in the Giali obsidian. Among the materials discussed above, quartz and most of the chert should be considered locally available. An exception is a black shiny chert flake, which may have been imported from outside Kos. Most obsidian varieties are probably nonlocal in origin and were

96

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

imported either from neighboring Giali or from sources further afield, such as those in Melos and inland Anatolia. Beyond the boundaries of the Halasarna survey, in the Kephalos area of the western part of Kos, however, a local obsidian variety has been identified and will be discussed at the end of this chapter. Of the aforementioned sites, ancient Halasarna (K.26.74, Map 3, no. 7) deserves special consideration, since it yielded more than a hundred obsidian pieces during the survey. Excavations have been conducted at Halasarna by the University of Athens since 1985, and a number of Hellenistic and Roman public buildings, including shrines and part of an Early Christian settlement, have been uncovered. In several of the Early Christian buildings, boulders of Giali obsidian were put to secondary use as building material for houses and tombs. Thus, it is possible that the obsidian pieces recovered during

the survey were in fact flakes from the building material rather than pieces resulting from the production of chipped stone tools. The irregular breakage of Giali obsidian makes it very difficult in most cases to identify intentional working. Considering the small size of many of the pieces recovered at ancient Halasarna, it seems unlikely that the majority derived from prehistoric activity. Nevertheless, some of them—such as the chert pieces and some identified Giali obsidian tools— were undoubtedly prehistoric. Some Melian pieces were also recovered from the excavation of Halasarna, supporting the existence of a smallscale, local flaking activity associated with the Neolithic/EBA chipped tool tradition. Hence, the chipped stone assemblage from this particular site presents a rather complicated picture, and its character cannot be clearly defined.

Lithic Types Cores Large nodules used for making tools were recovered in the Halasarna region. Chert cores were found at K.15.16 (1),4 where a piece with part of the cortex was preserved, K.14.03 (2), where evidence of piece extractions occurred, although the size of the cores suggests that they were exhausted, and at K.09.89 (2), where the negative of the tools can be seen on one example and part of the cortex on the other. Quartz cores were found at K.06.83 (1), where part of the cortex was preserved on one piece, and at K.09.50 (2) (Kt.C.2, Pl. 14). Identifying Giali obsidian cores (e.g., Kt.C.4, Pl. 14) is very difficult since their shape cannot be distinguished from simple nodules. One criterion is size, and in some cases the character of the extraction marks or negatives seen on their surfaces is helpful. Such cores were recovered from K.20.14 (1), K.25.91 (2), K.09.50 (3), K.09.74 (3) and K.26.74 (3). At the last-mentioned location, one example still bears part of its cortex, along with evidence of extracted pieces. Special attention should be paid to the obsidian core piece found at K.08.88, which belongs to a different type of obsidian (O.C.9, Pl. 14). A visual inspection suggests

that this was of central Anatolian provenance, or it may be an example of the second obsidian variety from Giali, which is of better quality than the more common one. Large parts of its original cortex are preserved, and it has a yellowish color with a shiny, pure texture.

Flakes Flakes are common and occur in all materials at many sites throughout the Halasarna area. Secondary chert flakes with limited parts of their cortex preserved are attested at K.26.74 (1) and K.10.34 (1). Tertiary flakes and small waste pieces of chert are found at different sites, such as K.10.33 (1), K.14.07 (1), K.09.50 (2), and K.20.18 (2). Quartz examples are found at K.06.83 (1) and K.09.50 (2). Flakes from Giali obsidian were found in large numbers across the Halasarna region. A few primary flakes were recovered at K.25.83 (1) and K.09.50 (3), while secondary flakes are attested at several sites, such as K.09.74 (1), K.25.83 (1), K.16.42 (1), K.10.11 (1), and K.09.50 (5). Tertiary flakes are found at K.26.74 (95), K.06.83 (1), K.09.50 (86),

CHIPPED STONE

K.09.89 (4), K.09.74 (13), K.10.11 (19), and K.25.83 (80). One flake from each of the last two sites may be from Kephalos (unnumbered, Pl. 14). There were also three tertiary flakes of Melian obsidian at K.09.89 (1) and K.25.83 (2). Flakes from Nerantzia, Koutlousi, K.09.89, Koutounis Hill, and Koukos display a certain uniformity in production. The flakes have a median length of 2.0–2.3 cm (except at K.09.89, possibly due to the small sample), a width of 1.4–1.6 cm, and a thickness of 0.6–0.8 cm. This narrow size range suggests that similar techniques were applied for producing chipped tools. The similarities in the flakes of this area stand in contrast to the chipped stone from ancient Halasarna, which is suspected to be largely a secondary product of the raw material used in building. Interestingly, the differences between Nerantzia and Koutlousi suggest local workshops were active at both sites. The existence of such workshops, however, does not necessarily mean that they were contemporary. In general the flakes from the Halasarna sites tend to be shorter and narrower than the ones recovered in the quarries at Melos,5 possibly as a result of the character of the raw material rather than the knapping technique and/or the knapper’s abilities.

Blades Blades were most commonly made from Melian obsidian, with 10 examples in total (Fig. 18). They have been collected at Koutlousi Upper hill (2), K.09.89 (1), and Koukos (7). The Koutlousi finds are the only intact examples (Kt.C.7, P1.14), while the rest are either medial or proximal pieces. Based on the median values of width and thickness from other Neolithic and EBA sites in the Aegean it seems that the examples from Koutlousi Upper hill and K.09.89 belong to the Neolithic blade tradition.6 All of them were produced with the application of the pressure technique. At Koukos the picture is more varied, with at least two examples being closer to Neolithic blade sizes, three to the EBA, and two in between. The use of Melian obsidian at this site most probably lasted from the Neolithic to the EBA. The typical blade form is probably the most difficult shape to replicate in Giali obsidian. The precision required to produce such blades can only

97

be obtained with good quality material containing few spherulites. Thus, it is surprising that at least three blade pieces of Giali obsidian were recovered, one from Koutlousi Upper hill, Kt.C.8 (Fig. 18), and two from Koukos, Kk.C.10 and Kk.C.11. The first two examples are medial parts while the third is distal, with a width ranging from 1.6 to 2.3 cm and a thickness of 0.6 to 1.0 cm. The overall scarcity of Giali obsidian blades reflects the limitations of this material, yet the skill of the chipped stone craftsmen is evident in the good quality of the tools found. There are also shorter versions of the blade form, consisting of bladelets with a rectangular shape and three sharp edges, two long and one short (Fig. 18). They have been found at Eleona (O.C.11), Koutounis Hill (Ktn.h.C.4), Tsangaris (T.C.1), and Koukos (Kk.C.12). The first was made from chert, and the rest were made from Giali obsidian. They measure 2.2 to 2.8 cm in length, 1.4 to 1.8 cm in width, and 0.4 to 0.7 cm in thickness. A more common Giali obsidian blade form is the one-edged variety. These blades tend to be rectangular, similar in shape and size to the regular blades, but they have only one sharp side (the long one), while the other side is considerably thicker (Fig. 18). This blade type has been recovered at Koutlousi Upper Hill (3), K.25.22 (1), and Koukos (6), while a chert example came from ancient Halasarna. One example from Koukos is square rather than rectangular. With the exception of the square and the chert examples, all have a thickness between 0.5 and 0.9 cm, making them slightly thicker than the more regular blades discussed above.

Scrapers Possibly the most common chipped stone tool type in the Halasarna region was the scraper (Fig. 18). Most of these (19) were made from Giali obsidian, but there are a few chert examples. Their popularity probably relates to the fact that such a shape would have been easier to form than a typical blade using the material available. Their shapes may be divided into two broad categories, trapezoid and triangular. Examples have been recovered from Nerantzia (4), one of them possibly of Kephalos obsidian (N.C.4, Pl. 14), K.09.68 (1), and Koutounis Hill (2). A chert example was found at Tsangaris, and one obsidian and one chert piece

98

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

may perhaps be identified at ancient Halasarna. Nine examples came from Koukos, one made of chert and the rest of obsidian. The absence of this type of tool from Koutlousi is surprising and suggests that it was not locally produced. Nonetheless, the distribution of scrapers does not suggest a single production center. Moreover, Giali obsidian scrapers have been identified in two cases at Alimnia,7 implying a wider production and use of this tool type.

Other Tools The sickle is an uncommon shape, one which appears to be a subvariety of the one-edged blade. Its shape is almost square, with one sharp edge that bears evidence of working. Unlike the Melian examples, it does not have a gloss patina along the blade,8 but rather a series of very thin striations that give it an opaque appearance at its sharper edge. This type of tool has been found only at Koutounis Hill, where three examples were recovered. All three examples bear evidence of retouch, suggesting that they were reused several times.

Several pointed pieces were also recovered during the HSP. It is probable that they were intentionally worked in this shape, since Giali obsidian does not naturally form pointed pieces. This tool type, known also as burin, was more popular in the Neolithic period than in the EBA and MBA, when it was replaced by bronze implements.9 The examples were collected at Koutlousi Upper Hill (1), K.14.03 (1), and Koutounis Hill (1), with other possible specimens from K.09.68 (1) and Koukos (1). A single example of an arrowhead Kk.C.29 (Pl. 14), made from Giali obsidian, was recovered at Koukos. While partly broken, it is clear that it belongs to the concave type, which is well attested from EBA contexts onward in mainland Greece and the Cyclades.10 Arrowheads are very rare in the prehistoric Dodecanese; one example of undetermined type, also made of Giali obsidian, was found at Alimnia.11 The concave type of arrowhead is unique in the Dodecanese, in contrast to its frequency in the neighboring Cyclades.

Conclusions The chipped stone recovered by the HSP raises a number of issues concerning the identification and understanding of the materials used and their dispersal throughout the sites. These problems are most important with regard to the Giali obsidian tools, whose character, manufacture, and use illustrate the role of this obsidian type in the Aegean. A consideration of the raw materials used, their procurement, and their circulation may make it possible to identify the sites where a chipped stone industry was active.

Materials Although chert is not abundant at Halasarna, it is found at 10 sites, K.10.34, K.14.03, K.14.07, K.20.18, Eleona, Koutlousi, Koutounis, Tsangaris, ancient Halasarna, and Koukos (Map 5). Chert predominates over obsidian at sites such as Koutounis

and K.14.03, while at K.14.07 chert is the only material that has been recovered. In contrast to chert, quartz is restricted to just two sites, Eleona and Koutlousi Upper Hill. At Eleona quartz and chert specimens are more numerous than Giali obsidian. Obsidian from Giali has been recovered from 13 locations in various quantities, with the largest assemblages (more than 100 pieces) found at Koukos, Koutlousi, and ancient Halasarna. There are, however, problems of chronological interpretation associated with the assemblage from the lastmentioned site, as discussed above. More than 20 pieces have been collected at Nerantzia and Koutounis Hill, while fewer than 10 were recovered from the remaining eight sites. If the identification of the three obsidian pieces from Kephalos is correct (cf. Kt.C.4, unnumbered flake, and N.C.4; Pl. 14), they are found both at Koukos and Nerantzia. Melian obsidian is restricted to three

CHIPPED STONE

sites, Koutlousi Upper Hill (2), K.09.89 (2), and Koukos (9), while a single piece of Anatolian obsidian or the second variety from Giali was recovered at K.08.88. At eight of the sites where chert was recovered, local working of this material is attested by cores, flakes, and wastes. While at two sites (Eleona and Koukos) only tools have been found, the sample is too small to argue in favor of ready-made exchanged tools. At Eleona there is evidence for the local working of quartz, making it difficult to prove this hypothesis. Quartz working has also been attested at Koutlousi Upper Hill. It is interesting to note that although Kos had significant resources of rhyolite in the Kephalos area, no evidence of its exploitation for chipped tools has been recovered from the Halasarna region. Instead, Giali obsidian was preferred, as well as, to a lesser extent, the local obsidian variety and the available resources of chert and quartz. On Melos rhyolite was used as a second rate material for chipped tools at several sites,12 but this practice was not observed at the Halasarna sites, perhaps due to the low quality of the material, which did not allow conchoidal breakage. At sites where single pieces of Giali obsidian have been found, such as K.14.03, K.09.68, K.25.22, and Tsangaris, tool forms have been identified and no flake working has been noted. At the remaining nine sites where evidence exists for flake working, it seems to have been an important local activity. This is especially true for Koukos, ancient Halasarna, Koutlousi Upper Hill, and Koutounis Hill, sites with considerable assemblages in which both cores and flakes with a cortex have been noted. At Nerantzia only flakes with a cortex have been recovered. Most of the larger sites with long occupations appear to have had significant chipped tool industries, but similar activity seems to have occurred at some smaller sites such as K.09.89, K.20.14, K.06.83, and K.16.42. It is possible that the nodules that came from Giali were both worked and unworked, as suggested by the presence of cortex on some flakes. It is difficult to assess whether the Halasarna region had a special role in the distribution of worked and unworked pieces of Giali obsidian to other prehistoric sites on Kos. Nonetheless the location of the Halasarna sites, their access to Giali, and the quantities of Giali obsidian found seem to support such a possibility.

99

The limitations of Giali obsidian were well known to the knappers of the Halasarna region. Although conchoidal breakage is possible, the spherulites do not allow a predictable result, in contrast to Melian obsidian. The fracturing of the Giali obsidian consistently produces a flake with a rather sharp edge that can be used as a multipurpose tool, however. The typically shaped blades, the arrowhead, and the retouch observed on the sickles clearly demonstrate the efficiency of the local chipped stone craftsmen, who easily replicated canonical chipped shapes using Giali obsidian and practiced typical knapping techniques on this material. Apart from the canonical blades and scrapers, bladelets, one-edged blades, sickles, and pointed tools were also found among the repertoire of the Halasarna knappers. It is probable that these types also occurred in other areas with a preference for Giali obsidian and were part of a wider and more coherent typology. This hypothesis could be confirmed in a more thorough analysis of the excavated assemblages and the recovery of new ones in the Dodecanese. Nerantzia, Koutlousi Upper Hill, Koutounis Hill, and Koukos were the most important knapping centers during the Neolithic and the EBA. Koukos in particular appears to have been the most significant center for working obsidian from both Giali and Melos, producing diverse types of tools in larger quantities than any other site. Although Melian obsidian has been recovered at Koukos, K.09.89 and Koutlousi Upper Hill, only the first two sites have yielded positive evidence, in the form of flakes, for the working of this material. It is possible that the Melian pieces were imported into the area as ready-made cores, since no piece with a cortex was recovered, unlike the situation at most other prehistoric sites on Kos. Nevertheless, the presence of the core of the Anatolian or the second variety of Giali obsidian at K.08.88 strongly suggests the procurement of unworked nodules through exchange, rather than directly from their source. Until more evidence of Melian obsidian working is available it is proposed that diverse procurement and exchange systems were active in the Halasarna region. At other sites on Kos Melian pieces are occasionally recovered, mostly as parts of blades or tertiary flakes. At Mesaria, an inland site, a secondary flake was observed, however. Thus, it appears that at least in some settlements obsidian

100

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

was brought and/or exchanged as nodules rather than as pre-worked cores. The Hagios Phokas hill in southeastern Kos is the only site at which I have observed that the Melian obsidian predominated over the Giali variety.

Procurement and Circulation The chipped stone tools of the Halasarna region are important because they allow a quantitative and qualitative assessment of raw material exchange and tool making within a particular area. The overwhelming predominance of Giali obsidian places Halasarna within a wider regional context of chipped tool traditions.13 It attests to the degree of contact and interaction between the Halasarna sites and Giali with its obsidian resources. Although the character of the procurement remains unclear, I have argued that the Giali inhabitants controlled their resources and circulated worked cores.14 Nonetheless, at a few Halasarna sites pieces with a cortex were recovered, suggesting that some of the circulated obsidian nodules had not been processed. Still, they are extremely few in number, suggesting that they were brought in by exchanges and not necessarily by direct access to the source, as is usually hypothesized for Melos. The proximity and geographical position of Kos relative to Giali, along with the similarity of the finds from the Halasarna area in comparison with those from Giali, strongly suggest a special relationship between these two islands (Map 1). This relationship may have been a result of Giali’s limited agricultural resources and its dependence on imported raw and worked material, as well as on intermarriage. The same connection could also be argued to have existed between Giali and Nisyros, but the Neolithic and EBA evidence from the latter island is rather limited. Melian and Anatolian obsidian must have reached the Halasarna region through more extensive exchange networks that were significantly different from those that existed between Halasarna and Giali. The role of Koukos (Map 5, no. 6) in the circulation of Melian obsidian within the Halasarna area was significant in both the Neolithic and EBA. Its proximity to the sea and its size allowed it to function as the entrance point for obsidian imported via the sea rather than through other inland Koan sites.

Koukos may also have been a center for the circulation of Giali obsidian to other sites within the Halasarna region. The large quantities of Giali obsidian recovered at this settlement support this hypothesis. Nonetheless, there may have been still other avenues for acquiring Giali or even Melian obsidian at Halasarna. It is proposed, however, that Koukos played a central and significant role in the circulation of obsidian and in other types of exchange that took place at Halasarna and on Kos in general. Most of the other sites with chipped stone are found at inland hilly locations just above the Halasarna plain. The only coastal site is ancient Halasarna, at which at least a small portion of the Giali obsidian and the chert tools must be prehistoric. Possibly this small site was the entry point of Giali obsidian into the region, with most of the raw material being transferred to Koukos. There it was worked and circulated farther inland.

Kephalos Obsidian The Kephalos region is geologically very diverse, more so than the rest of the island.15 In this area thin obsidian layers have been found in the rhyolite areas of Mt. Zini and Mt. Latra by Buchholz and Althaus.16 The presence of glass within the volcanic ash has also been noted in the past by geologists working in the wider Kephalos area,17 but not in the region of Mt. Zini and Mt. Latra. In 2007 Krzysztof Nowicki showed me an inland hill with obsidian, 1 km north of the Kephalos bay, which he had located a few years previously. This region is northeast of the area with obsidian observed by Buchholz and Althaus. The hill is situated on the south side of the inland road that leads from Antimachia to Kephalos, ca. 2.5 km from the junction with the coastal road and ca. 50 m northeast of the Hagia Varvara church. This broad low hill has been exploited recently for its volcanic ash, and trenches 6 m deep have exposed its geological strata (Pl. 15A). The area belongs to the pyroclastic sequence of Kephalos, which differs geologically from the one in the southern part of Kephalos.18 The obsidian pieces observed within the pyroclastic sequence of Kephalos are in the form of nodules (Pls. 15B, 15C) rather than layers of lava

CHIPPED STONE

flows. These nodules appear to have macroscopically different fabrics, and they belong to three separate types. My research on this area has shown that the most common type (variety 1) is similar in appearance and texture to the one from neighboring Giali, i.e., shiny light gray in color (Gley 2 5/1 bluish gray), lighter than the majority of gray Melian obsidian, with white spherulites (Pl. 16). Initially, I observed small nodules not exceeding 1.5 cm in length,19 but a more thorough study has revealed larger ones up 4 cm long. In many cases they are not solid but have veins, or the pieces are loosely connected together and transparent only at their thin edges. The second variety is found in larger nodules with a white, relatively thick cortex. In texture they have white spots, but they do not have the same consistency as the spherulites. The main difference between varieties 1 and 2 is the color of the obsidian, with variety 2 being more matt and a darker gray (Gley 2 4/1 dark bluish gray to 3/1 very dark bluish gray). Some pieces are opaque, while others are shiny (Pl. 16). Moreover, they are not at all transparent, and their fracture is irregular and not conchoidal, unlike good quality obsidian. The third variety is shiny and rather small in size, rarely exceeding 0.5–1.0 cm in length, and it contains pure obsidian pieces without spherulites (Pl. 16). The same attributes are found in the better quality examples known from Giali.20 All these obsidian varieties have also been identified at the end of the hill extending northward from the road. A few flakes have also been found on the surface of the hill, along with several prehistoric sherds including an EBA handle (Map 2, no. 29). Obsidian of the second variety has been found in the geological strata on some hills to the west of this area. These sites include the Hagia Varvara hill, ca. 50 m west of the previous hill, a low hill in the Milies area on the west side of the road, another low hill in the Milies area (also on the west side of the road) where a few prehistoric sherds, one identified as EBA, and an obsidian nodule were found on the surface, a location at Kephalos on the east side of the road opposite a windmill,

101

and another location ca. 2 km south of Kephalos by the road. All these sites have the geological stratum of the pyroclastic sequence of Kephalos. It may be significant that in the hills where prehistoric material was observed, no Giali obsidian has been noted. Although the Aspri Petra cave has produced predominantly Giali obsidian rather than Melian,21 a more thorough study could help to determine whether some of it was of Kephalos origin. At the site northeast of Hagia Varvara, Giali obsidian rather than the local variety was identified. The quality of Kephalos obsidian is poor due to its consistency and fabric. Moreover, its small size allows only limited exploitation. It was used mainly in the form of sharp flakes rather than for other canonical chipped tool shapes. The character of these pieces was similar to that of the tools made out of quartz, another low quality material. The local use of Kephalos obsidian can be proposed, nevertheless, while taking into account these limitations. Its presence on the surface, along with EBA sherds, attests to its use, but a more thorough study is needed to develop a broader picture of its local consumption. A scraper, discussed above, a flake from Nerantzia, and a flake from Koukos may have been made out of good quality Kephalos obsidian, but its differentiation from the Giali variety and among its several outcrops is difficult without chemical analysis. If the identification is correct, then the use of the Kephalos variety could have been more widespread on Kos, but the island’s proximity to Giali meant that most obsidian was imported from there. The same could be proposed for the limited exploitation of Antiparos obsidian, which was overwhelmed by Melian obsidian in the Cyclades. A reassessment of the Aspri Petra cave chipped stone may shed more light on the use of this local obsidian source. It will also be important to determine whether Kephalos obsidian was used as a clay temper, which in turn may help us in the reconstruction of pottery technology, provenance, and exchange. The obsidian ware recovered during the HSP might have come from the Kephalos area.

102

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Chapter 6 Endnotes 1. Cherry 1982a, fig. 2.2; Cherry and Torrence 1982, 24–26, table 3.1; Bintliff 2000, 7–8; Mee and Cavanagh 2005, 5. 2. Sampson 1987, 1988b. 3. Sampson 1988b, 205; 2006, 241; Bassiakos, Kilikoglou, and Sampson 2005. 4. Numbers in parentheses represent the quantity of chipped stone finds from each site. 5. Torrence 1982, tables 15.11, 15.14. 6. Torrence 1986, table 8; Kardulias 1992, table 6. 7. Sampson 1987, 85, fig. 114:121; 144. 8. Runnels 1985, 370–372; Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 82. 9. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 16:K; Coleman 1977, 7, pls. 25:lowest row, 70:category 4; Runnels 1985, 370, figs. 6:D, 12:D, 15:E; Sampson 1987, 47–48, figs. 70:844, 858, 860; 71:865, 875, 876, 879; Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 81–82; Moundrea-Agrafioti 1997, 172. 10. Cherry and Torrence 1984, 22, fig. 2:j; Runnels 1985, 372, figs. 6:B, 11:C, E, pls. 100a:upper row first three,

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

100b:upper row; Cosmopoulos 1991, 74–76; Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 82–83; Moundrea-Agrafioti 1997, 173. Sampson 1987, 85, fig. 114:137a. Cherry 1982b, 295, 297–298, 300–301, 303–308. Georgiadis 2008b. Georgiadis 2008b, 112. Leontaris 1970, 45–46; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 16; Higgins and Higgins 1996, 159. Buchholz and Althaus 1982, 41–42, fig. 11, pl. 4:b. Kelepertsis and Reeves 1987–1988, 446–447. Triandafylli 1994. Georgiadis 2008b, 106. Sampson 1988b, 205; 2006, 241; Bassiakos, Kilikoglou, and Sampson 2005, 18. Levi 1925–1926, 278–279, 282.

7

Ground Stone

More than 40 prehistoric ground stone tools were collected from different sites during the HSP (Map 5). They were recovered at Neranztia (11 examples), its satellite K.10.35 (1), Koutlousi Upper Hill (22), Tsangaris (6, plus one left in situ), Koukos (1), and K.15.51 (1). They are made from different materials, with andesite (11) and marble (11) being the most numerous, followed by sandstone (8), granite (7), limestone (3, including one large grinder left in situ), volcanic rock (1), greenstone (1), and a pebble of unidentified material (1). This variety of ground stone raw materials is inconsistent with the more limited range of stones used on Giali in the FN and EBA. On Giali andesite (84) predominated, while sandstone (18), limestone (11), schist (5), perlite (5), pumice (1), chert (1), and olivine (1) were found in far smaller quantities.1 The preference for andesite is also seen at EBA Charkadio cave, where the stone was identified as trachyte.2 At Kalythies cave most of the stone tools were sandstone (41), and fewer were limestone (18), schist (16), granite (5), and other stones (10).3 At Koumelo cave the stone tools were made from sandstone, schist, and limestone, while

at Alimnia they were mainly sandstone, schist, and granite, and at Partheni they consisted of limestone, sandstone, schist, and chert.4 At the LN and EBA sites on Karpathos, mainly Leftoporos, sandstones (6), volcanic rocks (2), trachyte (1), and schist (1) were found.5 The origins of these stones are of particular interest with regard to questions of the extent of their movement and the participation of Halasarna in wider exchange networks. Although there have been no chemical analyses to determine the provenance of ground stone raw materials, regional geology may provide us with useful information. Marble is widely available across the Aegean, but Kos itself possesses considerable quantities in the area of Mt. Dikaios. It is not necessary to look far away for the source of the Halasarna examples. The rounded, pebble-like shape of the grinders (Kt.St.5, Pl. 16) strongly suggests that they derived from a marble source located by the sea, most probably the coastal part of the Marmara area, just south of Mt. Dikaios. Andesite is a volcanic mineral that is widely distributed on Kos, the islet of Hagios Antonios off Giali, and Nisyros. The Nisyros material is the best

104

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

quality and was widely used in Classical and Roman times.6 The pieces found by the HSP can be easily divided into two categories based on their color, texture, and use. The andesites used for grinders have a smooth surface with a pebble-like appearance and a uniform blue-gray color. These examples most certainly came from Hagios Antonios and were either collected from this islet itself or from the Giali bay opposite Hagios Antonios, where they often washed up (Kt.St.14, Pl. 16). The second variety was used for making grindstones and had a coarser texture and a darker color with a few reddish inclusions (Kk.St.1, Pl. 16). The source of this andesite type is unclear, but its quality and color may indicate an origin around Mt. Zini at Kephalos in western Kos rather than further afield. An andesite grinder from Koutlousi has a yellowishwhite color and was smoothed by the sea (Kt.St.15, Pl. 16), suggesting that it had a different origin in Kos or Nisyros than the previous varieties. Other raw materials for ground stone tools must have come from diverse sources. The whitish-black

color of the granite found by the HSP, as well as its friable character, represents a relatively poor quality of material (N.St.1, Pl. 17), one which corresponds well with the monzonite found locally on the island. During my visit to the bay just east of Marmara, I found a source of this material on the beach, representing either an outcrop or remains that had fallen from a higher slope of Mt. Dikaios. The sandstone on Halasarna (Kt.St.2, Pl. 16) and Giali may have come from a local source within the general region of these islands. The volcanic rock is a rather porous and light material that may have originated from Nisyros (K.St.1, Pl. 17). The limestone and other tools may have had a local origin, the limestone possibly coming from the Pyli limestone source (T.St.3, Pl. 17). The provenance of the greenstone axe (Kt.St.21, Pl. 17) cannot be easily determined, but it could have been imported from another area. The same appears to be the case for most of the other stone axes recovered on Kos,7 which are made out of basalt.8

Grindstones The different types of querns recovered at Halasarna will be divided according to their base and working surface arrangement. Their dating may be related to size rather than type.9 Type 1 has a round or ellipsoid shape with a saddle-like base and a slightly concave upper surface. There are three specimens of this type. Grindstones N.St.1 (Fig. 19; Pl. 17) and N.St.2 (Fig. 20) are both made from granite, and both come from Nerantzia. A possible third example, Kk.St.1, comes from Koukos and is made of andesite; it is only partly preserved and may have been ellipsoid (Pl. 16). Similar grindstones are attested at various sites in Sesklo,10 the southern Argolid,11 Hagios Kosmas,12 Manika,13 Myrtos,14 Markiani (as a general type),15 Troy I–II,16 LN Ulucak Höyük,17 Neolithic and EBA Aphrodisias,18 Thermi,19 Emporio VIII–II,20 EB II Karataş,21 Koumelo cave,22 Kalythies cave (where it is the commonest type),23 Alimnia,24 Partheni,25 Giali,26 and possibly Charkadio cave,27 Vouno, Leftoporos, and Mesochori-Kaminakia on Karpathos.28 This saddle quern shape is well known and common in Neolithic and EBA contexts across the Aegean.

The size of N.St.2 suggests that it dated to the EBA rather than an earlier period. Type 2 has a rectangular shape with a flat base and a descending or sloping upper surface, forming a triangle in section (Fig. 20). The examples of this type of grindstone are T.St.1 and T.St.2, both of which are made from a dark gray andesite, found at Tsangaris. Parallels for this grindstone shape have been recovered at LN Limnes cave,29 Manika,30 EH Kaloyerovrysi (where the shape is circular),31 Markiani,32 Troy I,33 Thermi,34 EB II Karataş,35 and Koumelo cave.36 Most of these examples, however, are ellipsoid or circular rather than rectangular like the Halasarna specimens. Although there are FN examples of this type at Koumelo cave, it became more common across the Aegean in the EBA. The size as well as the shape of the grindstones place the Halasarna examples in the EBA. Type 3 is similar to both types 1 and 2. It has a rectangular shape with a slightly raised rim and a flat working surface, but its base is concave. There are three examples of this type: Kt.St.1 (Fig. 20; Pl. 17), N.St.3, and N.St.4. The first is made of a volcanic

GROUND STONE

porous rock, very light in weight, and the other two from granite. This type occurs at Nerantzia and Koutlousi, which are located ca. 300 m from each other. The shape is characteristic of the EBA Cyclades.37 Similar specimens have been found at Neolithic Knossos,38 EM IIB Myrtos,39 MM–LM Kommos,40 Manika,41 EH Kaloyerovrysi (although this example is of round shape),42 Markiani,43 Giali (in both ellipsoid and rectangular varieties),44 and Aspri Petra cave.45 The longevity of this type, from the EN to the LBA, is remarkable, as is especially evident during the EBA in the Cyclades. It could be argued that the Halasarna examples reflect EBA interaction with the Cyclades. The popularity of this form may not have been confined to the Cyclades,46 however; it may have been favored in the islands of the Dodecanese as well, but no significant EBA site in the Dodecanese has so far been studied.

105

Type 4 has a roughly rectangular shape with a flat base and a concave depression on its upper surface. One example of this grindstone type, T.St.3, is made from gray limestone and is rather large in size, for which reason it was left in situ at Tsangaris (Pl. 17). This unusual form is paralleled only by the general type of grindstones identified at Manika (without the depression),47 Kalythies cave,48 a single andesite example from Giali,49 and an example from Aspri Petra (although this specimen is of smaller size, ellipsoid in shape, and with a more exaggerated concave upper surface).50 These examples have been found in Neolithic contexts, mixed Neolithic and EBA at Aspri Petra cave, and EBA contexts at Manika, preventing us from dating this type more precisely. The size of this grindstone, however, may argue more convincingly for an EBA date rather than an earlier one.

Mortars The main characteristic of this type of grindstone is its hollow upper surface. Still, there are variations in its shape and base arrangement, and size remains a chronological criterion, as discussed in the previous section. Type 1 has an ellipsoid or circular shape with a saddle-like base. The hollow on its surface follows the overall oblong shape of the mortar. A single sandstone specimen of this type, Kt.St.2, was found at Koutlousi (Fig. 21; Pl. 16). Similar examples are known from Neolithic Knossos,51 Manika,52 Markiani,53 Poliochni Green, Red, and Yellow,54 Giali,55 and Aspri Petra cave.56 This mortar type shows continuity from the Neolithic to the EBA. Type 2 has a rectangular or square shape with a flat base and a round hollow on its surface. A single granite example of this shape, N.St.5, came from Nerantzia (Fig. 21). Parallels have been found at Sesklo,57 Neolithic Knossos,58 Manika,59 MH II–LH I Kaloyerovrysi,60 Ftelia,61 Poliochni Yellow,62 Emporio,63 and Aspri Petra cave (but this mortar is triangular in shape).64 The shape appears to be common at EC II Akrotiri in palette or rectangular shape, but most examples tend to be smaller in size, except for nos.1315 and 3656, which are comparable in size to the Nerantzia example.65 There are a few specimens of Neolithic date, but the continuity of the type

into the EBA is suggested by the Aspri Petra cave example. The preserved size of N.St.5 and its parallels at Akrotiri and Aspri Petra cave suggest an EBA date, if not EB II. Type 3 has a curved body and a simple rim, 28 cm in diameter. A single example, Kt.St.3 (Fig. 21) resembles a vessel made from limestone. This mortar could also have been used as a stone vessel, but its shape is uncommon. Nonetheless, there are close parallels for the shape from Sesklo66 and other examples from EN Nessonis, also in Thessaly,67 EH I/II Perachora (where examples are similar in shape but smaller in size),68 EM III to LM Crete (but the base may have been different),69 EN II Knossos,70 EC II Hagia Eirene,71 EBA Markiani (but this ex-ample is very crude and different in shape from the Halasarna specimen),72 Poliochni Yellow,73 and Emporio (an unstratified example).74 Limestone examples with similar shapes but with thinner walls and smaller rim diameters have been identified at EC II DaskaleioKavos.75 The closest parallel comes from Aspri Petra cave.76 This specimen is similar in size, but its shape was oval and it is unclear whether the Halasarna specimen had a spout like the Aspri Petra example or not. This stone tool was most probably used as both a mortar and a vessel. It appears to date to the EBA in view of the number of parallels from this period.

106

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Grinders Grinders are the most numerous type of stone tool recovered in the HSP, with a large variety of forms. There seem to have been two main sizes, with lengths of either 4.0–7.0 cm or 10.0–12.0 cm, widths of 3.5–5.0 cm and 6.0–8.0 cm, respectively, and thicknesses varying between 3.0 and 6.0 cm. A similar size division has been noted among the grinders from Manika.77 Although most of the shapes discussed below are common in the Neolithic Dodecanese, they are also found in EBA contexts beyond this region. Thus, no dating will be attempted here; rather, a general LN–EBA chronological horizon is proposed. Type 1 is the most common form found at Halasarna (Kt.St.4, Kt.St.7, T.St.4, Fig. 22). It has an ellipsoid shape with oval sections, smoothed on both sides and mainly flat, although round examples exist as well (e.g., Kt.St.5, Pl. 16). Examples of this type include Kt.St.4–Kt.St.9, T.St.4, N.St.6, and N.St.7 (the last is only partly preserved). Interestingly, this type was very popular at Koutlousi, but it was also found at Nerantzia and Tsangaris. One of the sides is shiny, suggesting this was the surface used for grinding. Cosmopoulos argues in favor of a Neolithic origin for this type, which continued at least until the EB II period.78 The most common material used for this shape at all three sites is marble. At Koutlousi round, pebblelike andesite pieces were used as well, along with one limestone example. Similar forms have been recovered at LN Limnes cave,79 EM IIB Myrtos,80 Manika,81 Kephala,82 Saliagos,83 Ftelia,84 EN–LN levels at the Cave of the Cyclops,85 Poliochni Red and Green,86 Kalythies cave,87 Koumelo cave,88 Kantili,89 Limani Papakonstanti,90 Laftira,91 Lainas cave,92 Panormitis,93 and Giali.94 Type 2 has a cylindrical shape. Two marble examples are of small size, Kt.St.10 and Kt.St.11, and one sandstone, O.St.1, is large with a deep oval hollow (Fig. 22). This shape was used for a long period, originating in the Neolithic and continuing into the EBA.95 Parallels for this shape come from EM IIB Myrtos (including an example with a hollow),96 Manika,97 EC II Hagia Eirene,98 Saliagos,99 Ftelia,100 Markiani,101 Poliochni Green and Red,102 and Giali.103 Type 3 is hemispherical in shape, but it has an oval section similar to type 1, and is small in size

(Fig. 22). There is only one example of this type, Kt.St.12, which is made from limestone and comes from Koutlousi. Similar grinder shapes have been recovered from Ftelia,104 Markiani,105 and Alimnia.106 This type also seems to span the Neolithic and the EBA.107 Type 4 has an ellipsoid shape and a hemispherical section. Grinders Kt.St.13 (Fig. 22) and N.St.8 belong to this type, and both are made of marble. They were recovered at Koutlousi and Nerantzia, perhaps having been made in one workshop, possibly at Koutlousi, and distributed or exchanged with Nerantzia. Parallels for this type are found at LN Limnes cave,108 Manika,109 Ftelia,110 Kalythies cave,111 Koumelo cave,112 the smaller Koumelo cave,113 Kerami,114 Limani Papakonstanti,115 Koukoumia,116 Alimnia,117 Pontamos,118 and Giali.119 Type 5 has an asymmetrical shape with a roughly triangular section. This type is common only at Koutlousi, where four examples, Kt.St.14–Kt.St.17 (Figs. 22, 23; Pl. 16), were found. These were made from andesite and sandstone. Similar grinders are known from EM IIB Myrtos,120 Ftelia,121 EB 4 Aphrodisias,122 Kalythies cave,123 Koumelo cave,124 Alimnia,125 and Giali.126 Type 6 is roughly rectangular in shape and hemispherical in section. It is represented by one andesite example, N.St.9, from Nerantzia (Fig. 23). Similar forms have been recovered at Manika,127 Ftelia,128 EB III Karataş,129 Kalythies cave,130 Alimnia,131 Partheni,132 and Giali.133 Type 7 is almost spherical in shape, its lower part being rougher than the rest of the tool. T.St.5 (Fig. 23) is made of andesite and could have been used as a grinder. Another example, N.St.10, is made of granite and possibly belongs to the same type, but it seems to be either broken or incompletely finished. Parallels for this grinder come from Sesklo,134 Lithares,135 and EM IIB Myrtos.136 The shape had a Neolithic origin, but continued in use during the EBA.137 Type 8 is round and conical in shape with a flat top. It may be related to the previous type in regard to shape rather than use. On this shape the smoothed working side is the flat top one, which has a smaller diameter than the unworked one, however. One example, N.St.11 (Fig. 23), has been

GROUND STONE

recovered. It was made of granite and found at Nerantzia. This is a rare type, found elsewhere only at Manika, where it has a square shape,138 and at Giali, where it is also rather uncommon.139 Shallow round hollows are found on grinders of different types, as outlined above. The hollows do not affect their shape or use, as shown by examples T.St.4 and N.St.9, and the purpose of the hollows

107

is unclear.140 It has been suggested that they represent unsuccessful attempts to drill holes; however, no examples with holes are known. Similar hollows were found on different stone tool shapes, mainly grinders, at EBA Peukakia-Magoula,141 Myrtos,142 EC Panagia at Paros,143 Thermi I or II and IV,144 Kalythies cave (with two shallow round hollows),145 Koumelo cave,146 and Giali.147

Pounders Type 1 has a conical shape, its lower side showing evidence of pounding and grinding. A single example of this type has been collected, T.St.6 (Fig. 23). It is made of marble and could be classified as a grinder, a pounder, or both. Parallel specimens come from Lithares,148 Hagios Kosmas,149 Manika,150 EM IIB Myrtos,151 Markiani,152 Troy I,153 LN Ulucak Höyük,154 Poliochni Blue and Yellow,155 Thermi V,156 Emporio,157 Partheni,158 and Giali.159 This type has a Neolithic origin, but it became more popular and widespread in the EBA, especially in the eastern Aegean,160 which suggests a later date for the Tsangaris example.

Type 2 has a hemispherical lower body from which a thinner cylindrical part extends upward. There are two examples of this shape, Kt.St.18 and Kt.St.19, which are very small (Fig. 24). Both are made of sandstone and come from Koutlousi. Similar examples have been found at EM IIB Myrtos (these examples were recognized as small grinding and pounding implements),161 Manika,162 Zas cave,163 Poliochni Blue (a specimen that was larger in size),164 and Thermi II (identified as a type of weight).165 This form, most probably a small pounder/grinder, is likely to belong to the EBA, but the evidence for dating is rather limited.

Other Stone Objects Pieces T.St.7 and O.St.2 are cylindrical objects, round to oval in shape, with an hourglass perforation in the middle (Fig. 24). They were made from andesite of different colors. Possibly they functioned as hammers. The same shape was used for maceheads during the Neolithic period, but the size of the Halasarna examples does not support this interpretation. Parallels for this shape were recovered from EN Knossos (where they were recognized as digging-stick weights),166 LM Kommos (where the perforation is conical),167 EM IIB Myrtos (where one example was identified as a door socket, possibly from a reused weight, and another as a stone weight),168 LM Akrotiri (with an hourglass perforation, identified initially as a hammer and later as a weight),169 Markiani (a rectangular example characterized as a weight),170 EB 3 and EB 4–MB Aphrodisias (where the earlier example is irregular in shape with a small hourglass perforation and was

identified as grindstone/pivot stone; the second has a cylindrical perforation),171 Thermi I or II,172 Emporio (however, this was found at a Roman level and is of a smaller size),173 and Giali (but this example has a cylindrical perforation).174 This atypical stone tool form is closer in shape and perforation type to the examples from Knossos, Myrtos, Akrotiri, Thermi, and Emporio. Their well-made shape, weight, size, the particular care taken with their external sides, and the way they have been broken argue against their identification as weights; as noted above, they were more likely to have served as hammers. The unpopularity of this shape within the Aegean may suggest a use related to a distinct local activity at Halasarna, such as metalworking or another, more general purpose related to farming. The EN Knossos parallel is possibly too early to be considered a predecessor, but the Giali example may have been an earlier version of the same type.

108

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Examples from Myrtos and Thermi, as well as the first example from Aphrodisias and possibly those from Emporio, argue in favor of an EB I–II date for this tool shape. Stone Kt.St.20 has an ellipsoid shape with a hemispherical section and is similar in form to grinders of type 4. It differs from these, however, in that it is made of sandstone and has two incised signs, a short vertical line and a squared C, on its flat surface (Pl. 18). It is also unique among other stone items in having evidence of intense firing and small cracks on its flat surface. Its use is unclear; it could have functioned either as a weight or as a token of some kind. Its weight is 18 g, double the weight of the basic EBA unit in the Aegean, ca. 9.4 g.175 The main EBA weight shapes are the stone spool (ca. 9.4 g), found in southern Greece, and the sphendonoid from the northeastern Aegean (ca. 8.33 g). The fact that the Halasarna example was found on the surface of the site certainly does not help its identification. Incised signs on wood, stones, and pots are known from the 6th millennium B.C. and continue until the EBA. Neolithic signs have been found at Sesklo on clay,176 MN Dispilio on wood and sherds, LN Giannitsa on a stone seal, the Cave of the Cyclops on a sherd from the LN period, LN–FN Skoteini cave on sherds, Ftelia on sherds and pieces of pumice, and Giali on a sherd.177 During the EBA they have been found mainly on pots and are characterized as potter’s marks at Lerna, Manika, Hagia Eirene, Phylakopi, Mt. Kynthos, Skarkos, and Zas cave.178 Rock images such as those from FN Strophilas and EC II Korphi t’Aroniou have a different repertoire, depicting objects, animals, and humans, and they are made using a different technique.179 Signs sharing many similarities with the Neolithic Aegean examples have been recovered in considerable numbers in the Neolithic Balkans. Although it cannot be convincingly demonstrated that inscribed objects had a sacred character, this is an important possibility to consider.180 Both signs from the Halasarna stone item have close affinities to symbols from the Neolithic Balkans, but the latter have a different orientation.181 Tzavella-Evjen argues that several clay, stone, and bone items with incisions from Neolithic sites in Greece, including Chaironeia, represent tokens with parallels from the

Near East.182 The geographical proximity of the Halasarna example to the one from Giali, the resemblance of the signs to those from Ftelia, the fact that at the latter site they are found on pieces of pumice, and the parallels from the Neolithic Balkan suggest that the Halasarna incised marks belong to the “protoscript” of the LN–FN period, rather than to a script of later date. The possible function of this item as a weight could mean that it was the predecessor of the EBA metrical system, which had its origin in the LN–FN period. If this hypothesis is supported with evidence from other sites, then the adoption of the idea of weighing and the proposed EBA Near Eastern origin of this measurement system cannot be supported.183 A possible fragment of a stone axe, Kt.St.21 (Pl. 17), was recovered at Koutlousi. Part of its side is preserved. It is smoothed and made of greenstone. Stone axes are a common Neolithic and EBA tool, of which examples have been found at Sesklo,184 Lithares,185 Kephala,186 Saliagos,187 Ftelia,188 Troy I,189 Emporio,190 Tigani,191 Kalythies cave,192 the modern city of Rhodes (three examples),193 Ekato,194 Kerami,195 Giali,196 and Kos (several across the island).197 Although stone axes seem to be rare on Rhodes and the adjacent small islands, on Giali and Kos they appear to have been especially common, as they are in the northeastern Aegean islands.198 Piece Kt.St.22 (Fig. 25) is a rectangular plaquette made from andesite. Its use is unknown. It has uneven, worked sides, which may indicate that it was not finished or not often used. Similar specimens have been found at Lithares (but this smaller example was made of marble),199 Manika,200 Kephala,201 Daskaleio-Kavos (this, too, was made of marble and was of smaller size as at Lithares),202 Troy I,203 and Emporio (from a Roman level).204 The examples from Lithares and Daskaleio-Kavos also had smooth rather than uneven surfaces. Other, similar examples occur in shell.205 An EB II date may be valid based on better-documented parallels.206 Finally, a number of fragments of stone tools used for a secondary purpose have been found at Nerantzia. Pieces of volcanic rock and granite were used as building material in a 19th- or early 20th-century A.D. stone-built house.

GROUND STONE

109

Conclusions Apart from their quantity, there is a notable difference in the distribution of chipped and ground stone tools. The ground stone tools at Halasarna are mainly concentrated at three sites—Nerantzia, Koutlousi, and Tsangaris (Map 5, nos. 30, 26, and 11, respectively)—in contrast to the chipped stones that come from 18 sites. Only two ground stone tools, a grindstone from Koukos and an andesite mortar from K.15.51 (Map 5, nos. 6 and 15) were found outside these three and a site that was a satellite of Nerantzia. The Halasarna area displays both similarities and differences with nearby regions in the preferred shapes of ground stone tools, e.g., Giali and Aspri Petra cave. The ground stone tools of Giali have been extensively discussed and illustrated.207 Unfortunately, of the 23 ground tools reported from Aspri Petra cave, only 14 are illustrated, and this material is not discussed nor are measurements provided, except in the case of one mortar or stone vessel.208 At Halasarna a larger variety of material was used for grindstones and mortars than at Giali. Granite was preferred, and andesite, which predominated at Giali, was also a common material. The Halasarna grindstone shapes have strong parallels with the main types known from Giali: M2, M8, and M10, but not with M1.209 Grindstone type 2 is not found outside Halasarna and seems to be a local shape. Mortars were not popular at Giali,210 but they were favored at Aspri Petra cave.211 All Halasarna mortar types have parallels at Aspri Petra cave, but only type 1 is found at Giali. The relative popularity of mortars may have been a Koan phenomenon, at least in the western and central parts of the island, but we are unable to say whether it had a chronological significance or not. Within the Halasarna area there are also similarities and differences in the finds from individual sites. Grindstone type 1 was found at both Nerantzia and Koukos, while type 3 occurred at Nerantzia and Koutlousi Upper Hill. Types 2 and 4 were recovered only at Tsangaris, suggesting the existence of a local stone tool workshop with idiosyncratic preferences in regard to shapes. The size of the grindstones at Tsangaris strongly favors an EBA date for the majority of the finds, with type 4 being of an exceptionally large size. Moreover, there was a local

preference for rectangular-shaped grindstones rather than ellipsoidal forms, which were the preferred shape at Nerantzia. Based on ethnographic and archaeological evidence it seems that the grindstones with concave and leaning surfaces attested in types 1, 2, and 4 were mainly used in grinding agricultural produce.212 Mortar types include unique types. They appear to be more multifunctional than grindstones, perhaps having been used for metalworking as well as food processing in some cases. The popularity of this shape at some sites on Kos could be related to metalworking activity. An important difference in the size of grinders has been noted between other Neolithic Dodecanesian sites and the Halasarna area. On average Halasarna grinders are 1 cm smaller in length, 2 cm narrower in width, and 1 cm less in thickness compared to the examples from other Dodecanesian sites and Ftelia. The same differences may be seen with grinders from Halasarna and neighboring Giali, despite the close cultural ties between the two areas. This phenomenon may be partly explained by local craftsmanship and partly by the use of readily found marble and andesite from the coast. The grinder types 1 and 4 from Halasarna correspond to the very common T2 and T3 at Giali, while types 2, 5, and 6 are paralleled by similar individual examples at Giali. Types 3 and 7 from Halasarna have no parallels in the immediate vicinity. The mortar (type 3) and axe have parallels, respectively, from Aspri Petra cave and across Kos, being part of the Koan stone implement tradition. The stone hammer is a distinct tool type, with two examples found at Tsangaris and K.15.52. This shape is rare in the Aegean, but it seems more common at Halasarna, perhaps having served a function related to a particular local activity. In the Halasarna region the grinder types 3, 5, 6, and 8, along with pounder types 1 and 2, occur at single sites. Some of them appeared more than once within these sites. Grinder types 1, 2, 4, and 7 were found at two or more sites, suggesting a more widespread preference for their shape. The Halasarna region is in a favorable location with respect to the mineral resources that were exploited by the local people. Mt. Dikaios, which

110

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

provided marble, granite, limestone, and possibly copper, is ca. 6 km to the northeast and was accessible both by land and sea. The Marmara bay just south of this mountain was also replete with marble and granite that could be easily collected. The Kephalos area, where limestone and possibly andesite were available, is ca. 16 km to the southwest and was also accessible by land and sea. Additionally, Hagios Antonios, the islet off Giali that was another source of andesite, was located ca. 11 km to the south. Nisyros, where there was a very good quality of andesite that might have been imported to Halasarna in the prehistoric period, is somewhat farther away, ca. 18 km. The volcanic rocks probably came from this island. The existence of several sources of stone of various composition allows a more detailed analysis of the choice of material used for different tool types, as well as a consideration of the different patterns of exploitation by the local communities. The use of marble in stone tool manufacture is known from the Cyclades since LN times, at Saliagos,213 Ftelia,214 LN and EBA Koukounaries,215 and EBA Markiani.216 In the Northern Sporades marble grinders were used in the MN–LN periods at the Cave of the Cyclops.217 In contrast, there is no report of marble stone tools in the Dodecanese outside Kos. At Mesaria in north-central Kos, a single marble grindstone has been recovered, a find that is unique so far in the Dodecanese. A marble bowl was recovered in the EB II grave at Mesaria,218 representing a tradition well attested in contemporary Cycladic burials. At Halasarna the local marble was employed in order to produce grinder/pounder tools exclusively. Marble tools were recovered in equal proportions from Nerantzia, Koutlousi Upper Hill, and Tsangaris. Thus, Kos, or at least part of the island, appears to have exploited its marble resources in a way similar that observed in the Cyclades and the Northern Sporades. Andesite was a popular stone, especially in the LN and EBA areas surrounding the Saronic Gulf, because it could be easily worked.219 Aegina was the main andesite source in this area, but Methana and Poros possessed andesite deposits as well.220 In the Cyclades Melos, Kimolos, and Thera had andesite resources, but the prehistoric exploitation of the latter two sources seems to have been limited and infrequent outside these islands.221 In the Northern

Sporades andesite deposits are found at Psathoura, and they were exploited for producing grinders from the Mesolithic period onward at the Cave of the Cyclops222 and possibly elsewhere. In the Dodecanese andesite is more widespread than in the Cyclades, especially on Giali, where it predominates. At Halasarna it was primarily employed for grindstones at the site of Tsangaris, while a single example comes from Koukos. It dominates the Koutlousi assemblage in the form of grinders, while single examples come from Tsangaris and Nerantzia. The andesite tools from Koukos and Tsangaris may have come from the Kephalos area or Nisyros, while the examples from Koutlousi and possibly Nerantzia came from Giali-Hagios Antonios. The use of granite in stone tools is well documented in the LN at Ftelia in the Cyclades.223 In the Dodecanese granite tools are known from Simi, Alimnia, Chalki, and several sites across Rhodes, all of which have a Neolithic and/or EBA date.224 In the Halasarna region Nerantzia is the only site where granite was used in stone tool making. There seems to have been a monopoly on granite in this region, an observation which bears upon questions of accessibility of resources and their limited distribution. The most probable source for this material would have been the bay just east of the Marmara coast. At Kastro Palaiopyli in central Kos and by the bay east of Marmara granite grindstones has been noted, suggesting the exploitation of the resources around these sites. Sandstone was a common material for stone tools when volcanic rocks were not available in the Cyclades at LN Ftelia225 and EBA Markiani226 and in the Northern Sporades in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods at the Cave of the Cyclops.227 It was also used in the southern Dodecanese, dominating at Karpathos, Rhodes, and Alimnia, as well as on the northern part of Leros.228 Sandstone tools were also recovered from Giali in considerable quantities.229 In the Halasarna region sandstone tools were recovered mainly at Koutlousi, while a single example came from Nerantzia’s satellite site (K.10.35). Elsewhere on Kos a sandstone grindstone was recovered from Mesaria in the central part of the island. Volcanic rocks, other than andesite, were rare in the Cyclades, but they are attested occasionally in the Dodecanese. More particularly there are three

GROUND STONE

mortars from EC Akrotiri,230 two grindstones from Leftoporos,231 two grinders from Pacheia,232 and possibly one grindstone from Giali.233 A grindstone was recovered from Koutlousi, while fragments of grindstones have been identified at Nerantzia in building materials from an abandoned house. Limestone stone tools are not known in the Cyclades, but they are found in some numbers at Manika.234 In the Dodecanese they are mainly found in the two excavated caves on Rhodes, Kalythies, and Koumelo, as well as on Giali and Leros.235 At Halasarna limestone tools are known only from Koutlousi, where they included grinders and a stone vessel or mortar. At the Hagios Phokas hill a limestone grindstone has also been identified. Although the shapes and the forms of the stone tools from Halasarna find clear parallels in the Dodecanese, the Cyclades, Northern Sporades, Crete, and southern mainland Greece, the choice of materials is distinct. In the Cyclades most of the island communities preferred their local resources. In the southern Dodecanese sandstone and schist dominated the local assemblages. The comparison between the Halasarna sites and Giali is more revealing in regard to the preferences and circulation of stone tools. Andesite predominated as the material for stone tools on Giali, but at Halasarna, marble was equally popular. Materials recovered in significant quantities at Halasarna, such as marble and granite, have not been recovered from Giali. Hence, it seems that materials for stone tools had a one-way movement from Nisyros and GialiHagios Antonios to Halasarna. Within the Halasarna area marble and andesite appear to be found in all major stone tool assemblages, while sandstone was found at only two sites. Granite was recovered only at Nerantzia, and

111

limestone only at Koutlousi Upper hill. The latter observation suggests that not all materials were widely circulated even within this small area and that specific sites had access to different resources. This local preference for particular materials is related in many instances to the specific types of tools produced, making it possible to argue for distinct stone tool workshops with different styles at Nerantzia, Koutlousi, and Tsangaris. Similarities as well as differences may be observed among the stone tools used at Halasarna. The three main centers used common materials and types of grindstones, grinders, and pounders. Differences are found mainly in the material and shapes of some of the grindstones and mortars, less often in the grinders. Different access to different material argues for the participation of particular sites in different networks of exchange and/or resource exploitation. At Tsangaris, Koutlousi, and Nerantzia, local stone tool workshops with distinct characteristics appear to have been active. It is surprising that there were two different workshops at the latter two sites, which were only 300 m apart. Unfortunately, it cannot be determined on the basis of the present evidence whether these two workshops, or even all of them, were contemporary at any stage. Finally, the character of the stone object with incised signs remains unclear. Although sacred connotations have been proposed for the Neolithic Balkan parallels, in the Aegean none of the recovered examples clearly belongs to a sacred context. The use of the Koutlousi stone object could have been associated with weighing activities and the use of an Aegean metric system that began in the LN–FN period and continued into the EBA.

Chapter 7 Endnotes 1. Sampson 1988b, charts 15, 17–19. 2. Bachmayer et al. 1976, 140. 3. Sampson 1987, chart 11. 4. Sampson 1987, 74–75, 83–84, 90–91. 5. Melas 1985, 61, 70, 78, 144, figs. 42:1265, 77:360, 90:938–940.

6. Williams-Thorpe 1988, 282–283; Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993, 278, 291. 7. Morricone 1972–1973, 139 n. 3. 8. E. Mangani, pers. comm. 9. Runnels 1981, 101–105; Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 112, table 5.23.

112 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Tsountas [1908] 2000, 330, fig. 256. Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 112, figs. 98–100. Mylonas 1959, 145, fig. 168:50–56. Sampson 1985a, fig. 33:1; 1988a, chart 21:M3. Warren 1972, 224–225. Scarre 2006, 181, fig. 8.8. Blegen et al. 1950, 46, 363, figs. 218:1.1–1.3, 363:E6.69. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, 51, fig. 35:2–4. Joukowsky 1986, 221, fig. 249:4, 7. Lamb 1936, 178. Hood 1981–1982, 648, pl. 135:12, 13. Warner 1994, pl. 193:c. Sampson 1987, 75. Sampson 1987, chart 11:M3, fig. 65:736, pl. 19:α. Sampson 1987, 83. Sampson 1987, 91. Sampson 1988b, figs. 84, 86α:98. Bachmayer et al. 1976, 140. Melas 1985, 61, 78, 144, figs. 42:1265, 77:360, 90:938–940. Sampson 1997, fig. 75:12. Sampson 1985a, chart 8:M2, fig. 33:2, 8; 1988a, chart 21:M8; Cosmopoulos 1991, 80, fig. 6.6:c. Sampson 1993a, 114, fig. 73:1. Scarre 2006, 188, fig. 8.8:1024. Blegen et al. 1950, 46, figs. 218:1.1–1.3; 363:E6.69, E6.82. Lamb 1936, pl. 28:4. Warner 1994, pl. 193:d. Sampson 1987, 49, 75, chart 11:M2. Scarre 2006, 182. Evans 1964, fig. 53:1. Warren 1972, 225, fig. 93:A. Blitzer 1995, pl. 8.54:E. Sampson 1985a, chart 8:M3, fig. 33:5, 6, 8, 10, 11; 1988a, chart 21:M2. Sampson 1993a, 114, fig. 73:1. Scarre 2006, fig. 8.8:024. Sampson 1988b, chart 17:M8. Levi 1925–1926, 282–283, fig. 69. Scarre 2006, 182. Sampson 1988a, chart 21:M4. Sampson 1987, chart 11:M4/M5. Sampson 1988b, chart 17:M10, fig. 79:47. Levi 1925–1926, figs. 68:b, 71:b. Evans 1964, fig. 53:3, pl. 65:2. Sampson 1988a, fig. 102:186. Scarre 2006, 184, fig. 8.10:002, 072. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 675, pl. 188:1, 4–7; II, pl. 263:1, 3, 4.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

Sampson 1988b, 182, no. 84, fig. 73:84, 88. Levi 1925–1926, fig. 66:b. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 331, fig. 257. Evans 1964, fig. 53:2. Sampson 1988a, fig. 101:160. Sampson 1993a, fig. 73:9. Sampson 2002, fig. 117:22. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pl. 263:2. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 291:7, pl. 135:7. Levi 1925–1926, fig. 67:b. Devetzi 2008, 137–140, figs. 15.10, 15.12. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 332, fig. 258. Theocharis 1973, fig. 276. Fossey 1969, 64, fig. 8:top. Warren 1969, 78–80, 264, no. D245. Evans 1964, fig. 59:22. Wilson 1999, pls. 38:SF-220, 98:SF-220. Scarre 2006, 190–191, fig. 8.13:174, pl. 43:e. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II, pl. 263:5. Hood 1981–1982, 647, fig. 291:7. Birtacha 2007a, 338–342, fig. 825:144, 593, 739, 147, 741. Levi 1925–1926, 282, fig. 64. Sampson 1988a, 91, chart 25. Cosmopoulos 1991, 80, fig. 6.7:f. Sampson 1997, chart 47:3. Warren 1972, fig. 103:191, 201. Sampson 1985a, chart 8:T3; 1988a, chart 22:T3. Coleman 1977, pl. 68:8. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 71, fig. 91:1, 2, pl. 54:1, 3, 4. Sampson 2002, figs. 119:38; 120:41; 121:52; 124:68, 75; 127:107; 128:111. Sampson 2008a, 163–164, figs. 7.3:S36, S39, S44; 7.4:S46, S49. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 676, pl. 187:24. Sampson 1987, chart 11:T1, fig. 65:755. Sampson 1987, 75, fig. 94:80, 82, 83. Sampson 1987, 97. Sampson 1987, 99. Sampson 1987, 100. Sampson 1987, 100. Sampson 1987, 106. Sampson 1988b, chart 18:T3, figs. 70:40, 51; 86; 88:61; 104:96. Cosmopoulos 1991, 80, fig. 6.7:b. Warren 1972, figs. 99:142; 102:182, 189. Sampson 1988a, chart 22:T4. Wilson 1999, pl. 96:SF-140, SF-144–SF-150. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 88:10, 11.

GROUND STONE 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148.

Sampson 2002, figs. 120:50, 128:112. Scarre 2006, 179, fig. 8.5:3, pl. 42c:239. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 675, pl. 189:1. Sampson 1988b, 172, no. 21. Sampson 2002, fig. 130:126. Scarre 2006, 179, fig. 8.4:5. Sampson 1987, fig. 113:96. Cosmopoulos 1991, fig. 6.7:g. Sampson 1997, chart 47:6. Sampson 1985a, chart 8:T2; 1988a, chart 22:T16. Sampson 2002, fig. 126:96. Sampson 1987, chart 11:T2, figs. 64:718, 66:759. Sampson 1987, 75. Sampson 1987, 99. Sampson 1987, 99. Sampson 1987, 99–100. Sampson 1987, 102. Sampson 1987, 83, figs. 112:113, 113:148. Sampson 1987, 114. Sampson 1988b, chart 18:T2. Warren 1972, fig. 102:33, 185. Sampson 2002, 114. Joukowsky 1986, fig. 438:2. Sampson 1987, chart 11:T4, fig. 64:735. Sampson 1987, 75. Sampson 1987, 83. Sampson 1988b, fig. 74:65. Sampson 1985a, chart 8:T4. Sampson 2002, figs. 120:45, 121:61. Warner 1994, pl. 192:c. Sampson 1987, fig. 65:758. Sampson 1987, fig. 112:115. Sampson 1987, 90, fig. 131:70, 118. Sampson 1988b, fig. 74:65. Tsountas [1908] 2000, 330, fig. 256. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 26:α, pl. 96:θ, ι. Warren 1972, fig. 102:181. Cosmopoulos 1991, 80, fig. 6.7:a. Sampson 1988a, chart 22:T7. Sampson 1988b, chart 18:T5. Sampson 1988b, 168. Christmann 1996, pl. 156:4. Warren 1972, figs. 99:141, 106. Tsountas 1898, 156, fig. 6. Lamb 1936, fig. 59:7, 11. Sampson 1987, fig. 64:710. Sampson 1987, fig. 94:84. Sampson 1988b, fig. 74:85. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, fig. 26:ε, ζ.

149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192.

113

Mylonas 1959, 145, figs. 168:61, 169:63. Sampson 1985a, chart 8:T5. Warren 1972, fig. 101:75. Scarre 2006, 179, fig. 8.5:4, pl. 42c:013. Schliemann [1881] 1976, figs. 90, 632, 633; Blegen et al. 1950, 46, fig. 218:35–159. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, 51, fig. 35:5, 7. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 609–610, pl. 104:27–29; II, pl. 262:12. Lamb 1936, 190, fig. 56:30.13. Hood 1981–1982, fig. 291:16, pl. 135:16. Sampson 1987, fig. 131:117. Sampson 1988b, 172:24, 39. Cosmopoulos 1991, 80, fig. 6.7:c. Warren 1972, 236, fig. 103:206. Sampson 1988a, chart 22:T14. Zachos 1999, fig. 13.9. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, 609–610, pl. 104:26, 30. Lamb 1936, 192, fig. 58. Evans 1964, 231, pl. 58:4. Blitzer 1995, 483, pls. 8.58:GS 678, 8.98:GS 678. Warren 1972, 219, figs. 94:61, 105:213. Moundrea-Agrafioti 2007, 99, fig. 6:26. Scarre 2006, 188, fig. 8.12:353. Joukowsky 1986, figs. 396:9, 424:4. Lamb 1936, 182, fig. 59:9. Hood 1981–1982, 651, fig. 292:23. Sampson 1988b, fig. 76:46. Rahmstorf 2003, 293–295. Theocharis 1973, figs. 212:a, c; 257; pl. 29:3, 4. Sampson 2002, 127–128, figs. 112, 140; 2006, 208–209, fig. 198; 2008a, 167, pl. 7.1:829. Sampson 2002, 128; 2006, 209; 2008a, 167. Televantou 2006, 188–191, figs. 177–179; 2008. Gimbutas 1989, 12; Lazarovici 2003, 92. Gimbutas 1989, 12, fig. 17:fifth row first from left; Lazarovici 2003, table 11:149c. Tzavella-Evjen 2001, 40–41. Rahmstorf 2003, 296–297. Theocharis 1993, fig. 11:top row the first two from left. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, pl. 96:κ. Coleman 1977, 5, pls. 24:65, 66, 1*, 29*, 38*, 77*; 68:65, 66, 1*, 29*. Evans and Renfrew 1968, fig. 79. Sampson 2002, 124, fig. 134:A6L11, B3L4, A4L5. Blegen et al. 1950, 44, figs. 217:35-64, 36-416; 361:33325, 35-286, 35-443. Hood 1981–1982, 651, fig. 292:25, 26, pl. 134:24–27. Felsch 1988, pl. 91:188–200. Sampson 1987, 53, fig. 64:714.

114 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Sampson 1987, 96, pl. 49. Sampson 1987, 98, pl. 53:α. Sampson 1987, 99, pl. 53:β. Sampson 1988b, 186, fig. 107. Morricone 1972–1973, 139 n. 3; E. Mangani, pers. comm. Cosmopoulos 1991, 81–82. Tzavella-Evjen 1984, 171, pl. 85:η. Sampson 1985a, 173:2. Coleman 1977, pl. 24:96A*. Birtacha 2007b, 365 figs 9.17–18. Blegen et al. 1950, 46–47, fig. 217:37–550. Hood 1981–1982, 652, pl. 134:32. Birtacha 2007b. Cosmopoulos 1991, 81. Sampson 1988b, 164–204. Levi 1925–1926, 282–283. Sampson 1988b, chart 17. Sampson 1988b, chart 17:M5. Levi 1925–1926, 282, figs. 64–67, 68:a. Ninou 2008, 74. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 66, 71, figs. 88:4–6, 9–13; 90:1–5, pls. 43:4, 5; 52:4–7; 55:1–3. 214. Sampson 2002, 116, 177, nos. 57, 58, 83. 215. Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, 41.

216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235.

Scarre 2006, 184, fig. 8.8:1511. Sampson 2008a, 163–164. Marketou 2004, 21. Runnels 1981, 105–117; 1988, 268; Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 112–113, table 5.23. Higgins and Higgins 1996, 35–39, figs. 4.1–4.3. Runnels 1988, 270; Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993, 291–294, table 7; Devetzi 2008, 137, no. 184. Sampson 2008a, 161–164. Sampson 2002, 111–119. Sampson 1987, 51, 52, 84, 98–102, 106, 114, nos. 5, 12, 28, 32, 83, chart 11. Sampson 2002, 111–113, 116, 118–119. Scarre 2006, 187–188, figs. 8.11:028, 8.12:353. Sampson 2008a, 161–164. Sampson 1987, 74–75, 83–84, 90–91, chart 11. Sampson 1988b, chart 15. Devetzi 2008, 139, fig. 15.12:1315, 3428, 3656. Melas 1985, 70, fig. 90:938, 939. Sampson 2006, 242. Sampson 1988b, 171, no. 4. Sampson 1988a, charts 20, 22. Sampson 1987, 51–53, 75, 91; 1988b, 172–177, 180, 182, 186.

8

Small Finds

Clay Piece Kt.SF.1 is part of an open clay mold for the production of bronze implements (Fig. 25; Pl. 18). In general, molds tend to be made out of stone, but clay ones were also used, particularly in the northeastern Aegean.1 In this example only the upper part functioned as a mold, from which at least two different types of object could be made. Its ring base is unique for this rectangular shape. Parallels examples of clay molds and crucibles can be found at the mainland site of Petri at Nemea,2 Koropi,3 and Askitario.4 Cycladic examples in both stone and clay are known from EC II late–III early Kastri.5 EM I–IIA Poros Katsambas in Crete has yielded examples that were used for making daggers,6 while molds for axes were found at EM I–IIA Hagia Photia-Kouphota.7 Stone and clay specimens are known from Troy I–III, recovered mainly in period II late,8 while other western Anatolian examples come from EB Liman Tepe (a clay multifaced mold),9 Bakla Tepe (an object of uncertain character), and Çukuriçi Höyük III–IV, or EB I–II early in Aegean dating (a clay mold that

was used on both sides with at least two to three compartments preserved on each side),10 and Aphrodisias EB 3 (a stone mold with two compartments).11 Several examples are known from the northern Aegean islands, including Poliochni,12 EB I–II Thermi,13 and Emporio II.14 The high base of this type is characteristic of EB II, as the evidence from Lerna III,15 Manika,16 and Emporio II suggests.17 The Halasarna mold is closest in form to the Kastri example, and thus an EB II late date is proposed. The metal forms that it was used to produce appear to have been chisels with one round edge, awls with circular sections,18 or cylindrical ingots. Parts of clay furnaces, Kt.SF.2 and Kt.SF.3, were recovered at Koutlousi (Fig. 25; Pl. 18). On each of these a part of a relatively large hole is preserved, 1.3 cm and 1.8 cm in diameter, respectively (Pl. 18 center left and bottom left). The holes appear to have been made before the clay was fired. The first example has a thick, rough, white external slip, possibly a coating to strengthen the

116

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

clay against high temperature and breakage. The excessive clay close to the hole on the interior suggests that the hole was made from the external side (Pl. 18 center right). The interior side of Kt.SF.3 appears to have been fired at a high temperature, becoming rough (Pl. 18 bottom right), as seen on an example at Sideri on Kythnos.19 An internal surface of similar appearance is found on a sherd without a perforation, possibly from a clay furnace, from Koutlousi as well. Parallels for such perforated clay furnaces are known from EC Sideri and EC–MC Paliopyrgos (Aspra Spitia) on Kythnos, although these examples are thicker and have larger holes.20 Other parallels have been found at FN Hagios Dimitrios,21 EH Raphina,22 Kephala (in a variety of sizes),23 EM III Chrysokamino (an example close in size to the Halasarna examples),24 and Limenaria on Thasos.25 I have identified another such piece at Hagios Theologos north hill on Kos. Such fragments could be misidentified as EBA pedestaled strainers,26 but the strainers tend to have smaller holes and better quality clay. The furnace pieces might also be confused with cheese pots, but again the size of the perforation, the fact that the furnace pieces are perforated from the outside, and the characteristics of the fabric make it fairly easy to differentiate them. Yiannis Bassiakos was kind enough to confirm the similarity of the Koutlousi pieces with specimens that he has identified as

clay furnaces. The clay fabric, the object shapes, and the diameter of the perforations from the Sideri and Paliopyrgos examples are within the range of the Koutlousi examples.27 The earliest parallels, which are from Kephala, date to the FN period, but most examples come from EBA sites in Attica, the western Cyclades, and eastern Crete. While they have a common general design with perforations, the exact shape and size of these furnaces vary according to the local context.28 The two examples from Koutlousi differ in surface treatment, thickness, and size of the holes, and they probably belonged to different furnaces. As the majority of parallels for these furnaces come from EBA contexts, and in view of the date of the clay mold, an EBA date is proposed for the Halasarna examples, although the possibility of an earlier date cannot be altogether dismissed. Piece Kt.SF.4 is a unique example of terracotta ring with a round section (Fig. 25). Parallels for this item are known from Vouliagmeni in Perachora during phase Y.29 There are also stone and terracotta versions from Hagia Eirene.30 Parallels from Markiani II–IV have been identified as spindle whorls.31 Another example from Troy I late may have been used as the handle of a cup.32 A further example is known from Heraion IV, but this object is smaller in size.33 A date of EB I/II–II is proposed for Kt.SF.4. It was most probably used in textile production.

Shell Shell Kt.SF.5, a unique example of a shell in the form of a small cylindrical fragment, comes from Koutlousi Upper Hill. It is well worked and may have been used as a ring. It was probably made from Spondylus gaederopus Linné, which was widely available in the Mediterranean at this time.34 Another unique piece of Spondylus has been found at Kalythies cave in the Dodecanese.35 Parallels for this type of ornament come primarily from Kephala,36 LN Saliagos,37 LN Ftelia,38 and EC Markiani,39 as well as from Dimini in the form of rings.40 Other parallels are known from Neolithic and EBA Macedonia, Neolithic Thessaly, EN

Halai, LN Kitsos cave, FN Alepotrypa cave, Franchthi cave, EN–MN periods at the Cave of the Cyclops, EC II Chalandriani, and EM II Myrtos.41 They most commonly occurred in Neolithic contexts, with fewer examples belonging to the EBA. They were apparently more popular in northern Greece rather than in the south. Possible workshops have been located so far in Neolithic Thessaly, Macedonia, and Thrace.42 Only a general chronology from LN to EB II can be proposed for the Halasarna shell object, as parallels are equally common in both the Neolithic and EBA on some islands.

SMALL FINDS

117

Conclusions The shell ring is an important find, since it provides the only evidence for the exploitation of sea resources. It is unclear, however, whether this item was imported ready-made or if it was manufactured at Koutlousi. It could indicate the presence of a local shell working industry centered in the Halasarna area, about which future research might add more information. The terracotta ring was definitely associated with the production of textiles, and along with the mat impressions found on pottery, it attests to another local industry in this region. The clay mold and the parts of clay furnaces used for metal smelting are very significant finds that prompt a new assessment of metalworking on Kos. It is important to note that copper resources exist on Mt. Dikaios in central Kos, where the local ore consists of chalcopyrite and iron pyrite.43 According to Chatzivasiliou, these ores have adequate metal quantities even for modern exploitation.44 Metalworking took place in the Dodecanese from at least the FN I period, as suggested by the bronze chisel from Kalythies cave,45 the bronze pin from Koumelo cave,46 and two clay crucibles recovered on Giali.47 These finds link the Dodecanese to the wider context of Neolithic metalworking in the Aegean and the Balkans.48 The proximity of Giali, an island without mineral resources, to Kos with its copper and lead ores, is an important indication of the provenance of the metal worked there. Geologically, it appears unlikely that copper resources existed elsewhere in the Dodecanese. Thus, some of the other Neolithic and possibly EBA metal finds from the Dodecanese could have been made from Koan copper. It therefore comes as little surprise to find possible EBA furnace(s) for metal smelting and an EB II late clay mold at Koutlousi, just a few kilometers west of the metal sources, and another furnace fragment on Hagios Theologos north hill in the Kephalos region. The EBA has yielded more evidence of metalworking than previous periods, primarily in the western Cyclades where most of the copper ores were located. As research advances, however, new evidence may be found at

sites such as EC Akrotiri in the eastern Cyclades,49 an area with rather limited metalworking finds. The same applies to Crete and more specifically Poros Katsambas, Chrysokamino, and Hagia Photia, all of which had close links with the Cyclades.50 The clay mold is an important find, but it does not directly attest to the exploitation of local metal sources. The furnaces, however, suggest that either copper was brought to Koutlousi directly after extraction, or a later stage of metal processing was taking place locally, as was the case on Kephala. In whichever stage of metalworking these furnaces were used, their presence demonstrates the existence of a local metal industry. More importantly, Koutlousi is the only site at Halasarna and on Kos in general where such finds have been recovered. The artifacts were found in different parts of the settlement, with the mold coming from the northern part of the main cluster, while the furnace fragments came from two areas, one in the southern part of the main cluster and the other in the smaller cluster farther south (09.49). Metalworking was not concentrated at this site in one specific industrial area but may have taken place in at least three locations, suggesting that different stages of processing were undertaken in different locations. The occurrence of both mold and furnace fragments in a settlement is extremely rare other than at the site of Kephala, and it signifies the importance of Koutlousi as a production center. Finds associated with metalworking from FN Giali support the argument that metalworking was practiced at least at some sites in the Dodecanese. The most likely hypothesis is that after the extraction and possibly a crude in situ smelting process, the pieces containing copper were either transported by miners or exchanged with other sites. Smelting took place at specific locations. Some of the metal products were locally consumed, and some may have been traded with other communities. The Halasarna finds suggest that metal resources on Kos may have been exploited from the Neolithic period onward. The metal resources, the early date of this activity, its continuity into the

118

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

EBA, and the similar types of tools used suggest that parallel metallurgical developments took place in the Cyclades, Crete, the Dodecanese, the northeastern Aegean islands, and western Anatolia. Although the interaction among these regions may have contributed to the use of similar techniques and tool types, the Dodecanese would not necessarily have been dependent on the Cyclades for metals. This does not mean that raw material was

not imported in this region, but rather that local resources could have been exploited at least in the vicinity of Kos. The export of metals from Kos to the southern Dodecanese in a variety of forms, either as raw material and/or as finished products, may be proposed. It would be particularly interesting to analyze contemporary metal finds to see if this exchange network also involved eastern Crete and southwestern coastal Anatolia.

Chapter 8 Endnotes 1. Branigan 1974, 77; Cosmopoulos 1991, 93. 2. Kostoula 2006, 277, fig. 4; Pachigianni-Kaloudi 2006, 269, figs. 3, 4. 3. Kakavogianni, Douni, and Nezeri 2008, 50, fig. 9. 4. Branigan 1974, 201, no. M4. 5. Tsountas 1899, figs. 35, 36; Branigan 1974, 201, no. M3; Barber 1987, 112, fig. 87:1. 6. Doonan, Day, and Dimopoulou-Rethemiotaki 2007, 107–108, figs. 6.3, 6.4. 7. Tsipopoulou 2007, 137–139, table 8.1, figs. 8.5–8.9. 8. Schliemann [1881] 1976, figs. 599–604; Blegen et al. 1950, 43, 218, figs. 221:38-100, 369:37-127; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 15, fig. 53:38-105; Branigan 1974, 202:M51-M56, pl. 44. 9. Kaptan 2008, 243, photo 4. 10. Horejs 2009. 11. Joukowsky 1986, 601, 605, figs. 246:2, 439:61. 12. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, I, pl. 85:d; Branigan 1974, 202, no. M89. 13. Lamb 1936, 157–159, fig. 44; Branigan 1974, 202, 203, nos. M67, M131–M136. 14. Hood 1981–1982, 627, figs. 383:9, 284:8, pl. 130. 15. Wiencke 2000, fig. II.78:k, 1. 16. Sampson 1985a, chart 17. 17. Hood 1981–1982, figs. 109:2A, 110:2A. 18. McGeehan-Liritzis 1996, 78–79, 83–84, figs. 2.6.2, 2.6.3.2. 19. Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, fig. 2.4:b. 20. Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 30, table 2.10, figs. 2.4:c, 2.8. 21. Zachos 2008, fig. 15a:29/82, 67/82, 654/81. 22. Catapotis and Bassiakos 2007, fig. 4.4:1. 23. Coleman 1977, 3–4; Conophagos 1977, 113–114, pls. 22:107, 174, 175, 76*, 148*; 66:middle; Catapotis and Bassiakos 2007, fig. 4.4:3. 24. Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 30, table 2.11; Catapotis and Bassiakos 2007, 75, fig. 4.4:11; Pryce et al. 2007, 545; Betancourt 2008, 109.

25. Tzachili 2008, 13. 26. Doumas and Angelopoulou 1997, 549, fig. 12; Sotirakopoulou 2008a, 127, fig. 14.10. 27. Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 44–45. 28. Pryce et al. 2007, 554. 29. Fossey 1969, fig. 8. 30. Wilson 1999, pls. 97:SF-203, 102:SF-388–SF-402, especially SF-394, SF-399. 31. Gavalas 2006, 201, fig. 8.20:5. 32. Blegen et al. 1950, figs. 226:33.693, 249:26. 33. Milojčić 1961, pl. 21:3. 34. Karali 1999, 31, figs. 27, 28:C, 29; 2002, 203–204. 35. Karali 2003, table 2. 36. Coy 1977, 132, table 4. 37. Shackleton 1968, 123, 127. 38. Karali 2002, 206. 39. Karali-Giannakopoulou 2006, 243. 40. Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001, 87, pl. 9:134, 135. 41. Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 229, fig. 56:b; Karali 1999, 39–40; Ifantidis 2006, 70–71, pl. 20. 42. Ifantidis 2006, 71. 43. Branigan 1974, 61, table 2, fig. 1; McGeehan-Liritzis 1983, 176, no. 68; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 22; Triandafylli 1998; Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 21. 44. Chatzivasiliou 1990, 22. 45. Sampson 1987, 55. 46. Sampson 1987, 76. 47. Asimenos 1988; Sampson 1988b, 218–220. 48. Zachos 2007, 177, 179–181, fig. 11.1; Tzachili 2008, 9. 49. Sotirakopoulou 2008a, 127, fig. 14.12. 50. Betancourt 2007, 61–65; Catapotis and Bassiakos 2007, 73, fig. 4.4; Tsipopoulou 2007, 142.

9

The Halasarna Chronology

The character and chronology of the sites discovered by the HSP are most readily interpreted in the case of those that produced the most finds. Here I present first the larger sites, which were evidently settlements of various sizes, and then I consider the smaller sites. The earliest occupation at Nerantzia appears to fall within the LN I–FN I period. The FN I is a definite terminus post quem, but a few sherds suggest an earlier date of use. From the FN period onward there are diagnostic sherds representing all subsequent phases until EB II late–EB III. Nerantzia produced a number of chipped stone finds, suggesting the presence of a local workshop. At the same time several ground stone tools were recovered, and these may also be evidence for the presence of a local workshop, as well as for local processing of agricultural products. The limited evidence from the Nerantzia lower site suggests that this location was used during the EB II–III early period. At Koutlousi Upper Hill the earliest pottery belongs to the MN late phase, but there are more sherds belonging to the LN and FN phases. A large number of diagnostic sherds from the EB I and EB

II phases are also attested. The latest finds can be dated either to EB III early or to the wider EB II late–EB III period. This site yielded a large number of chipped and ground stone tools, suggesting that Koutlousi may have been an important tool production center as well as the locus of food processing activities. Moreover, there is evidence from this site of maritime exploitation, as shown by the shell bracelet or ring, which was either manufactured locally or acquired from elsewhere through exchange. Weaving and the production of textiles may also have taken place on the site. It is also important to note that a metal workshop was active locally, producing tools at least during the EB II late period. Koutlousi Lower Hill may have been occupied from EB I–EB II late, but most definitely in EB II, until EB II late–EB III early. While chipped stone tools were rather limited in number and no ground stone tools were found, the character of the pottery recovered strongly suggests the presence of one or more warehouses for storing agricultural produce. The specialized character of this satellite site argues for the existence of local social complexity during the EB II phase, if not earlier.

120

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Unfortunately, Koutounis Hill has produced few sherds, and the diagnostic ones are rather limited. The site appears to have been occupied in the LN II, FN I, and EB II–III periods. The lack of representation for some periods may suggest a hiatus of use, but more likely it is an effect of the limited quantity of finds. I believe that this site, like its neighbors, was occupied continuously rather than in different phases. The chipped stone finds may attest to local processing of Giali obsidian, as seen at Nerantzia. Koutounis was most definitely occupied from FN I onward. The latest phase of use was, once again, the EB II–III phase. The EB I period is not represented, but this phase is not very easily identified in survey material, especially in the Dodecanese. The chipped stone tools recovered locally were very limited, and it is possible that this site relied on the Koutounis Hill community to supply them. The occupation at Tsangaris, is dated to the LN I–II period, with evidence for FN use as well. All EBA phases until the EB II–III period are represented at this site. Tsangaris also produced a limited number of chipped stone finds. The ground stone tools that were found suggest the presence of a local stone workshop and local processing of agricultural produce. Tholos (ancient Halasarna), produced limited material, as it was heavily rebuilt in historic times. A small sherd assemblage indicates an EB II–III early date, which has been confirmed by several sherds from the ancient Halasarna excavation site. Moreover, the numerous chipped stone finds recovered in the latter area suggest local processing of this material in the EBA. This is the only real coastal site in the Halasarna region. At Koukos the earliest finds date to LN II–FN I, with occupation continuing during all periods until the EB III phase. EB I is elusive, as noted earlier, but Koukos appears to have been inhabited without hiatus. It is possible that this site outlasted all the other large settlements in the Halasarna region. The large number of chipped stone finds suggest the presence of a local workshop, and the large amount of Melian obsidian recovered here may also indicate that Koukos played a role in long-distance exchange networks. The presence of a single ground stone tool may be evidence for local food-processing activities.

The limited quantity of finds from the remaining sites and their nondiagnostic character do not allow a more definitive dating of these localities. In most cases a broad Neolithic and/or EBA date can be proposed in view of the character of the finds, for example handmade pottery production, dark surface colors, use of quartz and mica in the clay, and the fact that the pottery fabrics resemble material from better-dated sites. A few sites provided single diagnostic sherds, including one of FN date at K.17.15, an EB I–II sherd at K.29.87, a sherd of general EBA date at K.29.06, an EB II–III sherd at K.29.58, and a sherd of EB III early at K.21.54. Other sites such as K.09.89, K.14.03, and K.09.68 may be tentatively dated to the wider Neolithic period on the basis of the chipped stone tools, but the possibility of continued use until a later date cannot be dismissed. Finally, a stone tool from K.15.51 provides a probable EB I–II date. The occupation of the Halasarna region began at least in the MN late period, and in the FN I phase at least six settlements were established (Map 6). The problem in distinguishing the LN II and FN I phases in the Dodecanese, however, has already been noted by Sampson in the context of Rhodes.1 One FN site, far smaller in size than the others, has also been identified, and there may have been three more, but the dating of these sites is tentative, as it is based on chipped stone forms. It is remarkable that the six definite FN I sites, which appear to be the largest in the region, continued in use during the EBA. More sites appeared during the 3rd millennium B.C., but these were of smaller size, while some of the earlier large sites continued to grow (Map 7). Workshops for chipped and ground stone tools existed at different sites, while shell may also have been processed locally. Positive evidence for copper or bronze working in the EB II late phase was found at Koutlousi. Pottery was imported during the FN and EBA from Samos, the Cyclades, and mainland Greece, along with obsidian and other stone types from Giali and Nisyros. Melian and possibly Anatolian obsidian was brought to the region through long distance voyages and possibly through complex exchange networks, at least in the case of the Anatolian variety. It is possible that the Halasarna sites were responsible for the export of Koan pottery to Giali as well as for the dispatch of granite to the southern Dodecanese.

THE HALASARNA CHRONOLOGY

The latest period of prehistoric occupation in the Halasarna region can be dated to the early phase of EB III. There are very few sherds that can be dated exclusively to EB III, suggesting a wide abandonment and a hiatus of occupation until the end of the MBA. Early Bronze III diagnostic sherds have also proved difficult to detect in the surveys conducted in southern mainland Greece. The reasons for the hiatus were probably as those affecting the wider Aegean area at this time, when destructions and abandonments have been observed. The establishment of a new settlement with a fortified wall at Serrayia suggests two new trends on EB III Kos,

settlement relocation and improved security. The Halasarna area was vulnerable to attack from the sea, and a possible movement to more inland locations, which also occurred in the Medieval period, may partly explain the settlement hiatus from EB III to MB III.2 Alternatively, a nucleation process, centered around a coastal site that today remains undetected in deep alluvial strata, may have taken place. Moreover, limited knowledge of the local MBA pottery tradition and the failure to recognize its presence at multiperiod sites may contribute to our uncertainty concerning developments in this ostensible period of hiatus.

Chapter 9 Endnotes 1. Sampson 1987, 117.

121

2. Georgiadis, forthcoming.

10

Catalog of Diagnostic Finds

In this section all finds, i.e., sherds, chipped stone, ground stone, and other finds, are presented by category and site. Catalog numbers are given in bold and are followed in parentheses by the serial number given to them during the survey and references to any figures and plates in this volume in which the items are depicted. The catalog numbers are prefixed by the site abbreviation, and finds other than pottery have an abbreviation preceding their numbers indicating whether they are chipped

stone (C.), ground stone (St.), or small finds (SF.). Measurements of each find are given in centimeters. The description of pottery colors follows the system of the Munsell Soil Color Charts. Ceramic inclusions are described on the basis of macroscopic observations. Other details of surface treatment, material, and shape are presented, and the names of specific fabrics discussed in Chapter 3 are given where appropriate. Dates or date ranges are given at the end of each entry.

Pottery Sherds Koutlousi Upper Hill Kt.1 (05/003/K.09.50.50). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.3; w. 5.4; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces reddish gray (5YR 5/2), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/3), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); smoothed externally, burnished (shiny) internally. Straight wall with a flaring round rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EB II.

Kt.2 (05/003/K.09.50.127). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.4; w. 4.2; th. 0.5–0.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 4/4), clay reddish gray (5YR 5/2); burnished on both sides, not shiny internally, slightly shiny externally. Straight wall and rim. Fine ware. LN–EB II. Kt.3 (05/003/K.09.50.329). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.5; w. 5.3; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, some black,

124

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); burnished on both sides. Straight sides with slightly flaring simple rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EB II. Kt.4 (05/014/K.09.50.5). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.5; w. 5.1; th. 0.7. Inclusions: few white, few black, few rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay reddish brown to dark gray (2.5YR 4/4 to 2.5YR N4/); well-smoothed surface, better internally. Straight body and simple round rim, slightly asymmetrical walls right to left. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.5 (05/003/K.09.50.226). Rim from a bowl. L. 4; w. 3.2; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/3), internal light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); roughly burnished (slightly shiny) externally, well burnished (shiny) internally and on the rim. Conical body with slightly flaring, round rim. Fine ware. LN–EB II. Kt.6 (05/014/K.09.50.20). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.3; w. 3.8; th. 1.1. Inclusions: many white, small rocks, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 4/3), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay reddish brown to dark gray (5YR 4/3 to 5YR 4/1); rough, merely smoothed on both sides, added white diluted slip on exterior. Plain straight rim from a conical shallow bowl with thick walls. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.7 (05/014/K.09.50.22). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 4.5; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); externally rough, internally smooth. Straight sides, conical, very open, with slightly incurving simple rim. Rough ware; semicoarse. LN–EB II. Kt.8 (05/015/K.09.50.43). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 4.7; th. 0.9. Inclusions: many white, few black, very few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown to reddish yellow (5YR 6/4–6/6), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay gray (5YR 5/1); well smoothed externally, better smoothed internally in the area close to the rim, rougher below. Plain rim from a jar, medium thick incurving walls. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.9 (05/024/K.09.50E.21; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.1; w. 2.9; th. 0.7. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, much silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); smoothed externally with parts of an original burnishing preserved, burnished internally (not shiny); straw marks visible on both sides. Straight wall with slightly flaring round, simple rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EB II.

Kt.10 (05/024/K.09.50ST.9; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 6.5; w. 5.0; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica with larger flakes. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal light red to red (2.5YR 6/6–5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed externally, lightly burnished internally (slightly shiny); straw marks. Almost straight body with simple rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EB II. Kt.11 (05/024/K.09.50Z.5; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 8.4; w. 9.6; th. 0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces pale reddish yellow to yellow/dark gray (5YR 6/6 to 2.5Y 7/3–4/0), internal reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay white (5YR 8/1); smoothed externally, well burnished (not shiny) internally, red slip preserved in some areas. Slip apparently placed over internal burnishing at a later stage; fabric easily breakable. Conical body ending in a round rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.12 (05/033/K.09.50.5). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.4; w. 3.7; th. 0.8–1.2. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces, clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6); slightly smoothed on both sides. Straight body with straight thinner round rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.13 (05/035/K.09.50.41). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.9; w. 3.5; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown to light brown (7.5YR 5/4–6/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed on both sides; limited straw marks on both sides. Straight body with a simple slightly incurving rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.14 (05/043/K.09.50.4). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.7; w. 2.2; th. 0.6–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); externally smoothed. Straight body with slightly flaring rim. Coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.15 (05/043/K.09.50.9). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.8; w. 2.4; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: few white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay red (2.5YR 5/6); internally burnished (slightly shiny); straw marks on both sides. Straight conical body with a slightly flaring simple rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EB II. Kt.16 (05/043/K.09.50.60). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.5; w. 3.7; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); slightly

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

smoothed on both sides. Straight body with flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.17 (05/043/K.09.50.136). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.1; w. 4.1; th. 0.9. Inclusions: white, few gray/black, small rocks, quartz, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay dark gray (2.5YR N4/); both sides roughly smoothed; few straw marks. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.18 (05/043/K.09.50.190). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.7; w. 2.7; th. 1.0–1.2. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); externally rough, internally smoothed; straw marks on both sides. Straight body with flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.19 (05/054/K.09.50.32). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.4; w. 0.7–0.8; th. 3.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red to brown (5YR 5/6 to 7.5YR 4/4), internal yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed on both sides but more so internally; striation marks internally. Straight body with slightly flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.20 (05/054/K.09.50.26; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.9; w. 4.2; th. 0.5–0.6. Inclusions: white, few black, small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces, clay reddish gray (5YR 5/2), internal light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); burnished (not shiny) externally, smoothed internally; straw marks internally. Straight body with slightly flaring round rim; walls unevenly made with different profile on each side. Semi-coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.21 (05/094/K.09.49.10). Rim from a bowl. L. 9.0; w. 6.7; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown to dark bluish gray (5YR 5/4 to Gley 2 4/1), internal reddish brown to yellowish red (5YR 5/4–5/6), clay yellowish red to dark bluish gray (5YR 5/6 to Gley 2 4/1); externally smoothed but with uneven surface, internal burnishing (slightly shiny) that has gone off in some areas; straw marks externally. Slightly incurving body with slightly flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.22 (05/003/K.09.50.184; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.8; w. 6.7; th. 0.7. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown to very dark bluish gray (2.5YR 4/4 to Gley 2 3/1), internal reddish brown to dark gray (5YR 5/4–4/1), clay reddish gray (2.5YR 5/1); burnished (slightly shiny) on the upper part externally and internally; few straw marks on both sides. Straight body with straight simple round rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EBA. Kt.23 (05/043/K.09.50.38). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.6; w. 4.7; th. 1.1–1.2. Inclusions: white, black, and brown small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces

125

reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal reddish brown to yellowish red (5YR 5/4–5/6), clay gray (5YR 5/1); rough externally, well smoothed internally; plenty of straw marks externally. Relatively thick straight walls with simple rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.24 (05/015/K.09.50.108). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.8; w. 1.0–1.1; th. 4.3. Inclusions: few white and black, rocks d. 0.3–0.4, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4); rough externally, well smoothed internally; very few straw marks. Straight body with a straight round rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB II. Kt.25 (05/003/K.09.50.157). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.1; w. 5.0; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 4/3), internal brown to light brown (7.5YR 5/4–6/4), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); rough externally, burnished internally and on rim (slightly shiny). Straight walls with slightly flaring rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.26 (05/003/K.09.50.199). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.1; w. 3.6; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: few white, few black, small rocks d. 0.2–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces dark reddish gray to reddish brown (5YR 4/2–4/3), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), clay dark gray (2.5YR N4/); burnished on both sides but not shiny, with burnishing marks preserved. Slightly outcurving straight walls with a simple slightly flaring rim. Semifine ware. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.27 (05/003/K.09.50.228; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 5.9; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: few white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces gray (10YR 5/1), internal pinkish gray (5YR 7/2), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); well burnished (shiny) on both sides. Straight body with a slightly flaring round rim. Fine ware. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.28 (05/003/K.09.50.268; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.7; w. 7.7; th. 1.0. Inclusions: few white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces, clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4–4/4); externally smoothed, internally burnished (slightly shiny); straw marks externally. Straight walls with straight round rim. Semi-fine ware. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.29 (05/024/K.09.50E.5; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.6; w. 4.9; th. 0.5–0.9. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.5, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal gray to grayish brown (10YR 5/1–5/2), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); smoothed on both sides, better internally; horizontal striation lines internally. Straight walls with slightly flaring simple, round rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.30 (05/043/K.09.50.141). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.7; w. 2.7; th. 1.0–1.2. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver

126

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); externally rough, internally smoothed; straw marks on both sides. Straight body with flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.31 (05/045/K.09.50.5). Rim from a bowl. L. 6.4; w. 6.3; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks, much silver mica with few large flakes; external, internal surfaces light reddish brown (10YR 6/4), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); smoothed externally, burnished (not shiny) internally. Straight body with straight round rim. Semi-fine ware. LN I–FN I(–II). Kt.32 (05/084/K.09.49.3; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.7; w. 4.9; th. 1.0 Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), internal red (2.5YR 5/6), clay dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); rough externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Conical body with flaring round rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. EB II late–III early. Kt.33 (05/003/K.09.50.255; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.7; w. 4.6; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: few white, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 4/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); well burnished (not shiny) on both sides. Straight walls and flaring rim that thickens considerably, becoming everted. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.34 (05/015/K.09.50.105; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.2; w. 3.9; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal reddish gray (5YR 5/2), clay bluish gray (Gley 2 5/1); smoothed on both sides. Straight walls and flaring rim that thickens considerably, becoming everted. Semicoarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.35 (05/023/K.09.50.12; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.1; w. 4.3; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces mottled, very dark greenish gray to light yellowish brown (Gley 1 3/1 to 10YR 6/4), interior, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6); smoothed on both sides; some straw marks on both sides. Curving walls with incurving round rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II–III early. Kt.36 (05/042/K.09.50.58; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.7; w. 3.1; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6); rough on both sides; straw marks on both sides. Curving body of open bowl with incurving simple round rim. Coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.37 (05/003/K.09.50.215; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.8; w. 3.2; th. 0.4–0.5. Inclusions: few white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 4/6), internal, clay brown (5YR 5/4); lightly

burnished externally (not shiny), lightly burnished internally (lightly shiny); striation line internally; straw marks on both sides. Curving body ending at upraised straight simple round rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EBA. Kt.38 (05/003/K.09.50.114). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 4.3; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown, internal reddish brown to dark reddish gray (5YR 4/4–4/2), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); burnished on both sides (slightly shiny). Curving body with upturned straight round rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EBA. Kt.39 (05/043/K.09.50.98; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.5; w. 3.4; th. 0.9–1. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); slightly smoothed on both sides; a few straw marks on both sides. Slightly curving body, rim following the same curve. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.40 (05/043/K.09.50.192). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 4.6; th. 0.7–1.5. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), internal light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), clay very dark gray (2.5YR 3/0); smoothed externally, burnished internally (slightly shiny). Curving body with simple rim following the same curve. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.41 (05/042/K.09.50.91). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.3; w. 3.0; th. 1.0–1.2. Inclusions: some white, some black (some small shiny), some quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay gray (7.5YR 5/1); smoothed externally, rougher internally. Straight body with thickened round rim. Obsidian ware; semi-coarse. EB II. Kt.42 (05/043/K.09.50.156; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.6; w. 3.7; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: many white and black small rocks, quartz, silver mica with some larger flakes. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); well smoothed externally, burnished (slightly shiny) internally; a few straw marks on both sides. Slightly incurving walls with slightly flaring thickened rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II. Kt.43 (05/015/K.09.50.1; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.9; w. 3.8; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces mottled: dark bluish gray to light yellowish brown (Gley 2 4/1 to 10YR 6/4), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed on both sides. Curving body with flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN I–II. Kt.44 (05/003/K.09.50.M5; Fig. 2; Pl. 13). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.2; w. 3.5; th. 1.2–1.4. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/3), clay dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); external surface rough with irregular finger impressions on

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

wet clay, well burnished (shiny) internally but most of surface has worn off. Curving body with flaring flat type rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. LN. Kt.45 (05/003/K.09.50.10; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 5.0; w. 5.8; th. 0.5–0.7. Inclusions: few white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4–4/4), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); well burnished on both sides (shiny); straw marks on both sides. Slightly incurving walls with slightly flaring rim forming S-profile. Fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.46 (05/024/K.09.50ST.87; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 11.5; w. 10.0; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica with few larger flakes. External surfaces reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), internal grayish brown (10YR 5/2), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); roughly burnished externally on the highest part, well burnished (slightly shiny) internally. Curving body with flaring round rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.47 (05/043/K.09.50.34; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 5.0; w. 3.6; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica with larger flakes. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal reddish yellow (7.5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); externally rough, internally burnished (slightly shiny). Slightly curving body with slightly flaring rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. LN II–FN I. Kt.48 (05/094/K.09.49.54). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.5; w. 7.9; th. 0.5–0.6. Inclusions: many white, few gray, small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3), internal dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); burnished (slightly shiny) on both sides, but burnish not well preserved internally; a few straw marks. Slightly curving at the lower part of the body, slightly flaring asymmetrical rim from a shallow conical bowl. Semi-fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.49 (05/003/K.09.50.48A; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 5.9; w. 3.3; th. 0.6–0.8. Inclusions: some white, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces, clay very dark brown (2.5YR 3/0), internal dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); burnished (not too shiny) on both sides; S-shaped with flaring everted round rim. Fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.50 (05/003/K.09.50.74; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.8; w. 4.1; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: few white, few small rocks d. 0.3–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); externally burnished (slightly shiny) with added white diluted slip, internally well smoothed; a few straw marks on both sides. S-shaped body with flaring rim. Semi-fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.51 (05/003/K.09.50.145; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 6.8; w. 7.2; th. 0.5–0.6. Inclusions: some white, some

127

small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish gray (5YR 5/2), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); rough externally, burnished (shiny) internally. Curving body, not well-formed flaring round rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. LN II–FN I. Kt.52 (05/003/K.09.50.26; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.3; w. 3.5; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: white, black, small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4–4/4), clay gray (2.5YR N5/); very well burnished on both sides, added reddish brown slip on both surfaces; a few straw marks externally; horizontal burnishing marks internally. Curving body with a simple, slightly flaring rim. Semi-fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.53 (05/043/K.09.50.179; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.2; w. 2.7; th. 0.9–1.4. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6–5/8), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); internally slightly smoothed. Straight body with a rolled rim. Coarse ware. FN II–EB I. Kt.54 (05/003/K.09.50.72; Fig. 3). Rim and handle from a bowl. L. 6.0; w. 9.8; th. 0.6. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External, internal surfaces grayish brown (10YR 5/2), clay gray (10YR 5/1). Slightly curving body and slightly flaring round rim with horizontal rectangular handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. Kt.55 (05/014/K.09.50.17; Fig. 3). Rim and handle from a bowl. L. 5.3; w. 6.6; th. 0.9–1.6. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces weak red (10R 5/2), internal red (10R 5/6), clay dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); rough on both sides, more smooth in the lower internal part; many straw marks on both sides. Conical body and flaring triangular rim with a vertical handle preserved on the rim, extending upward and descending to the body of the vessel. Semi-coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.56 (05/015/K.09.50.25; Fig. 3). Rim and handle from a bowl. L. 6.4; w. 5.2; th. 0.7–1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed externally, rough internally. Straight body becoming flaring on the upper part, simple rim with a thickening suggesting the beginning of a strap handle that goes lower to the body, with a lunate break at its end. Semicoarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.57 (05/015/K.09.50.74; Fig. 3). Rim and handle from a bowl. L. 6.9; w. 7.5; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica with few larger flakes. External, internal surfaces, clay light red (5YR 6/6); well burnished externally (not shiny) only in parts; curving body with round rim, which rises forming an oval/strap-shaped handle extending upwards and descending to the shoulder of the vessel. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II.

128

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kt.58 (05/003/K.09.50.254; Fig. 3). Rim and handle from a dipper. L. 6.5; w. 6.1; th. 1.1–1.2. Inclusions: few white, some black, very few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), clay gray (10YR 5/1); well burnished (not shiny) externally and at the edges internally. Curving body with a simple straight rim on which a vertical strap-shaped handle starts and extends further above it and loops to the body of the vessel. Semi-fine ware. LN II. Kt.59 (05/025/K.09.50.59; Fig. 4). Rim and handle from a scoop. L. 7.5; w. 13.5; th. 0.7–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, much silver mica especially internally. External surfaces light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), internal very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0), clay very pale brown (2.5Y 8/2); smoothed externally, roughly burnished internally. Curving body with slightly flaring, round, scoop-like rim that is uneven and not horizontal, remains of handle starting from the belly and probably ending on the rim, forming a loop. Semi-coarse ware. LN II. Kt.60 (05/094/K.09.49.M8; Fig. 4). Rim and handle from a cup. L. 5.0; w. 6.1; th. 0.5. Inclusions: few white, few black, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light brown to dark gray (7.5YR 6/4 to 2.5Y 4/0), clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); burnished (not shiny) on both sides. Slightly curving body with a slightly flaring, round rim, strap handle starting from the belly ending on the rim. Fine ware. EB II. Kt.61 (05/024/K.09.50E.42; Fig. 4). Rim and handle from a cup. L. 4.1; w. 6.8; th. 0.9–1.7. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough externally, more smooth internally; straw marks internally. Slightly curving body and a simple rim that is raised where an oval vertical handle descends to the body. Semi-fine ware. EB II. Kt.62 (05/024/K.09.50B.34; Fig. 4). Rim from a sauceboat. L. 8.5; w. 5.5; th. 0.4–0.6. Inclusions: few white, some black, silver mica. External surfaces pale brown (10YR 6/3), internal dark bluish gray to gray (Gley 2 4/1 to 10YR 5/1), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); smoothed internally, well burnished (slightly shiny) externally. Straight body with curve from left to right, rim ascends to form beginning of the sauceboat’s spout. Fine ware. EB II. Kt.63 (05/003/K.09.50.337; Fig. 4). Rim from a sauceboat. L. 4.1; w. 4.4; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: white, few reddish brown, small rocks d. 0.1, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (5YR 4/4); well burnished on both sides, slightly shiny internally, slip applied on both sides, a few straw marks. Simple, only slightly flaring rim with beginning of spout preserved, straight body. Semi-fine ware. EB II. Kt.64 (05/003/K.09.50.328). Rim from a sauceboat. L. 4.3; w. 4.2; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, some

black, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); burnished on both sides. One side straight with slightly flaring simple rim, other side with curving wall and straight rim with body closing and forming a spout. Fine ware. EB II. Kt.65 (05/003/K.09.50.163; Fig. 5). Rim from a pedestal bowl. L. 6.3; w. 4.4; th. 1.0–2.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces strong brown to dark bluish gray (7.5YR 5/6 to Gley 2 4/1), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4–4/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough externally, well smoothed and burnished (slightly shiny) internally. Ascending rim, lower part is thicker, closer to the bowl base. Rough and burnished ware; semi-fine. LN II early. Kt.66 (05/024/K.09.50ST.86; Fig. 5). Rim from a pedestal bowl. L. 9.2; w. 6.5; th. 0.9–1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/3), internal light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); rough and uneven surface externally, burnished (not shiny) internally. Globular body with ascending rim, bowl deep base at base, vertical pedestal. Rough and burnished ware. Semi-coarse. LN II early. Kt.67 (05/003/K.09.50.233; Fig. 5). Body from a pedestal bowl. L. 5.3; w. 5.7; th. 0.8–1.5. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces reddish gray (5YR 5/2), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/3), clay yellowish red (5YR 4/6); lightly smoothed and rough externally, well burnished internally (slightly shiny); straw marks on both sides. Base almost flat, part of the curving wall preserved, with roughness on exterior in lower part of curve marking position where pedestal base was attached. Rough and burnished ware; semi-fine. LN I–II. Kt.68 (05/094/K.09.49.M3; Fig. 5). Rim and lug from a cylindrical pyxis. L. 7.0; w. 5.1; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black (few shiny), much quartz with large shiny pieces, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/4), internal reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); smooth on both sides. Straight body slightly curving on the lowest part, rim slightly flaring with a cylindrical lug perforated vertically, string hole just below rim. Cylindrical Pelos-style pyxis. Obsidian ware; semi-coarse. EB I. Kt.69 (05/003/K.09.50.193). Rim from a jug. L. 3.2; w. 4.0; th. 0.7. Inclusions: few small rocks, not visible on surface, silver mica with some larger flakes. External, internal surfaces, clay dark brown (7.5YR 4/2); smoothed on both sides, few burn marks externally. Slightly curving walls, simple, slightly uneven rim, straight on one side, slightly flaring on the other. Semicoarse ware. EB I–II late. Kt.70 (05/043/K.09.50.35; Fig. 5). Rim from a jug. L. 4.9; w. 3.8; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: many white, few

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces red to very pale brown (2.5YR 5/6 to 10YR 7/3), internal reddish brown to yellowish red (5YR 5/4–5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); burnished externally with an added buff slip preserved in some areas, slightly smoothed internally; a few straw marks on both sides. One side slightly incurving with flaring rim, other side of body straight with incurving rim, which seems to be a spout belonging to a jug. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II late. Kt.71 (05/003/K.09.50.261; Fig. 5). Rim from a jug. L. 5.2; w. 6.0; th. 0.9–1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); rough externally, well burnished (shiny) internally and on the rim. Straight body with straight, round, ascending rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. EB I–II late. Kt.72 (05/094/K.09.49.57; Fig. 6). Rim and handle from an open jar. L. 22.0; w. 22.1; th. 0.8–1.1. Inclusions: many white, few black, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal light red (2.5YR 6/6); smooth on both sides; many straw marks internally. Straight main body with curve starting at lower part, wider in the upper part, possibly slight overall S-shape; flaring triangular rim, horizontal oval-shaped handle. Resembling Trojan Nubbly ware; coarse. EB II late–III early. Kt.73 (05/024/K.09.50Z.4+7; Fig. 6). Rim and handle from an open jar. L. 16.7; w. 16.4; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: many white, few black and reddish brown small rocks, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces mottled: very dark gray to dark reddish gray (5YR 3/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/6) to reddish brown and yellowish red (5YR 4/1); burnished (not shiny) externally, very well smoothed internally; ample straw marks on both sides. Vertical, slightly curving sides with slightly flaring plain rim and horizontal cylindrical handle. Resembling Trojan Nubbly ware; semi-coarse. EB II late–III early. Kt.74 (05/024/K.09.50B.38; Fig. 6). Rim from an open jar. L. 19.4; w. 18.2; th. 1.3–1.4. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.5, much silver mica. External surfaces pale brown (10YR 6/3), internal light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); smoothed on both sides. Curving body with flaring round rim. Resembling Trojan Nubbly ware; semi-coarse. EB II late–III early. Kt.75 (05/024/K.09.50C.18; Fig. 6; Pl. 12). Rim from an open jar. L. 20.6; w. 19.0; th. 1.2–1.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces mottled: bluish black to light yellowish brown (Gley 2 2.5/1 to 10YR 6/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); well burnished (not shiny) externally, smoothed internally. Conical body with flaring round rim. Resembling Trojan Nubbly ware; semicoarse. EB II late–III early.

129

Kt.76 (05/042/K.09.50.25; Fig. 6). Rim from an open jar. L. 3.7; w. 4.4; th. 1.4–1.6. Inclusions: some white, some black (few small shiny), few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, gold mica with some larger flakes. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), clay dark reddish gray (2.5YR 4/2); smoothed on both sides. Curving thick body with incurving round simple rim. Resembling Trojan Nubbly ware; semi-coarse. EB II–III early. Kt.77 (05/003/K.09.50.151; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 5.9; w. 4.4; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks, silver mica with few larger flakes. External surfaces, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6–4/6), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6); burnished internally; straw marks on both sides. Spreading neck that becomes flaring, ending in a simple round rim. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.78 (05/003/K.09.50.305; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 7.2; w. 5; th. 0.8–1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica (more internally). External surfaces reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), internal gray (5YR 5/1), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); straw marks externally; striation lines internally. Spreading neck with flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.79 (05/014/K.09.50.18; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 5.9; w. 4.2; th. 0.7–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3), clay weak red (10YR 5/2); white diluted slip added externally and on rim. Conical body and flaring triangular rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.80 (05/024/K.09.50B.21). Rim from a jar. L. 5.2; w. 8.6; th. 1.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal pale brown (10YR 6/3), clay dark gray (10YR 4/1); smoothed externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Conical body ending in a round rim. Fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.81 (05/024/K.09.50E.10). Rim from a jar. L. 4.7; w. 5.4; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: silver mica. External surfaces red to reddish brown to brown to black (2.5YR 5/6, 5YR 5/4, 7.5YR 5/4, 7.5YR N2/), clay reddish brown to black (5YR 5/4 to 7.5YR N2/); burnished but not shiny on both sides. Neck spreading slightly outward ending in a simple, slightly flaring rim. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.82 (05/024/K.09.50ST.88; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 9.0; w. 8.4; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica with few larger flakes. External surfaces pale brown (10YR 6/3), internal light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); smoothed externally, well burnished (slightly shiny) internally. Conical body with flaring round rim. Fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.83 (05/043/K.09.50.196). Rim from a jar. L. 5.4; w. 5.0; th. 1.4–1.5. Inclusions: few white, black, gray,

130

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

reddish brown small rocks, quartz, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); well smoothed externally, rough internally; few straw marks externally. Vertical or slightly tapering profile with plain rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.84 (05/003/K09.50.A469; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 3.4; w. 2.6; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: many white, few black, few reddish brown small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces mottled: red to reddish brown (2.5YR 4/6 to 5YR 5/4), internal brown (7.5YR 4/3), clay brown to black (7.5YR 4/3–2.5/1); well burnished (shiny) externally with added red slip, very well smoothed internally; few straw marks. Low tapering neck and plain flaring rim, slightly asymmetrical. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.85 (05/094/K.09.49.2). Rim from a jar. L. 6.0; w. 9.3; th. 1–1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces brown to dark bluish gray (7.5YR 5/3 to Gley 2 4/1), internal red (2.5YR 4/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough externally, burnished surface in the upper part (shiny) internally. Slightly curving body with slightly flaring rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.86 (05/094/K.09.49.28; Pl. 11). Rim from a jar. L. 4; w. 5.3; th. 0.7–1. Inclusions: many white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces pale brown (10YR 6/3), internal light brown (7.5YR 6/4), clay gray (10YR 5/1); smoothed on both sides; much straw marks of both sides; slightly spreading short neck with a slightly thickened rim. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.87 (05/003/K.09.50.29). Rim from a jar. L. 5.0; w. 5.8; th. 1.1. Inclusions: few white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); burnished on both sides. Spreading neck with a flaring round simple rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II–III early. Kt.88 (05/044/K.09.50.34). Rim from a jar. L. 4.3; w. 4.4; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica with larger flakes; External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough externally, smooth internally. Straight walls with flaring round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.89 (05/024/K.09.50ST.27; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 4.6; w. 3.8; th. 1.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces mottled: light yellowish brown to very dark bluish gray (10YR 6/4 to Gley 2 3/1), internal yellowish red to reddish brown (5YR 5/6–5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); well burnished on both sides (shiny); straw marks on both sides. Straight body with flaring simple rim. Fine ware. EB II–III early. Kt.90 (05/025/K.09.50.27). Rim from a jar. L. 3.0; w. 4.0; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, some black (shiny), few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much gold mica.

External surfaces red (10R 5/6), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); smoothed on both sides. Straight body, spreading neck with round, flaring rim. Obsidian ware; coarse. EB II–III early. Kt.91 (05/034/K.09.50.26; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 3.4; w. 5.5; th. 01.3–1.4. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), internal, clay gray (10YR 6/1); smoothed on both sides; few straw marks mainly internally. Slightly curving body with short spreading neck and flaring rim. Orange ware; coarse. EB II–III early. Kt.92 (05/003/K.09.50.277). Rim from a jar. L. 4.5; w. 5.1; th. 1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces mottled: reddish brown to pale yellow (2.5YR 4/3 to 2.5Y 7/3), internal, clay red (2.5YR 5/6); rough on both sides. Conical body and flaring round rim. Coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.93 (05/043/K.09.50.180). Rim from a jar. L. 6.1; w. 4.8; th. 1.2–1.5. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light brown to dark bluish gray (7.5YR 6/4 to Gley 2 4/1), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough, with thumb impression on exterior of upper wall, smoothed internally. Curving body with simple round rim. Coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.94 (05/043/K.09.50.193; Fig. 6). Rim from a jar. L. 2.8; w. 3.4; th. 1.4. Inclusions: few white small rocks, some quartz, silver mica. External surfaces pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2), internal light reddish brown to reddish brown (5YR 6/4–5/4), clay reddish brown (5YR 5/4); buff slip added externally, rough internally. Very low spreading neck with flaring thickened rim. Coarse ware. EB II. Kt.95 (05/003/K.09.50.141; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 5.4; w. 4.9; th. 0.5–0.7. Inclusions: white, black small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces weak red (10R 4/3), clay dark reddish gray (clay 10R 3/1); well smoothed on both sides. Neck cylindrical and uneven, varying in thickness, almost straight, with plain, slightly flaring rim, probably asymmetrical. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.96 (05/003/K.09.50.289). Rim from a jar. L. 3.8; w. 4.5; th. 0.5–0.6. Inclusions: relatively few, not visible on surface, small white rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4); burnished on both sides, slightly shiny externally, not as well burnished internally. Nearly cylindrical short neck with slightly flaring, round simple rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.97 (05/013/K.09.50.13A-B; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 7.0; w. 4.3; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: few white, few small black, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces reddish gray to yellowish red (5YR 4/2–5/6),

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

internal yellowish red (5YR 5/8), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed on both sides; few straw marks on both sides. Straight neck with slightly flaring simple rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.98 (05/041/K.09.50.41; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 5.7; w. 5.7; th. 1.3–1.5. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smooth externally, rough internally. Straight wall thickened close to the slightly flaring rim. Coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.99 (05/003/K.09.50.91; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 7.2; w. 8.4; th. 1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces grayish brown (10YR 5/2), internal, clay light brown (7.5YR 6/4); gray/buff slip added externally, rough internally. Cylindrical neck with flaring round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.100 (05/012/K.09.50.28; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 5.4; w. 5.3; th. 1.1–1.2. Inclusions: white, few black, small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, quartz, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4); roughly smoothed externally; well burnished internally (slightly shiny); few straw marks. Cylindrical neck with flaring simple rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.101 (05/024/K.09.50ST.50). Rim from a jar. L. 2.9; w. 3.9; th. 0.8–1.1. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/1); rough externally, burnished internally (slightly shiny); straw marks internally. Cylindrical neck with flaring simple rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.102 (05/003/K.09.50.149; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 6.5; w. 4.7; th. 0.6–0.9. Inclusions: white small rocks d. 0.4, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal red (2.5YR 5/6), clay gray (2.5YR N5/); only slightly burnished (not shiny) on both sides, white diluted slip added externally; some straw marks on both sides. Curving sides and slightly incurving, uneven rim. Semi-fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.103 (05/015/K.09.50.161A; Fig. 7). Rim from a collared-neck jar. L. 4.6; w. 3.8; th. 1.1. Inclusions: many white, few black small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, quartz, silver mica with some larger flakes. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay pinkish gray to reddish gray (5YR 6/2–5/2); very well smoothed externally, rougher, not well smoothed internally. Curving sides, low flaring neck and rim. Coarse ware. EB I or I/II. Kt.104 (05/003/K.09.50.342; Fig. 7). Rim from a collared-neck jar. L. 6.0; w. 7.5; th. 1.5–1.9. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish

131

brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2); roughly smoothed on both sides. Straight neck with round everted rim. Coarse ware. EB II. Kt.105 (05/003/K.09.50.41; Fig. 7). Rim from a collared-neck jar. L. 8.2; w. 7.7; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black, very few quartz, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, much silver mica. External surfaces pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2), internal pink (7.5YR 7/4), clay gray (7.5YR 5/0); burnished (not shiny) externally, smoothed internally. Tapering neck with flaring round rim. Semi-fine. LN II–FN I. Kt.106 (05/015/K.09.50.134; Fig. 7). Rim from a collared-neck jar. L. 5.6; w. 7.4; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black (few small shiny), few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal reddish brown to gray (5YR 5/3–4/1), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); slightly rough externally, smoothed internally; few straw marks internally; relatively deep and wide horizontal and oblique striations externally. Straight sides with slightly flaring simple rim. Obsidian ware; semicoarse. LN II–FN I. Kt.107 (05/024/K.09.50C.24; Fig. 7). Body and handle from an amphora. L. 20.0; w. 15.0; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); roughly burnished on both sides. S-shaped body with vertical oval-shaped handle starting from belly and ending where neck starts. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.108 (05/033/K.09.50.10; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 3.5; w. 5.4; th. 0.7–1.0. Inclusions: few white, many black (some small shiny), few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal pink (7.5YR 7/3), clay very pale brown (10YR 7/3); roughly burnished (not shiny) on both sides. Closing body forming angle with flaring everted round rim. Obsidian ware; semi-coarse. EB II–III early. Kt.109 (05/042/K.09.50.158; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 7.9; w. 8.4; th. 2.2. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, gold mica with larger flakes. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow to yellowish red (5YR 6/8–5/8), clay bluish gray (Gley 2 5/1); smoothed externally, rough internally. Straight conical body without neck, flat everted rim with triangular section. Orange ware; coarse. EB II. Kt.110 (05/003/K.09.50.212). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 11.3; w. 10.6; th. 0.7–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, much silver mica and very few gold flakes. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 4/3), clay reddish brown (5YR 5/4); rough externally, good burnishing (not shiny) internally. Two holes preserved and probably one more. Curved body with flaring round rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. LN II–FN I.

132

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kt.111 (05/024/K.09.50ST.67; Fig. 8). Body from a cheese pot. L. 5.2; w. 5.8; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica with few larger flakes. External surfaces, clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4); rough externally, lightly burnished internally with added slip of pale red/pink color. Shape and surface treatment exactly like a cheese pot (three unsuccessful attempts to make holes internally). Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. LN II–FN I. Kt.112 (05/003/K.09.50.326). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.8; w. 6.7; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4); rough on both sides. Straight body with straight round rim. Four holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.113 (05/003/K.09.50.88). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 5.9; w. 2.9; th. 1.0. Inclusions: mostly white, few black, small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, few quartz, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay red (2.5YR 5/6–4/6); roughly smoothed on both sides. Straight sides with plain rim. Parts of two holes preserved, opened before firing. Semi-coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.114 (05/003/K.09.50.14). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 7.4; w. 9.5; th. 0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal reddish brown to yellowish red (5YR 4/4–4/6), clay dark reddish gray (5YR 4/2); rough externally, smoothed internally; oblique striation lines externally and horizontal marks of cloth or shell. Shape and surface treatment exactly like a cheese pot but unperforated. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.115 (05/094/K.09.49.11). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 6.5; w. 5.6; th. 1.1–1.3. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4 , silver mica. External surfaces light brown to dark gray (7.5YR 6/4–4/1), internal reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), clay bluish gray (Gley 2 5/1); rough on both sides; straw marks internally; horizontal and oblique striation lines externally. Slightly curving body with slightly flaring rim, unperforated. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.116 (05/003/K.09.50.115; Fig. 8; Pl. 11). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 6.2; w. 7.4; th. 0.8. Inclusions: few white, many black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed on both sides; long horizontal and some slightly oblique striation lines externally, striations are more limited and less marked internally. Slightly curving body with straight rim, unperforated. Semi-coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.117 (05/003/K.09.50.A343). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.5; w. 3.4; th. 1.0–1.2. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough on both sides; some straw marks internally; few oblique striation lines

externally. Straight body, slightly incurving at the lower part. Beginning of a large hole (pres. d. 0.4 ) on the upper part. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.118 (05/015/K.09.50.39; Fig. 9). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.3; w. 4.4; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces pink (7.5YR 7/4), internal dark gray (10YR 4/1), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); rough on both sides; striation lines externally. Burned inside. Straight body and flat rim with four holes, three perforated, the other not completely. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.119 (025/K.09.50.26). Body from a cheese pot. L. 2.7; w. 2.7; th. 0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), internal red (10R 5/6), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); rough on both sides. One hole preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.120 (05/003/K09.50.A347). Body from a cheese pot. L. 2.4; w. 2.8; th. 0.8. Inclusions: few white, few black, very small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay gray (5YR 5/1); roughly smoothed externally, very well smoothed internally. Straight body. Small part of one hole preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.121 (05/003/K09.50.A467). Body from a cheese pot. L. 5.4; w. 3.8; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: many white, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), clay dark gray to very dark gray (5YR 4/1–3/1); rough on both sides; straw marks on both sides. Small body fragment with part of a hole preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.122 (05/003/K.09.50.248; Fig. 8). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.9; w. 4.3; th. 0.9. Inclusions: few white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces pink (5YR 7/3), internal light reddish brown (5YR 6/3), clay gray (5YR 6/1); rough on both sides. Slightly curving body with slightly flaring round rim. Two holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.123 (05/003/K.09.50.244; Fig. 8). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 5.7; w. 4.3; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: few white, silver mica. External surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal weak red (2.5YR 4/2); rough on both sides. Slightly curving body, slightly flaring round rim. Two holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.124 (003/K.09.50.249; Fig. 8). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4; w. 3.3; th. 1.0. Inclusions: few white, few black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/3), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/3), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); rough on both sides. Slightly curving body, slightly flaring round rim. One hole preserved and part of another one. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.125 (05/003/K.09.50.209; Fig. 9). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 8.3; w. 10.0; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); rough on both sides; straw marks on both sides. Curving body with almost straight round rim. Nine holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.126 (05/003/K.09.50.331; Fig. 9). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 8.5; w. 8.9; th. 0.8–1.1. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); rough on both sides. Curving body with slightly flaring round rim. Two holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.127 (05/094/K.09.49.M1; Fig. 9). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 3.9; w. 4.6; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces dark gray (10YR 4/1), internal pale red (2.5YR 6/2), clay dark gray (10YR 4/1); rough on both sides. Straight body and straight round rim. Three preserved holes. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.128 (05/003/K.09.50.M4; Fig. 9). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 3.3; w. 2.0; th. 0.8. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay very dark gray (2.5YR 3/0); rough on both sides. Straight body and straight round rim. Two holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.129 (05/024/K.09.50E.8). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.3; w. 4.4; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces pink (7.5YR 7/4), internal dark gray (10YR 4/1), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); rough on both sides; striation lines externally. Burned inside. Straight body and flat rim. Four holes, three open only on one side, one completely perforated. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.130 (05/024/K.09.50ST.65; Fig. 9; Pl. 12). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 5.8; w. 6.5; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), clay pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2); very rough externally, rough internally. Straight body with straight flat rim. Two holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.131 (05/003/K.09.50.73; Fig. 9). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 6.8; w. 6.4; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough externally, smoothed internally; straw marks externally; some striation lines externally. Straight body with simple rim. Two holes, one above the other. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.132 (05/003/K.09.50.153; Fig. 10). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.2; w. 4.6; th. 1.1–1.2. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks (one large milky

133

quartz), silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 4/4), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); rough externally, smoothed internally; straw marks on both sides. Straight body with simple rim. Three holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.133 (05/003/K.09.50.A341). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 2.0; w. 3.4; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); roughly smoothed on both sides; straw marks internally. Straight body with slightly flaring simple rim. Two holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.134 (05/003/K.09.50.A348). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 1.8; w. 2.5; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: few white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6); roughly smoothed on both sides. Straight body with slightly flaring rim. Two holes partly preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.135 (05/003/K.09.50.298; Fig. 10). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.3; w. 5.0; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: white, few black, rocks d. 0.2–0.6, silver mica, very few larger flakes. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal dark brown (7.5YR 4/4), clay dark gray (7.5YR N4/); rough externally, smoothed internally. Straight body and plain rim. Four holes preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.136 (05/003/K.09.50.344; Fig. 10). Base from a cheese pot. L. 3.8; w. 8.3; th. 1.2. Inclusions: many white, small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 4/4), clay dark gray (5YR 4/1); very rough externally, smoothed internally but uneven. Curving body and flat base. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.137 (05/094/K.09.49.19; Fig. 10; Pl. 12). Base from a cheese pot. L. 4.7; w. 6.4; th. 1.0–1.5. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces very pale brown to yellowish red (10YR 7/4 to 5YR 5/6), internal, clay reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); externally rough with chipping marks, relatively smooth internally. Curving body and flat base. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.138 (094/K.09.49.53; Fig. 10). Base from a cheese pot. L. 4.2; w. 10.2; th. 1.1–1.7. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces brown to dark bluish gray (7.5YR 5/4 to Gley 2 4/1), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough on bottom surface and externally, smoothed internally; many straw marks on both sides. Slightly curving body and flat base. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.139 (05/015/K.09.50.82; Fig. 10). Handle from a jar. L. 4.4; w. 7.1; th. 1.5. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay dark gray

134

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

(2.5YR 4/0); rough sides. Horizontal circular handle. Coarse ware. EB I(–II). Kt.140 (05/024/K.09.50B.29; Fig. 10). Handle from a jar. L. 7.6; w. 6.7; th. 1.1–2.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1); well burnished (not shiny) externally. Wide horizontal push-through strap handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.141 (05/013/K.09.50.5; Pl. 13). Handle from a jar. L. 9.4; w. 6.5; th. 1.6–2.9. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed externally. Horizontal push-through strap handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. Kt.142 (05/054/K.09.50.2; Fig. 11). Handle from a tankard. L. 5.9; w. 4.2; th. 1.7–2.8. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, gold mica with few larger flakes. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); well burnished (slightly shiny) externally, most burnish worn off. Vertical cylindrical handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II late or III early. Kt.143 (05/025/K.09.50.1; Fig. 11). Handle from a jug. L. 6.1; w. 4.4; th. 1.6–4.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/4), clay dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); smoothed on both sides. Strap handle that ends on spout. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.144 (05/014/K.09.50.31; Fig. 11). Handle from a jug. L. 5.9; w. 4.9; th. 2.0–3.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, much quartz (rather shiny), few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces very pale brown (10YR 7/3), clay gray (7.5YR 5/0); smoothed on both sides. Vertical handle that ends at spout, two raised edges at highest point, horn-like decoration. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.145 (05/045/K.09.50.14; Fig. 11). Handle from a jug. L. 2.9; w. 3.0; th. 1.2–2.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay very dark gray (5YR 3/1); smoothed on both sides. Strap-shaped handle with highest point having two higher edges that end at spout. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.146 (05/043/K.09.50.167). Handle from a jar. L. 8.1; w. 4.0–4.6; th. 1.8–2.4. Inclusions: some white, some black (few small shiny), some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, gold mica with larger flakes. External, internal surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6–4/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); small depressions on both sides. Vertical strap handle. Obsidian ware; semi-coarse. FN. Kt.147 (05/024/K.09.50E.35; Fig. 12). Handle from an open vessel. L. 9.0; w. 6.0; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: white, black, small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, quartz, silver mica

with some larger flakes. External surfaces red to dark reddish gray (10R 4/6, 4/1, 3/1), internal red (2.5YR 5/6), clay reddish gray (10R 5/1); smoothed on both sides. Slightly curving body with vertical ovoid handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–III. Kt.148 (05/003/K.09.50.236). Handle from a jar. L. 5.7; w. 8.1; th. 1.0–1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay gray (2.5YR 5/0); roughly burnished (not shiny) externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Vertical strap-shaped handle. Fine ware. EB I–III. Kt.149 (05/022/K.09.50.12). Handle from a jar. L. 6.3; w. 3.8; th. 1.8–1.9. Inclusions: much white, some black, few quartz, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, gold mica with larger flakes. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1). Vertical kidney-shaped handle from large jar. Coarse ware. EB I–III. Kt.150 (05/003/K.09.50.244B). Handle from a closed vessel. L. 6.3; w. 4.7; th. 1.7–1.9. Inclusions: few white, few black, few small rocks, quartz, silver mica. External surfaces (2.5YR 4/3), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); smoothed mainly on the upper side. Vertical oval-shaped handle from a jar or jug. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.151 (05/026/K.09.50.1; Fig. 12). Handle from a jar. L. 5.0; w. 3.8; th. 2.5–3.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8), internal light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), clay bluish gray (Gley 2 6/1); smoothed on both sides. Oval horizontal handle, ridge 0.3 higher at the middle of handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I. Kt.152 (05/015/K.09.50.59; Fig. 13). Body and handle from a jar. L. 11.6; w. 8.6; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: many white, many black, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); roughly smoothed on both sides. Curving body with vertical circular handle. Coarse ware. EB II–III. Kt.153 (05/047/K.09.50.1; Fig. 13). Handle possibly from a jar. L. 7.0; w. 5.1; th. 1.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/3), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay light olive gray (5Y 6/2); roughly smoothed on both sides. Vertical cylindrical handle with vertical depression at the middle. Coarse ware. EB II–III. Kt.154 (05/042/K.09.50.159). Body and handle from a jar. L. 9.5; w. 5.6; th. 1.2–2.6. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal, clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); slightly smoothed externally; straw marks externally. Straight body with oval vertical handle. Coarse ware. EB II–III.

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

Kt.155 (05/043/K.09.50.170). Handle from a jar. L. 7.7; w. 2.7–3.0; th. 2.4–3.4. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); roughly smoothed externally, smoothed internally. Upper part of a vertical cylindrical handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. Kt.156 (05/013/K.09.50.21; Fig. 13). Handle from a jar. L. 9.7; w. 7.6; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), internal weak red (2.5YR 5/2), clay reddish brown to weak red (2.5YR 5/4–5/2); smoothed externally, burnished (shiny) internally. Vertical, strap-shaped handle. Semi-fine ware. EB I–II. Kt.157 (05/044/K.09.50.67; Fig. 14). Body and handle from a pithos. L. 16.0; w. 22.4; th. 1.8–2.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, much quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay yellowish red to reddish gray (5YR 5/6–5/2); well burnished (not shiny) externally, smoothed internally with yellowish red slip added. Curving body with thick, short strap-shaped handle. Semi-coarse ware. FN I–II. Kt.158 (05/003/K.09.50.346; Fig. 15). Body and handle from a pithos. L. 10.6; w. 6.2; th. 1.8–4.6. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay gray (5YR 5/1); smoothed on both surfaces. Straight body, curving at the lower part with vertical ovoid handle. Coarse ware. FN I–II. Kt.159 (05/095/K.09.49.1; Fig. 15). Body and handle from a pithos. L. 10.5; w. 8.2; th. 1.7–2.0. Inclusions: some white, many black, much quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay red (2.5YR 5/6); roughly smoothed on both sides. Thick vertical strap-shaped handle. Coarse ware. FN I–II. Kt.160 (05/015/K.09.50.8; Fig. 16). Body and lug from a bowl. L. 4.6; w. 5.3; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal pink (5YR 7/4), clay pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2); roughly smoothed on both sides; curving body with solid vertical lug and vertical circular perforation. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.161 (05/094/K.09.49.A4; Pl. 13). Lug from a bowl. L. 2.6; w. 2.1; th. 0.6–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2 , silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow to yellowish red (5YR 6/6–5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); smoothed more on upper part. Horizontal rectangular lug with vertical perforation. Semi-fine ware. FN I–II.

135

Kt.162 (05/012/K.09.50.29; Fig. 16). Body and lug from a bowl. L. 4.3; w. 3.5; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); well burnished (shiny) externally, quite shiny internally. Small solid horizontal lug with vertical circular perforation. Fine ware. LN II. Kt.163 (05/023/K.09.50.7; Fig. 16). Lug from a bowl. L. 3.2; w. 2.2; th. 2.6. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), clay dark gray (10YR 4/1); smoothed on both sides. Small vertical compact lug on upper edge forming small horn, with circular horizontal perforation. Semi-coarse ware. LN II. Kt.164 (05/066/K.09.50.3; Fig. 16). Body and lug from a bowl. L. 2.7; w. 3.5; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: few white, black, small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces weak red to dark gray (2.5YR 4/2 to N4/), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay dark gray (2.5YR N4/); smoothed externally, rough internally. Slightly curving body, part of triangular tab lug rising from rim, thicker on triangle’s highest point. Semi-coarse ware. EB I. Kt.165 (05/015/K.09.50.32; Fig. 16). Body and tab lug from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 3.8; th. 0.8. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); roughly burnished externally, burnish preserved to limited extent. Straight body with flaring triangular rim and raised triangle forming tab lug. Semicoarse ware. FN II–EB I. Kt.166 (05/003/K.09.50.75; Fig. 16). Tab lug from a bowl. L. 4.0; w. 5.1; th. 1.1. Inclusions: few white, small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces dark brown (7.5YR 4/2), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay gray (7.5YR N5/); burnished (not shiny) externally, smoothed internally. Vertical strap handle rising above rim. Semi-coarse ware. FN II–EB I. Kt.167 (05/054/K.09.50.37; Fig. 16). Body and base from a jar. L. 6.1; w. 8.5; th. 1.8–2.0. Inclusions: many white, some quartz, many small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, gold mica with large flakes. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/3), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), clay pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2); rough on both sides. Conical body with flat base. Very coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.168 (05/003/K.09.50.3; Fig. 16). Body and base from a bowl. L. 6.1; w. 7.9; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: white, gray, orange, small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal reddish brown to dark gray (5YR 5/4–4/1), clay reddish brown to dark gray (5YR 5/4–4/1); rough externally, well burnished internally, visible burnishing marks. Curving body, flat base with asymmetrical bottom surface. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA.

136

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kt.169 (05/011/K.09.50.2; Fig. 16). Body and base from a jar. L. 3.3; w. 3.8; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: mostly white, numerous black, small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, some quartz plus large pieces, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay reddish gray (5YR 5/2); well smoothed on both sides. Conical body and flat base. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.170 (05/015/K.09.50.111; Fig. 16). Body and base from a closed vessel. L. 3.9; w. 4.6; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay gray (5YR 5/1); smoothed on both sides. Conical, slightly curving body with flat base. Coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.171 (05/003/K.09.50.17; Fig. 16). Body and base from a pyxis. L. 3.0; w. 5.5; th. 1.4–3.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces, clay light brown (7.5YR 6/4), internal red (2.5YR 5/6); burnished at the bottom of the base, burnish preserved on parts of body. Incurving body with flat base. Semi-fine ware. EB I/II. Kt.172 (05/003/K.09.50.132). Body and base from a pyxis. L. 2.4; w. 5.8; th. 0.8–1.2. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces dark reddish gray to dark gray (5YR 4/2–4/1), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4–4/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); relatively rough and uneven externally, burnished internally (not shiny); few straw marks on the base; striation marks on the base. Incurving body with flat base. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. EB I/II. Kt.173 (05/003/K.09.50.9; Fig. 17). Body and base from a closed vessel. L. 4.9; w. 5.3; th. 1.3–2.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown to brown (5YR 5/4 to 7.5YR 5/4); smooth externally, rough internally. Straight body with flat and splayed base with round edge. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–III. Kt.174 (05/054/K.09.50.4). Body and base from a jar. L. 9.5; w. 12.5; th. 1.9–2.5. Inclusions: many white, many black, some quartz, many small rocks d. 0.1–0.6, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6), internal, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4); smoothed externally, rough internally. Conical, slightly curving body with flat differentiated base. Coarse ware. EB II. Kt.175 (05/003/K.09.50.286; Fig. 17). Body and base from a closed vessel. L. 1.5; w. 6.4; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, much silver mica. External, internal surfaces pink (7.5YR 7/4), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); smoothed externally, rough internally. Conical body with sunken base. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA. Kt.176 (05/003/K.09.50.5; Fig. 17). Foot from a tripod vessel. L. 9.4; w. 4.0; th. 2.2–3.4. Inclusions: some

white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/3), internal light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), clay light gray (10YR 7/2); smoothed. Cylindrical foot with flat base. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.177 (05/003/K.09.50.M7; Fig. 17; Pl. 13). Body from a jar with patterned decoration. L. 7.4; w. 3.8; th. 1.7–1.8. Inclusions: some white, some black, much quartz, many small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 4/3), paint very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1), internal, clay brown (7.5YR 5/3–5/4); well burnished (shiny) externally, rough internally. Straight body with patterned, dark brown diagonal lines on brown background. Semi-coarse ware. Late MN. Kt.178 (05/043/K.09.50.M1; Fig. 17). Body from an open jar with incised decoration. L. 9.9; w. 9.5; th. 0.7–1.2. Inclusions: many white, many black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish brown to yellowish red (10YR 5/4 to 5YR 5/8), internal, clay brown (7.5YR 5/4); smoothed externally, internally burnished (slightly shiny). Curving body. Four shallow (0.1 deep), wide (0.3), parallel incised lines on lower body exterior. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.179 (05/094/K.09.49.45; Fig. 17). Body from a jar with incised decoration. L. 6.1; w. 3.5; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown (10YR 5/3), clay dark gray (10YR 4/1); smoothed on both sides; striation lines internally. Curving body. Two parallel shallow lines (less than 0.1 deep), 0.3 wide on exterior. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.180 (05/003/K.09.50.93; Fig. 17). Body from a closed vessel with incised decoration. L. 4.5; w. 4.9; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); smooth externally, rough internally. Nearly straight body with linear incision (0.1 deep, 2.2 long). Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.181 (05/094/K.09.49.56; Fig. 17). Rim from a pithos with plastic decoration. L. 6.7; w. 7.4; th. 1.6–1.8. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces very pale brown (10YR 8/2), internal, clay red (10R 5/6); smoothed on both sides. Straight body, flaring squat rim, plastic vertical rib starting from rim. Semicoarse ware. FN II or EB II. Kt.182 (05/003/K.09.50.M6). Body from bowl with a button. L. 3.2; w. 2.6; th. 0.7–1.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal, clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); smoothed externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Straight body with part of a button preserved. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II.

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

Kt.183 (05/094/K.09.49.M2). Body from a jug with a button. L. 2.6; w. 4.4; th. 0.7–1.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, silver mica. External surfaces pink (7.5YR 7/3), internal, clay reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); smoothed on both sides. Button decoration on carinated body of jug. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kt.184 (05/042/K.09.50.59). Body from an open vessel with a button. L. 2.9; w. 2.6; th. 0.7–1.6. Inclusions: some white, few black, much quartz, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/4), internal pale brown (10YR 6/3), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0); smoothed on both sides. Small circular button with round top. Semi-coarse ware. FN II–EB II. Kt.185 (05/003/K.09.50.176; Fig. 18). Body from an open vessel with a button. L. 7.5; w. 5.9; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal light brown (7.5YR 6/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough with many small rocks externally, burnished internally (slightly shiny); a few straw marks externally. Straight body with oval button (0.4 high) with sunken top. Semicoarse ware. LN II. Kt.186 (05/043/K.09.50.32). Body from a closed vessel with a button and incised decoration. L. 4.7; w. 4.6; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (5YR 6/4), internal, clay light gray (10YR 7/2); brown slip added externally, worn off in some places. Straight body with circular button with round top and four parallel shallow incised lines above button. Fine ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.187 (05/003/K.09.50.324; Fig. 18). Rim from a pithos with thumb decoration. L. 5.4; w. 7.4; th. 2.2–2.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2); smoothed externally and on rim, rough internally. Straight body without a neck, everted rim, flat on top with round lip. Probably three thumb impressions on edge of rim. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kt.188 (05/015/K.09.50.75). Body from a closed vessel. L. 3.4; w. 4.7; th. 1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, some small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rough on both sides; many straw marks externally, fewer internally. Nearly straight body, half hole is preserved, formed after firing. Coarse ware. LN–EBA.

Koutlousi Lower Hill Kt.Lh.1 (05/069/K.10.61.2; Pl. 11). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.0; w. 4.8; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: some white, few

137

small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), internal clay grayish brown (2.5YR 5/2); well burnished (quite shiny) externally, gray slip added and burnished (not shiny) internally. Beginning of hole preserved, most probably made after firing, perhaps as repair. Incurving body and incurving pointed (triangular) rim. Fine ware. EB II–III early. Kt.Lh.2 (05/098/K.10.61.1). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.8; w. 3.3; th. 0.6–0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black, silver mica. External surfaces light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay dark gray (2.5YR 4/0); brown slip added externally and on rim, well burnished (shiny) internally. Curving body with incurving, internally thickened round rim. Fine ware. EB II. Kt.Lh.3 (05/098/K.10.61.2; Fig. 4). Rim and handle from a cup. L. 4.4; w. 3.8; th. 1.0–2.0. Inclusions: some white, many black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces light brownish gray (10R 6/2), internal, clay grayish brown (10R 5/2); smoothed on both sides. Incurving simple rim and vertical strap-shaped handle that starts from body and connects to rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II late–III early. Kt.Lh.4 (05/A0/K.10.61.N1). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.4; w. 4.3; th. 0.7–1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, silver mica. External surfaces brown to light brown (7.5YR 5/3–6/3), internal, clay brown (7.5YR 5/3); well burnished (shiny) externally with brown slip added, not well smoothed internally; striation lines with one wider and deeper. Slightly curving body with round ascending rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II late. Kt.Lh.5 (05/079/K.10.61.21; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 1.9; w. 4.3; th. 1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, some small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish yellow to yellowish red (5YR 6/6–5/6); rough externally, smoothed internally. Straight body without neck, everted flat rim. Semicoarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.Lh.6 (05/090/K.10.61.11; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 4.0; w. 4.5; th. 1.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces pale red (10R 6/4), internal pink (7.5YR 7/3), clay pale brown (10YR 6/3); well burnished (shiny) on the exterior and on rim, brown slip added. Curving body with everted projecting rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kt.Lh.7 (05/079/K.10.61.8; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 7.9; w. 9.8; th. 2.1–2.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, many small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces pink (5YR 7/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay light brownish gray (10YR 6/2); well burnished (slightly shiny) externally, rough internally. Straight body without neck, everted round rim. Coarse ware. EB II. Kt.Lh.8 (05/090/K.10.61.5; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 5.5; w. 7.4; th. 2.1–2.3. Inclusions: few white,

138

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

some black, many quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces very pale brown (10YR 7/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough on both sides. Curving body without neck, everted rim. Coarse ware. EB II. Kt.Lh.9 (05/079/K.10.61.34; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 3.0; w. 6.9; th. 2.6. Inclusions: few white, some black, some quartz, many small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces red (10R 5/6), internal reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3); rough on both sides. Straight body without neck, straight, square, flat rim. Coarse ware. EB II late–III early. Kt.Lh.10 (05/090/K.10.61.23; Fig. 18). Handle from a jar with slashed decoration. L. 6.6; w. 4.9; th. 5.7. Inclusions: some large white, some large black, no mica. External surfaces, clay red (2.5YR 5/6), internal light red (2.5YR 6/6–6/8); red slip added on all sides, most worn off. Horizontal cylindrical handle, decorated with 16 slashed vertical incisions (0.1 deep). Semicoarse ware. EB II.

Nerantzia N.1 (06/A0/K.09.10.6; Pl. 12). Rim from a bowl. L. 5.1; w. 6.1; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: few white, few quartz, few small rocks, much silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3), internal, clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); burnished on both sides (lightly shiny); white diluted slip added externally. Almost straight body with straight simple round rim, uneven walls. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB III. N.2 (06/A0/100/K.10.11.1). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.7; w. 2.0; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal, clay strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); smoothed on both sides. Nearly straight walls, simple rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EB III. N.3 (05/A0/K.09.10.44). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.4; w. 4.3; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), clay very pale brown (10YR 7/3); smoothed externally, roughly burnished (not shiny) internally, well burnished (shiny) only on rim. Slightly outcurving body with flaring round rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN I–FN I(–II). N.4 (06/A0/010/K.10.12.1; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.6; w. 3.9; th. 0.8–1.0. Inclusions: few white, many black with some larger shiny ones, some quartz, few small rocks, limited silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay brown (7.5YR 5/4); smoothed on both sides. Nearly straight body, thickening close to round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early.

N.5 (06/A0/096/K.10.11.4). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.9; w. 2.7; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces red (10R 5/8–4/8), internal red (2.5YR 5/6), clay dark greenish gray (Gley 2 4/1); rougher externally, slightly smoothed internally. Slightly incurving body with simple round rim. Coarse ware. LN–EBA. N.6 (05/A0/K.09.10.49; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.8; w. 7.9; th. 0.6–0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, much silver mica. External surfaces mottled: reddish yellow to red to dark bluish gray (5YR 6/6 to 2.5YR 5/6 to Gley 2 4/1), internal reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay very pale brown (10YR 7/3); roughly burnished both sides. Incurving body with straight, round, pointing rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II. N.7 (05/A0/K.09.10.50; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.8; w. 7.2; th. 1.1–1.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces pink (7.5YR 7/3), internal light brown (7.5YR 6/3), clay light brownish gray (10YR 6/2); roughly burnished on both sides. Curving body with incurving pointed rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II late–III. N.8 (05/A0/K.09.10.14; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.0; w. 4.9; th. 0.6–0.9. Inclusions: few white, few quartz, much silver mica. External surfaces, clay reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); burnished on both sides (lightly shiny), with gray slip added on interior. Incurving body with incurving thickened rim. Fine ware. EB II. N.9 (05/A0/K.09.10.5; Fig. 4). Rim and handle from a cup. L. 5.0; w. 6.5; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver and limited gold mica. External surfaces, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal dark brown to dark gray (7.5YR 4/0–4/2); well burnished (lightly shiny) on both sides. Curving body with flat rim, vertical strap-shaped handle starts immediately below rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II late–III early. N.10 (06/A0/005/K.10.12.7). Rim from a cup. L. 3.7; w. 3.1; th. 0.3. Inclusions: few white, some black, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1), internal strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); smoothed on both sides; a few straw marks internally; long horizontal and few oblique striation lines externally. S-shaped body ending in flaring round thickened rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II late–III early. N.11 (06/A0/095/K.10.11.3A+B; Fig. 4). Rim from a cup. L. 6.4; w. 4.5; th. 0.3–0.6. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough externally, burnished (not shiny) internally; straw marks on both sides; voids from small pieces of wood

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

used for tempering preserved in the break. Straight sides that become slightly flaring and progressively thinner on upper part, very thin simple round rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. EB II late–III early. N.12 (06/A0/005/K.10.12.8). Rim from a sauceboat. L. 4.4; w. 2.7; th. 0.5–0.7. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal light brown (7.5YR 6/4), clay dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3); smoothed externally, lightly burnished internally (slightly shiny); straw marks on both sides. Slightly curving body with ascending rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II. N.13 (06/A0/096/K.10.11.3). Rim from a jug. L. 3.7; w. 3.4; th. 0.9–1.2. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, much silver mica. External surfaces dark reddish gray to very dark bluish gray (2.5YR 4/1 to Gley 2 3/1), internal light brown to brown (7.5YR 6/4–5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough externally, lightly burnished (slightly shiny in parts) internally. Slightly curving body that thickens quickly from 0.6 to 1.2, straight ascending rim forming spout. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II late. N.14 (05/A2/K.10.11.1). Rim from an open jar. L. 3.9; w. 6.6; th. 1.3–1.4. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces pale brown (10YR 6/3), internal very pale brown (10YR 7/3), clay very pale brown (10YR 7/3); smoothed on both sides. Curving body with incurving rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. N.15 (06/A0/005/K.10.12.6). Rim from a jar. L. 4.8; w. 6.7; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces mottled: very dark bluish gray to brown (Gley 2 4/1 to 10YR 5/3), internal dark reddish gray (10R 4/1), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); lightly burnished externally (not shiny), smoothed internally; straw marks on both sides. Spreading neck with slightly flaring round to pointed rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. N.16 (06/A0/097/K.10.11.5). Rim from a jar. L. 3.0; w. 5.0; th. 0.8. Inclusions: many white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); externally burnished (not shiny) but worn, with whitish slip added; straw marks on both sides. Spreading neck with simple round to pointed rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. N.17 (06/A0/044/K.10.11.3; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 4.1; w. 3.3; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces mottled: strong brown to very dark bluish gray (7.5YR 5/6 to Gley 2 3/1), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); roughly smoothed on both sides. Tapering neck with curving body, simple round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II.

139

N.18 (06/A0/096/K.10.11.6; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 9.6; w. 11.8; th. 1.0–1.5. Inclusions: few white, some black, some quartz d. up to 0.2, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light brown to reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/4–6/6), internal reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); roughly burnished externally (not shiny), flaking more on upper part, smoothed on interior more on upper part than lower. Curving body with spreading upper part ending in a simple round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. N.19 (05/A0/K.09.10.46; Fig. 7). Rim from a collared-neck jar. L. 6.9; w. 4.8; th. 0.8–1.1. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, silver mica. External, internal surfaces pink (5YR 7/4), clay pale yellow (2.5YR 7/3); well burnished (not shiny) externally and on rim, smoothed internally. Tapering, flaring neck with everted rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II late. N.20 (06/A0/092/K.10.01.1; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 7.1; w. 5.4; th. 1.9–2.1. Inclusions: some white, many black, few quartz, some small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal, clay reddish yellow (5YR 5/4); well smoothed externally, rougher internally. Spreading neck ending in straight, simple, almost rectangular rim. Coarse ware. EB II–III early. N.21 (06/A0/075/K.10.11.1; Fig. 8). Rim from a pithos. L. 5.5; w. 5.3; th. 1.7–2.4. Inclusions: some white, many black, much quartz, few small rocks, limited silver mica. External surfaces, clay light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6); smoothed externally, rough internally; limited straw marks on both sides. Slightly curving body, short cylindrical neck, round everted rim flat on top. Coarse ware. EB (I–)II. N.22 (06/096/K.10.11.5; Fig. 10; Pl. 12). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 8.5; w. 8.8; th. 1.1–1.6. Inclusions: many white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica with limited gold. External surfaces dark reddish gray to very dark gray (5YR 4/2–3/1), internal yellowish red to dark reddish gray (5YR 5/6–4/2), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); smoothed on both sides, better externally; small branch marks and few straw marks internally. Straight body with simple round rim that ascends, possibly forming tab handle; thicker than the other cheese pots. Three holes preserved (d. 0.5). Semi-coarse ware. LN II–FN I. N.23 (06/A0/044/K.10.11.2; Fig. 10). Base from a cheese pot. L. 6.4; w. 4.3; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: few white, many black, much quartz d. up to 0.2, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough on both sides; many straw marks on both sides. Curving body and flat base. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. N.24 (06/A0/K.10.11.1; Fig. 10). Handle from an open jar. L. 5.1; w. 7.6; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: many

140

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces mottled: yellowish red to dark gray (5YR 4/6–4/1), internal reddish brown (5YR 4/4), clay very dark bluish gray to reddish brown (Gley 2 3/1 to 5YR 4/4); slightly burnished externally, better burnished internally (slightly shiny); few striation lines externally. Curving body from open jar with small horizontal cylindrical handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II late–III early. N.25 (06/A0/044/K.10.11.1; Fig. 11). Handle from a tankard. L. 4.7; w. 4.8; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: some white, some black (few small shiny ones), few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces, clay mottled: yellowish red to reddish brown to dark bluish gray (5YR 5/6–5/3 to Gley 2 4/1), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6); well smoothed on both sides; horizontal striation lines on both sides. Slightly curving body, almost cylindrical vertical handle. Semi-fine ware. EB II late or III early. N.26 (05/A0/K.09.10.36). Handle from a jug. L. 9.2; w. 4.8; th. 2.7. Inclusions: few white, some black, many quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow to very pale brown (7.5YR 7/6 to 10YR 7/4), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0); smoothed on both sides. Vertical handle starting from body and ending on the back of spout. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. N.27 (06/A0/K.10.21.1; Fig. 11). Handle from a jug. L. 4.8; w. 2.9–4.8; th. 1.3–1.9. Inclusions: few white, some black, many quartz d. up to 0.2, few small rocks, limited silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4–4/4), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); roughly smoothed on both sides. Strap/oval vertical handle that ends at the back of spout. Quartz ware; coarse. EB I–II. N.28 (06/A0/070/K.10.21.4; Fig. 11). Handle from a jug. L. 2.8; w. 4.6; th. 1.0–1.4. Inclusions: some white, some black (some larger shiny ones), some quartz, few small rocks, limited silver mica. External surfaces, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); smoothed on both sides; shallow curving incision internally. Nearly straight body, thickened close to the rim with vertical strap handle ending at spout. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. N.29 (05/A2/K.10.11.4). Handle from a closed vessel. L. 5.0; w. 4.0; th. 4.6. Inclusions: some white, some black. External surfaces light red (2.5YR 6/6), internal, clay gray (7.5YR 5/0); smoothed on both sides; red color added externally, most of worn off. Vertical strap/oval-shaped handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–III. N.30 (06/A0/097/K.10.11.3). Handle probably from a jug. L. 2.9; w. 5.1; th. 3.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); roughly smoothed on both sides; straw marks especially

internally. Curving body with vertical handle ending at body. Coarse ware. EB I–III. N.31 (06/A0/K.10.11.2; Fig. 12). Handle from a jar. L. 5.7; w. 6.9; th. 1.0–1.9. Inclusions: many white, many black (some small shiny ones), some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, limited silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4–4/4), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); slightly smoothed externally, rough internally. Curving body with vertical strap handle. Coarse ware. EB II–III early. N.32 (05/A0/K.09.10.45; Fig. 12; Pl. 12). Handle from a jar or pithos. L. 6.8; w. 4.4; th. 1.8–1.9. Inclusions: few white, few black, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, gold mica with large flakes. External, internal surfaces red (10R 5/6), clay very pale brown (10YR 8/2); burnishing preserved in some places, red slip added on both sides. Vertical, kidney-shaped handle with two edges slightly raised. Semi-coarse ware. FN I. N.33 (06/066/K.10.11.1). Handle from a jar or jug. L. 3.0; w. 3.7; th. 1.4. Inclusions: few white, few black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1); slightly smoothed on both sides. Vertical, push-through, lunate-shaped handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. N.34 (06/A0/004/K.10.12.2; Fig. 12). Body and handle from a jar. L. 5.7; w. 7.1; th. 1.5–3.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica and limited gold. External surfaces mottled: dark bluish gray to brown (Gley 2 4/1 to 7.5YR 5/3), internal, clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); slightly burnished externally (not shiny). Slightly curving body, horizontal cylindrical handle slightly flat externally. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. N.35 (05/A0/K.09.10.4). Body and handle from a jar. L. 11.1; w. 6.3; th. 6.0. Inclusions: many white, some small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces, clay black (7.5YR 2/0), internal, clay light brown (7.5YR 6/4); smoothed on both sides; curving body with horizontal oval-shaped handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. N.36 (06/A0/079/K.10.21.1; Fig. 13). Handle from a jar. L. 6.6; w. 2.3; th. 2.0–2.1. Inclusions: many white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces, clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6); smoothed on both sides; few straw marks on both sides. Rectangular to square vertical handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I. N.37 (05/A0/K.09.10.31A+B; Fig. 14). Handle from a pithos. L. 18.6; w. 6.1–9.0; th. 3.8–3.9. Inclusions: many small rocks d. 0.1–0.4 , silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay red (2.5YR 4/8); slightly smoothed on both sides. Vertical rectangular-shaped handle. Coarse ware. FN I–II.

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

N.38 (05/A0/K.09.10.33; Fig. 15). Handle from a pithos. L. 12.2; w. 7.4; th. 8.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal, clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); roughly smoothed on both sides, reddish brown slip added. Vertical cylindricalshaped handle. Coarse ware. EB I–II. N.39 (06/A0/096/K.10.11.2). Body and handle from a pithos. L. 14.4; w. 9.0; th. 1.5–2.0. Inclusions: many white, many black (few shiny ones), some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal light yellowish brown to brownish yellow (10YR 6/4–6/6), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); roughly smoothed externally, rough internally; few straw marks on both sides. Curving body with vertical strap handle. Coarse ware. FN I–II. N.40 (05/A0/K.09.10.29; Fig. 15). Body and handle from a pithos. L. 12.7; w. 15.6; th. 2.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); roughly smoothed on both sides. Vertical rectangular-shaped handle. Coarse ware. EB II–III early. N.41 (06/A0/004/K.10.12.3; Fig. 17). Body and base from a jar. L. 8.7; w. 6.4; th. 1.5–1.8. Inclusions: many white, many black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, limited silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal grayish brown to very dark gray (10YR 5/2–3/1), clay reddish brown to light brown (2.5YR 4/4 to 10YR 3/1); slightly smoothed externally and at bottom, rougher internally. Curving body with flat differentiated base. Coarse ware. EB II. N.42 (06/A0/100/K.10.11.2; Fig. 17). Foot from a tripod vessel. L. 6.7; w. 3.3; th. 2.8–2.9. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, many small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces red (2.5YR 4/6–5/8), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); smoothed surface, preserved to a limited extent. Oval, slightly incurving foot. Coarse ware. EB I–II. N.43 (05/A0/K.09.10.42; Fig. 18; Pl. 13). Handle from a jar or jug with incised decoration. L. 6.2; w. 3.6; th. 2.1. Inclusions: few white, few black, many quartz, small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/4), internal brown (7.5YR 5/3), clay pink (7.5YR 7/4); roughly smoothed on both sides; vertical, semicircular handle decorated with six circular incisions (d. 0.3–0.4, 0.3–0.6 deep), close to each other but unevenly placed. Coarse ware. EB I. N.44 (06/A0/063/K.10.11.1; Fig. 18; Pl. 13). Handle from a jar or jug with perforated decoration. L. 2.3; w. 3.3; th. 1.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, some quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough on both sides. Vertical strap handle, decorated with three or four preserved circular

141

perforations, d. 0.5 on the top, d. 0.3 below. Coarse ware. EB I.

Koutounis Ktn.1 (05/A0/K.15.16.54; Pl. 11). Body from a bowl. L. 7; w. 6.3; th. 0.5. Inclusions: some white, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces dark brown to dark gray (7.5YR 3/2 to 7.5YR 4/0), clay brown (7.5YR 5/4); burnished on both sides (very shiny), black slip added on both sides. Slightly curving body. Fine ware. LN II–FN II. Ktn.2 (05/A0/K.15.16.51; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.8; w. 4.4; th. 0.6. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, silver mica. External surfaces, clay gray (7.5YR 5/0), internal light brown (7.5YR 6/4); very rough burned externally, rough internally. Curving body, incurving round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Ktn.3 (05/A0/K.15.16.20; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 8.5; w. 9.0; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); externally rough, internally burnished; horizontal striations internally; few straw marks. Curving body with flat rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse. EB II–III early. Ktn.4 (05/A0/K.15.16.23; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 5.3; w. 7.0; th. 1.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/4), internal light brown to gray (7.5YR 6/4–6/0), clay dark brown (7.5YR 3/2); rough externally, burnished internally (not shiny); few straw marks internally; few short (0.3 wide) horizontal striation grooves. Curving body with a straight flat rim. Rough and burnished ware; semi-coarse ware. EB II. Ktn.5 (05/A0/K.15.16.22; Fig. 3). Rim with a lug from a bowl. L. 7.9; w. 7.4; th. 0.5–0.7. Inclusions: some white, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown to gray (7.5YR 5/02 to 5YR 4/4), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); burnished on both sides (shiny). Curving body, straight on the upper part, with a small horizontal oval-shaped lug on the body and a plastic band, strap-shaped, that extending vertically above the mouth. Tigani type. Fine ware. FN I. Ktn.6 (05/A0/K.15.26.4). Rim from a collared-neck jar. L. 6.0; w. 7.0; th. 1.6–2.0. Inclusions: many white, many black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); yellowish red slip added on both sides; horizontal straw

142

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

mark internally. Everted round rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II. Ktn.7 (05/A0/K.15.16.7; Fig. 8). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 7.0; w. 9.2; th. 0.9–1.0. Inclusions: some white, many black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces light brown (7.5Y 6/4), clay gray (7.5YR 5/0); rough on both sides; horizontal shallow striation lines close to rim, fewer on lower body. Curving body and flat rim. No holes. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Ktn.8 (05/A0/K.15.16.17). Body and handle from a jar. L. 12.3; w. 5.8; th. 6.5. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal, clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0); burnished on both sides, reddish brown slip added externally. Oval-shaped horizontal handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. Ktn.9 (05/A0/K.15.16.3). Body from a bowl with crusted decoration. L. 6.7; w. 5.7; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: many small white, few black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces red to gray (7.5YR 6/3 to 2.5YR 5/6), internal brown to reddish brown (5YR 6/6 to 7.5YR 6/4), clay gray (7.5YR 3/0); red crust added externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Curving body. Semi-fine ware. FN I. Ktn.10 (05/A0/K.15.16.5). Body from a bowl with crusted decoration. L. 5.0; w. 5.1; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: many small white, few black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces red to gray (7.5YR 6/3 to 2.5YR 5/6), internal brown to reddish brown (5YR 6/6 to 7.5YR 6/4), clay gray (7.5YR 3/0); red crust added externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Curving body. Semi-fine ware. FN I. Ktn.11 (05/A0/K.15.16.6; Pl. 13). Body from a bowl with crusted decoration. L. 11.2; w. 8.0; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: many small white, few black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces red to gray (7.5YR 6/3 to 2.5YR 5/6), internal brown to reddish brown (5YR 6/6 to 7.5YR 6/4), clay gray (7.5YR 3/0); red crust added externally, well burnished (shiny) internally. Curving body. Semi-fine ware. FN I. Ktn.12 (05/A0/K.15.16.13–5; Fig. 17). Body and base from a bowl with crusted decoration. L. 4.0; w. 8.1; th. 0.8. Inclusions: some small white, few black, very few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces red to gray (2.5YR 5/6), internal brown to reddish brown (7.5YR 6/4), clay gray (7.5YR 4/0); red crust added externally, well burnished (shiny) internally; shallow grooves for shaping internally. Curving body with slightly raised base more oval than circular in shape. Semi-fine ware. FN I. Ktn.13 (05/A0/K.15.26.2; Fig. 18). Jar handle with a depression. L. 7.2; w. 5.0; th. 3.1–3.3. Inclusions: many white, few black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.2–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); smoothed

on all sides; straw marks internally. Oval-shaped vertical handle, shallow depression in the middle forming a ridge. Coarse ware. FN I–II.

Koutounis Hill Ktn.h.1 (05/A0/K.09.74.30; Fig. 10). Body and handle from a jar. L. 5.0; w. 5.1; th. 1.3. Inclusions: many white, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal reddish yellow (5YR 7/6), clay dark gray (10YR 7/4); burnished externally (not shiny). Oval-shaped loop handle. Semifine ware. EB II–III. Ktn.h.2 (05/A0/K.09.74.22; Fig. 16). Body and tab lug from a bowl. L. 5.8; w. 5.6; th. 0.9. Inclusions: many white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); smoothed on both sides. Straight body and rim with triangular upraised rim forming a tab lug. Semi-coarse ware. LN II. Ktn.h.3 (05/A0/K.09.74.4). Body from a bowl with crusted decoration. L. 3.3; w. 4.0; th. 0.9–1.1. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0); red crust added externally, smoothed internally. Curving body with red monochrome decoration. Semi-fine ware. FN I.

Tsangaris T.1 (05/A0/K.20.46.47; Pl. 11). Body from a closed vessel. L. 4.1; w. 3.8; th. 0.6–0.8. Inclusions: some white, silver mica. External surfaces grayish brown to dark gray (10YR 5/2 to 7.5YR 4/0), internal pale brown (10YR 6/3), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); grayish-black slip added externally, very well burnished externally (very shiny) with much mica, very well smoothed internally with less mica. Globular body. Fine ware. LN II–FN II. T.2 (05/A0/K.20.46.37; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 5.7; w. 7.9; th. 1.0–1.1. Inclusions: many white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); reddish brown slip (Urfirnis) added, burnished externally (not shiny) and internally (shiny); straw marks mainly externally. Nearly straight body with flat rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II early. T.3 (05/A0/K.20.18.42; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 4.6; w. 5.2; th. 0.7–1.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), internal yellowish red

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

(5YR 5/6), clay very pale brown (10YR 7/4); burnished on both sides (not shiny). Slightly curving body with incurving, internally thickened flat rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II. T.4 (05/A0/K.20.18.32). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.6; w. 3.9; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, some black, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/3), internal dark brown to brown (7.5YR 5/4–4/4), clay brown (7.5YR 5/4); burnished on both sides (not shiny), brown slip added internally, worn off in some places. Curving body with thickened round rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II. T.5 (05/A0/K.20.18.43; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.7; w. 2.7; th. 0.7–1.3. Inclusions: few white, some black, silver mica. External surfaces gray (5YR 5/1), internal, clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); burnished externally (not shiny). Nearly straight body with flat, wide T-type rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II–III early. T.6 (05/A0/K.20.46.39; Fig. 3). Rim and handle from a bowl. L. 9.9; w. 7.4; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: few white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces brown to dark gray (7.5YR 5/2–4/0), internal dark gray (7.5YR 4/0), clay brown (7.5YR 5/2); burnished externally (not shiny), smoothed internally; long horizontal striation lines covering width and height internally. Curving body, round simple rim, horizontal handle starting below the rim, squat to oval, almost strap-like. Semifine ware. LN II–FN I. T.7 (05/A0/K.20.46.38; Fig. 4; Pl. 12). Rim from a basin. L. 7.5; w. 11.1; th. 1.2–1.4. Inclusions: many white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.3, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown to gray (5YR 4/47.5YR 5/0), internal weak red (10R 4/4), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); burnished internally (quite shiny) with added lustrous red slip (Urfirnis), burnished (shiny) externally; many straw marks on both sides. Nearly straight body with flat rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II early. T.8 (05/A0/K.20.18.33; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 5.0; w. 9.3; th. 1.0–1.3. Inclusions: many white, some black, very few quartz, silver mica. External surfaces light brown (7.5YR 6/4), internal reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); burnished on both sides, (shiny) externally, (not shiny) internally; long horizontal striation lines internally. Spreading neck with internally thickened flaring rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II–III early. T.9 (05/A0/K.20.46.26). Body and handle from an open vessel. L. 5.1; w. 6.9; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1, silver mica. External surfaces reddish brown to dark gray (2.5YR 5/4 to 7.5YR 4/0), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/3), clay dark gray (7.5YR 4/0); burnished externally (quite shiny); straw marks internally. Vertical oval-shaped handle. Semi-fine ware. EB I–III. T.10 (05/A0/K.20.46.7; Fig. 12). Body and handle from a closed vessel. L. 7.2; w. 6.7; th. 0.7. Inclusions: some white, some black, silver mica. External, internal

143

surfaces, clay light brown (7.5YR 6/4); burnished externally (shiny), internally smoothed with visible horizontal striation marks. Vertical rectangular-shaped handle belonging to a jar or jug. Semi-fine ware. EB II. T.11 (05/A0/K.20.46.3; Fig.12). Body and handle from a jar. L. 11.0; w. 11.0; th. 1.3–1.5. Inclusions: many white, some black, some quartz, silver mica. External surfaces pale brown (10YR 6/3), internal light brown (7.5YR 6/4), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0); slightly burnished (not shiny) externally; straw marks on both sides. Vertical oval-shaped handle. Semi-fine ware. EB II–III. T.12 (05/A0/K.20.46.9; Fig. 17; Pl. 13). Rim from a pyxis with incised decoration. L. 3.1; w. 5.7; th. 0.6–0.7. Inclusions: some white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces reddish gray to dark gray (5YR 5/2–4/1), internal, clay light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); burnished externally (not shiny), smoothed internally; striation lines internally. Incurving body and round simple rim, decoration of slightly diagonal shallow incised lines. Fine ware. EB I.

Koukos Kk.1 (07/A0/K.25.83.9; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.9; w. 4.5; th. 0.5–1.0. Inclusions: few white, some black, much quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal pale brown (10YR 6/3), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough externally, lightly smoothed internally. Curving body with external angle that is smoothed internally. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. Kk.2 (07/A0/K.25.83.13; Fig. 1). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.2; w. 2.4; th. 0.4–1.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, silver mica with larger flakes. External, internal surfaces, clay yellowish red (5YR 5/6); smoothed on both sides. Straight body with everted, thickened, round rim flattened on top. Semi-fine ware. FN I–II. Kk.3 (07/A0/K.25.83.4). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.0; w. 3.5; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red (5YR 5/6), internal reddish brown (5YR 5/4–4/4), clay yellowish red (5YR 4/6); smoothed externally, burnished internally and on rim. Curving body ending in straight, upraised, round to flat rim. Semi-fine ware. LN–EBA. Kk.4 (03/B1/K.25.92.7; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.4; w. 3.6; th. 1.1. Inclusions: many small white and silver mica. External surfaces brown to gray (7.5YR 5/4–4/1), internal, clay brown (7.5YR 5/4). Curving body ending in almost flat rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II. Kk.5 (07/A0/K.25.83.21; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 3.6; w. 3.5; th. 0.5–1.5. Inclusions: some white, some black (some larger shiny ones), few quartz, few small

144

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

rocks, limited silver mica. External surfaces mottled: red to bluish gray (2.5Y 5/6 to Gley 2 5/1), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay red (2.5Y 4/6); burnished externally and on top of rim, smoothed internally. Straight body with thickened simple rim. Semi-fine ware. EB II. Kk.6 (07/A0/K.25.83.8; Fig. 5). Rim from a basin. L. 4.0; w. 6.5; th. 1.2–1.9. Inclusions: some white, some black, much quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal brown (7.5YR 4/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); smoothed externally, limited burnishing preserved internally. Slightly curving body with thickened rim. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kk.7 (07/A0/K.25.83.15; Fig. 5). Rim from a basin. L. 2.6; w. 3.4; th. 0.9–1.3. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6–4/6), internal reddish yellow to brown (7.5YR 5/6–6/6), clay red (2.5YR 5/6); well burnished (lightly shiny) externally and on rim, added red slip, smoothed internally. Slightly curving body with thickened rim forming triangular lip. Semi-fine ware. EB II–III early. Kk.8 (07/A0/K.25.83.19). Rim from a basin. L. 2.2; w. 2.8; th. 1.3–1.4. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, limited silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal brown (7.5YR 4/4), clay brown (7.5YR 5/4); smoothed on both sides. Slightly curving body ending in thickened rim forming triangular lip. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. Kk.9 (07/A0/K.25.83.16). Rim from a jar. L. 5.7; w. 4.5; th. 1.1–1.3. Inclusions: few white, some black, much quartz with some d. up to 0.2, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/3), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough on both sides; straw marks on both sides. Straight walls with spreading neck, ending in straight simple but thickened rim. Coarse ware. EB I–II. Kk.10 (07/A0/K.25.83.3; Fig. 7). Rim from a jar. L. 2.8; w. 2.6; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces red (2.5YR 5/6–4/6), internal weak red to dark bluish gray (2.5YR 4/2 to Gley 2 4/1), clay red to dark bluish gray (2.5YR 5/6 to Gley 2 4/1); smoothed externally, rough internally, burnished only on rim. Straight curving walls with flat rim. Semi-coarse ware. LN II– FN I. Kk.11 (07/A0/K.25.83.5; Fig. 8). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 10.2; w. 7.3; th. 0.7–0.9. Inclusions: few white, some black (some shiny ones), much quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red to dark bluish gray (5YR 5/6 to Gley 2 4/1), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough and uneven externally, smoothed internally; straw marks on both sides. Straight body curving in its lower part with straight, round, flat rim. Holes made

from inside out (d. 0.2); one hole preserved and part of other two. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kk.12 (07/A0/K.25.83.10). Rim from a cheese pot. L. 4.6; w. 2.9; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: few white, some black (some shiny ones), much quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough and uneven externally, smoothed internally; straw marks on both sides. Straight body with simple rim. Hole made from inside out. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kk.13 (07/A0/K.25.83.6). Body from a cheese pot. L. 11.3; w. 7.5; th. 0.6–0.9. Inclusions: few white, some black, much quartz up to 0.2, some small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External, internal surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4–4/2), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1); burnished externally (lightly shiny), rough internally; straw marks fewer externally, more internally; part of a small piece of wood used as clay temper. Straight body with slightly curving upper part. No holes preserved. Semicoarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kk.14 (07/A0/K.25.83.11). Body from a cheese pot. L. 5.9; w. 3.9; th. 0.8–0.9. Inclusions: few white, some black (some shiny ones), much quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough and uneven externally, smoothed internally; straw marks on both sides. Slightly curving body, no hole preserved. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kk.15 (07/A0/K.25.83.12). Body from a cheese pot. L. 7.0; w. 4.5; th. 0.8. Inclusions: few white, some black (some shiny ones), much quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); rough and uneven externally, smoothed internally; straw marks on both sides. Slightly curving body. Coarse ware. LN II–FN I. Kk.16 (03/B1/K.25.84.5; Fig. 10). Handle from a jar. L. 6.9; w. 4.2; th. 1.0–1.8. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish yellow to yellowish red (5YR 6/6–5/6); reddish brown (5YR 4/4) slip added, preserved in some parts. Horizontal oval-shaped handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB III. Kk.17 (03/B1/K.25.84.7; Fig. 11). Handle from a pan. L. 5.1; w. 3.7; th. 1.5–2.5. Inclusions: some white, some black (few larger shiny ones), some quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay brown (7.5YR 5/3); burnished parts preserved externally. Horizontal oval loop handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. Kk.18 (07/A0/K.25.83.7). Body and handle from a jar. L. 4.6; w. 5.4; th. 0.5–0.8. Inclusions: some white, few black, some quartz, some small rocks, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red to brown (5YR 5/6 to

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

7.5YR 5/4), internal yellowish red (5YR 5/6), clay brown (7.5YR 4/4); lightly smoothed externally, rougher internally. Slightly curving body, relatively small vertical ovoid strap handle. Semi-coarse. EB I–III.

Other Sites O.1 (04/Γ2/K.21.54.1; Fig. 2). Rim from a bowl. L. 2.2; w. 4.2; th. 0.7–0.8. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, silver mica. External, internal surfaces reddish brown (5YR 5/4), clay bluish black (Gley 2 2.5/1); externally smoothed; fine thin striation lines. Almost straight wall with -type rim, wheelmade. Semi-fine ware. EB III early. O.2 (Tholos hill.P1.1; Fig. 10). Body and handle from an open jar. L. 5.8; w. 2.1–3.3; th. 3.6–2.2. Inclusions: few white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, gold mica. External surfaces weak red to dark reddish gray (2.5YR 5/2–4/2–4/1), internal light reddish brown to reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4–5/4), clay bluish gray (Gley 2 5/1); well smoothed externally, lightly smoothed internally. Horizontal cylindrical handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III early. O.3 (05/A0/K.10.34.M1.359; Fig. 11). Handle from small jar. L. 3.6; w. 1.4; th. 1.1–1.2. Inclusions: some white, many black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External, internal surfaces strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); smoothed on both sides. Cylindrical vertical handle. Coarse ware. EB II–III early.

145

O.4 (04/A2/K.29.06.2). Body and handle from a pan. L. 5.7; w. 5.2; th. 1.0–3.3. Inclusions: some white, some black, few quartz, few small rocks, limited silver mica. External surfaces brown (7.5YR 5/4), internal, clay light brown (7.5YR 6/4); burnished on both sides (not shiny). Horizontal strap handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–III. O.5 (03/A1/K.29.58.1). Body and handle from a jar. L. 7.3; w. 5.4; th. 0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External surfaces yellowish red to very dark gray (5YR 5/6 to 7.5YR 3/0), internal brown (7.5YR 5/4), clay gray (7.5YR 3/0); burnishing (not shiny) internally. Vertical cylindrical handle. Semi-coarse ware. EB II–III. O.6 (03/A1/K.29.87.3; Pl. 13). Handle from a jar. L. 3.7; w. 2.5; th. 1.2. Inclusions: some white, silver mica. Surfaces: internal, external, clay brown (7.5YR 5/3); smoothed. Vertical depression in center of handle with raised edges. Semi-coarse ware. EB I–II. O.7 (04/B1/K17.15.11). Handle from a pithos. L. 18.6; w. 6.1–9.0; th. 1.0–1.9. Inclusions: some white, few small rocks, silver mica. Surfaces: internal, external reddish yellow to dark gray (5YR 6/6–4/1), clay very dark bluish gray (Gley 2 3/1); rough on all sides. Vertical strap handle from a pithos. Coarse ware. FN I–II. O.8 (04/B2/K.15.56.3; Fig. 16). Body and base from a bowl. L. 2.3; w. 4.2; th. 0.9. Inclusions: some white, few black, gold mica with some larger flakes. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4); smoothed on both sides. Curving body with flat base. Semi-coarse ware. LN–EBA.

Chipped Stone Tools Koutlousi Upper Hill Kt.C.1 (05/013/K.09.50.1Λ). Possible core. L. 5.6; w. 5.3; th. 4.3. Quartz. Asymmetrical, poor quality quartz, but in one or two cases flakes must have been extracted. LN–EBA. Kt.C.2 (05/015/K.09.50.1Λ; Pl. 14). Core. L. 5.0; w. 4.5; th. 2.6. Quartz. Trapezoid, well worked from all sides from which pieces were extracted, probably exhausted. LN–EBA. Kt.C.3 (05/A0/K.09.50.090). Core. L. 4.2; w. 3.0; th. 2.1. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, possibly a negative of a scraper preserved. LN–EBA. Kt.C.4 (05/015/K.09.50.098; Pl. 14). Core. L. 5.1; w. 4.3; th. 2.6. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, negatives of small flakes preserved, probably exhausted. LN–EBA. Kt.C.5 (05/044/K.09.50.0107). Core. L. 3.0; w. 2.3; th. 2.2. Giali obsidian, good quality. Asymmetrical, negatives

possibly of two small flakes preserved, possibly exhausted core. LN–EBA. Kt.C.6 (05/014/K.09.50.094; Fig. 18). Blade. L. 3.3; w. 1.3; th. 0.4. Melian obsidian. Rectangular. Neolithic. Kt.C.7 (05/024/K.09.50B.0101; Fig. 18; Pl. 14). Blade. L. 3.7; w. 1.3; th. 0.3–0.5. Melian obsidian. Rectangular. Neolithic. Kt.C.8 (05/094/K.09.49.088; Fig. 18). Blade. L. 2.5; w. 2.3; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, medial part. LN–EBA. Kt.C.9 (05/096/K.09.49.089). One-edged blade. L. 3.3; w. 2.1; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick; small part of cortex preserved at thicker side. LN–EBA. Kt.C.10 (05/003/K.09.50.092; Fig. 18). One-edged blade. L. 2.5; w. 0.9; th. 0.5. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA.

146

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kt.C.11 (05/024/K.09.50C.0102; Fig. 18). Oneedged blade. L. 3.0; w. 1.9; th. 0.6. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. Kt.C.12 (05/053/K.09.50.0108). Pointed tool. L. 3.6; w. 1.8; th. 1.3. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, one part long and pointed. Neolithic.

Nerantzia N.C.1 (06/A0/088/K.10.21.01). Scraper. L. 1.9; w. 1.2; th. 0.3. Giali obsidian. Half semicircular, half triangular, large semicircular edge was sharp. LN–EBA. N.C.2 (06/A0/045/K.10.11.03). Scraper. L. 2; w. 1.2; th. 0.2. Giali obsidian. Triangular, lower side sharp and straight. LN–EBA. N.C.3 (06/A0/097/K.10.11.01; Fig. 18). Scraper. L. 2.7; w. 2.1; th. 0.6. Giali obsidian. Almost circular, triangular in section with two large straight surfaces, one bearing part of cortex and a straight sharp edge. LN–EBA. N.C.4 (06/A0/061/K.10.11.02; Fig. 18; Pl. 14). Scraper. L. 4.7; w. 2.5; th. 1.0. Kephalos obsidian. Triangular, thick-walled tool with lower edge sharp, broken in one part. LN–EBA.

Ktn.h.C.6 (05/A0/K.09.74.012). Scraper. L. 2.7; w. 1.8; th. 0.8–0.9. Giali obsidian. Triangular, lower side sharp and straight. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.7 (05/A0/K.09.74.015). Sickle. L. 2.7; w. 2.6; th. 1.0. Giali obsidian. Roughly rectangular, evidence of retouch, one long side sharp, use marks on sharp edge mainly above and limited below, very opaque. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.8 (05/A0/K.09.74.07). Sickle. L. 2.6; w. 2.4; th. 0.4. Giali obsidian. Roughly rectangular, evidence of retouch, one long side sharp, use marks on sharp edge mainly above and limited below, very opaque. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.9 (05/A0/K.09.74.023). Sickle. L. 2.9; w. 1.7; th. 0.3–0.5. Giali obsidian. Roughly rectangular, evidence of retouch, one long side sharp. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.10 (05/A0/K.09.74.08). Pointed tool. L. 2.3; w. 1.9; th. 0.4–0.5. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, one part long and pointed, small part of cortex preserved. Neolithic.

Tsangaris

Koutounis

T.C.1 (05/A0/K.20.18.030; Fig. 18). Bladelet. L. 2.3; w. 1.8; th. 0.4–0.5. Giali obsidian. Rectangular. LN–EBA. T.C.2 (05/A0/K.20.38.1Λ). Scraper. L. 3.4; w. 3.5; th. 0.6–0.8. Chert. Triangular, lower side sharp and straight, very dark gray color. LN–EBA.

Ktn.C.1 (05/A0/K.15.16.026). Core. L. 3.1; w. 3.2; th. 1.0–2.3. Chert. Asymmetrical, brown/green shiny color, cortex preserved in places. LN–EBA.

Koukos

Koutounis Hill Ktn.h.C.1 (05/A0/K.09.74.03). Core. L. 4.1; w. 2.1; th. 1.0–1.2. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, possibly exhausted core. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.2 (05/A0/K.09.74.05). Core. L. 3.3; w. 2.5; th. 0.9–1.4. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, possibly exhausted core. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.3 (05/A0/K.09.74.014). Core. L. 3.6; w. 2.2; th. 0.9–1.6. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, possibly exhausted core. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.4 (05/A0/K.09.74.018). Bladelet. L. 2.7; w. 1.5; th. 0.6–0.7. Giali obsidian. Rectangular. LN–EBA. Ktn.h.C.5 (05/A0/K.09.74.04). Scraper. L. 3.3; w. 2.6; th. 0.6–1.0. Giali obsidian. Triangular, lower side sharp and straight. LN–EBA.

Kk.C.1 (03/B1/K.25.91.037). Core. L. 3.1; w. 2.3; th. 2.1. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, negatives of flakes. LN–EBA. Kk.C.2 (04/060/K.25.81.032). Core. L. 2.9; w. 2.3; th. 1.3. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, possibly exhausted. LN–EBA. Kk.C.3 (04/021/K.25.81.028; Fig. 18). Blade. L. 1.7; w. 0.8; th. 0.25. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, medial. LN–EBA. Kk.C.4 (07/A0/K.25.83.01). Blade. L. 2.2; w. 1.2; th. 0.3. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, medial. LN–EBA. Kk.C.5 (07/A0/K.25.83.02). Blade. L. 2.6; w. 1.3; th. 0.4. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, proximal. LN–EBA. Kk.C.6 (07/A0/K.25.83.03). Blade. L. 2; w. 1.1; th. 0.3. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, medial. LN–EBA. Kk.C.7 (07/A0/K.25.83.04). Blade. L. 1.8; w. 0.9; th. 0.2. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, medial. LN–EBA.

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

Kk.C.8 (07/A0/K.25.83.05). Blade. L. 3.2; w. 1.1; th. 0.4. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, proximal. LN–EBA. Kk.C.9 (07/A0/K.25.83.06). Blade. L. 2.0; w. 1.0; th. 0.2–0.3. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, proximal. LN–EBA. Kk.C.10 (04/001/K.25.82.051). Blade. L. 2.2; w. 2.1; th. 0.7–1.0. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, proximal part. LN–EBA. Kk.C.11 (04/095/K.25.81.049). Blade. L. 1.8; w. 1.6; th. 0.6–0.7. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, medial part. LN–EBA. Kk.C.12 (03/B2/K.25.93.010; Fig. 18). Bladelet. L. 2.3; w. 1.5; th. 0.4. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, roughly triangular in section. LN–EBA. Kk.C.13 (04/020/K.25.81.031). One-edged blade. L. 3.0; w. 2.1; th. 0.6–0.9. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. Kk.C.14 (04/090/K.25.92.047). One-edged blade. L. 2.0; w. 1.9; th. 1.8. Giali obsidian. Square, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. Kk.C.15 (04/072/K.25.81.027). One-edged blade. L. 2.4; w. 1.6; th. 0.7–0.9. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. Kk.C.16 (03/B2/K.25.93.07). One-edged blade. L. 2.8; w. 2.1; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Roughly rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. Kk.C.17 (07/A0/K.25.83.048). One-edged blade. L. 3.1; w. 1.5; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick, sharp side opaque, signs of use. LN–EBA. Kk.C.18 (07/A0/K.25.83.063). One-edged blade. L. 2.1; w. 1; th. 0.5. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. Kk.C.19 (04/065/K.25.81.1Λ; Pl. 14). Scraper. L. 3.8; w. 3.4; th. 0.6–1.2. Chert. Roughly triangular, lower long edge sharp, reddish brown color. LN–EBA. Kk.C.20 (04/001/K.25.82.052; Fig. 18). Scraper. L. 2.2; w. 1.9; th. 0.4–0.9. Giali obsidian. Trapezoid, lower long edge sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.21 (04/005/K.25.82.044; Fig. 18). Scraper. L. 3.2; w. 0.9–2.8; th. 0.9. Giali obsidian. Trapezoid, lower long edge sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.22 (04/052/K.25.93.045). Scraper. L. 2.4; w. 1.7; th. 1.6–1.8. Giali obsidian. Trapezoid, lower long edge sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.23 (04/077/K.25.81.040). Scraper. L. 3.3; w. 2.2; th. 0.6–1.3. Giali obsidian. Trapezoid, lower long edge sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.24 (03/B2/K.25.93.015). Scraper. L. 2.1; w. 1.5; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Roughly triangular, triangular section with lower short edge sharp. LN–EBA.

147

Kk.C.25 (07/A0/K.25.83.041). Scraper. L. 2; w. 2.1; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Triangular, one of the three sides sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.26 (07/A0/K.25.83.059). Scraper. L. 1.6; w. 1.4; th. 0.4. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long edge sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.27 (07/A0/K.25.83.068). Scraper. L. 2.2; w. 1.7; th. 0.5. Giali obsidian. Roughly triangular, longer edge sharp. LN–EBA. Kk.C.28 (04/095/K.25.81.050). Pointed tool. L. 2.1; w. 2.1; th. 0.8–1.3. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, one part long and pointed. Neolithic. Kk.C.29 (03/B2/K.25.93.08; Pl. 14). Arrowhead. L. 2.3; w. 1.4; th. 0.4. Giali obsidian. Triangular with lower side lunate, triangular section, well-worked piece with two sharp edges, broken on one edge. EBA.

Other Sites O.C.1 (05/A0/K.14.03.1Λ). Core. L. 4.0; w. 3.6; th. 3.1. Chert. Asymmetrical, black/brown shiny color with evidence of extracting small pieces, possibly exhausted core. LN–EBA. O.C.2 (05/A0/K.14.03.2Λ). Core. L. 3.1; w. 2.3; th. 2.5. Chert. Asymmetrical, black matt color with negatives on it, possibly exhausted core. LN–EBA. O.C.3 (05/A0/K.09.89.060). Core. L. 5.0; w. 5.1; th. 3.2. Chert. Asymmetrical, cortex preserved to large extent. LN–EBA. O.C.4 (05/A0/K.09.99.067). Core. L. 3.0; w. 2.2; th. 2.1. Chert. Asymmetrical, negatives of flakes visible. LN–EBA. O.C.5 (05/A0/K.06.83.1Λ). Core. L. 5.7; w. 5.3; th. 4.3. Quartz. Asymmetrical, part of cortex preserved, many flat surfaces. LN–EBA. O.C.6 (04/052/K.20.14.041). Core. L. 3.4; w. 3.4; th. 3.2. Giali obsidian. Cube-shaped, negatives of flakes and scrapers. LN–EBA. O.C.7 (05/A0/K.26.73.081). Core. L. 5.5; w. 4.8; th. 4.1. Giali obsidian. Cube-shaped, negative possibly of a scraper preserved, the rest roughly worked. LN–EBA. O.C.8 (05/A0/K.26.74.062). Core. L. 5.2; w. 4.2; th. 3.2. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, partly smoothed by the sea, small part of cortex preserved. LN–EBA. O.C.8 (05/A0/K.26.74.072). Core. L. 3.8; w. 3.2; th. 2.2. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical. LN–EBA. O.C.9 (05/A0/K.08.88.042; Pl. 14). Core. L. 7.6; w. 6.9; th. 4.8. Anatolian obsidian or better-quality Giali variety. Roughly rectangular, obsidian yellowish, very shiny, cortex preserved on most surfaces of core. LN–EBA.

148

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

O.C.10 (05/A0/K.09.89.055). Blade. L. 1.6; w. 1.4; th. 0.4. Melian obsidian. Rectangular, medial. Neolithic. O.C.11 (05/A0/K.06.71.2Λ). Bladelet. L. 2.2; w. 1.4; th. 0.4–0.6. Chert. Rectangular, gray color. LN–EBA. O.C.12 (05/A0/K.26.73.1Λ). One-edged blade. L. 3.3; w. 2.4; th. 1.3. Chert. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick, black/brown shiny color, part of cortex preserved at thick side. LN–EBA. O.C.13 (03/A4/K.25.22.034). One-edged blade. L. 2.2; w. 2.0; th. 0.4–0.65. Giali obsidian. Rectangular, one long side sharp, the other thick. LN–EBA. O.C.14 (05/A0/K.09.68.071). Scraper. L. 2.2; w. 2.7; th. 0.6–1.0. Giali obsidian. Triangular. LN–EBA.

O.C.15 (05/A0/K.26.74.065). Scraper. L. 3.4; w. 3.0; th. 0.4–0.9. Giali obsidian. Trapezoid, lower long edge sharp. LN–EBA. O.C.16 (05/A0/K.26.74.066). Scraper. L. 2.5; w. 2.0; th. 0.4–0.8. Chert. Trapezoid, lower long edge sharp. LN–EBA. O.C.17 (05/A0/K.14.03.078). Pointed tool. L. 2.0; w. 2.1; th. 0.9. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, one part long and pointed. Neolithic. O.C.18 (05/A0/K.09.68.073). Pointed tool. L. 1.8; w. 1.5; th. 0.7. Giali obsidian. Asymmetrical, one part long and pointed. Neolithic.

Ground Stone Tools Koutlousi Upper Hill Kt.St.1 (05/014/K.09.50.2Λ; Fig. 20; Pl. 17). Grindstone type 3. L. 10.5; w. 11.8; th. 3.3–4.5. Volcanic rock. Rectangular with raised edges and flat working surface. LN–EBA. Kt.St.2 (05/054/K.09.50.49Λ; Fig. 21; Pl. 16). Mortar type 1. L. 12.3; w. 10.4; th. 4.0–4.7. Sandstone. Ellipsoid or round in shape with round base and shallow round depression in the middle. LN–EBA. Kt.St.3 (05/013/K.09.50.23Λ; Fig. 21). Mortar type 3. L. 12.6; w. 8.8; th. 3.1–4.0. Limestone. Incurving shape, stone vessel that could be also used as a mortar. EBA. Kt.St.4 (05/002/K.09.50.1Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 1. L. 12.0; w. 7.5; th. 3.8–4.3. Limestone. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more flat and smooth from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.5 (05/044/K.09.50.1Λ; Pl. 16). Grinder type 1. L. 10.1; w. 7.5; th. 4.0–4.3. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more flat, smooth, and shiny from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.6 (05/016/K.09.50.1Λ). Grinder type 1. L. 12.3; w. 10.4; th. 4.0–4.7. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more smooth and shiny from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.7 (05/003/K.09.50.4Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 1. L. 8.9; w. 7.4; th. 3.7–4.5. Pebble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more smooth and shiny from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.8 (05/003/K.09.50.2Λ). Grinder type 1. L. 5.4; w. 3.3; th. 2.5–3.0. Andesite. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more flat and smooth from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.9 (05/027/K.09.50.1Λ). Grinder type 1. L. 5.1; w. 4.1; th. 3.2. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more smooth and shiny from use. LN–EBA.

Kt.St.10 (05/074/K.09.50.1Λ). Grinder type 2. L. 6.7; w. 4.8; th. 3–4.1. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side more flat and smooth from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.11 (05/035/K.09.50.1Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 2. L. 5.4; w. 3.7; th. 3.2. Marble. Cylindrical-shaped grinder, one curving side more shiny from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.12 (05/003/K.09.50.3Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 3. L. 3.8; w. 4.3; th. 2.9. Limestone. Hemispherical with oval section. LN–EBA. Kt.St.13 (05/024/K.09.50A.2Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 4. L. 10.6; w. 6.8; th. 4.5. Marble. Ellipsoid with hemispherical section. LN–EBA. Kt.St.14 (05/084/K.09.49.1Λ; Fig. 22; Pl. 16). Grinder type 5. L. 10.2; w. 8.0; th. 2.9–5.7. Andesite. Asymmetrical, almost ellipsoid, with triangular section, surface flat and shiny from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.15 (05/012/K.09.50.1Λ; Pl. 16). Grinder type 5. L. 7.3; w. 3.8; th. 2.1–3.8. Andesite. Asymmetrical, roughly triangular, with triangular section, surface flat and smooth from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.16 (05/042/K.09.50.1Λ; Fig. 23). Grinder type 5. L. 13.0; w. 4.4–6.2; th. 2.9–3.9. Andesite. Asymmetrical, roughly trapezoid-shaped with triangular section, lower surface rather smooth from use. LN–EBA. Kt.St.17 (05/002/K.09.50.7Λ). Grinder type 5. L. 8.0; w. 4.6–5.7; th. 2.5–3.8. Sandstone. Asymmetrical shape with roughly triangular section and flat smoothed surface. LN–EBA. Kt.St.18 (05/052/K.09.50.2Λ; Fig. 24). Pounder type 2. L. 3.7; w. 2.8; th. 1.5–2.8. Sandstone. Small, figureeight shape. LN–EBA. Kt.St.19 (05/060/K.09.60.1Λ; Fig. 24). Pounder type 2. L. 7.3; w. 4.4; th. 2.8–4.7. Sandstone. Figure-eight shape. LN–EBA.

CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC FINDS

Kt.St.20 (05/052/K.09.50.1Λ; Pl. 18). Weight or token. L. 7.1; w. 5.8; th. 4.5; wt. 18g. Sandstone. Ellipsoid with hemispherical section. Incised signs (an I and a rectangular C) and evidence of fire preserved on the flat side. Neolithic. Kt.St.21 (05/046/K.09.50.1Λ; Pl. 17). Stone axe. L. 7.2; w. 4.7; th. 1.8. Greenstone. Part of stone axe preserved, very smooth surface. LN–EBA. Kt.St.22 (05/024/K.09.50B.1Λ; Fig. 25). Polisher. L. 8.0; w. 5.0; th. 1.2–1.4. Andesite. Rectangular, unfinished, with slightly rough flat surfaces. EBA.

Nerantzia N.St.1 (06/A0/K.10.11.1Λ; Fig. 19; Pl. 17). Grindstone type 1. L. 22.0; w. 20.6; th. 7.8–9.5. Granite. Saddle-shaped with slightly curving working surface. LN–EBA. N.St.2 (06/A0/K.10.11.4Λ; Fig. 20). Grindstone type 1. L. 34.0; w. 31.0; th. 14.0. Granite. Saddle-shaped with rough lower part and smooth working surface. EBA. N.St.3 (06/A0/K.10.11.2Λ). Grindstone type 3. L. 14.7; w. 9.0; th. 5.9. Granite. Rectangular with raised edges and flat working surface. LN–EBA. N.St.4 (05/A1/K.10.11.13Λ). Grindstone type 3. L. 16.2; w. 13.5; th. 7.2. Granite. Rectangular with raised edges and flat working surface. LN–EBA. N.St.5 (06/A0/K.10.11.5Λ; Fig. 21). Mortar type 2. L. 25.6; w. 19.0; th. 5.8–10.0. Granite. Ellipsoid with flat base and shallow round depression in the middle. EBA. N.St.6 (06/A0/092/K.10.01.1Λ). Grinder type 1. L. 7.2; w. 6.1; th. 4.3. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side smoother from use. LN–EBA. N.St.7 (05/A2/K.10.11.6Λ). Grinder type 1. L. 3.1; w. 4.4; th. 1.3–1.6. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section, half preserved. LN–EBA. N.St.8 (05/A0/030/K.10.21.1Λ). Grinder type 4. L. 5.1; w. 4.5; th. 5.8. Marble. Ellipsoid with hemispherical section. LN–EBA. N.St.9 (06/A0/K.10.21.2Λ; Fig. 23). Grinder type 6. L. 14.9; w. 6.4–7.0; th. 1.4–3.5. Andesite. Rectangular with hemispherical section. LN–EBA. N.St.10 (06/A0/061/K.10.11.1Λ). Grinder type 7. L. 4.9; w. 4.0; th. 3.6. Granite. Nearly spherical, roughly flat on lower part. LN–EBA. N.St.11 (06/A0/K.10.11.3Λ; Fig. 23). Grinder type 8. L. 7.6; w. 7.2; th. 3.9. Granite. Conical with flat top. LN–EBA.

149

Tsangaris T.St.1 (05/A0/K.20.46.3Λ; Fig. 20). Grindstone type 2. L. 15.0; w. 8.8; th. 18.0. Andesite. Rectangular with descending working surface forming a triangular section. EBA. T.St.2 (05/A0/K.20.46.4Λ; Fig. 20). Grindstone type 2. L. 20.0; w. 10.0; th. 20.5. Andesite. Rectangular with descending working surface forming a triangular section. EBA. T.St.3 (left in situ; Pl. 17). Grindstone type 4. L. 67.0; w. 70.0; th. 20.0–25.0. Gray limestone. Rectangular with curving working surface. EBA. T.St.4 (05/A0/K.20.46.5Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 1. L. 12.2; w. 3.6; th. 6.2. Marble. Ellipsoid with oval section and one side smoother from use, two very shallow circular hollows (d. 0.5), both at one side. LN–EBA. T.St.5 (05/A0/K.20.46.1Λ; Fig. 23). Grinder type 7. L. 4.8; w. 6.1; th. 5.9. Andesite. Nearly spherical, roughly flat on lower part. LN–EBA. T.St.6 (05/A0/K.20.46.6Λ; Fig. 23). Pounder type 1. L. 10.1; th. 6.5–8.0. Marble. Conical with round upper end and flat, round, and broader lower end used for pounding. EBA. T.St.7 (05/A0/K.20.46.2Λ; Fig. 24). Hammer. L. 13.9; w. 9.5; th. 7.2. Andesite. Circular to ellipsoid with hourglass perforation in the middle. EB I–II.

Koukos Kk.St.1 (07/A0/K.25.83.1Λ; Pl. 16). Grindstone type 1. L. 17.0; w. 11.0; th. 13.5. Andesite. Oblong, possibly part of saddle-shaped stone with upper part smooth and flat. LN–EBA.

Other Sites O.St.1 (04/A2/K.10.35.1Λ; Fig. 22). Grinder type 2. L. 9.4; w. 4.4; th. 5.1. Sandstone. Cylindrical with oval hollow 1.0 deep. LN–EBA. O.St.2 (04/091/K.15.51.2; Fig. 24). Hammer. L. 11.8; w. 6.5; th. 4.4–4.7. Andesite. Circular to ellipsoid with hourglass perforation in the middle. EB I–II.

150

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Small Finds Koutlousi Upper Hill Kt.SF.1 (05/043/K.09.50.197; Fig. 25; Pl. 18). Part of a clay mold with base preserved. L. 6.4; w. 9.0; th. 6.4. Inclusions: some white, some black, some quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.2, silver mica. External surfaces red (10R 5/6), internal light gray (2.5YR 7/2), clay very dark gray (7.5YR 3/0). Shallow rectangular mold with relatively high, rectangular ring base, wall inside the vessel separating at least two long, rectangular, shallow (1.8 deep) compartments, round at the bottom. Coarse ware. EB II late. Kt.SF.2 (05/094/K.09.49.37; Fig. 25; Pl. 18). Clay furnace fragment. L. 5.0; w. 4.7; th. 1.0. Inclusions: some white, few black, few quartz, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.4, silver mica. External surfaces dark bluish gray (Gley 2 4/1), internal, clay red (2.5YR 4/6); thick rough white slip added externally. More clay on interior around hole pierced before firing (d. 1.3). Curved body, possibly part of a clay furnace for smelting metal. EBA.

Kt.SF.3 (05/003/K.09.50.229; Pl. 18). Clay furnace fragment. L. 4.7; w. 5.2; th. 1.2–1.3. Inclusions: few white, few black, silver mica. External surfaces, clay light brown (7.5YR 6/3), internal light reddish brown (5YR 6/4); internally rough as if fired at high temperature. Circular hole pierced before firing (d. 1.8). Curved body, possibly part of a clay furnace for smelting metal. EBA. Kt.SF.4 (05/003/K.09.50.28; Fig. 25). Terracotta ring fragment. L. 4.0; w. 1.5; th. 2.6. Inclusions: some white, few black, few small rocks d. 0.1–0.3, silver mica. External, internal surfaces, clay reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). Terracotta ring with flat sides, more rounded on upper and lower parts. EB I/II–II. Kt.SF.5 (05/075/K.09.50.1B). Shell bracelet or ring fragment. L. 2.3; w. 1.1; th. 0.6. Shell (Spondylus gaederopus Linné). Somewhat less than half the circle preserved. Well worked, cylindrical in shape. LN II–EB II.

Part II

Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Aegean Islands

11

Settlement Patterns in the Pre-Neolithic and Neolithic Aegean

In the remaining chapters of this work I will place the prehistoric settlements identified by the HSP within their spatial and temporal Aegean framework. In the present chapter I begin with a short history of archaeological research in the regions adjacent to Kos, after which I consider the evidence and theories that have informed current concepts about pre-Neolithic and Neolithic use of the Aegean islands. Neolithic socioeconomic developments throughout the Aegean islands and

mainland areas are discussed and compared with those seen in the Halasarna area. In Chapter 12 I examine EBA survey results, settlement patterns, and issues of island archaeology in the Aegean, and I compare the socioeconomic developments in various regions with the EBA evidence from Halasarna. Finally, in Chapter 13 I present a synthetic consideration of long-term developments in the Halasarna area in their wider Aegean context.

Brief Overview of Past Research The systematic study of the earlier prehistory of the Aegean islands began in the Cyclades with the work of Tsountas at the end of the 19th century.1 This research was soon followed by the excavations of Atkinson and colleagues at Phylakopi in Melos.2 The terminology for the subdivision of the Bronze Age in the Cyclades (EC I, II, III) was established around this time. Subsequently, throughout much of the 20th century, illicit excavations unearthed numerous EBA

burials across the Cycladic islands as looters searched for the highly desired marble figurines deposited with them. Legitimate archaeological research also proceeded. The earliest and most important synthetic work on the Neolithic and EBA Aegean, focusing on the Cyclades in particular, was the magnum opus published by Renfrew in 1972, The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C.3 Meanwhile,

154

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

numerous excavation reports appeared.4 Further monographs on different aspects of culture, such as burials,5 pottery and and other art forms,6 and Melian obsidian,7 along with other, more general syntheses,8 numerous journal articles, and the proceedings of several conferences9 about the prehistoric Cyclades were also published. The earliest island surveys were conducted on Melos, in northern Keos, and in northwestern Naxos.10 In 2000, another important synthetic work was produced by Broodbank, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades,11 in which the author proposed new questions and theoretical approaches based on island archaeology models. While all of these studies illustrate programs of thorough research on the archaeological remains from the Neolithic and EBA Cyclades, there are still many unresolved issues and problems that require further study. In the present context, the contrast in the intensity of research focused on the Cyclades relative to other insular areas must be noted. The Dodecanese islands may potentially provide useful comparisons with the Cyclades, as they include a similar number of islands. Nevertheless, there are only two books that discuss excavation results from the Neolithic and EBA Dodecanese, both by Sampson,12 and two more general works that briefly mention these periods.13 A monograph by Buchholz and Althaus focuses on their research on obsidian, but it includes both prehistoric and historic archaeological remains.14 Articles on the Dodecanese are significantly fewer, although these islands are discussed in a broader synopsis of the insular Aegean by Davis and in a later update.15 The recent systematic survey conducted on southern Kos by Kokkorou-Alevra and Kopanias has also contributed greatly to our knowledge of this region.16 For the rest of the Aegean islands, information comes mainly from excavation reports on individual sites.17 Parlama has presented a more synthetic analysis of many prehistoric phases from the island of Skyros,18 and one significant conference focusing on Poliochni has appeared.19 Surveys have been conducted on Kythera, Antikythera, and in the area of Kato Phana on Chios,20 and these research efforts, when fully published, will enrich our understanding of the wider Aegean. Finally, Sampson has produced a synthetic volume covering all Aegean island regions from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic

periods.21 Similar studies on Neolithic and EBA sites in Greece, including the Aegean islands, have been published by Alram-Stern and Maran, respectively.22 It is thus clear that the evidence from different island areas, as well as individual islands, is uneven in quantity and in the focus of research. There is enough evidence, however, to propose the development of certain trends, some of which prevailed throughout the Aegean and others of a more regional character. In the remainder of this work I will attempt to present the evidence from the Aegean in the periods under review in a way that highlights the socioeconomic changes and developments that were underway in different areas. Another aim of this study is to develop a discourse that is broadly “Aegeocentric” rather than more narrowly “Cycladocentric” in outlook. The concept of island archaeology was introduced in the Aegean by Cherry, 23 whose analytical concepts relating to the earliest colonization of the islands have influenced several important studies. Patton included the Aegean in his synthesis of Mediterranean island sociogeography.24 Some of Cherry’s basic hypotheses have been supported by Broodbank in his consideration of the Cycladic EBA.25 One of the most important components of current research on mainland Greece is the use of evidence from surveys in order to address diachronic changes in subsistence and settlement patterns. The trends and socioeconomic processes identified in mainland survey projects provide useful parallels and alternative explanations for the conditions identified in the island areas under discussion, enabling us to develop a larger picture of the Aegean in close association with the contemporary Greek mainland. Unfortunately, comparable information from western Anatolia, which would substantially enrich our understanding of the Aegean, is very limited. Most of the evidence comes from unsystematic survey projects such as the Metropolis survey26 and extensive surveys such as the Maeander Valley Project,27 the Madra Çay Delta Project,28 and other efforts undertaken farther inland in central Anatolia.29 The Izmir Region Excavations and Research Project has also conducted an unsystematic survey in the wider Izmir area, and as part of its research it has also initiated an extensive and intensive survey in the Urla region.30

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

In view of the importance of regional comparisons, the following discussion of the Aegean islands will be accompanied by a concise presentation of the conditions in contemporary mainland Greece, Crete, and western Anatolia to the extent

155

that such evidence is available. Research on these regions will provide useful synchronous models and parallels that permit a better comprehension of the settlement pattern in the Aegean islands.

The Pre-Neolithic Period Paleolithic In the Paleolithic period the Aegean was a vastly different region compared to the present in terms of geographic and environmental conditions. In the colder climate of the Pleistocene the sea level was considerably lower and the land masses were much larger. Although the reconstruction of old shorelines is problematic because of local and regional eustatic changes and seismic and tectonic activities over the last twenty thousand years, the general picture of conditions in this era that has emergerd over the last few decades is clear.31 In the glacial maximum, at about 18,000 B.P., the sea was 120–130 m below its present level.32 In the center of the Aegean most of the Cycladic islands formed a single large island called Cycladia.33 Cycladia was very close to mainland Greece and relatively near to Anatolia in the area close to the vicinity of Ikaria. In general, the Aegean was a closed sea with no access to the Propontis and the Black Sea, and almost all the islands of the northern and eastern Aegean that are located close to Anatolia today were parts of Anatolian peninsulas. Significant exceptions were Rhodes and “Greater Karpathos” in the Dodecanese. Melos, Kythnos, and Seriphos in the Cyclades were also islands. Even Crete was larger in land mass and located closer to mainland Greece across a narrow sea passage between present northwestern Crete and Antikythera. This paleogeographic background is important to our understanding of the significance of archaeological finds, as well as their absence, in the Paleolithic of the Aegean. During the Lower Paleolithic there is some evidence of occupation in mainland Greece and in the Plakias region of southwestern Crete.34 In the Middle Paleolithic, however, there were far more mainland sites that were used by Neanderthal populations and located in close proximity to perennial water resources.35 Some of the insular landmasses were

also large enough to sustain hunter-gatherer groups, whose way of life was based on seasonal rather than permanent habitation, in some cases even involving sea travel. The earliest finds of Middle Paleolithic date come from Kephallenia in the Ionian Sea, already an island in the Pleistocene,36 and from Lefkas, which was connected to the mainland.37 The crossing to Kephallenia was short, as in the case of Cycladia and Crete, but its land mass was considerably smaller. Possibly the earliest evidence of sea crossing in the Aegean comes from Kynouria in the eastern Peloponnese, where a tool made from Melian obsidian, worked in the Middle Paleolithic Levallois technique, was found at the locality Koutri Meligous.38 Thus, from this early period, occasional sea voyages to Melos were taking place, probably for the acquisition of obsidian. Elsewhere in the Aegean, Lower and Middle Paleolithic stone tools have been collected from several sites in the Northern Sporades, including sites on Youra, Psathoura, Gramiza, and Kyra Panagia, which were also islands separated by narrow stretches of seas at this time (Table 1).39 Other such early finds may have been identified on Skyros.40 Middle Paleolithic material has also been identified recently on Melos.41 These finds correspond well with the obsidian of the same age recovered in Kynouria, as mentioned above. Alonnisos and a few smaller islets have produced additional Middle Paleolithic material, but at this time they formed a promontory off Thessaly and were not islands.42 Middle Paleolithic stone tools worked in the Levallois technique have been reported from Giali, also an island in this period, but according to the excavator further investigation is required whether they should be identified as Middle Paleolithic tools or not.43 Upper Paleolithic stone tool types belonging to modern human groups have been recovered from several sites across mainland Greece (Table 1).44

156

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

The locations of these sites, which were more dispersed and closer to the coastal plains, differed considerably from those of earlier periods, suggesting the practice of a new hunting strategy. It is noteworthy that the Upper Paleolithic is scantily represented across Anatolia,45 in contrast to mainland Greece. Melian obsidian used in the Upper Paleolithic was recovered at Franchthi cave46 and another site south of Koilada in the Argolid.47 Other Upper Paleolithic archaeological finds come from Kerkyra,48 Thasos,49 and Lesbos.50 All these islands were connected to mainland areas at this early time. Zakynthos, however, was an island during the Pleistocene period, and Upper Paleolithic finds have been located at two sites there.51 Furthermore, an assemblage of stone tools has been found at Stelida on Naxos; although the character of this material is unclear, a pre-Neolithic date has been proposed.52 There are other unconfirmed reports of Paleolithic tools from sites on Paros and Antiparos.53 The lack of clear Paleolithic finds from the Cyclades may be partly explained by the fact that Cycladia had by now lost most of its landmass with the gradual rise of the sea level.54 It is difficult to comprehend why islands like Crete, Cycladia, and even Rhodes were not visited by hunter-gatherers in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, when the smaller Northern Sporades islands, as well as Kephallenia and Zakynthos, appear to have been exploited. The size of these larger Aegean islands and their proximity primarily to the Greek mainland and secondarily to Anatolia cannot be easily overlooked. Perhaps the apparent lack of evidence for occupation is a matter of chance and limited research on these specific periods; specialists are needed to identify such stone tool assemblages, as is underlined by the recently reported Paleolithic tools from Gavdos.55 If this report is confirmed, it indirectly substantiates the presence of hunter-gatherers on Crete, since the small island of Gavdos is accessible only via southcentral Crete. More recent reports suggest the presence of Lower Paleolithic activity in three lithic assemblages in the Plakia-Preveli area56 and of Lower and Middle Paleolithic finds at Loutro in the Sphakia area,57 both regions located in southern Crete. Mortensen’s hypothesis for population movement of hunter-gatherer groups from Libya to Crete, however, is not adequately supported,58 and his

identification of Paleolithic tools has been questioned.59 The evidence from these areas ties in very well with the exploitation of resources at Gavdos, as all of these sites have a hilly character. The number of recent reports attests in a convincing way to the exploitation of Crete by Paleolithic huntergatherer groups, probably from the late Lower Paleolithic onward, contrary to earlier beliefs and reservations.60 These three areas on or adjacent to Crete are close to each other, and their character suggests a common way of exploiting the environment. On Crete the extinction of the endemic big game fauna by the early Holocene, supports the hypothesis that the island was exploited by Paleolithic groups.61 A similar model has been proposed in the case of Akrotiri-Aetokremnos on Cyprus during the 10th millennium B.C.62 The remains of fauna that may have been hunted by Paleolithic people have been recovered throughout the Aegean. Bones of dwarf elephants are known from Naxos, Melos, Delos, Kythera, Seriphos, Amorgos, Astypalaia, Tilos, Rhodes, Kasos, and Karpathos, while dwarf deer bones have been reported on Imbros, Kalymnos, Kasos, Karpathos, and Amorgos, along with elephants, deer, and hippos on Crete.63 These indigenous animals could have sustained seasonal hunting by groups of hunter-gatherers on Cycladia and Rhodes, for example, but it remains unclear whether or not these animals survived until the end of the Pleistocene.64 The availability of resources, primarily hunted animals and secondarily marine fauna, on the Aegean islands would have made them attractive to hunter-gatherer groups. Obsidian was circulated beginning in the Middle Paleolithic from Melos to the eastern Peloponnese, a phenomenon which intensified in the Upper Paleolithic. The presence of Paleolithic sites on Kephallenia, Zakynthos, Crete, Gavdos, and in the Northern Sporades and possibly Skyros definitely suggests that islands were exploited regardless of size, and the finds reopen the discussion about the exploitation of insular fauna by the hunter-gatherer groups at this time.65 In view of the identification of Paleolithic sites on Crete and other islands, the current lack of evidence from the Cyclades (Cycladia) and Rhodes may be remedied by future research. As more information has accumulated in the last few years, a serious reconsideration of the colonization of the islands in the Paleolithic needs to be

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

undertaken. The solid evidence of Lower and Middle Paleolithic, as well as the Upper Paleolithic, use of some Aegean islands emphatically argues for several colonization episodes. One could see two major cycles, the first taking place in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, when Homo erectus or an archaic form of Homo sapiens and Neanderthal groups exploited the islands in varied climatic and environmental conditions.66 The second would have occurred in the Upper Paleolithic period, when Homo sapiens groups visited and lived in insular environments that were quite different from those of the earlier period. Whether modern humans followed the established routes of the Neanderthals or established their own based on new cultural, climatic, and environmental conditions is an important question that will require considerable time and research to answer. Moreover, the different exploitation patterns of the two hominid groups will become a focus of future insular studies when the data is amassed to allow the exploration of such issues. It is already clear, however, that both groups of hominids had the mental and technical capabilities to undertake travel by sea, possibly to all of the Aegean islands of their times.67

Mesolithic From the late Pleistocene onward a progressive rise of the sea level began, and by the early Holocene the Aegean Sea had changed considerably. The Mesolithic period saw important socioeconomic changes, with more reliance on plant products and the use of semipermanent settlements. This era lasted for about two millennia in Greece, from 9000/8500 to 6500 B.C. (Table 1). Only a handful of sites are known.68 There was a distinct tendency for human groups to use locations close to coastal areas throughout mainland Greece and southern Bulgaria,69 many of which were submerged with the subsequent rise in sea level. The Mesolithic site at Sidari on Kerkyra is one of the first identified with certainty in Greece and is located on an island; it is, however, chronologically contemporary with the EN of eastern Greece.70 Meanwhile, Melian obsidian was used by the Mesolithic inhabitants of Franchthi cave in larger quantities than were known from the Upper Paleolithic period. In fact, throughout the Mesolithic period there was a steady

157

increase of obsidian imports, which rose from ca. 1% to 3% of the chipped stone assemblage, while andesite was also imported from the Saronic Gulf.71 The excavation at Maroulas on Kythnos, a site discovered by Honea,72 initially created considerable controversy regarding the reported Mesolithic finds.73 The site was revisited by Cherry and Torrence, the latter a specialist in chipped stone, who concluded that the the finds were not Mesolithic. This dispute emphasizes the problems of recognizing Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites, as mentioned previously. Interestingly, later, more thorough research at Maroulas produced not only evidence of semipermanent Mesolithic occupation in the form of circular subterranean huts but also of pit and cist graves.74 Quartz, Melian obsidian, and chert tools were recovered, along with fish remains and animal bones. Based on the evidence of stone tools, other Mesolithic sites have been identified at Loutra in inland Kythnos and in coastal Hagios Sostis and Naousa.75 A very significant Mesolithic site, the Cave of the Cyclops, has been excavated on the island of Youra, and another was found at Kyra Panagia in the Northern Sporades.76 The most interesting finds from the Cave of the Cyclops are the obsidian tools (ca. 8% of the chipped stone assemblage) from Melos, the fish hooks and numerous fish bones suggesting the exploitation of marine life, and a human skull.77 Sporadic Mesolithic finds have also been reported from other caves on Youra, Alonnisos, and smaller surrounding islands, although no specific settlement has been identified, and there is another possible Mesolithic site on Skyros.78 There are also reports of two Mesolithic sites on Ikaria, one at coastal Kerame and another located inland at Niphi, situated on a plateau.79 At both sites obsidian and chert tools have been recovered, and at Kerame obsidian from Melos and Giali has been identified.80 On Crete further solid Mesolithic finds have been recovered at 10 locations in the Plakia-Preveli region.81 The recent discovery of an Epipaleolithic human presence at Akrotiri-Aetokremnos on Cyprus,82 as well as the examples discussed above, strongly suggests that Mesolithic finds should be expected on Rhodes and other large- and mediumsized Aegean islands. Certain presumptions and reservations regarding the occupation of the Aegean prior to the Neolithic

158

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

should be reconsidered. There are several points that remain unclear about the character of the groups who were visiting or living on the Aegean islands and the intensity of occupation. More thorough presentations of the new sites and their finds may be expected to clarify existing reports. While we need to be cautious of preliminary reports,83 we cannot overlook the new finds or propose hypotheses that disregard them altogether. The Mesolithic sites identified in Greece, southern Bulgaria, and possibly the Marmara region suggest a preference for coastal sites or nearby areas rather than for inland regions,84 an observation that partly explains the exploitation of insular sites. At the same time the intensified circulation of Melian obsidian is attested by the quantities of obsidian found at Franchthi cave and Maroulas. Melian obsidian also reached Youra and Ikaria in some quantities, and on the latter island Giali obsidian was imported, too. Long-distance seafaring, however sporadic it may

have been, is clearly demonstrated in the Mesolithic Aegean. If the presence of all these Mesolithic sites on Kythnos and Ikaria is confirmed, whatever their character may have been, this would establish an important background for the Neolithic colonization of the Aegean islands. Maroulas, an open site with both settlement remains and burials, and the Cave of the Cyclops have dramatically altered our perception of the Aegean islands in the Mesolithic period. It has become apparent that the islands were exploited for their marine and land resources as much as any area of mainland Greece. The significance of the graves at Maroulas cannot be emphasized enough, since they are the first to be recovered at an open-air site dated to the Mesolithic.85 They strongly suggest a semipermanent occupation at this site, radically changing our previous beliefs regarding the habitation of smaller islands.

Early and Middle Neolithic The Early and Middle Neolithic evidence from the Aegean islands has been used to support two very different theories of colonization. The first is expressed by Demoule and Perlès,86 who claim that the Neolithic way of life (i.e., domesticated flora and fauna, as well as other elements of culture) were brought by migrants from Anatolia to mainland Greece through the Aegean Sea rather than via northern Greece. The second, one of the so-called problems of Cycladic prehistory regarding the earliest colonization of these islands, was championed by Cherry, suggesting that the Aegean islands were only colonized from the LN/FN periods onward.87 The idea of a LN/FN occupation of the Aegean islands was supported by Bintliff,88 and Cherry saw it as a phenomenon that divided the islands of the west from those of the eastern Mediterranean.89 The debate surrounding the introduction of domestication and the Neolithic way of life either from the east or through independent regional developments haunts current interpretations. One of the most important Neolithic sites that is relevant to this discussion is that of Knossos on Crete. In

particular the Aceramic phase reported in layer X has been highly debated since the limited excavations conducted by Evans,90 which have been clarified by more recent research.91 Goats/sheep, pigs, cattle, and dogs were already domesticated, as well as grain and pulses, by the end of the 8th millennium B.C., roughly contemporaneous with similar developments in Anatolia in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (PPNB). Moreover, several obsidian tools from Melos suggest that longdistance voyages were made for the acquisition of this material. Efstratiou and his colleagues have argued that the movement of people was not a unique event, but an episode in a series of such movements.92 During the EN period, Knossos was one of the few sites on Crete that was occupied, along with Gerani cave, Lera cave, and possibly a few more sites.93 The mineralogical analyses of the EN pottery from Knossos has demonstrated that some of it was imported from neighboring sites and even from eastern Crete.94 This evidence suggests the presence of more sites of this period that have not yet been identified across Crete.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

The limited interaction of Crete with mainland Greece and the rest of the Aegean islands can be seen in its pottery production, which appears idiosyncratic until the LN/FN period. The Cave of the Cyclops on Youra and Kerame on Ikaria are two of the very few sites across the Aegean that reveal continuity of occupation between the Mesolithic and the EN period.95 The excavation and stratigraphy of the latter site will be very important to the understanding of the processes that were underway in the Aegean in this period. A very important EN coastal site has been reported on Sikinos, with finds of diagnostic chipped tools and some sherds.96 In addition, the site at Tou Papa to Choma on Skyros was also established during the EN period,97 and a few sherds may indicate the existence of an EN site on the island of Imbros.98 An EN late date has been proposed recently for the earliest deposits at Hagio Gala Lower cave on the basis of the typological parallels with EN Anatolian sites with radiocarbon dates,99 confirming Hood’s original proposal.100 Some of the EN sites such as Knossos, the Cave of the Cyclops, Tou Papa to Choma,101 and Hagio Gala Lower cave continued to be occupied in the MN period. Kastri and Limenaria on Thasos produced sherds that appear to be contemporary with MN Dikili Tash, Paradimi I, Sitagroi I, and Karanovo III in eastern Macedonia and Thrace.102 On Crete a possible MN site has been observed at Kannia in the western Mesara.103 Another significant site from this phase, Kyra Panagia on the islet of Hagios Petros in the Northern Sporades, has a characteristic painted pottery style.104 A MN date is proposed for the earliest occupation of the Kalythies cave on Rhodes, where painted sherds bear red-on-white decoration; radiocarbon analysis suggests a date between 5700 and 5600 B.C.105 A single red-on-white sherd, as well as a brown patterned ware similar to the Koutlousi example Kt.177, has been illustrated among the finds from Aspri Petra cave on Kos, possibly indicating that this site was used during the MN period.106 The Neolithic way of life was introduced in different chronological stages across Anatolia in an east–west direction, reaching western Anatolia at the same time as the Aegean.107 Early Neolithic and MN sites found east of Hacilar in western Anatolia

159

are uncommon. Hoca Çeşme, where evidence suggests occupation during the EN, is an exception. This site is located on the Thracian coast, very close to the Evros delta. In its earliest phases, the excavators suggest the site had very close cultural ties with central Anatolia, but later on closer relations appear to have developed with Thessaly.108 More sites from the EN and MN periods have been located in the Marmara region; however, these are rather far from the Aegean. Ulucak Höyük, an inland site found a few kilometers east of Izmir, was occupied between 6000 and 5600 B.C., i.e., in the LN according to Anatolian terms.109 Early Neolithic and MN sherds have been recovered from mounds such as Yenmiş Höyük, Nemrut Höyük, Araptepe, Çoşkuntepe, Morali, Nuriye, Almakça, Tepeköy, Kavaklikahve, Hamidiye, and Kiliktepe and others, but no excavation has taken place and the dating of these finds is still unclear.110 Further EN and MN evidence comes from other inland sites in the Elmali plain.111 In the Maeander valley, there are a few LN and ECh (EN and MN in Aegean terms) sites across this area, in regions close to the Aegean as well as farther inland.112 Research in this region has been rather limited and has only recently become more systematic and extensive. The present evidence suggests a rather dispersed settlement pattern, which does not support the idea of population pressure leading to migration to mainland Greece via the Aegean islands. Most inland western Anatolian sites tend to be located on the edges of fertile plains and in the valleys of large rivers, while others are found in smaller valleys with commanding positions.113 The coastal sites are set on islets, peninsulas, or hills very close to the coast, without immediate access to fertile plains.114 A single diagnostic MN sherd at Koutlousi, Kt.177, provides the terminus post quem for the occupation of the Halasarna area. This find argues for continuity of occupation from the mid 6th millennium B.C. to the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. in this region. Additionally, it is thus far the earliest open-air settlement in the Dodecanese. Koutlousi is found inland on a commanding hill with a view over the Halasarna plain and the sea. Security and access to good arable land would have

160

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

been the main concerns in choosing this site, as is also evident in the case of some LN and ECh sites in inland western Anatolia. This argues for shared concepts of landscape and resource exploitation, i.e., of similar socioeconomic ideas in these two regions. At the same time the occupation of Aspri Petra cave, whatever its character, suggests a more “Aegean” use of the landscape. Kos seems to have had close interaction with groups from both other Aegean islands and western Anatolia, with communities adopting different settlement patterns according to the character of the local landscape. The continuity of occupation from the Mesolithic to the EN at the Cave of the Cyclops and Kerame, and from the EN to the MN at Knossos, the Cave of the Cyclops, Hagio Gala Lower cave, and Tou Papa to Choma, emphasizes the permanent character of these settlements and their longevity. The transition from the hunter-gatherer to the agricultural mode of subsistence can be seen in the Aegean islands as much as in mainland Greece. The fact that the possibly semipermanent Mesolithic sites continued to be occupied permanently into the EN suggests the presence and continuity of the same population at the same site, rather than the introduction of new groups.115 The continuity and intensification of the already established obsidian exchanges from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic also supports this argument. Although the transition from the Mesolithic to the EN was successful, as attested at some sites, its visibility in the Aegean islands is rather low. The contrast in the number of EN and MN sites relative to the total known for the LN/FN period remains striking, making it understandable as to why Bintliff and Cherry argued for the occupation of the Aegean islands in the later period only.116 After all, this region does not offer good arable land or large, well-watered plains, areas that appealed to the EN and MN populations. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that several early sites were inhabited in the Aegean islands, even on small- and medium-sized islands like Sikinos, Kyra Panagia, Youra, Skyros, Ikaria, and Kos. If the EN site at Sikinos is confirmed, then a different type of settlement pattern can be seen, one in which sites were set in coastal or near-coastal locations in marginal agricultural areas on small islands. As more data become

available it is evident that even small island environments were used in the broader Aegean area in the period when agriculture was initially practiced. What is striking in this synopsis of the early occupation of the Aegean islands is the number of sites identified in the Northern Sporades from the Upper Paleolithic until the MN period. This area has been thoroughly surveyed, mainly by Sampson,117 who conducted earlier studies on the Dodecanese and Mykonos.118 In the latter areas no such early material has been identified. I think that the higher visibility of the EN and MN phases in the Northern Sporades is a result of this area having been more densely occupied. A number of regional studies and systematic surveys in mainland Greece have demonstrated that there is a considerable discrepancy in the settlement patterns of the EN and MN periods in northern and southern Greece.119 A large number of sites are known in the north, i.e., Thessaly, but very few in the south, i.e., central Greece and the Peloponnese, despite the number of surveys conducted in southern Greece.120 The only exception comes from the work of the Nemea Project and its related Phlius survey, in which more EN and MN than LN and FN sites and finds were identified.121 In the EN and MN Peloponnese large settlements appear to have had catchment areas of 30 km2 rather than smaller ones as seen in Thessaly.122 On closer scrutiny, however, it appears that there are more regional patterns rather than a single north–south dichotomy. For example the diachronic development and the number of sites in Macedonia, and secondarily in Epirus and Thrace, are more similar to what is found in southern Greece than in Thessaly, perhaps with the exception of Kozani.123 Additionally, the contemporary settlement pattern of Nova Zagora in Bulgaria is closer in the density of sites to that observed in southern Greece as opposed to Thessaly.124 Thus, it is safer to talk about a Thessalian paradox rather than a broad north–south divide in Greece. I believe that this regional trend extended into the Aegean, where the density of occupation in the Northern Sporades, including Skyros, contrasted with that found in central Greece, the Peloponnese, and the southern Greek islands, i.e., the Cyclades, Crete, the Dodecanese, Samos, and Ikaria. The status of the northeastern Aegean islands remains

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

unclear and, viewing the current evidence, it is premature to suggest whether they belong to one group or the other. Still, the limited evidence from western Anatolia indicates that there are far more sites in the northern region than in the south.125 One could propose that in the eastern and western Aegean a similar situation existed in the 7th and 6th millennium B.C. Although most of the sites in the Aegean islands have produced limited MN diagnostic finds, upon closer examination it becomes apparent that there is an additional factor to the

161

difference between the Northern Sporades and the rest of the Aegean islands. In fact, there is a complete lack of MN sites in the Cyclades, and this cannot be explained by local topography when taking into account the character of MN sites on Thasos, the Northern Sporades, Chios, and the Dodecanese. Perhaps this dearth of evidence is a fault of past research, and in the future more MN sites will be discovered in the Cyclades, augmenting the occupational evidence from the EN site at Sikinos.

Late and Final Neolithic Mainland Greece The pattern of LN settlement in the region of Thessaly in northern Greece was characterized by a higher density of sites than archaeologists have yet encountered in southern Greece and most of the Aegean islands, as noted earlier.126 In eastern Thessaly many Neolithic settlements were located in the hilly area surrounding the eastern Thessalian valley.127 In central and eastern Macedonia a large number of LN sites appeared in the main valleys, but only 12 coastal sites have been found.128 In western Macedonia there was also a very significant increase in the number of settlements in the LN/FN period relative to the EN and MN.129 From the onset of the LN there was a considerable increase in settlements in southern Greece, a trend which intensified during the FN period (Table 1). This expansion is evident in a number of regional studies130 and important surveys covering many parts of the Peloponnese and central Greece.131 Still, the results are far from uniform, suggesting regional differences relating to a number of variables, such as local geology, visibility, topography, preservation, postdepositional processes, multiperiod occupation, and other factors.132 The survey results offer good examples of general trends and may help us to interpret insular cases and wider socioeconomic processes. There are four main characteristics of LN/FN sites in southern Greece that need to be explained. First of all, a common feature of these sites is their

small size, usually between 0.1 and 0.2 ha and rarely above 1.0 ha.133 These dimensions are in sharp contrast with site sizes observed in Thessaly, which range from 3.4 to 4.0 ha in the same period.134 Second, the lifespan of the southern sites is short, in most cases representing a single period of occupation or seasonal use. In fact, the small size and short habitation period are closely interlinked elements, and they are especially evident in the regions of Boeotia,135 Methana,136 and Laconia,137 as well as being a more general phenomenon.138 Multiperiod sites are rare in Laconia and Berbati-Limnes, and uncommon in Boeotia, even into the historic period,139 and they represent the majority of sites in Thessaly.140 Third, there appears to have been a preference for marginal locations in the landscape, such as caves, where the adjacent arable land was of lower quality.141 In Thessaly, the beginning of the LN witnessed an increase of settlements in lowland areas, but more hilly and mountainous locations were preferred from the FN period onward.142 Fourth, as already mentioned, the number of settlements increased in this period, as observed in most southern Greek surveys.143 Although this is a general trend, alternative patterns have been noted, as in the case of Methana, where the same number of settlements existed in the MN and the LN/FN, while in the Nemea valley there seems to have been a decline in settlement in the LN/FN.144 In Thessaly, settlements increased in number between the MN and the LN period but decreased considerably in the FN

162

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

phase, in contrast to developments in southern Greece.145 Fortifications also appeared at a few sites in LN Thessaly and FN western Macedonia.146 In Attica, fortifications also appeared in the FN phase at Kiapha Thiti, Etosi, and Zagani.147 Varying explanations have been proposed for the increase in settlements in LN/FN southern Greece and for the changing choice of site locations. EN and MN sites in both northern and southern Greece were concentrated in locations where good arable land and rich water resources were available.148 This settlement model changed radically in the LN and FN phases when more marginal landscapes were preferred, as clearly seen in the results of the Laconia Project, the Asea Survey, and the Southern Argolid Survey.149 Some scholars believe that the changes resulted from an influx of newcomers in southern Greece.150 The migration hypothesis is a valid explanation if the origin of these newcomers can be convincingly defined. Nevertheless, the presence of more sites does not necessarily imply a significant increase of population; rather, it could suggest a shift to a new mode of subsistence economy.151 Some authors have argued, on the basis of studies of animal bones and pollen analyses, that there was a conscious preference for animal-raising and olive cultivation at this time.152 The secondary products revolution may have played a significant role, while the evidence for storage suggests more reliance on exchange.153 The remains of sheep and goats that were kept for their meat dominate the bone assemblages of the marginal sites, strongly suggesting a small-scale mixed farming economy rather than one based on large-scale herding.154 People living in marginal areas may have relied on animals to cope with crop failure, and/or they may have practiced a strategy for the accumulation of wealth by investing in animals.155 Other trends may be inferred from the settlement pattern of this period. The preference for wellwatered locations has been noted among EN–FN sites in southern Greece.156 It seems that from the EN to the LN in the Thespiai plain there were at least three well-spaced sites that consisted of two habitation clusters a few hundred meters apart.157 This pattern continued in the FN period, when a new element of settlement strategy also emerged. In both the Thespiai and Tanagra plains, several small farmstead sites along rivers or streams appeared at distances of approximately 2 km from the main

settlements.158 Meanwhile, as noted above, there was an increase in cave use. In a number of cases the cave sites were paired with open sites, as in the examples of Kamenitsa cave–Sphakovouni, Nestor’s cave–Voidokoilia, Franchthi cave–Aria, suggesting a connection between agricultural sites and others more concerned with animal-rearing.159 Interestingly enough cave use appears to have been more common in the Peloponnese than in central Greece during the LN and FN phases, especially at Laconia.160 At Berbati-Limnes, a two-tier hierarchical settlement system with a few larger sites and several smaller ones seems to have developed in the FN. The settlement density in this region was, however, much lower than in northern Greece, more closely approximating that of the Aegean islands.161 In the Limnes area, the presence of a central settlement with smaller satellites is particularly noticeable in this period.162 The proximity of sites FS 400 and FS 23, located less than 150 m apart, suggests that they belong to the same settlement.163 In general, the Limnes-Berbati sites are found in clusters with sites close to one another. The same clustering is attested in FN Laconia, where sites are found in pairs or threes, north and south of Voutianoi and northwest and southeast of Chrysapha.164 Similarly, two pairs of clustered sites located a few kilometers apart, Thespiai and Thespiai Magoula, along with Askris Potamos and Palaiokarandas, have been found in Boeotia.165 Finally, the increasing number of FN coastal sites or sites close to the sea166 would seem to suggest a growth in the importance of sea travel and exchange in this period.

Crete Crete appears to have been an isolated island during most of the Neolithic period, its idiosyncratic pottery suggesting limited cultural interaction with mainland Greece and the rest of the Aegean islands. As outlined in the discussion of the EN and MN periods, few sites from these phases have been recognized, although there was a slight increase in site numbers during the LN period (Table 1). There was a dramatic increase in the number of settlements across Crete, however, during the FN, a period from which more than 130 sites are known.167 Nonetheless, it must be noted that in several cases

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

these sites represent FN–EM I occupational phases, which are not always possible to separate on the basis of diagnostic pottery.168 Leaving aside the chronological issue of FN–EM I, a large number of sites were occupied at this time in contrast to the total known from southern mainland Greece. The vast majority of these sites were newly established and small in size.169 Based on Nowicki’s and Hayden’s accounts of 58 sites, the areas of sherd scatters suggest that 36 were rather small (0.04–0.3 ha), 13 were of medium size (0.3–0.8), and nine were large (0.8–1.5 ha).170 Thus, they do not diverge from the size range known for southern mainland Greece. There is a large concentration of FN sites in the eastern Siteia and southern coastal Rethymnon regions, while the most fertile plains in northern Crete appear sparsely inhabited. Nevertheless, this disparity may have resulted from a research bias, with studies having been concentrated in the eastern part of the island. In the Mesara valley 14 sites, located close to good productive soil and perennial water sources like the Ieropotamos stream or springs, were found across the surveyed region.171 The results from the Vrokastro and Kavousi surveys have shown that settlements were concentrated around the small coastal plains of these regions.172 In the Lasithi upland valley, however, the FN–EM I sites are situated around the plateau.173 This is also clearly seen in the case of the excavated site of Azoria, which is situated on an inland hill at the edge of the Kavousi plain.174 Coastal sites or sites near the coast, i.e., up to 1 km from the coast, date mainly to the FN,175 in contrast to the situation in southern mainland Greece. The most prominent characteristic of the vast majority of the FN Cretan sites is their defensibility—they are located on hill tops or slopes with wide visibility over the surrounding landscape, attesting to concerns about security.176 All four characteristics described for southern mainland Greece—small site size, short-lived occupations, more sites in marginal locations, and increasing numbers of settlements— are equally applicable in the case of Crete. The concern for security, the reoccupation of sites in later times, and the increased preference for coastal locations are important idiosyncratic attributes of the Cretan FN. Crete is a large rectangular island with diverse topography, and regional differences should be expected. The Vrokastro and Praisos surveys provide

163

good quantifiable examples of settlement patterns, revealing the different types of FN settlements found across Crete. The main characteristics of the settlements were outlined above, but there are sites that diverge in certain ways from the main model. Firstly, most sites are spaced ca. 1 km or more from each other,177 but there are cases where they are closer. For example, there are only 300 to 500 m between Anatoli Pandotinou Koriphi and Anatoli Schistra, Kokkino Phroudi and Voukoliades (450 m), two of the northwestern settlements at Vrokastro survey (400 m), Kypia and Manoulis’ Metochi (400 m), Kastellas Xirokampias with Trachilas (300 m), and Dermatos Kastrokephala with Dermatos (300 m).178 Although they belong to the same occupational phase, they are not necessarily contemporary sites. It is interesting to note, however, that these sites were small and roughly equal in size to their close neighbors. There was no hierarchical system differentiating them, nor can any central and satellite relationships be proposed. Secondly, there are sites with well-defined clusters and satellite sites at distances of 50 to 150 m apart, such as the Kypia hilltops, which are separated by 150 m, Ammoudi Skinias with two concentrations about 120 m apart, Schoinokephalo and Kastellas Xirokambias, separated by about 100 m, Livari Katharades with two concentrations 100 m apart, sites 1300 m south of Panagia Paplinon and Paliochora 2, both with two concentrations 50 m apart, and two well-demarcated sites on the westernmost promontory explored by the Vrokastro survey.179 In these cases a central and a satellite site can be seen, clearly separated from each other, but no special activity can be proposed for the satellite site. Thirdly, there is are some settlements that appear to have consisted of small clusters representing either separate households or the development of the site over time, as in the case of Kerames Tseroni.180 In this case models of a shifting settlement or clustering can be proposed, as defined by Webb and Frankel in examples from Cyprus.181 According to Nowicki the FN I witnessed a discontinuity with the preceding LN while the defensible sites appeared during the FN period. In FN II the establishment of new coastal sites has been proposed to be the result of colonization.182 Hayden argues that a defensive network developed between sites, through intervisibility, in order to

164

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

protect the well-watered and fertile agricultural land in the Vrokastro area.183 Newcomers, probably coming from other Cretan sites or the Cyclades, are inferred from their preference for settlement in the coastal zone.184 While population movement takes place in all periods, it is necessary to explain why it is more evident in this period and, as mentioned above, to deduce the origin of these colonizers. A major problem for the FN period is that the increase of settlements is a pan-Aegean phenomenon, and not a localized one centered on Crete. A takeover of all coastal areas across Crete during the FN II period, as proposed by Nowicki and Hayden, is difficult to envisage.185 Moreover, the results of the Mesara Plain survey have revealed an extensive settlement pattern in an area with good agricultural land,186 a pattern also evident in the results of the Vrokastro and Kavousi surveys. In the Mesara valley the concern was for water resources and arable land rather than security per se, and the twotier site hierarchy suggests a different settlement pattern model. As noted before, Crete is a large island, and different regional trends may have been active simultaneously. The majority of the FN sites were small in size and most probably short-lived. Most were located in marginal areas across the Cretan landscape, with the exception of those in the Mesara valley, the Lasithi plateau, and the Vrokastro and Kavousi area. More caves were used in the LN–FN period than in the previous phases, and they appear to have been very popular,187 more so than in the Peloponnese, with the exception of Laconia, where caves were also favored. The overall picture from Crete is not different from that of contemporary southern mainland Greece. Hence, an alternative model that is close to the mainland one, but not identical, may be proposed. Given the topography of eastern Lasithi and southern Rethymnon, the main subsistence strategy may have entailed an increased reliance on mixed farming and animal husbandry. Thus, the different socioeconomic conditions of the FN led to a new mode of resource exploitation, i.e., the colonization of marginal locations in the landscape, mainly open-air sites and, to a lesser extent, caves. Furthermore, a pollen analysis of northwest Crete has revealed that the cultivation of olives had started in the LN/FN period,188 a practice that represents an additional subsistence strategy for which hill slopes would have been exploited. The size and

character of the FN sites would suggest that smallor medium-sized kin groups were the basic social units of these settlements. It is difficult to explain the security concerns evinced at inland sites, especially in the southern part of the island, where sea raids would have been less common than in the north. The existence of fortification walls at Kokkino Phroudi, Lamnoni, Vraskas Lakoudi, and possibly at Magasa Vigli, Zakros Kalyvomouri, Panagia Palplinou Rousso Charakes, and Ammoudi Skinias stresses this sense of insecurity during FN II and/or FN/EM I.189 All of these sites are located on inland hills that are mainly in eastern and southern Lasithi and southern Rethymnon. This phenomenon represents definite evidence of intersite tensions based on kin group competitions, possibly over resources, that is found only rarely in southern mainland Greece. Thus, the prevalence of conflict seems to have been an important additional factor in the choices of settlement locations and the formation of settlement patterns, at least in some parts of FN Crete.

Western Anatolia There was no dramatic change in settlement in western Anatolia at the onset of the MCh/LCh period, i.e., the LN/FN period in Aegean terms (Table 1). Ulucak Höyük was occupied at this time, but it does not represent continuity from the Anatolian LN.190 Nonetheless, important and long-lasting sites appeared west of Hacilar with the establishment of Beycesultan and Aphrodisias.191 Several other important sites were founded, although none of them had the same longevity of habitation as earlier settlements. These were found in the Troad at Kum Tepe, Beşiktepe, Alacaligöl, and Gülpinar,192 in the Elmali plain at Bağbaşi, Boztepe, Karaburun, and possibly Karabayir, Tekke, Buralia, Gökpinar West, Yaka Çiftiği, and Maltepe,193 and at Girmeler cave near Xanthos.194 Most are located on inland hills with extensive agricultural land in their immediate vicinity. A coastal site with evidence of occupation from the 6th millennium B.C. onward was identified at Liman Tepe.195 In the wider Izmir region a few more sites were found at Barbaros and Araptepe, possibly dating to the late EN and MN phases in Aegean terms,196 and an FN site was located at Bakla Tepe.197

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

Miletos on the Aegean coast of southwestern Anatolia is an important FN site, near which a number of contemporary sites, such as Akyeniköy, Assessos, Kiliktepe, and Teichioussa, have been identified.198 Miletos is particularly important since in its coastal location it had limited acces to arable land. It may have played an exchange-oriented role on the route from Anatolia to the Aegean and vice versa. Moreover, Arapkave Höyük is an inland site of the same period that was located north of Miletos,199 while coastal Iasos200 lay to the south. In the Maeander valley survey, a significant increase of FN settlements was observed in the upper and middle part of the region, although a relative stability in the number of sites in relation to previous periods was noted in the lower area.201 Settlements in this region tend to be found close to river valleys or perennial springs and lakes,202 a pattern not significantly different from that seen in mainland Greece. Overall, the limited evidence from this region indicates a significant increase in settlements during the Anatolian LCh/Aegean FN period, as observed in the Aegean islands and the southern Greek mainland.

Northern Aegean Islands and the Cyclades In this section the LN and FN archaeological evidence from the islands will be discussed in terms of three broad regions: the northern Aegean, the Cyclades, and the Argo-Saronic Gulf (Map 1). These arbitrary and modern divisions are meaningful because some of the observations that have been made about these specific regions by modern scholars and do not necessarily apply to the Aegean as a whole. Moreover, the research in these different island groups has been uneven.

Late Neolithic Evidence A large number of settlements of LN and later date have been identified on the islands of the northern Aegean. The Cave of the Cyclops, Hagios Petros, Hagio Gala cave, and possibly Tou Papa to Choma continued in use until the end of the LN period. The site of Limenaria Tsines on Thasos, used in both the MN and the LN, was associated with a hematite mine.203 New sites appeared at

165

Niphi and Graledo on Ikaria and possibly at Kastri on Samothrace.204 Emporio on Chios205 and Tigani on Samos206 were occupied from the LN II period but not earlier. Emporio may have been fortified with a double wall from the LN phases X–IX to FN phases VIII–VII.207 On Lesbos there are five sites that belong to the LN/FN phase, two of which are coastal, in the area of the Gulf of Kalloni.208 Gerna is located on an inland hill surrounded by fertile plains, while the other two sites were placed on inland hills with barren surroundings. In the Northern Sporades most of the smaller islands east of Alonnisos were used during the Neolithic period,209 most probably during the LN–FN phase. In the Argo-Saronic gulf islands a LN horizon may have existed at Euripides’ cave on Salamis.210 The LN period witnessed a striking expansion of settlement in the southern Aegean. In the Cyclades this period is also known as the Saliagos cultural horizon, having been named after the earliest Neolithic site excavated in the Cyclades.211 At this time Paros and Antiparos formed a single island, Greater Paros, and Saliagos, today an islet, was located on the coast on an isthmus more than 0.7 ha in size. The presence of a wall with a bastion or tower has led to discussion regarding early island fortification.212 The walls are only partly preserved, however, and the tower may have been used in a number of ways. Other contemporary sites from Greater Paros were the Antiparos cave, Koukounaries, and possibly Vouni.213 On Naxos two sites have been identified, the coastal site of Grotta214 and Zas cave, an inland site that was occupied from LN II onward.215 On the northern part of Mykonos the sites of Ftelia216 and Mavrispilia217 were occupied during the LN period, and Glykoschidia may belong to the same phase.218 The Neolithic evidence from Rheneia island, just west of Mykonos, may belong to the LN, given the similarities in pottery fabric with Ftelia and the presence of a particular type of LN obsidian arrowhead.219 Other Cycladic sites contemporary with the Saliagos culture include the coastal site of Akrotiri on Thera,220 Minoa on Amorgos, located on a hill close to the sea,221 the inland site of Marmouritsa on Andros,222 and the coastal site of Kolona on Kythnos.223 The earliest occupation on Kythera, found in the south at the Hagia Sophia cave, also belongs to this period,224 as does the first occupation of Antikythera, as attested by the chipped stone tools recovered there.225

166

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

In general, LN settlements in the Aegean islands appear to have been scattered rather than dense, which is in contrast to contemporary settlements in Thessaly.226 Broodbank suggests that Cycladic sites of this period were established on medium- or large-sized islands in locations that were on hills or knolls close to good water resources, bays, and fertile land.227 These locational characteristics are applicable to all the Aegean islands. Nonetheless, the cave sites diverge from the above model, while the probable LN site on Rheneia suggests the occupation of small islands in this period as well. The LN sites of the northern Aegean islands and the Cyclades can be roughly divided into two categories: those that were found on or near the coast and those that were found in caves. The widespread preference for such locations might suggest a common culture or ideology throughout the islands, although it is important to note that the same topographic elements characterize most of the Aegean islands; almost all large fertile agricultural plains were located by the sea, and therefore it is not surprising to find sites concentrated around them. Another general trend was for the settlements in all the islands to have a short duration of occupation, with the exception of caves sites, such as the Cave of the Cyclops, Hagio Gala cave, and Zas cave. These and other caves, including Antiparos cave and sites on smaller islands such as Hagios Petros, are located in marginal agricultural areas, unlike most of the coastal sites. From a diachronic perspective, the establishment of settlements in coastal areas, caves, and even marginal farming areas was common in the islands going back to the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry in the EN period, if not Mesolithic times. Therefore, these settlement preferences were not a new phenomenon, but a development of older trends in a wider region and a more visible archaeological environment.

Final Neolithic Evidence During the FN period some older sites still were occupied, and there was a further increase in settlement across the Aegean islands. Emporio on Chios, Tigani on Samos, and possibly some of the Lesbos sites continued in use in this phase. The Cave of the Cyclops was also used in a limited way.228 In the Cyclades Antiparos cave, Koukounaries on Paros,

Grotta and Zas cave on Naxos, and Akrotiri on Thera remained in use, 229 as did Euripides’ cave on Salamis.230 In the northern Aegean new sites were founded at Maries cave, Limenas acropolis, and Kastri Theologou on Thasos.231 In addition, Karyotes and Mikro Vouni on Samothrace were probably occupied in this period.232 Meanwhile, important new settlements appeared on Lemnos. In FN I Myrina was founded on a small plain on the western coast of the island.233 In the southeastern part of the island Poliochni, which was also located very close to the coast, was inhabited from FN II onward.234 Dermata and Vriokastro have produced FN II material; the first is on a hill very close to Poliochni and the latter is a coastal site,235 as is Hagios Ermolaos, also apparently founded in the FN period.236 Thus, it seems that from the FN phase on Lemnos there was a preference for settlements to be situated in coastal locations. In southeastern Lesbos the inland cave of Hagios Bartholomaios and the two cave shelters at Stis Grias to Pidima were probably used on a seasonal basis in the FN period.237 The coastal sites of Chalakies and Kourtir in the Kalloni gulf and Thermi also belong to the FN.238 On Skyros some components at the site of Palamari may indicate possible FN occupation.239 On Chios five new sites may have been occupied, but the available evidence is unclear.240 The coastal site of Archontiki and the islet of Daskaleio on Psara were possibly settled in the FN phase.241 At Ikaria 22 sites with surface finds suggest that occupation occurred during the broader Neolithic/EBA period.242 The coastal site of Kolonna on Aegina was occupied for the first time in the FN.243 Possible FN remains have also been reported on small islets such as Ypsili, Dokos, and Hydra in the Argo-Saronic Gulf.244 On Kythera several new sites were located in a survey, with a total of 24 sites representing the FN/EB I phase and displaying an apparent preference for inland rather than coastal locations near fertile arable land.245 The full publication should provide more detailed information on the prehistoric settlement pattern of this island.246 On Antikythera the FN and EB I finds recovered by the survey are also often indistinguishable from one another.247 Many more FN sites have been discovered in the Cyclades, allowing for a more thorough assessment

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

of the character of the settlement pattern and site location choices on some islands. For example, on Andros, one of the largest Cycladic islands, FN sites are situated mainly in the northern region at localities such as Hagia Marina, Rethi, and Vriokastro, which are set on inland hill slopes.248 The latter site is the only located one relatively close to a small fertile plain, while the rest lie on marginal agricultural ground. Mikroyali and Kastri are coastal sites in the north, while Strophilas in the south is also near the coast.249 Kastri is the only site of these three that is close to a fertile plain; the other two are found in marginal areas. Strophilas is dated to the FN II phase, and it possesses the earliest definite fortification wall in the islands, with the possible exception of Crete, as well as rock carvings depicting animals and boats.250 The sites are small in size, and those currently identified are located far apart in the landscape. The fortification wall at Strophilas confirms the concern with security in the selection of the settlement location, and at the same time the rock carvings signify the importance of sea travel and animal husbandry for the FN communities. The medium-sized island of Kea is the closest of all the Cyclades to mainland Greece. A survey conducted in the northern part of the island revealed an important FN settlement pattern. Kephala, which was set on a promontory, with a cemetery located to the south of the settlement, was occupied in the FN I period. It was no larger than 0.7 ha in size, with a population that was, according to Whitelaw, between 35 and 50 individuals.251 One-hundred meters west of Kephala a small, possible knapping site with a scatter of obsidian tools and a few sherds was found.252 The settlement of Paoura, founded in the FN II phase, was situated about 3 km east of Kephala on an inland hill, 200 m from the coast; it measured 1.5 ha in size.253 Contemporary with Paoura was the earliest phase at Hagia Eirene, a site located 1.2 km southwest of Kephala on a low promontory.254 A lithic assemblage was found at Glaronisi, a small promontory between Kephala and Paoura, while two sites of uncertain Neolithic date, both with limited sherds and chipped stone tools, were found southwest of Hagia Eirene at Akrotirion Sklavos and Koressia. These sites were 600 m apart and were located on gentle inland hillslopes. Sykamia is located in an infertile coastal area in the eastern

167

part of the island, far from the rest of the sites.255 Both Paoura and Hagia Eirene are situated relatively close to a long fertile plain, in contrast to Kephala, which is located in a rather barren area of Kea. A two-tier settlement hierarchy may be seen on Kea, with Kephala and Paoura being large sites and the others considerably smaller. A systematic survey on Melos identified a number of prehistoric sites. The eight sites of Neolithic date consist exclusively of diagnostic assemblages of obsidian tools without potsherds;256 such assemblages were also encountered in the mainland survey of Laconia, where 12 LN/FN sites with obsidian scatters only were identified.257 Half of the Melian sites are located on inland hills or knolls in marginal agricultural areas, and the other half are found on hills near relatively good agricultural lands. A coastal site was discovered at Cape Vani. Two sites with obsidian scatters at Phavas in western Melos are interesting as they are situated on two separate knolls located 500 m from each other. All the Melian sites probably date to the LN or FN period. They contrast with the sites on Andros and Kea in that they possibly represent specialized activity sites that were occupied temporarily. Nevertheless, the character of the sites and their locations do not differ significantly from those of the permanent settlements seen elsewhere. On Syros four sites belonging to the FN period were concentrated in the southern and most fertile part of the island.258 The two western sites are placed on inland hills very close to small fertile plains, while the two eastern ones are close to the sea. One of the latter is set on a low hill near the coast overlooking a larger coastal plain and the sea, while the other is located on a barren hilly promontory. All four sites appear to be located in areas that offer security and good visibility over the surrounding landscape. The distances between them range from 1.2 to 1.5 km. The settlement patterns observed on these four Cycladic islands suggest a model that may be applicable to isolated settlements known on other neighboring islands. Two sites were found on Siphnos, at Hagios Sostis, a promontory in the northern part of the island, and Akrotiraki, which is a coastal site in the south.259 A single pattern-burnished sherd from Paroikia suggests the presence of a FN stratum at this site.260 Unfortunately, a large number of sites attributed to the Neolithic period lack sufficient

168

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

diagnostic sherds to permit us to distinguish LN and FN phases of occupation, distorting our perception of the settlement patterns of these two eras. There are a few such sites on Mykonos, one at Tragonisi and one on Stapodia, both islets close to Mykonos, and another at Flamouria on Kythnos.261 At other sites, mainly in the Cyclades, assemblages of obsidian are the only finds that have been recovered, as is the case on Melos, and these can be dated broadly at best to the Neolithic on the basis of diagnostic tool types.

Dodecanese Islands The Kalythies cave on Rhodes in the Dodecanese continued to be used throughout the LN period. The dates of the occupations at Alimnia and Partheni on Leros have been revised from FN II to LN II in view of the cheese pot chronology established by the excavation of Ftelia on Mykonos, as discussed earlier.262 I believe that a FN date is more plausible than one in LN II on the basis of other pottery types found at these sites, and for that reason I have placed the sites with cheese pots in the FN. Daskalio cave, Hagia Varvara cave, and Choiromandres cave appear to have been used already in the LN II period, and the first continued into the FN.263 It is possible that Panormitis on Simi264 and Leftoporos on Karpathos,265 both located close to the sea, can be dated to the same period. Some components of the pottery from Giali may also suggest a late LN occupation horizon.266 The Kalythies cave is the most meticulously studied site of the Neolithic period in this region and provides us with useful insights into the economy of this era. The presence of predominantly sheep and goat bones in equal proportions makes the subsistence practices attested in this cave similar to those seen at Zas cave on Naxos and Skoteini cave on Euboea.267 Cavanagh proposes that the animal bones indicate a small-scale animal herding specialization,268 but Halstead argues for a “meat” strategy rather than for an emphasis on dairy and wool products.269 Nonetheless, both scholars agree that the Kalythies cave, along with the aforementioned caves, were located in marginal areas. Although this cave is situated on a large rocky inland hill, it is 200 m from two plains to its north and west, both of which are more than 1 km2 in

area. It is uncertain to what extent these areas were cleared, but the region was relatively fertile and cultivated, as the archeobotanical evidence suggests.270 Most of the Neolithic sites known in the Dodecanese belong to the FN phase. The preference for hill locations, either coastal or near the coast, is proposed for both the Aegean islands and western Anatolia in this period and the EBA. One needs to remember, however, that while almost all the plains on both medium and small islands are by the coast, the size of the islands means that the coast is always relatively close. On Karpathos almost all of the sites are located on hills in promontories on the south side of the island, the most fertile region. A few instances of inland hill sites have also been noted.271 The sites of Vouno and Damatria by the southeastern coast are located 300 m apart, but their limited finds do not permit a clear definition of their relationship.272 Another site is located on a hill in a small plain in the central part of the island near the coast, but no sites have been reported in the mountainous parts of central and northern Karpathos. The active role of the coastal sites in the exchange network of the FN Aegean may be suggested by the quantities of imported obsidian, primarily from Melos and secondarily from Giali.273 The Melian type probably arrived via northern Crete, or both varieties may have been imported from Rhodes. At least four sites yielded single or a few pieces of Melian obsidian found without any pottery in their surroundings. On Saria and Kasos the FN sites are located on hills, slopes, or plateaus near the coast.274 On both islands, they are found in the northern, most fertile areas, although Kasos has good anchorage in its southern part; its north-oriented settlement pattern differs from that of nearby Karpathos. The sites Tou Phridiou Tanephama, Kato Vounara, and Poli are all set on inland hills at the edge or within the valley. All three are almost evenly spaced ca. 800 m apart, located 900 m to 1 km south of the coast. This settlement arrangement resembles that of sites around Vrokastro and Kavousi in the northern part of East Crete, not far from Kasos. On Rhodes a large number of prehistoric sites have been identified,275 but of these only about 15 can be securely attributed to the Neolithic period. Most of these belong to the FN period and are located in the eastern part of the island, on hills

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

either on or near the coast. They are mainly concentrated in the areas of Kalythies, Archangelos, and Koukoumia-Yennadi.276 The first area consists of the Kalythies cave and Tou Italou I Spilia cave, both on a high inland hill more than 2 km from the coast. Chronologically, Kalythies cave was occupied from LN I to FN I, while Tou Italou I Spilia was used only in FN II, suggesting that the use of the latter started after the abandonment of the first. In the second area, which is a hilly infertile region southeast of Archangelos, a concentration of seven FN sites has been found. The site of Anagros lay 2 km from the coast on the Archangelos plain. The others are located on hill slopes 400 m or less from the coast. Five of these sites are caves that could have been used as either permanent or seasonal activity areas. The fact that they were used during the same phases and were located not more than 700 m from each other argues for a seasonal use. Limani Papakonstanti is situated ca. 400 m southwest and Laftira ca. 800 m northeast of the Archangelos caves. Thus, a dense group of sites was found in this infertile area, suggesting that these places had a special use, possibly for animal keeping, fishing, and/or burial. The presence of a system of satellite sites, with Anagros as the main settlement, may be hypothesized on the basis of the current evidence.277 It is important to note that the colonization of this region and the exploitation of its resources on a permanent and/or seasonal basis started in the FN period rather than in the EBA. In the third area around Koukoumia-Yennadi, two sites were set on promontories, and another one was located ca. 400 m from the coast on a hill slope. Sampson argues that sites close to the sea were clearly favored,278 but the alluviation process does not allow the identification of settlements in the plains. The preference for occupation in the southeastern part of Rhodes has been attributed to the protection that this coastal area enjoys from the northern winds of the Aegean Sea.279 Nonetheless, a series of Cycladic coastal sites, such as Ftelia on Mykonos, Grotta on Naxos, and Saliagos, were situated on the north side of the islands despite the powerful winds. On Chalki and Alimnia, the two islands closest to Rhodes, the FN sites are situated on or near the southern coastal areas close to small plains.280 Their southern regions offered the best anchorage, as was

169

also the case on Rhodes. In the same area, the Hagioi Theodoroi islet, the smaller islet to its east, and Hagios Antonios produced positive evidence for possible seasonal use.281 On Simi the earliest finds belong to the LN and possibly FN site of Panormitis at the southern end of the island; the Neolithic phase at Seskli islet remains unconfirmed.282 This site is set on a coastal hill in a natural harbor adjacent to limited but relatively good arable land. While the finds from Charkadio cave on Tilos have not been thoroughly published, it is clear that the use of this cave started in the FN period.283 On Nisyros three sites can be dated to the FN period, all located in the northern part of the island surrounding Mandraki.284 Nisyros does not have large plains or good harbors for protection from strong northern winds. The sites are all set on low inland hills and hill slopes in fertile areas no more than 500 m from the sea. These small-sized settlements appear to have been located close to each other, with Dhali being ca. 300 m from Zotikou and Krios ca. 500 m northeast of Zotikou. Unfortunately, the limited pottery finds do not allow us to determine whether or not the sites were contemporary. The number of small settlements in close proximity and in some distance from the coast suggests a similarity to the settlement pattern of Kasos. The location of several small sites in close proximity is also evident on Giali.285 The small size of the island and its hilly character meant that most sites were necessarily set on hill slopes on or near the coast. Most sites appear to be 400 to 500 m apart and may have been contemporary or at least were used in the same FN phase. Like the one excavated example, these sites may all represent farmsteads that were isolated and/or clustered, depending on their relative dates. The use of small islets such as Pyrgoussa, Kandeloussa, Pacheia, and Strongyli, which surround Giali and Nisyros,286 and possibly Syrna, close to Astypalaia,287 in the Neolithic may have been seasonal rather than permanent. Nevertheless, their occupation, along with the evidence from Rhodes and smaller nearby islands, confirms that in the FN period there was an exploitation of the landscape and seascape. The presence of obsidian from Giali and Melos suggests that exchange and fishing may have been some of the activities of the people visiting these islets, connecting the communities of Nisyros,

170

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Giali, and southern Kos with Astypalaia and the eastern Cyclades. The case of Astypalaia is confusing as a number of sites of uncertain date have been recognized on this island. Most of these are coastal sites, apart from the Kastro tou Hagiou Ioannou, which is situated on a hill near the sea. Hope Simpson and Lazenby recognize a pottery type that they attribute to the EB I.288 Sampson, however, dates these sites to the FN I and II phases.289 Possibly the earliest occupation started in the FN and continued into the EBA, but further finds are needed to substantiate the dating of these sites. On Kalymnos cave sites predominate, with LN–FN Choiromandres and LN–FN Hagia Varvara located inland by the eastern and western edges, respectively, of the Pothia valley.290 In the smaller Vathy valley, the Daskalio cave, located by the coast, appears to have been used during the LN and FN periods,291 while in the Vathy valley, in an inland plain area, an open-air FN site has been found.292 Inland sites and caves appear to have been preferred during the Neolithic period on Kalymnos. A different pattern is found on Leros, where four late FN sites were located on promontories.293 Two are located by the wide eastern gulf and its small plain, and two more are situated by the Partheni bay in the northern part of the island. The latter area has limited arable land, and the two promontories are just 300 to 400 m apart. North of Leros, no Neolithic site has been identified in the limited research that has taken place so far. Research in the Dodecanese reveals a varied pattern of Neolithic site locations. The use of caves, well attested on Rhodes and Kalymnos, is one important component of this pattern.294 The character of the cave occupations may have been open, seasonal, semipermanent, or permanent, with the first two options appearing most likely. In addition, four broad types of settings were favored for habitation in the FN period, some having clear socioeconomic orientations. The first is the preference for coastal locations, very often promontories offering protection from the winds as well as good anchorage. In almost all cases these locations are on hills that provide good visibility as well as some sense of security. All the coastal sites on Karpathos, the sites in the Koukoumia-Yennadi area on Rhodes, and all the sites of Leros belong to this category. The main concern at these sites

was for access to a natural harbor and good agricultural land. The second settlement pattern is characterized by the location of sites on inland hills surrounded by a valley. Good visibility and security appear to have been important factors in choosing these places as well. The three main sites on Kasos, the Kremos Tis Kipou and Tripes on Karpathos, Anagros and the Kalythies caves on Rhodes, the sites on Nisyros, and the Choiromandres caves and Hagia Varvara cave on Kalymnos belong to this settlement pattern. The third pattern is marked by a preference for lowland sites within a valley, like Vathy on Kalymnos; its distance from the coast is unknown. The fourth landscape setting was one of marginal locations in infertile regions. There is considerable variation in these settings, which included the four Archangelos caves on Rhodes and the Daskalio cave on Kalymnos, all of which were located on the coast or very close to it. Other such examples have been found on small infertile islands such as Saria, Chalki, Alimnia, and Giali, as well as islets around Chalki-Alimnia and Giali-Nisyros. There are also marginal open-air sites located by the coast, for example Limani Papakonstanti on Rhodes, Panormitis on Simi, and the Partheni coastal sites, and others that were set on hills in inland regions near the coast, such as Amoua, Phaneromeni, and Vrisi on Kasos. Although their permanent or seasonal use cannot be deduced from the present evidence, seasonal occupation seems more likely. The contrast between this fourth setting and the first three, which were all situated in areas with immediate access to coastal plains and good arable land, is noteworthy. Finally, the proximity of settlements that were contemporaneous or of the same phase is important. The sites at Kasos were located ca. 800 m apart, while Vouno and Damatria on Karpathos were just 300 m from each other. The distances between sites were 400–800 m at Archangelos, 300–500 m at Nisyros, and 400–500 m at Giali, while the Partheni promontory sites on Leros were 300–400 m apart. These clusters were found in both fertile and marginal, a common settlement pattern areas and have been observed on six islands. Parallels have also been noted on Crete and possibly on Kea and Melos, all of which are roughly contemporary in date.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

Kos and the Halasarna Survey Project In Chapter 1 a number of prehistoric sites were identified across Kos. FN horizons are evident at least eight of them: Hagios Phokas hill, Troulli, Askloupi, Tsilimpiri, Mesaria, Kastro Palaiopyli, Aspri Petra cave, and Hagios Theologos north, and yet another may be present at Vouno (Map 8).295 All of these sites display a number of similar characteristics in regard to their location, suggesting that the FN inhabitants shared common concerns. Most of the sites are located on inland hills with easy or immediate access to plains and fertile arable land. Mesaria, however, is located on the plain rather than on a hill, while Hagios Phokas hill is relatively close to the coast. Furthermore, the latter site and the Aspri Petra cave are located in marginal agricultural areas. All the FN sites are well spaced in the landscape, at least 2 km apart, and with the exception of Mesaria they are located on higher ground, with good views over the surrounding landscape and secure, defensible positions. An analysis of their potsherd scatters suggests that the Aspri Petra cave and Hagios Theologos north are rather small in size, 0.1 ha or less, while three sites are 0.4–0.5 ha and three more are 1.1–1.8 ha. Nevertheless, two important factors should be taken into account in regard to these measurements: first, all of the sites were used for more than one period, and we do not know their sizes for each period, and second, the postdepositional conditions, e.g., hill erosion and later cultivation, may have affected their preservation. The case of Mesaria requires special comment. My chance discovery of the site underlines the research bias that exists among researchers in focusing upon hills with strategic positions as the best candidates for the discovery of prehistoric sites. There are very limited parallels for a site with Mesaria’s characteristics among the other known contemporary Aegean island sites. In fact, one has to look to the plains of Crete to find a similar location for settlements, as seen in the cases of the Mesara valley and the Vathy site on Kalymnos. The HSP was conducted in the south-central part of Kos, in the second largest plain of the island and its surrounding hills. The only prehistoric sites known in this area prior to the survey were two of Mycenaean date. The previous observations regarding the location of FN sites on Kos may be

171

tested by the distribution of Neolithic sites in this region, as well as by that of contemporary sites in the Aegean islands, Crete, and mainland Greece. The earliest site in the Halasarna region is Koutlousi, occupied from the MN late period onward. Koutounis Hill, situated 600 m southwest of Koutlousi, dates to LN I–II, as does Tsangaris, situated ca. 900 m away from Koutounis Hill. Although cheese pots have been identified at other sites, these are assigned to the FN rather than to an earlier period. Already by FN I a settlement pattern with broad parallels seems to have emerged in this region. Koutlousi and Koutounis Hill were located quite close to one another, not unlike the FN examples in the Berbati-Limnes region on the mainland, Crete, Kea, Melos, and several Dodecanesian islands, as well as the EN–FN sites in Boeotia. In FN I Nerantzia was founded 300 m northeast of Koutlousi, Koutounis was established 300 m southwest of Koutounis Hill, and Koukos was founded ca. 1.8 km southwest of Tsangaris. A diagnostic sherd of FN date found at site K.17.15 may attest to its use in this phase. This locality lies on the Halasarna plain, 1.5 km southeast of Nerantzia and Koutlousi and very close to the present coastline. A small site, K.09.89, 300 m southwest of Koutlousi and 300 m southeast of Koutounis Hill, may also have been founded in the FN period, but its dating is based on a single Melian obsidian blade. The character of this site is unclear, but only a limited number of sherds were found, and the presence of Melian obsidian suggests a possible dependence on Koutlousi. At two more sites, K.14.03 and K.09.68, the chipped stone tools suggest occupation during the Neolithic period, but their identification is rather tentative. A preliminary examination of the prehistoric material from ancient Halasarna, ca. 1 km east of Koukos, reveals the presence of an obsidian flake from Melos that may belong to the Neolithic period. Although the topography of hill slopes and lowland areas is more complex than the two-dimensional image of distances between sites, the distances between most of the FN sites are very close indeed. The settlement pattern in the FN is chronologically well determined, and several key elements can be identified. First, all the Neolithic sites are located on inland hills, either on the tops or on slopes, with a good view over the valley, following the MN

172

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

trend initiated at Koutlousi (Map 6). They are found 1.0 to 1.5 km from the present coast, except for Koukos and ancient Halasarna, which are 800 m and 100 m north of the sea, respectively. The concern for security, good visibility, and the defensible character of the sites is clear. The preference for inland locations far from the coast suggests that danger was expected from the sea rather than from inland areas. The limited occupation of coastal sites except in the case of K.17.15 may highlight concerns about security, well known from most Aegean islands, Crete, and the Dodecanese, Kasos and Nisyros especially. Second, these sites are situated at the edge of the Halasarna plain with immediate access to good agricultural lands also seen at MN Koutlousi. There are also other advantages to these locations, including the protection they provide from seven local streams that overflow in the winter when heavy rainfall occurs. At the same time these sites also have access to the Antimachia plateau, which is ideal for animal grazing. A similar settlement pattern can be seen among earlier and contemporary western Anatolian sites and contemporary settlements found in the Vrokastro and Kavousi surveys on Crete. Sites were located in areas with roughly similar landscape characteristics, i.e., mediumsized fertile coastal plains, crowned by low hills. This observation would suggest parallel social, economic, and political conditions in these regions, common concerns for security, and similar responses to such challenges. Third, between Nerantzia and Koutounis, which are located 1.2 km from each other, four or five FN sites lie close together, only 300 to 600 m apart. The proximity of all these sites suggests the presence of a clustered community, if not a single settlement, beginning in the FN period. It is possible that sites like Koutounis and Koutounis Hill had a very close relationship, as suggested by similarities in their pottery. The Koutounis Hill site may have served as a tool-knapping center for both sites. The clustered community character could be proposed for Koutlousi and K.09.49, which is definitely part of the Koutlousi settlement, and possibly K.09.89 with Koutlousi. A close parallel to these examples is the case of Eleona ca. 1 km northeast, where two clusters ca. 150 m apart, identified on two slopes divided by a small gully, may be assigned to the broader FN–EBA period. The close proximity

of Koutlousi and Nerantzia in particular strongly suggests cooperation and possibly interdependence rather than competition. These two sites do not seem to be part of the same settlement, but they could represent distinct kin groups with close family ties, created through intermarriage, that helped to sustain longevity and continuity. Parallels for such close site proximity are known from the Thespiai area in Boeotia, the Berbati-Limnes area in the Argolid, and in the Aegean islands, mainly on Crete, Kea, Melos, Kasos, southern Karpathos, the Archangelos area on Rhodes, Nisyros, Giali, and the Partheni region on Leros. Fourth, the size of the Halasarna sites differs, suggesting the existence of a possible three-tier settlement hierarchy in the FN period, if not earlier. The presence of farmsteads and/or activity areas like that seen at K.17.15 and possibly some of the sites with datable chipped stone tools shows that short-lived settlements of small size had already begun to be used in the FN phase. A similar FN pattern can be found in the plains of Thespiai and Tanagra in eastern Boeotia, but in this region such small sites were situated close to rivers and streams,296 and a two-tier hierarchy of larger and smaller sites can be observed on Kea as well. It appears that Tsangaris, Koutounis, Koutounis Hill, and possibly K.09.89 had small areas of 0.1 to 0.25 ha. The evidence from Koukos is not conclusive, but the diagnostic Neolithic finds were concentrated in a small area similar to that of the above sites, although sherds of nondiagnostic fabrics, seemingly EBA in character, were spread across a wider area. At Nerantzia the Neolithic diagnostic sherds were also concentrated in a smaller area than the overall scatter, but its size is greater than 0.3 ha, suggesting that it was one of the larger settlements in the region. The most clearly defined picture of Neolithic occupation comes from Koutlousi, where the scatter of Neolithic sherds covering all of the Koutlousi Upper Hill area, 0.45 ha in total, indicating that this was the largest site of this period in the Halasarna region. The presence of two clusters at Koutlousi, K.09.50 and K.09.49, indicates that this settlement was not continuous but had distinct clusters, very close to each other. The relationship of Koutlousi and Nerantzia, two large sites that were also very close to one another, cannot be easily explained since they had both common and individual pottery traits.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

Other sites with dense occupation have been recovered elsewhere in the Dodecanese, as discussed above. Nonetheless, in these regions the settlements are found in marginal areas and are short-lived, unlike those in the Halasarna area, which were close to good arable lands and remained in use for a long time. A dense settlement pattern characterizes the central part, not the whole of the Halasarna region, and it is unprecedented in the Neolithic settlement pattern seen in other parts

173

of Kos. Therefore, it should not be considered the typical settlement pattern of the island in the FN; it appears instead to have been just one of the settlement strategies employed in this phase. The same may be said for the presence of small farmsteads. Overall, most of the Koan Neolithic sites belong to the second type of landscape settings seen among settlements in the Dodecanese, i.e., those situated on inland hills or hill slopes within or at the edges of coastal plains, with exceptions as noted earlier.

Late and Final Neolithic Discussion The comparison of LN and FN settlement patterns in mainland Greece, western Anatolia, and the Aegean islands presented earlier revealed both similarities and differences both among and within these regions. Four characteristics were recognized in southern mainland Greek FN sites that are consistent with the evidence from the Aegean islands: small site size, short-lived site occupation, an increasing preference for marginal locations including caves, and an increasing number of sites. A more detailed analysis of the Dodecanese has resulted in the identification of four site landscape settings and their subvarieties in this region: locations on promontories, inland hills, lowland valleys, and marginal locations in infertile areas. Although these setting types are broad in character and more will no doubt be recognized in the future, they seem to be applicable to sites from all the Aegean islands. Further subvarieties can be recognized on a wider scale, for example, diverse marginal locations such as that of Zas cave, which was located on an inland mountain, and inland hill sites in infertile areas far from the coast, such as Praisos and other sites on Crete. The diachronic development of settlements in the Aegean islands through the Neolithic phases suggests an increase from the EN to the MN period, and rapid increases in both the LN and FN periods. The same trend is evident in Crete. In the Peloponnese, however, the rapid increase of settlements began only in the FN, while in central Greece a different pattern, one that was characterized by the progressive increase in the number of settlements from the EN onward, is evident. The popularity and long use of caves has been demonstrated in all insular subregions of the Aegean.

Johnson uses examples from southern Greece and the Aegean islands to suggest that lowland caves with good water resources located near arable land date to the EN and MN, while highland caves in more marginal landscapes came into use later in the LN and FN.297 He does not discuss several important caves from the islands that do not conform to this trend, however. The Cave of the Cyclops, used from the EN to the LN, was in a lowland area with rather limited arable land close to the sea. The Hagio Gala cave on Chios and the Aspri Petra cave on Kos are located in inland marginal regions, relatively close to the sea (ca. 1 km); the first was occupied in the Late EN to LN periods, the latter possibly in the MN and LN/FN. Furthermore, the caves in the Archangelos area on Rhodes and Daskalio cave on Kalymnos were located in lowland areas by the coast in marginal agricultural regions. The setting of Kalythies cave, which was occupied during the MN–FN I periods, is closer to the earlier locational type that Johnson proposes.298 Thus, his hypothesis is not watertight or consistently applicable to the Aegean islands. Caves appear to have been used frequently in insular environments from the Mesolithic period through all phases of the Neolithic. Nonetheless, they were not equally popular in all insular areas, for example on Kythera and in the Cyclades they comprise only ca. 5% of all Neolithic sites, a proportion similar to that seen in central Greece. In the Dodecanese and the northern Aegean islands they constitute ca. 17% to 24% of the total, respectively, closer to the frequency of caves in the Peloponnese, excluding Laconia. In Crete and Laconia the use of caves appears to have been even more common. It is possible that caves in Crete and the Dodecanese

174

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

were popular because they functioned as storerooms for protecting agricultural produce from the weather; this is the hottest part of the Aegean, especially in the summer months. The use of marginal areas for habitations of permanent, semipermanent, or seasonal character is largely a LN/FN phenomenon in mainland Greece. Nonetheless, the same cannot be argued for the Aegean islands, where all EN and MN sites, excluding those of Crete and possibly Kalythies cave on Rhodes, were situated in marginal areas. The Cave of the Cyclops on Youra, Hagios Petros at Kyra Panagia, Tou Papa To Choma on Skyros, Hagio Gala cave on Chios, Kerame on Ikaria, Sikinos, and possibly Aspri Petra cave on Kos exemplify the preference for marginal locations. The use of such sites continued in the LN and intensified in the FN period, when small, infertile islands and islets were inhabited in the Argo-Saronic Gulf, the Cyclades, the Northern Sporades, and the Dodecanese (Table 4). The preference for these locations has also been observed in the Paleolithic Northern Sporades, Melos, Gavdos, and possibly Skyros, as well as the Mesolithic Northern Sporades, Ikaria, Kythnos, and possibly Skyros. It appears that the islanders knew their island topography, with all its limitations and possibilities, very well from an early period onward, and that they always tried to maximize the benefits from the exploitation of their environment. Within this broad framework of settlement location described above, some sites or areas diverge or have additional characteristics. Most LN and FN settlements across the Aegean islands appear to have been short-lived, with those on Kos being conspicuous exceptions. The settlements are far from each other, more like those in southern Greece, but in specific areas dense settlements patterns with sites less than 1 km apart and often as close as 200 m are attested. If these sites were contemporary, then it is more likely that there was cooperation between them rather than competition over the local resources. Settlements with a smaller satellite site nearby have also been found on Crete, Kea, and Lemnos, while clustered settlements have been noted on Crete and in the case of Koutlousi on Kos. The possible three-tier settlement hierarchy noted in the Halasarna area on Kos and the two-tier hierarchies on Crete and Kea seen

in the FN period may have also existed in other contemporary insular contexts. The interaction between sites, islands, and regions is another issue of considerable importance. I have argued that the core area for the use of Giali obsidian encompassed Kos, Giali, Pacheia, Pyrgoussa, Nisyros, Tilos, and possibly Kalymnos, Pserimos, Simi, and Seskli.299 In the rest of the Dodecanese large quantities of Giali obsidian are present, but Melian obsidian was more abundantly represented and was recovered at far more sites. Thus, two different exchange networks, possibly interrelated to some extent, were active. Interestingly enough, a similar picture can be seen in the preference for andesite and volcanic rock as raw materials for stone tools. Both types of stone come from the Giali-Nisyros area and were extensively used at Kos, Giali, Nisyros, Tilos, and possibly Kalymnos. The overlapping use of Giali obsidian and stone tools of volcanic origin on some islands is clear and strongly suggests that there were common practices in the production and/or use of chipped and ground stone tools. From the area just outlined, the Neolithic pottery tradition of the Halasarna and Giali sites is the only one that is well represented. There are clear similarities in pottery between these neighboring areas that might presumably have been shared with the rest of the islands described above. Common techniques of pottery production, such as the use of quartz, mica, and straw as temper in the clay, are indeed found in all the Dodecanesian islands. This practice is rather distinctive and has also been observed in several FN coastal sites in eastern Crete, arguing for a shared tradition of pottery making in the wider southeastern Aegean. In pottery style the Halasarna sites find close parallels with contemporary Rhodes, Samos, Chios, Mykonos, and Saliagos, and more limited similarities with Anatolia. Although communities clearly interacted through exchange, the choice of locations on hilltops, knolls, and hill slopes attests to security concerns. As sites in both coastal and inland areas display this preoccupation, it may be argued that the danger came not only from the sea, but also from the neighbors. This trend in locational choices has been observed across the Aegean islands regardless of their size, and the strategy appears to have been successful for maintaining security. There are cases,

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN

however, where additional measures were taken, i.e., the erection of fortifications in LN and FN Thessaly, FN western Macedonia, FN Attica, and at a few sites in hilly locations in southern Crete. At the southern Aegean sites the danger appears to have been local, rather than coming from the sea, in an environment in which communities competed for limited local resources. The case of Strophilas on Andros is more ambiguous, as there the danger could have come either from the sea or from the neighbors. Threats from the sea might be proposed for Saliagos and Emporio, but the character of their so-called fortifications is far from clear. The FN settlement expansion in southern Greece, Crete, and the Aegean islands may have been related to the introduction of the plow and the use of

175

secondary products associated with pastoralism.300 In the same period the first evidence of limited olive cultivation appears in southern Greece, Boeotia, the Argolid, and western Crete.301 The palynological evidence for the use of the olive comes from lake environments on the Greek mainland rather than in the Aegean islands, where such environments are rare or absent. It may be supposed that a similar development was underway on the Aegean islands in the FN, but this remains to be confirmed. In the same period metallurgical activities and metal artifacts were produced and circulated in modest yet noticeable quantities across the Aegean. All of these innovations would have contributed to the complexity of the socioeconomic conditions experienced by communities of the FN period.

Chapter 11 Endnotes 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

Tsountas 1898, 1899. Atkinson et al. 1904. Renfrew 1972. Evans and Renfrew 1968; Coleman 1977; Overbeck 1989; Sotirakopoulou 1999; Wilson 1999; Sampson 2002; Marangou et al., eds., 2006; Renfrew et al., eds., 2007. Doumas 1977. Zervos 1957; MacGillivray 1979; Doumas 1984, 2000, 2002; Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 1987b; Renfrew 1991; Zimmermann 1993; Getz-Gentle 1996, 2001; Karantzali 1996; Fitton 1999; Rambach 2000; Sherratt 2000; Sotirakopoulou 2005. Torrence 1986. Ekschmitt 1986; Barber 1987. Thimme, ed., 1977; Davis and Cherry, eds., 1979; Rougement and Rougement 1983; Fitton, ed., 1984; MacGillivray and Barber, eds., 1984; Marangou, ed., 1990; Brodie et al., eds., 2008. Renfrew and Wagstaff, eds., 1982; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991; Érard-Cerceau et al. 1993. Broodbank 2000a. Sampson 1987, 1988b. Melas 1985; Georgiadis 2003. Buchholz and Althaus 1982. Davis 1992; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001. Kokkorou-Alevra and Kopanias, eds., forthcoming. Lamb 1936; Milojčić 1961; Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976; Coldstream and Huxley 1972; Walter and Felten 1981; Hood 1981–1982; Efstratiou 1985; Felsch 1988; Sampson 2008a. Parlama 1984.

19. Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997. 20. Beaumont and Archontidou-Argyri 1999; Broodbank 1999b; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2003; Bevan and Conolly 2008; Paspalas and Gregory 2009. 21. Sampson 2006. 22. Alram-Stern 1996; Maran 1998. 23. Cherry 1981, 1985, 1990. 24. Patton 1996. 25. Broodbank 2000a. 26. Meriç 1982. 27. Thompson 2007. 28. Lambrianides and Spencer 2008. 29. Düring 2008, 34–37, table 4, fig. 3. 30. Tuncel 2008. 31. Patton 1996, fig. 3.3; Broodbank 2000a, fig. 27. 32. Bintliff 1977, 12; van Andel and Shackleton 1982, 446; van Andel 1989, 736; Lambeck 1996, 588; Whittaker 1998, 18. 33. van Andel and Shackleton 1982, 450; Lambeck 1996, 601. 34. Runnels 1995, 708–711; 2001, 256–257; Gowlett 1999, 49–50; Runnels and Murray 2001, 14–19; Strasser et al. 2010. 35. Runnels 1995, 711–714; 2001, 256–257; Gowlett 1999, 50–54; Runnels and Murray 2001, 19–20. 36. Kavvadias 1984, 23; Kourtessi-Philippakis 1999, 282. 37. Dousougli 1999. 38. Faklaris 1990, 121, fig. 67:5. 39. Sampson 1998, 18–20; 2006, 18–19; 2008a, 180–181, 183–185. 40. Theocharis 1959, 323–325; Cherry 1981, 44.

176 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE Broodbank 2006, 204–205; 2008, 51. Sampson 2006, 19. Sampson 1988b, 210, fig. 86β:33–35. Runnels 1995, 714–719; 2001, 256–257; Runnels and Murray 2001, 25–26. Matthews 2007, 27–28. van Andel 1989, 737; Runnels 1995, 720; Broodbank 1999a, 20; 2006, 208. Kardulias and Runnels 1995, 87–88. Runnels 1995, 715; Kourtessi-Philippakis 1999, 283–284. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Weisgerber 1996, 89; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 83. Charisis et al. 2000, 86. Kourtessi-Philippakis 1999, 284–286. Sampson 2006, 22. Andreikos 1998, 87, fig. 16. Lambeck 1996, 607. Kopacka and Mantzanas 2009. Strasser et al. 2010. Mortensen 2008. Mortensen 2008. Strasser et al. 2010, 150. Cherry 1990, 158–165; Broodbank and Strasser 1991; Efstratiou et al. 2004, 47; Broodbank 2006, 212. van der Geer, Dermitzakis, and de Vos 2005, 122, 127; Masseti 2008, 6–7. Simmons 1991, 865–866; 1998, 238–239; KatsarouTzeveleki and Sampson 2006, 89. Marinos and Symeonidis 1977, 355–356; Chatzivasiliou 1990, 17; Watrous 2001, 161; Masseti 2003, 53; 2008, 6–7; Mavridis 2003, 65, fig. 6.1; van der Geer, Dermitzakis, and de Vos 2005, 122–127. Broodbank 2000a, 113. Mavridis 2003, 70–71; van der Geer, Dermitzakis, and de Vos 2005, 122, 127. Runnels 1995, 710. Contra Broodbank 2006, 209–211. Galanidou and Perlès 2003, eds., 30; Sampson 2008a, 209. Runnels 1995, 719–726; 2001, 256–257; Perlès 2001, 22, 24–25; Runnels and Murray 2001, 39; Özdoğan 2007, 20. Runnels 1995, 719. Runnels 1995, 719–721. Honea 1975, 278. Cherry 1979, 25–32. Sampson 1996, 48; 1998, 18–21; 2006, 27–35; 2008a, 184, 199–200; Runnels 2001, 257. Sampson 1996, 48–51; 2004, 313–315; 2006, 39–43; 2008b; Kaczanowska and Kozlowski 2006, 75–78. Sampson 2006, 37–38. Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003; Mylona 2003; Powell 2003; Sampson, Kozlowski, and Kaczanowska 2003, 127,

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

table 9.1; Kaczanowska and Kozlowski 2006, 78–80; 2008, 170–172, table 8.1; Sampson 2006, 34, fig. 24; Poulianos 2008. Sampson 2006, 27, 35. Sampson 2006, 43–44. Kaczanowska and Kozlowski 2006, 80–81. Strasser et al. 2010. Simmons 1991, 1998; Patton 1996, 69–70; Steel 2004, 25–32; Katsarou-Tzeveleki and Sampson 2006, 89–90. Broodbank 2000a, 123, 125. Perlès 2001, 22, 24–25; Özdoğan 2007, 20; Düring 2008, 18. Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 5–6. Demoule and Perlès 1993, 365; Perlès 2001, 60–61. Cherry 1979, 32–37. Bintliff 1977, 120–121, 539. Cherry 1981, 58. Evans 1964, 140–142; Broodbank 1992 contra Perlès 2001, 68. Efstratiou et al. 2004, 43–45. Efstratiou et al. 2004, 48; contra Broodbank and Strasser 1991. Cherry 1990, 161; Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 207–208; Watrous 2001, 162. Tomkins, Day, and Kilikoglou 2004, 54–57. Sampson 2006, 44, 118–119; 2008a, 200. Sampson 2006, 170, figs. 145, 146. Theocharis 1959; Efstratiou 1985, 94; Sampson 2006, 122–123. Erdoğu 2003, 16; Sampson 2006, 118. Erdoğu 2003, 15–16. Hood 1981–1982, 76–77. Theocharis 1959, 317–322; Evans 1964, 219–225; Sampson 2006, 118–119, 122–123; 2008a, 200. Cherry 1990, 168; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 83. Watrous 2001, 162. Efstratiou 1985, 84; Katsarou-Tzeveleki 2006; Sampson 2006, 118. Sampson 1987, 42–43; 2006, 221. Levi 1925–1926, 302, pl. 19:1, 11; Sampson 1987, 42. Düring 2008, 19. Sampson 2006, 123–124. Çilingiroğlou et al. 2004, 20–47, 66, appendix. Erdoğu 2003, 13, fig. 1; Çilingiroğlou et al. 2004, 41. Eslick 1992, 67–71. Thompson 2007, 91–92, table 2. Erdoğu 2003, 13. Erdoğu 2003, 13. Contra Broodbank 2006, 217. Bintliff 1977; Cherry 1979, 32, 37; 1981; 1990.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN 117. Sampson 1996, 1998, 2006; Sampson, Kozlowski, and Kaczanowska 2003. 118. Sampson 1987, 1988b, 2002. 119. Halstead 1994, 210–211. 120. Mee 1999, 67. 121. Wright et al. 1990, 608–609; Alcock 1991, 458. 122. Cavanagh 2004, 169–176. 123. Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 200–201. 124. Cavanagh 2004, 183. 125. Erdoğu 2003, fig. 1. 126. Demoule and Perlès 1993, 388; van Andel and Runnels 1995, 497, fig. 10; Johnson 1996b, 268. 127. Gallis 1992, 223. 128. Grammenos 1997, 276–279. 129. Andreou, Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 1996, 572–573. 130. Demoule and Perlès 1993, 388, 399; Sampson 1997, chart 54; Phelps 2004; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, 131, 171; Konecny et al. 2008; Pullen 2008, 20–21; Cavanagh 2009, 57. 131. Cavanagh 1999, 31, 50. 132. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999; Cavanagh 1999, 58; Mee 1999, 67; Krathopoulou 2000, 15; Mee and Cavanagh 2000, 103, 107; Davis 2004. 133. Demoule and Perlès 1993, 399; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999, 159; Cavanagh 1999, 51; Whitelaw 2000, 138. 134. Gallis 1992, charts 6, 11. 135. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999, 159; 2007, 131. 136. Mee 1999, 68. 137. Mee and Cavanagh 2000, 104. 138. Cavanagh 1999, 31; Mee and James 2000, 162; Whitelaw 2000, 151. 139. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999, 149. 140. Gallis 1992, chart 15. 141. Demoule and Perlès 1993, 399; Halstead 1996, 21; 2000, 117; Pullen 2008, 21. 142. Gallis 1992, 238; Andreou, Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 1996, 559. 143. Cavanagh 1999, 34–45; Mee 2001, 5–6, table 1.2; Johnson 2004, fig. 7. 144. Wright et al. 1990, 608–609; Alcock 1991, 458; Cavanagh 1999, 46; Johnson 2004, fig. 7. 145. Gallis 1992, 232, chart 7; Demoule and Perlès 1993, 400. 146. Tsountas [1908] 2000; Aslanis 1998, 110; Kouka 2008, 272. 147. Pantelidou-Gofa 2000, 87; Apostolopoulou-Kakavoyanni 2001, 19; Georgiadis 2010, 23. 148. Halstead, ed., 2000, 115; Johnson 2004; 2006–2007. 149. Halstead 1996, 26–27; Cavanagh 1999, 37–38. 150. Cunningham and Driessen 2004, 104. 151. van Andel and Runnels 1987, 75–76; Cavanagh 1999, 52; Halstead, ed., 2000, 119.

177

152. Johnson 1996a, 66–68; 2004, 49; Cavanagh 1999, 31, 40; Mee and Cavanagh 2005, 6. 153. Halstead 1996, 21; Cavanagh 1999, 52, 56. 154. Halstead 1996, 31–33. 155. Halstead, ed., 2000, 121. 156. van Andel and Runnels 1987, 70–73; Johnson 1996b, 282–283. 157. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, 171, fig. 9.2. 158. Bintliff et al. 2006, 666, 671–672; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, 131, 171, fig. 9.2. 159. Cavanagh 1999, 54. 160. Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009, table 2.1. 161. Johnson 1996a, 37; Cavanagh 1999, 32, 41. 162. Johnson 1996a, 65–66. 163. Johnson 1996a, 66. 164. Mee 2001, fig. 1.6. 165. Bintliff et al. 2006, 666, fig. 3. 166. Phelps 2004, cf. maps 1–3 with 4; Georgiadis 2010, 20, 23, cf. maps 3, 4. 167. Watrous 1982, 9–10, map 4; Manteli 1996, 134; Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 207–208, fig. 60; Branigan 1999, 64; Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999, 224–228; Driessen 2001, table 4.1; Nowicki 2002, 16–53; Hayden 2003a, 36–39; Watrous and HadziVallianou 2004, 221. 168. Nowicki 2002, 11–15. 169. Branigan 1999, 65; Nowicki 2002, 69. 170. Nowicki 2002; Hayden 2003b, table 2. 171. Watrous and Hadzi-Vallianou 2004, 224. 172. Haggis 1996; Hayden 2003a, 2003b, 2005. 173. Watrous 1982, 9–10, map 4. 174. Haggis et al. 2007, 668. 175. Hayden 2003b, 386. 176. Nowicki 1999, 579; 2002, 71; Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999, 227; Hayden 2003a, 38–39; 2003b, 380. 177. Hayden 2003b, 381. 178. Nowicki 2002; Hayden 2003b, 2005. 179. Nowicki 2002; Hayden 2003b. 180. Nowicki 2002, 38–40. 181. Webb and Frankel 2004, 133–134. 182. Nowicki 1999, 579–580; 2002, 71. 183. Hayden 2003b, 382. 184. Hayden 2003b, 389–390, 395. 185. Nowicki 2002, 68; Hayden 2003b, 395. 186. Watrous et al. 1993, 223. 187. Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 207–208. 188. Moody, Rackham, and Rapp 1996, 286; Watrous 2001, 218. 189. Nowicki 2002. 190. Çilingiroğlou et al. 2004, 18–20. 191. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962; Joukowsky 1986.

178 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236.

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE Sperling 1976; Takaoğlu 2006, 291–292. Joukowsky 1986, 434–437; Eslick 1992, 71–74, 79. French 2008, 198. Erkanal 1999, 238; 2008, 180. Tuncel 2008, 582–583. Şahoğlu 2008, 484–485. Voigtländer 1983, 12; 1986, 621; Greaves 2002, 40–43. Meriç 1982, 40–41. Berti 1993, 190. Thompson 2007, 92, table 2. Yakar 1985, 103. Davis 1992, 723; Malamidou and Papadopoulos 1993, 566; Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2008, 427–431. Katsaros 2006, 34, figs. 67, 69; Sampson 2006, 137, 165. Hood 1981–1982. Felsch 1988. Hood 1981–1982, 93, fig. 51; Aslanis 1998, 111. Spencer 1995, index 2, fig. 2. Sampson 2008a, 179–185, 200–201. Mari 2001. Evans and Renfrew 1968. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 81, fig. 11, pl. 10b; Aslanis 1998, 111. Evans and Renfrew 1968, 75, fig. 1; Broodbank 2000a, 123; Sampson 2006, 201; F. Mavridis, pers. comm. Hadjianastasiou 1988. Zachos 1987, 1999. Sampson 2002; 2006, 173–184. Belmont and Renfrew 1964, 395–396; Evans and Renfrew 1968, 74. Sampson 2002, 174. Sampson 2002, 175. Sotirakopoulou 1999, 87–91; 2008a, 133. Marangou 2002, 7–9. Koutsoukou 1993, 100–101. Sampson 2006, 200–201. Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260. Bevan and Conolly 2008. Broodbank 2000a, 146. Broodbank 2000a, 147–148. Sampson 2008a, 201. F. Mavridis, pers. comm.; Sotirakopoulou 2008a, 133. Mari 2001. Theocharis 1973, map 5:14, 15; Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2008, 427. Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 200, fig. 60. Dova 1997, 2003. Bernabó-Brea 1964–1976; Tiné 1997a. Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 459–460, fig. 5. Dova 2008, 145.

237. Spencer 1995, index 2, fig. 2; Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 451–453; Lambrianides and Spencer 1997b, 88–89. 238. Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 206, fig. 60; Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 453; Lambrianides and Spencer 1997b, 90. 239. Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, 204, fig. 60. 240. Merousis 2002, 55–57, 63. 241. Merousis 2002, 57, 84. 242. Katsaros 2006, 28–32. 243. Walter and Felten 1981, 10; Pullen 1985, 213–214; Felten 1986, 21. 244. Kyrou 1990, 236–237. 245. Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260, fig. 9a. 246. Broodbank 1999b, 210–211; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2003. 247. Bevan and Conolly 2008. 248. Koutsoukou 1993, 101–102; Televantou 2006, 185. 249. Broodbank 2000a, 123; Televantou 2006, 185. 250. Televantou 2006, 2008. 251. Whitelaw 1991, 207. 252. Sutton et al. 1991, 101. 253. Whitelaw 1991, 214. 254. Wilson 1999, 6–19. 255. Coleman 1977, 158. 256. Cherry 1982a, fig. 2.2; Cherry and Torrence 1982, 24–26, table 3.1; 1984; Bintliff 2000, 7–8. 257. Mee and Cavanagh 2005, 5. 258. Hekman 1994, 64, fig. 8. 259. Gropengiesser 1987, 34, 44; Broodbank 2000a, 123. 260. Overbeck 1989, 5, no. 1. 261. Sampson 2006, 172–175, 200. 262. Sampson 1987, 85–86, 92–95; 1988b, 230–232 contra Sampson 2006, 230, 232, 234–235. 263. Benzi 2008, 88–93. 264. Sampson 1987, 105–106. 265. Melas 1985, 36–37. 266. Sampson 1988b, 2006. 267. Halstead and Jones 1987, 140–141; Halstead, ed., 2000, 121. 268. Cavanagh 1999, 31. 269. Halstead, ed., 2000, 120–121. 270. Halstead and Jones 1987, 144; Sarpaki 1987. 271. Melas 1985, 156; Sampson 1987, 107–108. 272. Melas 1985, 31–32. 273. Georgiadis 2008b, 110, table 1. 274. Melas 1985, 45–50. 275. Sampson 1987, 96–105, pl. 27. 276. Sampson 1987, figs. 132, 134, 139. 277. Sampson 1987, 76–77. 278. Sampson 1987, 120.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE PRE-NEOLITHIC AND NEOLTHIC AEGEAN 279. Sampson 1987, 122. 280. Sampson 1987, 79–86, 106–107, 113–115; Melas 1988, 304–307. 281. Sampson 2006, 243. 282. Sampson 1987, 105–106; Melas 1988, 296–297. 283. Sampson 1987, 115; F. Mavridis, pers. comm. 284. Melas 1988, 290–292. 285. Sampson 1987, 108–109; 1988b. 286. Sampson 1988b, 252; 2006, 242–243. 287. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 169. 288. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 163, 167. 289. Sampson 1987, chart 28. 290. Benzi 2008, 85.

291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296.

297. 298. 299. 300. 301.

179

Levi 1925–1926. Burton Brown 1947. Sampson 1987, 87–95, 110–111, fig. 149. Sampson 2004. Georgiadis 2008a, 229. Bintliff et al. 2006, 666, 671–672; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, 129–131, 171, figs. 9.1a–9.2, table 10.1. Johnson 1996b, 281–282. Johnson 1996b, 281. Georgiadis 2008b, 111. Johnson 1996b, 273, 286–287. Johnson 2004, 41–43, 49.

12

Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns

In this chapter I present an overview of the archaeological evidence for EBA settlement patterns in the Aegean using the same regional groupings described in the previous chapter. I begin with a consideration of developments in southern mainland Greece and then move on to Crete, western Anatolia, the Aegean island groups north and

west of the Dodecanese, and the Dodecanesian islands other than Kos. Finally, I consider settlement developments on Kos and within the Halasarna survey area, and I conclude with a discussion of the socioeconomic implications of changing settlement patterns throughout the Aegean in the EBA.

Southern Mainland Greece The onset of the EBA witnessed both continuities and changes in settlement patterns relative to the FN period (for the dating of important sites across the EBA Aegean, see Table 2). Similarities are evident in the size of the settlements, which remained small, and in a few areas there was continuity in use of the same site from the FN to the EBA, for example at Nemea.1 Moreover, the occupation of marginal locations in the landscape, which followed the FN trend, continued across southern Greece during this period,2 although there was a clear decline in the number of caves used

throughout southern Greece in the EBA. The four LN/FN settlement characteristics discussed in Chapter 11 remain generally applicable in the EBA, but transformations, such as the dramatic increase in the number of settlements across the landscape in most surveyed regions, are equally noticeable. This trend appears to have begun in the FN/EH I phase, but an accurate dating for Methana, BerbatiLimnes, the southern Argolid, and Boeotia is difficult on the basis of the pottery evidence. Around Nemea, Laconia, and possibly Pylos the increase seems to have started in EH II,3 at which time a

182

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

decrease in the number of settlements may be observed in the vicinities of Berbati-Limnes and Asea.4 The preference for locating large EBA centers on hilltops, close to good agricultural land, has been substantiated from the surveys in Laconia, the southern Argolid, Methana, and Boeotia.5 In the EBA the evidence for settlement hierarchy is clearer than it was in the Neolithic. Some sites apparently acted as regional centers and were surrounded by smaller satellites, as observed in the surveys in the Methana area and Laconia. In the southern Argolid a three-tier hierarchy of site sizes has been noted, while in the Argive plain a four-tier division has been proposed.6 Diverse patterns may be seen within a single region, however. At Laconia, for instance, a nucleation of settlements is evident in the lowland Eurotas valley sites, while in the hinterland sites were relatively scattered across the landscape, although clusters of small sites have been found in the Chrysapha area.7 Near Methana sites are close to good arable land and had access to the sea, with small sites clustering around larger ones.8 A territoriality analysis of EH sites from Laconia and Methana has suggested that population increased the number and/or size of settlements, but social, political, and territorial restraints placed limits upon settlement growth.9 Settlement sizes remained small in the EH period, according to the data from the surveys conducted in the Peloponnese. Most were between 0.1 and 0.2 ha in area, although there were several medium-sized sites of 0.3–0.9 ha, and a few exceeded 1.0 ha in size.10 Central sites separated from one another by distances of 10 to 20 km and surrounded by settlement clusters have been noted in the Argolid.11 Nonetheless, outside the surveyed areas larger sites such as those found at Tiryns, Eutresis, Thebes, and Manika are well known.12 The increase of settlements seen in most southern Greek regions is further attested in Thessaly, where site sizes became even larger.13 The same preference for occupation in hilly areas rather than lowland locations is also evident.14 In central and eastern Macedonia, however, there was a small decrease in the number of EBA sites, most of which had been first occupied in Neolithic times.15 Socioeconomic complexity developed distinctively in EBA southern Greece, culminating in the

earliest onset of urbanization in Greece. Konsola has clearly outlined the important elements of proto-urbanism that appeared in this period.16 One of these was the appearance of clay seals and sealings in the Peloponnese and eastern central Greece, suggesting the development of a local administration concerned with surplus management and the presence of social differentiation among individuals.17 Another was the erection of fortification walls at EH II Lerna, Zagani hill, Thebes, Vagia, and possibly Askitario, Raphina, Perachora, Vassa, Manika, and Amarynthos.18 Such fortifications were constructed earlier in Thessaly, Attica, Crete, and even the Cyclades, possibly as a response to land competition rather than as an expression of elite display.19 Moreover, imposing buildings of probable administrative character, such as the corridor houses and the Rundbau in the Peloponnese and eastern central Greece, were built in the same phase.20 Although the EH II subsistence economy was based on the same small-scale, mixed agropastoral regime attested in previous periods,21 agricultural production may have intensified with the use of the plow, animal manure, and woollier breeds of sheep, along with the intensification of the cultivation of the olive tree and the vine.22 Metalworking and the circulation of metal items also increased considerably throughout the Aegean during the EBA.23 In EH III there appears to have been a sharp decline in the number of sites in regions including Laconia, Nemea, Berbati-Limnes, the southern Argolid, and Methana.24 The certainty of this phenomenon, however, is compromised by an important methodological issue, i.e., the difficulty of recognizing EH III sherds in surveys. The fact that many EH II sites were occupied in MH times calls into question the supposed EH III hiatus.25 Thus, theories linking the destructions of EH III to migrations have recently been questioned on basis of the pottery problems and instances of settlement continuity.26 Although soil erosion resulting from anthropogenic activities27 and climate change have also been proposed as explanations for settlement changes, these factors cannot constitute an interregional explanation even if they played an important role in some areas.28

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

183

Crete A large number of Cretan sites have been dated to the FN/EM I period because it is still difficult to separate these phases through diagnostic pottery. Nevertheless, a number of surveys have shown that there was a definite increase in the number of settlements across Crete over the course of the EBA.29 In a few areas such as Hagiopharango, Kommos, and Petras/Photia the number of sites remained unchanged in the FN and the EBA, and in others, e.g., Hagios Vasilios, Lasithi, Praisos, and Ziros, a decrease in EBA settlements has been noted.30 There was a clear decline in the number of settlements in the inland mountainous areas, and those remaining stayed the same size, with no apparent trend toward nucleation.31 This general pattern of increase of sites in the lowland areas and decrease in the mountainous regions is evident in the results from all coastal and inland surveys. Within this broad picture, diverse patterns of development are evident. In the Vrokastro region, the EM I sites were three times as numerous as in FN times, with a significant increase around the plain area followed by one in the inland region.32 The sites tended to be very close to each other, from 350 m to ca. 1 km. The defensive system seen in the FN period remained as important as before, while intervisibility between sites increased in EM I, and 65% of the sites were no more than 1 km from the coast.33 In some areas, settlements increased even more in EM II than they had in EM I,34 but in the EM IIA phase the number of settlements slightly decreased, more notably in the coastal areas, suggesting a limited nucleation process.35 The Lasithi inland plain experienced a decrease in sites between the FN/EM I and the EM II–III periods, from 15 sites to five.36 All the later sites were, however, larger than those of FN/EM I date, suggesting that a nucleation of some type had taken place in this area rather than abandonment. Moreover, four out of the five sites were new ones situated on the edge of the plain on hilltops, with more defensible locations. It is interesting to note that the location of sites in the EM period at Lasithi resembled the earlier FN settlement pattern.

The preference for settlement in areas near the coast does not necessarily equate completely with participation in exchange networks. As mentioned in the discussion of the FN in the previous chapter, the fertile plains on Crete are by the coast rather than inland. Hence, the movement to the coastal regions may have had more than one purpose, to occupy fertile areas as well as to gain easier access to short- or long-distance sea travel. The absence of any post–EM I sites at Praisos37 and the abandonment of most caves38 exemplify further changes in settlement patterns across Crete. The general increase in the number of settlements across Crete has been attributed to immigrants in view of the Cycladic character of the burial offerings at Hagia Photia. This site, along with its finds, however, is unique on Crete, and it is almost impossible to generalize from it to the rest of such a large and diverse island. Watrous provides an alternative hypothesis, however, suggesting that in the FN/EM I period there was more reliance on pastoralism, and for that reason more caves and marginal areas were occupied.39 In EM I–IIA a subsistence strategy more balanced between agriculture and animal herding was practiced, a result of changes in plowing and the introduction of new crops. Nonetheless, olive tree cultivation had already appeared by the FN period, and no evidence supports such a change in the subsistence strategy between these two phases. Watrous’s theory describes the main trends seen on Crete, but there is no positive evidence to claim a reliance on animal herding in FN/EM I or the introduction of the plow in EM II. As in the FN period, most of the sites remained small in size in the EBA, but several important regional centers began to stand out from the rest due to their size. These include the Hagiopharango EM site, Phaistos, Malia, Arkovouni hill, Knossos, and Halepa.40 For Lasithi a two-tier site hierarchy has been proposed,41 while in the western Mesara a three-tier settlement hierarchy appeared during the EM II period, with Phaistos at the center, a few hamlets, and many small sites that were probably

184

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

single farmsteads.42 It is interesting to note that in this period no building with the complexity or size of the corridor houses of mainland Greece are known from Crete.43 Seals have been found in EM II and III contexts at several sites across Crete, but in modest numbers, suggesting a degree of local surplus management as seen in mainland Greece and/or social differentiation among individuals.44 Fortifications were built in a few cases even in rather small settlements such as Myrtos (Phournou Koriphi), which possessed a wall and a tower during the EM IIB phase.45 This fortification links the MM IA walls at Chamaizi and Hagia Photia with the FN fortifications known elsewhere on Crete.46 There are traces of abandonment and destruction at several sites across Crete during the EM III period.47 Unfortunately, there are very few stratified excavation contexts from this period, but a decrease in the number of sites is attested in regional surveys. Whitelaw has proposed a multilinear trajectory hypothesis on the socioeconomic development of

Prepalatial Crete.48 He compares the two welldocumented EM sites at Mochlos and Malia, the first of which is coastal but located in an infertile area, the second also coastal but with a rather fertile hinterland. The wealth of the burial offerings deposited at Mochlos and Malia, along with the impressive EM IIB building found under the 2nd millennium palace at the latter site, underlines their importance in the EM period.49 Yet, at the end of this phase Mochlos declined, while Malia developed into a palatial center. Whitelaw explains this development as the result of socioeconomic choices, with the inhabitants of Mochlos basing their wealth more on exchange and crafts specialization, while the residents of Malia focused on diversification and specialization in agriculture, as did the people of Knossos.50 In the long run the latter choice led to greater stability and allowed further development of those sites having an advantageous agricultural location.

Western Anatolia A number of important western Anatolian sites that were active during the LN/FN period (LCh in Anatolian terms) continued to be occupied in the EBA, including Beycesultan,51 Aphrodisias,52 Ulucak Höyük,53 Miletos,54 Bakla Tepe,55 Liman Tepe,56 and Iasos.57 A number of new EBA sites appeared in the Elmali Plain,58 in inland southwestern Anatolia around Beycesultan,59 in the Troad,60 and in northwestern Anatolia in the region around Yortan.61 In the second half of the EBA in central and western Anatolia, rural sites were increasing in size and becoming more nucleated, while actual urban centers were developing in southeastern Anatolia, indicating different regional developments.62 The largest sites in western Anatolia ranged from 5 to 13 ha in size, and in almost all cases these sites possessed fortification walls.63 In coastal Anatolia new sites appeared, including Troy, which was fortified from the EB I period onward.64 There was a general increase in the number and density of sites in northwestern Anatolia, and many of these were located on mounds in alluvial plains.65 The research in the Madra Çay Delta

region has demonstrated that four or five EBA sites existed in this coastal area culturally close to Lesbos.66 In the Izmir area the Izmir Region Excavation and Research Project located 12 EBA sites in addition to those few sites that were previously known.67 Three settlements from this area were fortified in the EB I period, Bakla Tepe, Kale Tepe, and Liman Tepe.68 The first two sites were located inland on hilltops, while the latter is a coastal site, fortified with round bastions beginning in EB II, much like Lerna.69 At Liman Tepe a large central building has been identified as a corridor house with close parallels in mainland Greece, and a stone stamp seal was recovered as well, suggesting developments parallel with those seen on the southern Greek mainland.70 The LCh sites in the Izmir area tended to be larger than sites of EB I, but in EB II the settlements became larger again and were fortified, although they were fewer in numbers.71 In EB III Liman Tepe became even larger, but it appears to have been the only settlement of this period in the area. In the Maeander valley region there was a general rise in the

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

number of settlements from the LN/FN to the EBA.72 This increase is more evident in the upper and middle part of the valley, and it seems to have amplified from the EB I to the EB III period. In the lower part, closer to the Aegean coast, there was a small increase in EB I and II, but the number of sites decreased from seven in EB II to four in EB III. Other new EBA coastal sites were founded at Müskebi in the Halicarnassus peninsula and at Knidos.73 In general an increase of settlements is observed through the EB I and II phases in most Anatolian regions. The appearance of fortifications in Anatolia began in the EB I phase, at least in its western coastal part, and their frequency increased in the EB II period. At the end of EB II and in EB III early, however, destructions occurred at many Anatolian sites.74 Şahoğlu has proposed that a number of sociocultural changes were introduced from northern Syria to the Aegean via an Anatolian trade network in an east–west movement during the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C.75 This ex oriente lux holistic theory attempts to explain all EBA sociocultural changes as part of a uniform event throughout all these regions. The idea can be

185

substantiated for some attributes of metalworking and pottery techniques and forms, but the similarities extend to only a small proportion of local archaeological assemblages. Moreover, some of the socioeconomic developments of the EBA, such as the construction of fortifications already seen in the LN and FN Aegean, cannot be considered new phenomena. Close scrutiny shows that many Aegean sites lacked most of the characteristic elements described by Şahoğlu, and there are many chronological inconsistencies as well. Efe has proposed that the close interaction observed between Cilicia and the northern Aegean in the Anatolian EB III period came about because of the “Great Caravan Route,”76 a hypothesis of an extensive exchange network established in this phase through which several Anatolian elements were introduced into the Aegean, e.g., the ceramic repertoire of the Kastri and Lefkandi I groups and the introduction of the potter’s wheel.77 Although this hypothesis cannot yet be convincingly demonstrated, it is the most workable theory for the development of cultural interactions, whatever form and character they had.

Aegean Islands North and West of the Dodecanese An important increase in the frequency of settlements took place on the Aegean islands during the EBA. For that reason each regional group, i.e., the islands of the Argo-Saronic Gulf, Kythera and Antikythera, the northern Aegean, and the Cyclades will be presented in their own sections.

Argo-Saronic Gulf Islands, Kythera, and Antikythera The Argo-Saronic Gulf islands experienced developments similar to those underway on the nearby Greek mainland in the EBA. The most prominent EBA settlement in the Saronic Gulf was Kolonna on Aegina, a coastal site that was already occupied in the FN period. The presence of corridor houses, not unlike the ones found on the mainland, and of fortifications, possibly of EH II or EH III date,78 strongly suggests similar sociopolitical

conditions and architectural prototypes. Meanwhile, the number of EBA settlements increased to at least 10 on the islands of Hydra, Dokos, and Spetses, following the trend seen in the southern Argolid.79 Almost all the sites on these islands are located on the coast, suggesting the importance of exchange and contacts with the Greek mainland, relationships that are also exemplified by the use of islets such as Trikeri, Spetsopoula, and others that were even smaller (Table 4).80 The prevalence of exchange is emphasized further by the discovery of a possible EB II shipwreck in the small gulf of Myti Kommeni on Dokos.81 The cargo of this sea vessel attests to the circulation of open vases as well as closed vessels and their contents, obsidian, and other stone tools in EB II late.82 The presence of EBA remains at Velopoula in the western Cyclades suggests a route from the Peloponnese to the Cyclades through Melos for obsidian as well as metal resources.83 From these data it is apparent

186

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

that contacts and exchanges between the mainland and the central Aegean were expanding. Although the Kythera Survey results have not yet been fully published, the preliminary evidence suggest that in EB II there were 37 settlements on this island, 12 of which continued in use from the FN/EB I period.84 These sites appear to be scattered, but they were all found in the inland central plateau of the island, where the survey effort was concentrated. They seem to represent hamlet-sized settlements, closer in character to those of the Peloponnese than to those of Crete.85 Interestingly, although the sites were more numerous, the settlement pattern did not seem to change in relation to the previous phase.86 The size of most sites ranges from 0.1 ha to 0.4 ha; there are five sites with areas of 0.5–1.0 ha, while Kastri appears to have been the largest site (2.3–3.0 ha), suggesting a three-tier settlement hierarchy.87 In middle EB II, the ceramics of Kastri began to develop a very strong Minoan character, and a Cretan colonization has been proposed for this site.88 Minoan influence appears to have spread inland in the EB III period, when many sites were abandoned. Of those that survived, half were new and all of them yielded Minoanizing pottery.89 In addition, from the EM III period onward, there was a shift in settlements from inland areas to the coast or areas near the coast.90 At Antikythera occupation continued in the EB II period, but from the EB III phase onward Cretan influence on the local pottery tradition may be observed.91

Northern Aegean Islands On Thasos, the site of Limenaria continued to be occupied in the EBA,92 and four important new sites appeared at Theologos Kastri, Skala Sotiros,93 Drakotrypa cave, and Hagios Antonios promontory.94 The first is located on a plateau offering natural protection in the southwestern part of the island, while the latter is located on the west coast. Both coastal and inland locations were used for EBA settlements on Thasos. Skala Sotiros is a small site, ca. 0.14 ha in size, that was occupied throughout the EBA and possessed a fortification wall from the EB II period onward.95 The arrangement of buildings within the fortified area is similar to that seen at Lerna IV and Panormos.96 Elsewhere in the

far northern Aegean, Mikro Vouni on Samothrace continued to be occupied in the early part of the EBA,97 at least three EBA sites existed on Imbros (including one dated to EB I at Kastro), and one site dating to the 3rd millennium B.C. is known on Tenedos.98 Myrina, Dermata, and Poliochni on Lemnos continued to be occupied in the EBA. Poliochni was fortified during the EB I phase, but, according to Tiné, the later defensive wall may have functioned more as a terrace wall in the Blue and Green period (EB I–II early), becoming a fortification from the Red period onward (EB II late).99 The site appears to have grown from 0.9 ha in EB I to 1.39 ha in EB II, but Tiné’s population estimate of 800 to 1,320 inhabitants in the latter period may be rather optimistic.100 It is interesting to note the close proximity of Poliochni and Dermata, as well as the fact that they were contemporary in the FN II/EB I and later EBA phases.101 It is also notable that of the four known FN sites, three continued well into the EBA. The island’s topography is characterized by fertile plains and relatively low hills. Thus, it is not surprising that a number of settlements appeared in the EBA period. Twelve of them are coastal sites very near small or large fertile plains, while five more are located on inland hills with immediate access to good arable land.102 The preferred settlement location was thus coastal, mainly on hills and small peninsulas103 that offered some kind of security, or on a site that could be fortified like Poliochni, with immediate access to good agricultural land. The inland sites on hills were located at the edges of fertile plains. Hence, security and access to farm land were the main criteria in the choice of settlement location on Lemnos. The end of EBA is unclear; at Poliochni and Koukos there was an EB III horizon,104 while Myrina and many other EB sites were destroyed or abandoned at the end of EB II.105 The best studied site on prehistoric Lesbos is the EB settlement of Thermi, excavated by Lamb.106 The five phases of its occupation suggest that it was occupied in EB I and II and fortified in phases IIIA and V of those periods; in the latter phase its fortifications resembled those of Red Poliochni.107 The size of the settlement varied from 0.3 to 0.6 ha in area, but taking into consideration the fact that part of it has eroded, it may have been as

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

large as 1.5 ha. Even so, Kouka’s claim for 400 individuals occupying 0.55 ha in Thermi V appears to be rather high.108 Outside Thermi there seems to have been a dramatic increase in the number of sites, with more than 50 possibly dating to the EBA.109 The settlements were mainly concentrated on the east coast of the island and around the Gulf of Kalloni in coastal and inland locations.110 Although the sites on or near the coast predominated, there were also several inland sites located on low hills.111 It has been suggested that a denser settlement pattern is associated with the more fertile plain of the island around the Gulf of Kalloni.112 Gerontakou and Avgerinou suggest that Kourtir was the largest site and was part of a hierarchical settlement system, evidence of proto-urbanism on Lesbos.113 Just north of the Gulf of Kalloni, eight sites have been found at distances of ca. 700 m to more than 1 km apart, very close to the local stream. In the northwestern part of the island a similar settlement density is apparent in a group of nine sites, but the land is considerably less fertile in this area. Here, the sites are 0.7–2.0 km apart and are concentrated close to the sea and in the small plains. This group of settlements does not support Gerontakou and Avgerinou’s claim regarding a direct correlation between site density and fertile land. The FN settlement pattern of the Archangelos coastal area on Rhodes is similar and is associated with pastoral activities. On Chios the site of Emporio continued in use after the FN period, while a number of new EBA sites appeared across Chios, with a large concentration in the southwestern part of the island.114 Of the 12 definite EBA sites and seven other possible ones that belong to this period, half are coastal in setting, located either on hills or on promontories. The remaining sites were preferentially located on inland hills with immediate access to small or medium plains, mainly in the southwestern part of Chios. Special note should be made of two sites, Olimpoi-Petranos and Olimpoi-Tripanos, which are ca. 500 m apart. An EBA settlement in the area of Archontiki on Psara extended onto parts of the Daskaleio islet, which may have been connected with the island in that period.115 On Samos the only EBA finds come from the Heraion, which was located on a plain at the southern part of the island close to the sea. It was occupied from EB II onward, but excavations

187

have not reached the deepest layers due to the high water deposits. At the Heraion a fortification wall and a tower that appear to date to the earlier part of the EBA have been found.116 At Ikaria a number of sites have been identified as Neolithic/EBA, with the finds from Glaredo definitely showing continuity from the LN to the EBA.117 Hagios Petros, Kephala on Skiathos, and the islet of Mikro Kokkiniokastro off Alonissos have also produced some evidence of EBA use.118 On Skyros 11 sites, some founded in EB I but most in EB II, have been identified.119 Most of these sites are concentrated along the fertile coastal plain along the central eastern part of the island where Skyros town lies. On the northeast coast of the island lies the site of Palamari, with occupation spanning from the late EB II to the MBA; it measures ca. 1.7 ha in area, but parts of the site must have eroded.120 Several seals and sealings were recovered from EBA Palamari,121 and it possessed a strong fortification wall, built in EB II late, with many horseshoe-shaped bastions extending along the northwest and southwest part of the site, its most vulnerable side.122 Interestingly, in front of the main wall two smaller parallel walls protected the site, and beyond them there was a deep ditch. Just in front of them large stone boulders made access difficult, suggesting the existence of several defense zones.123 Palamari has the best documented and most complicated fortification system in the EBA Aegean, illustrating a considerable degree of engineering skill and ingenuity in the security measures taken, as well as the sophistication of contemporary warfare, from the perspective of both defenders and attackers. The site was destroyed at the end of EB II and reoccupied in EB III by a new population from the northeastern Aegean, according to the excavators.124 In EB III, apart from Palamari, Tou Papa to Choma was the only other site occupied on Skyros. Elsewhere in the Northern Sporades there is limited evidence of EBA occupation at Psathoura and the Cave of the Cyclops.125

The Cyclades The Cyclades are the best studied islands in the Aegean, and there is considerable information about the EBA in this region. The only site that was

188

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

occupied from the FN period to the EBA without a hiatus appears to have been Zas cave on Naxos and possibly Strophilas on Andros.126 There was, however, a phenomenal increase in the number of new settlements, and many cemeteries have also been found.127 In the EC I, or the Grotta-Pelos phase, settlements and cemeteries tended to be small and short-lived, representing farmsteads of one or two families, and they were widely dispersed in the landscape over both large and small areas of arable land.128 There was a wide colonization of small islands and islets at this time. In the EC II period, or Keros-Syros phase, the settlement characteristics of EC I remained largely unchanged,129 but on some islands there was a further increase in the scale of settlement. Many sites appear to have undergone several rebuilding phases, suggesting greater longevity, and a small number of settlements were larger than the rest.130 Three cultural attributes of this period suggest that important sociopolitical changes, parallel to those seen on the Greek mainland, Crete, and in the northern Aegean islands, were taking place. The first is the presence in limited numbers of seals and sealings, attesting to a degree of local administration and surplus management. The second is the social importance of the longboat and its symbolic significance as a mode of interaction and social status within the community.131 The third is the appearance of fortification walls in various settlements across the Cyclades. Conditions appear to have changed once again in EC III, when a large number of settlements ceased to be used, some having been abandoned and others destroyed.132 Andros is an exception to the scenario described above, as the number of settlements on this island decreased from the FN to the EC period. Koutsoukou identified only one EC I site south of Gavrio, while six FN sites were found in the area surveyed.133 Additionally, limited EC I sherds have been recovered at Strophilas in the southern part of the island.134 It would be interesting to know the extent to which the fortification at Strophilas was used in the EC I period. Future research might lead to the discovery of more EC sites. The survey of northern Kea has provided qualitative and quantitative data regarding the EC settlement pattern on this island. Of the previous FN sites only Hagia Eirene was occupied, following a

hiatus in use. In the EC II period the site measured slightly less than 1 ha in size, representing a village of probably 150–300 people.135 At the same time a large number of new sites were established, all EC II in date.136 These sites, such as sites 1, 3, 8, 12, and 37, are small in size, ranging from 0.08 to 0.13 ha. They tend to be near the coast, with Hagia Eirene being the only one directly on the coast. The distances between the settlements range from 400 to 700 m. Most are situated in marginal areas with limited agricultural land. The systematic survey of Melos has provided a broader picture of the EC period on this island. At least 14 sites were used in the EC I phase, of which some continued in EC II, when a total of 12 EC II sites appeared.137 It is interesting to note that there were 11 EC III sites across the island, suggesting only a limited decrease in this period, unlike the situation on most of the other Cycladic islands.138 Additional EC sites that cannot be accurately dated have been identified, however, and this may affect the accuracy of current site totals for each period. The settlements are small and dispersed across the island,139 with a preference for coastal and nearcoastal locations rather than inland areas. Phylakopi is the most prominent of the BA sites on Melos, and it was occupied beginning in the EC II period.140 Probably in a late phase of EC III, Phylakopi may have been reoccupied after a hiatus, and at this time its size was ca. 1.8 ha, with an estimated population of 360–540 people.141 On Syros the sites of EC I date appear to have been newly founded rather than continuing from the FN. The number of settlements clearly increased relative to the previous period. Coastal locations, mainly in marginal areas, were preferred. Two sites in the southeast were located ca. 500 m apart.142 Inland sites tended to be set on low hilltops with immediate access to either small or large plains. Interestingly, all EC I sites continued to be occupied in the EC II period, when 18 more sites appeared across the island.143 The distribution of settlements on Syros in this phase appears to have been more balanced, with an increased number of inland sites, although sites on or near the coast were still the majority. Sites tended to be closer together, ca. 500 m to 1 km apart, mostly in marginal locations. The cemetery at Chalandriani, very close to Kastri, has produced the largest number of EC tombs yet found at a

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

single site, indicating the presence of a very large settlement, one that was located in an area with rather limited arable land.144 From this cemetery comes the largest collection of frying pans with longboat depictions, objects that expressed the high status of the deceased as well as that of the settlement.145 A large settlement, more than 1 ha in size, has been identified in the modern village of Chalandriani.146 At Kastri in EC II late, or the Kastri phase, a fortification wall with horseshoeshaped bastions was erected with a smaller protective wall in front of it.147 Also in this period there was a widespread abandonment of settlements and cemeteries, with only three sites found in the northern part of the island including Kastri and Chalandriani, and there was a further decline in the EC III period when only two sites remained occupied.148 The scarce evidence from Mykonos suggests that this island also witnessed an increase in settlements in the EC period. It is not clear when this growth took place, but the evidence from about 11 sites suggests that most of them were coastal or near the coast, with the exception of Palaikastro, which was located on an inland hill. This was the only site with evidence of Neolithic occupation.149 The sites tend to be concentrated on the south and east coast of the island, close to small or larger plains. On Paros sites tend to be located on hills that were inland or near the coast, adjacent to large coastal plains or smaller ones in the more inland areas.150 There is a concentration of coastal sites with immediate access to good land of small and medium size at Kastro at Paroikia and in the south part of the island, however. Koukounaries, which had LN and FN horizons, was reoccupied after a hiatus in the EC II period.151 Most of the sites appeared in EC I late and some in the EC II period. Kastro seems to be the only site that was definitely occupied in EC III. A number of EC sites, most of which consist of cemeteries, have been reported on Naxos. These sites, however, cannot provide reliable information about the settlement pattern of this period.152 Zas cave, where some clay sealings have been recovered, is the only Neolithic site that continued in use in the EC period.153 Nonetheless, it can be argued from the finds from cemeteries and other small sites that most of these were occupied in EC I, and

189

several more were founded in the EC II phase. Coastal or near-coastal locations were preferred to the inland ones, while and there was a larger concentration of sites in the southern part of the island. The small survey conducted in the northwest revealed 10 possible EC sites, both settlements and cemeteries.154 All the sites are coastal or close to the sea, situated on the plain or on gentle slopes, and they are small in size and very close to each other with distances ranging from 200 to 500 m.155 Grotta-Aplomata appears to have been a substantial settlement, but extensive erosion caused by the sea has prevented a better assessment of its extent. The Aplomata cemetery is one of the richest in marble artifacts, suggesting that it belonged to a large thriving settlement.156 Another important site is Panormos, found on a hill near the coast in the southeastern part of the island. This is a rather small fortified site, ca. 0.025 ha, with round bastions that seem to belong to a single building dating to the late phase of EC II. Survey and surface collection on Amorgos have revealed a very dense settlement pattern for the EC period.157 Some new sites were founded in EC I, but more appeared in EC II, situated on inland hills across the island. In the north sites are found around the Aigiali bay, but the largest concentration of sites occurs in the southern part of Amorgos. Most sites in the south are found around the Katapola bay, which is the most fertile part of the island and has the best anchorage. The rest of the sites are scattered southwest of the Katapola region. The density of occupation was high, with sites located just 150 m to 1 km apart. The beststudied EC site on the island is Markiani, which was located on an inland hill and occupied from EC I until the end of EC II. It covered an area of 0.3 ha, with an estimated population of ca. 60–75 individuals.158 This site is important because it has provided solid evidence of the effects of erosion and artifact dispersal in an island environment, as well as of the effects of anthropogenic activity.159 This site had a fortification wall with horseshoeshaped bastions and a second thinner outer protective wall.160 The wall appears to have been constructed in the EC I period, while the bastion was built in EC II.161 Seals and sealings were used in this small settlement in the EC II period.162 Evidence of EC use has been found on all medium-sized Cycladic islands, but most of these

190

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

islands have not been studied thoroughly, and it is difficult to reconstruct their settlement patterns.163 The site of Akrotiri on Thera, however, appears to represent a substantial settlement of EC II–III early date.164 On the islands of Kythnos and Siphnos, both rich in copper resources, EC sites have been found relatively close to the ores, suggesting that the mineral resources were already being exploited.165 On Kythnos many EC sites at which metal smelting was taking place have been identified within protected areas near the coast, but they appear to have been used for industrial activities rather than for permanent habitation, with one possible exception.166 An EC II late–III early settlement on Mt. Kynthos on Delos was situated on the highest hill on the island in an inland location and possessed a fortification wall with bastions for protection, the entire site including the enclosure was 0.04 ha in size.167 An important settlement Skarkos on Ios is currently under study; this site, which occupied an inland hill and covered an area of 1.1 ha, may have had a population of 200–300 individuals.168 The organizational complexity of this settlement may be attested by the presence of two-story buildings and sealings.169 During the EC period a number of smaller islands and islets, such as Makronissos, Despotiko, Antiparos, Ano Kouphonisi, Kato Kouphonisi, Schoinousa, and Christiana, were used on a permanent or seasonal basis.170 Special reference should be made to the EC II coastal settlement at Daskaleio-Kavos on the small barren island of Keros, which yielded rich deposits of Cycladic figurines.171 This site is disproportionally large for its marginal location, which had no access to good agricultural land. Almost half of the pottery appears to have been imported, possibly from other Cycladic islands.172 Throughout the Cyclades, a significant increase in settlement began in EC I, without any evidence of continuity from the FN. An exception may be found in the case of Andros, but its divergence from this pattern may be partly explained by the limited research conducted on this island. On some islands EC I was the main period of colonization, as a number of small sites appeared on islands such as Paros, Naxos, and Melos. On other islands such as Kea, Syros, and Amorgos, the appearance of settlements reached its peak in EC II. Although the EC I sites were small and short-lived, many of

them continued in use in the subsequent phase. In EC II the appearance of a number of larger settlements with areas of 1 ha or more suggests the existence of a two-tier settlement hierarchy on some islands, e.g., Kea, Syros, Naxos, and possibly Ios and Thera. In EC II in particular, diagnostic Cycladic ceramic and stone vessels, figurines, and metal items were distributed as far afield as mainland Greece, coastal western Anatolia, and Crete. Whitelaw has proposed that the development of a prestige goods exchange network led to the rise of larger settlements in the EBA Cyclades.173 This exchange system may have provided an alternative to agriculture as an economic base for Cycladic communities, as also seen in certain Cretan sites such as Mochlos. This economy may be manifested in the symbolic depiction of longboats in Cycladic art. It apparently resulted in the development of hierarchies at a local level, evidenced by the presence of seals and sealings, the investment in burials, and the specialization in craftsmanship.174 It is not surprising that the largest Cycladic settlements in this period are primarily coastal, or located near the coast, as in the case of Kastri. Table 5 outlines the locational preferences shown by the majority of sites on different islands where there is substantial evidence for EC settlement patterns. It is clear that most communities tended to select coastal locations or sites near the coast from which they could participate advantageously in the exchange networks that were active. At the same time, there were other island communities that deviated from this pattern, selecting inland locations for their sites. In this category Paros is perhaps the easiest to comprehend since it possesses relatively extensive lowland areas and its participation in exchange was not as vital as it was for other islands. Both Kea and Amorgos have limited arable land that is located near the coast, and both have a very dense settlement pattern. Security concerns may have been one of the reasons for their preference for locations that were inland or near but not on the coast. Security issues are particularly evident in the case of Markiani, which was already fortified in the EC I period. The nature of these concerns may have varied, however. At Markiani it is difficult to argue convincingly for fears of a sea raid, since the south side of the site, which is closer to the sea, is

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

almost a cliff, while the coast is 2 km away from its north side and not even visible, with many high hills in between. Minoa was close to the sea but unfortified, as the hill upon which it was located was naturally defensible. Hence, tensions among sites on a single island may be reflected at Markiani, and to a greater or lesser extent on all of Amorgos, with a social environment in which a number of sites coexisted in a marginal landscape with limited resources. In such conditions interaction and cooperation may have been as viable a solution as hostility for survival. Not all sites on Amorgos are fortified or are located in defensible places, and often enough they are in close proximity to each other. In these cases interaction and cooperation between the different communities was the main strategy followed. On Paros more sites were located on inland hills with immediate access to good land and good views over land and sea, which would allow for an early warning of a sea raid. It could be argued security concerns on this island centered more on external threats, since there were relatively extensive agricultural resources. Thus, there were less internal tensions over the control and management of the available land. On Kea, which lay in close proximity to Attica, a more sea-oriented settlement pattern might be expected considering the marginal landscape of this island. The preference for inland settlement might have developed from fears of raids from Attica, at least in the northwestern part of the island, rather than from internal conflicts as proposed for Amorgos. The case of Panormos and its fortification is somewhat different; the presence of jars at this site shows that it was used for storage.175 Possibly it was built for the protection of the surplus against sea raiders and/or neighboring competitors. The tensions outlined above, as well as the broader sociopolitical changes at the end of EB II, brought about a number of settlement abandonments and destructions. The EC III period witnessed a rapid decrease in settlements across the Cyclades, where only a few sites managed to survive from the previous period, similar to the situation in southern mainland Greece, Crete, and the northern Aegean islands. Melos, which experienced only a small decrease in sites from EC II to EC III, appears to have been an exception to this pattern. It has been argued that a nucleation process began on

191

this island in EC III with Phylakopi as its center.176 Thus, the inhabitants of Melos effected a different response to the socioeconomic conditions of this period.

The Dodecanese The contrast between the EBA in the Cyclades and the Dodecanese appears striking, but it may arise in part from a lack of research concentrated on the EBA in this region, where most research has focused on the LBA or the Neolithic period. On Karpathos, Kasos, and Saria the EBA horizon is poorly defined in terms of both finds and settlements. The occupation of Leftoporos on Karpathos may have continued from the LN/FN period to the EBA.177 Further possible EB sites have been identified at Mandraki and Vouno,178 while other sites are of uncertain Neolithic or EBA date.179 On Saria the bronze tools from Palatia were most certainly EBA, while a few sherds from Argos, Kato-yi may date to the EBA.180 On Kasos possible EBA sherds come from Amoudiarides, Kato Vounara, Emborios, and Poli,181 while at Ellinokamara EBA finds have been confirmed.182 Melas was unable to determine the local EBA pottery tradition and settlement pattern, as had been possible for the LN and FN phases, due to the fabric similarities between the Neolithic and EBA pottery and the multiperiod character of most of the sites.183 Because of their fabrics, shapes, and decoration, the MM and LM sherds were more easily distinguished from the simpler, less diagnostic, and more limited EBA sherds. While it might be possible to argue for a decrease in settlements and occupation on Karpathos, the evidence from Saria and Kasos, although scanty, strongly suggests the presence of an EBA phase on these islands. Although it is difficult to assess the real character of EBA occupation on these islands, a certain continuity of sites from the Neolithic period can be observed both on Karpathos and Kasos. At Kasos the settlement pattern retained the same character and orientation, with an emphasis on inland hills. Moreover, there are no Cretan elements to suggest Minoan influence in the 3rd millennium as seen on Kythera, even though the Dodecanesian islands just discussed are as close to Crete as Kythera is.

192

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

On Rhodes the picture is not considerably different from the one seen on Karpathos. Prehistoric coarse pottery of uncertain date has been recovered from many sites, most of which were also occupied during the Mycenaean period.184 The bowl rims described from Kalavarda Aniphoro are similar to a rim type recovered at Koukos dated to the EB II period.185 Although Sampson in his review of Rhodes was primarily concerned with the Neolithic period, he has reported at least 29 sites, including most of the ones identified by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, where undiagnostic handmade sherds of either Neolithic or EBA date were present.186 Furthermore, Melas has recognized two additonal sites of Neolithic or EBA date, one of which was also used in the MB III period.187 Although the settlement pattern described by these researchers is unclear and many sites could be of either Neolithic or EBA date, or even both, there was a clear change in the preference for site location between these periods, with a shift from the coastal preference of LN/FN times to more inland sites in the EBA. In fact this may be one of the reasons why EBA evidence has not been widely identified, since recent research has focused on coastal areas. One-third of the known prehistoric sites are coastal, while the majority are located on inland hills close to fertile plains. They are situated across all of Rhodes rather than concentrated on the eastern coast. It is therefore understandable why some were reoccupied during the Mycenaean period, given their wide distribution. The most well-known excavated EBA site on Rhodes is located at Asomatos, situated in a plain area close to the sea. Excavations at this site, which was occupied from EB II late to EB III, have revealed megaronlike houses and important information about their spatial use.188 On Alimnia the same uncertainties of dating have contributed to the elusive nature of the EBA.189 At Chalki, however, three sites have yielded more definitive EBA material, and two of these show evidence of continuity in occupation from the previous period.190 On Simi there is positive evidence of EBA occupation at some sites, offering us an insight into the settlement pattern of this period. Panormitis appears still to have been in use in this period, while a number of new sites appeared across the island.191 On Seskli, an islet just south of

Panormitis, Sampson has identified Neolithic material based on the fabric of the pottery, but during my visit I also identified EBA diagnostic sherds.192 Melas has not published the material from three further sites on Simi labeled on his map as Neolithic and EBA/MBA.193 The sites reveal a clear preference for hills near the coast or coastal locations in close proximity to small areas of arable land. There is a clear orientation of the settlement pattern toward the sea, unlike the situation on Rhodes. At Tilos there is also limited evidence of EBA occupation, with two probable settlements and a definite one, Charkadio cave, which continued in use from the FN period.194 All are located on hills that overlooked large areas and were close to the sea and good agricultural land. On Nisyros two of the sites occupied in the previous period have EBA components, while three possible new sites appeared.195 Settlements were more widespread on the island than in the previous period, with a tendency to be situated on gentle hill slopes close to the coast. Thus, there was a change from a denser settlement pattern with sites clustered in one part of the island to a more widespread distribution of settlement. The location of sites in proximity to good farming land resembles the pattern seen on Simi and possibly Tilos. On Giali the dense FN settlement pattern gave way to a more sparsely populated one. Interestingly, all four sites that were used in the EBA period had FN occupation horizons.196 The concentration of all four sites close to the north part of southwest Giali may represent a nucleation process from the FN to the EBA. Two of the sites are coastal and the other two are close to the coast, with distances of 500 m to 1 km between them. The problems of dating sites on Astypalaia have been discussed in Chapter 11. The sudden increase of settlements on this island (as seen on most of the Cyclades), its proximity to the Cyclades and particularly Amorgos, and the coastal or near-the-coast locations of the sites would argue for an EBA date for this settlement pattern. Some of the sites were probably already occupied in the FN period, but most of them belong to subsequent phases, including the Cycladic-type burial found at Kastro Vayi.197 On Kalymnos the two sites in the Vathy valley continued to be used, while three more appeared in the Pothia and Vathy valleys.198 The two sites at

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Pothia were caves; Hagia Varvara was in an inland location with an easy access to the Pothia plain, and the Choiromandres cave was close to the Pothia plain and port. The new site in the Vathy valley was situated on a low hill close to the Vathy bay with immediate access to the valley. Most of the EBA sites on Kalymnos appear to have been close to the sea, as observed in the previous period and among other contemporary EBA islands. Daskalio cave has provided limited EBA material, but it has yielded important EB III finds that enrich our understanding of this obscure phase.199 Defining the EBA is also difficult in the case of Leros, where four sites have yielded nondiagnostic sherds.200 Along the Hagios Isidoros bay in the western part of the island there are three coastal sites, of which only Hagios Isidoros can be safely dated to the EBA. Another site lies east of the Partherni bay. The orientation of the settlements toward the sea is a phenomenon also attested in the FN period on Leros. There was no continuity, however, in the occupation of the sites; all of the EBA sites were new. Two sites of possible EBA date have been found in the southern part of Patmos, located by the coast and close to limited arable land.201 Kandeloussa provided evidence of use during the FN as well as the EBA.202 Several nondiagnostic sherds have also been recovered on the island of Kastellorizo, suggesting the presence of an occupation close to the sea,203 as well as on the islet of Strongyli204 and at the center of the islet of Pharmakonissi.205 Identifying the EBA in the Dodecanese is not an easy task, and most of the sites described above could also belong to earlier phases. The picture from this region seems more complicated than the one seen in the contemporary Cyclades. Although new sites predominate, several settlements from the previous period continued on Kasos, Simi, Nisyros, Giali, and Kalymnos. On the islands where a settlement pattern can be defined for the FN and the EBA, there appears to have been no significant diachronic divergence. This is evident on Kasos, Nisyros, Giali, Kalymnos, and Leros, where both Neolithic and EBA sites reveal the same locational preferences. The most important exception occurs on Rhodes, where inland locations rather than coastal or near-coastal sites were preferred. In general the communities on small islands and possibly those on Karpathos preferred

193

coastal or near-coastal locations for their settlements, with the residents of Kasos being a notable exception. The present, very limited evidence suggests that there was an increase in sites during the EBA on Kasos, Saria, Simi, Tilos, Nisyros, Kalymnos, Patmos, and most probably Astypalaia. No significant change can be seen on Alimnia, Chalki, and Leros, while a decrease in the number of settlements has been observed on Karpathos and Giali. The decrease on Karpathos cannot be explained on the basis of the present data, but in the case of Giali a nucleation process may be suggested. It is particularly interesting to note that the concentration of settlements in one part of the island is the opposite of the process seen taking place from the FN to the EBA on Nisyros, less than 2 n.m. to the south. Perhaps the changes in settlement pattern were the same response to similar socioeconomic conditions that took place in different periods on these two islands. Thus, the populations of these two neighboring islands responded in analogous ways in different phases. The close ties between the two islands are hardly surprising in view of their proximity and the intermarriage bonds that would have been a necessary means for the survival of both insular populations. On Rhodes there are more sites with nondiagnostic sherds than with diagnostic Neolithic or EBA pottery. Therefore, it is difficult to decide whether there was an increase or decrease in settlements across the island or to determine what their character may have been. Nonetheless, a chronological change in the locational preference for settlements is evident, and it may be attributed to the new socioeconomic conditions of the EBA, for which there is better evidence from mainland Greece and Crete. The use of islets was more limited in the EBA than in the FN period, appearing only on Seskli, Kandeloussa, Strongyli, and Pharmakonissi. Moreover, no fortifications have been reported in the Dodecanese, unlike the situation on large, medium, and small islands elsewhere in the Aegean. The general lack of excavations inevitably limits the assessment of this region. The most extensively investigated sites are Daskalio cave and Asomatos. The first site was excavated in the 1920s and is still not yet fully published, while the latter remains under study and may eventually

194

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

advance our understanding of the EBA in this region. It is difficult to define the degree of interaction between the various Dodecanesian islands, and even more so to understand their relationships with the Cyclades, coastal southwestern Anatolia, the northeastern Aegean, Crete, and mainland Greece. Finally, the EB III phase is represented at only two of the aforementioned excavated sites.

Kos and the Halasarna Survey Project Early Bronze Age Kos is in many respects as exceptional within its Dodecanesian context as it is in broader Aegean perspective. The prehistory of Kos has received less attention than that of Rhodes, yet it has produced more EBA finds (Map 9), in part because diagnostic EBA material from Kos is easier to recognize and has documented parallels from the Cyclades, Samos, Chios, Lesbos, and Troy. A large number of sites have been identified across the island, both settlements and cemeteries,206 distinguishing Kos, possibly along with Astypalaia, from the rest of the Dodecanese. The number of bronze finds and other luxury items found in graves, including a marble bowl and a silver sauceboat,207 suggests that metals were relatively common and that social differentiation was present. The occurrence of silver items in burials is a Cycladic characteristic, one that contrasts with the Cretan and northeastern Aegean preference for gold,208 indicating that Kos may have had closer ties with the Cyclades than with other adjacent regions. Kos experienced a clear increase of settlements from the FN, when eight or nine sites existed, to the EBA, when 22 sites as well as the Hagios Georgios copper ore activity area were in use across the island. At least six other sites belong more generally to the Neolithic and/or EBA,209 not including those discovered in the Halasarna area. Nonetheless, it remains unclear when this change occurred; while most sites have definite EB II finds, the local EB I is virtually unknown. Thus, with the present evidence, an EB II date is proposed for the main increase in settlements, but future research may reveal an earlier date. The most striking element in the development of the EBA settlement pattern on Kos is the fact that eight Neolithic sites, the largest ones with the

possible addition of Vouno, continued to be used in the EBA, possibly without a hiatus. Equally important is that the EBA sites display the same locational preferences observed in the FN. Hilly inland locations with immediate access to good agricultural land were still favored. There are a few sites close to the coast, however, such as those southwest of Hagios Phokas, others in the Kephalos area, Aspri Petra cave, and the site southwest of the Aspri Petra cave. Moreover, coastal sites first appeared in EB II at Hagios Phokas. In EB III most of these sites appear not to have been used, but there is a controversy regarding the dating of the Askloupi, Mesaria, and Tavla burials, which have been placed in either the EB II or in the EB III period.210 More positive evidence comes from Serrayia, a coastal site founded in the EB III phase.211 Its size was ca. 1.1 ha, and it may have had a fortification wall, attesting to the importance of this site and continuing concerns for security in EB III. The overall picture of the settlement pattern on Kos is significantly distorted by the process of alluviation on the northern coastal plain of the island. It is noteworthy that no prehistoric site has been reported north of the main road that connects Kos town with Antimachia, an area roughly 30 km2. The only exceptions are a site at Vouno near Mastichari, which is situated on a hill and not in the plain, and the Mycenaean tholos tomb at Kostaras a few meters north of the main road. It is more than possible that prehistoric sites of all periods existed on the plains, as in the case of Mesaria and the Kostaras tholos tomb. At present, however, the local alluviation obscures the settlement pattern in this region, a situation that is unlikely to change unless sites are found by chance during construction work or other excavations. Some of the settlements on Kos appear to be larger than others, suggesting the existence of a settlement hierarchy. Sites with a single phase of occupation that argue for a definite two-tier settlement hierarchy include smaller sites such as Kastello, the site east of Panagia Tsoukalaria, and the site northwest of Aspri Petra cave, which measure 0.1–0.2 ha in size, and larger sites such as Tsilimpiri, Hagios Ioannis, and Vouno, with areas of 0.4–0.5 ha.212 Such differences in size were already evident in the FN period, especially in the Halasarna area. It has been suggested that Serrayia

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

and a few other sites were more than 1 ha in size,213 but these examples were mainly occupied in later times, and the limited evidence derived from earlier fieldwalking efforts does not present an adequate picture of the EBA. The EBA finds from the HSP (Map 7) have provided enough evidence to address some of the problems raised above. The HSP has emphatically confirmed settlement continuity from the LN and FN periods to the EBA. Of the seven definite and four probable Neolithic sites, at least six were still occupied in the EBA. In fact these sites remained the largest and yielded most of the finds from this period. In addition, the survey has identified 19 new sites of small size, from which a very few sherds and/or chipped stone tools have been recovered. The new sites all have the characteristic prehistoric fabric outlined in Chapter 3—containing quartz, mica, and straw in its consistency—and only six had diagnostic material dated to the EB II or EB II–III periods. Most of them may represent single farmsteads or sites that were seasonal. They tended to be found on hills and on the plain in Halasarna, and it is thus clear that the settlement landscape preferences of the Neolithic period remained constant in the EBA. Among the sites that continued from the previous period, Koutounis Hill, Koutounis, and Tsangaris appear to have had the same settlement sizes, 0.1–0.2 ha, as seen in the Neolithic. The other three settlements that continued from the FN period, however, experienced important internal changes in the EBA. Koukos, which began as a small FN site, is a very interesting case as it appears to have increased considerably in size; the vast majority of its pottery, both diagnostic and nondiagnostic, probably belongs to the EBA period. The settlement seems to have had an area of more than 1 ha, extending onto the southwest part of the hill plateau, parallel to the cliff. It may have been even larger since parts of the southwest cliff have eroded. The site is close to the sea, ca. 650 m away, and at the same time it was well protected from the water by high, almost vertical cliffs. The proximity of Koukos to the sea and its strong defensive position may be the reasons for its expansion in the EBA. Additionally, three small EBA sites very near Koukos, K.29.87, K.29.06, and K.29.58, may have functioned as farmsteads or activity sites closely related to and

195

dependent on this larger site. The site of Tholos, or ancient Halasarna, is located on a lower hill at the end of the same hill chain as Koukos, 850 m to the northeast. This side of the hill affords the only access from the settlement of Koukos to the sea and vice versa. Therefore it could be proposed that Tholos (ancient Halasarna) served as the port of Koukos, a satellite site possibly used in the Neolithic period and more importantly in the EB II–III early phases. Koukos, Tholos (ancient Halasarna), and the three small sites west of Koukos represent a three-tier hierarchical settlement pattern on the southwestern edge of the Halasarna plain. Koutlousi was the largest FN site in the Halasarna area, with two nearby clusters of habitation remains constituting the settlement. This site remained unchanged in its extent during the EBA, when both clusters were still occupied. An outcrop on a lower hill 150 m to the southeast, connected by a thin neck to Koutlousi, was settled in the EB II period, however (Map 4, K.10.61). Between the Koutlousi Upper Hill and Koutlousi Lower Hill no sherds were recovered, suggesting that the latter was another cluster, or a satellite site, belonging to the same settlement. The Lower Hill site has a small plateau, of which ca. 0.05 ha was occupied, and it offered a good defensive position with a clear view over the plain. Koutlousi thus appears to have been a clustered settlement with an area of 0.5 ha in the EBA. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the expansion of Koutlousi is that on the Lower Hill site there was a heavy concentration of diagnostic and nondiagnostic sherds of large jars and pithoi. The ratio of these vessels to thinner-walled vases that may have been used for consumption is 2:1. The discovery of such a concentration of sherds from jars and pithoi is unprecedented in the HSP, and it is proposed that they represent remains from one or more storerooms, as seen in other survey contexts.214 Remains of storage vessels have also been noted in the content of the fortified site at Panormos. The choice of the Koutlousi Lower Hill location for storeroom(s) is difficult to comprehend, however, since it is the most vulnerable area of the settlement and the first that would have been damaged or burned by approaching attackers or even those throwing missile weapons from a distance. This cluster of finds with storage remains

196

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

was intentionally separated from the main settlement, which had direct visual contact with it. These storerooms, possibly used for surplus agricultural produce including olive oil and wine, probably served as a symbol of prestige within or of the community. Unfortunately, it is impossible to infer whether the building presumably located on the lower hill was controlled by or belonged to one family or to the whole community. The latter case has been suggested for the examples of rooms CA and DM at Lerna.215 In the first case, social stratification within the settlement would have existed if there was one particular family with excessive wealth, whose members displayed their success through a kind of seclusion from the rest of the settlement. Such an interpretation has been proposed for the EM IIB Red House–West House unit at Vasiliki, where the buildings, a residence and a storeroom, are attributed to the local chieftain.216 Storage rooms have been noted in domestic contexts at Zygouries in Houses L and D and the House of the Pithoi,217 but the density of the jars and pithoi is not as great as that seen at Koutlousi. Alternatively, the storeroom(s) could have belonged to the community as a whole and might have become a focal point. The storage facility may have exercised a symbolic value in the competition between settlements, and/or it might have represented the central management of agricultural produce. The size of the settlement and the socioeconomic processes observed at Palamari on Skyros would argue for the second hypothesis.218 Still, it is unclear as to who would have had access to the surplus and who controlled it: an individual, a council, or family/kin representatives. Whichever the case, I believe there was clear social stratification, with some individuals and not others having access to these goods. The evidence for the existence of a local metalworking site, i.e., parts of clay furnaces and a clay mold, adds another important variable to our analysis of the complexity of this site and the Halasarna area in general. The FN site of Nerantzia, roughly similar to Koutlousi in size, is located on a neighboring hill 300 m to the northeast. This site also witnessed important changes, possibly taking place in the EB II period. The settlement was located along the southwest side of the hill’s plateau, looking toward Koutlousi. The diagnostic sherds suggest that the

settlement expanded to the south and southeast in EB II, attaining an area of more than 0.6 ha. In this respect the expansion of Nerantzia was closer in scale to the expansion at Koukos, but it was not as dramatic. Most of the central and eastern part of the hill plateau was not occupied, unlike the situation at Koukos. In the same phase as this expansion the small site K.10.34 appeared ca. 200 m southeast of the main settlement on the lowest part of the hill, closer to the plain (Map 4). Modern cultivation and erosion have destroyed this side of the hill, but the few sherds that were recovered suggest an EB II–III early date of use. This small site may have functioned as a satellite of Nerantzia, not unlike Koutlousi Lower Hill in relation to the main, Upper Hill settlement. Although the finds from K.10.34 were limited in number, they had a rather domestic character, and there is no evidence to suggest the presence of storeroom(s) as inferred at Koutlousi Lower Hill. Therefore, at Nerantzia two settlement processes were underway: the expansion of the settlement and the appearance of a satellite site close to the main settlement. Both developments were seen at other sites in the Halasarna area, including Koukos, while at Koutlousi only a satellite site developed. A four-tier settlement hierarchy may be observed in the Halasarna region in the EBA. To the fourth rank belong at least five datable, very small sites, possibly used seasonally or for short-lived permanent habitation, as seen among FN sites as well. In the third rank there were small permanent settlements or hamlets, possibly made up of a few households, with areas of 0.1–0.2 ha. These included Koutounis Hill, Koutounis, Tsangaris, Tholosancient Halasarna, and possibly Eleona and K.11.04. The second rank consisted of mediumsized settlements, i.e., small villages with areas of 0.5–0.7 ha, such as Nerantzia and Koutlousi. To the first rank belongs Koukos, the largest Halasarna site, perhaps a village of 1 ha or more in size, similar to other large sites across the Aegean. The proximity and the relative equality in size of Nerantzia and Koutlousi is surprising (Map 4). Close ties and cooperation between the two sites must have been necessary prerequisites for their long-term coexistence. These two sites could have functioned as a second settlement node in the Halasarna plain, an extended clustered site perhaps, rivaling Koukos in size. If these clustered sites were

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

a center, then several smaller sites, such as Koutounis, Koutounis Hill, and Eleona, may have been clustered around them. The pottery repertoire from Nerantzia and Koutlousi suggests close interaction, but it also reveals some differences, attesting to the presence of at least two different pottery workshops. Furthermore, the quantities and character of the chipped stone, along with the significant difference in materials and shapes of the stone tools, indicate the existence of different knappers and stone workshops at each site. Thus, Koutlousi-Nerantzia may have functioned as a regional center, but each component appears to have been autonomous and self-sufficient at the same time. At the moment there is no thoroughly investigated parallel for these two sites—in terms of size, proximity, finds, and continuity—that might support this interpretation. A similar relationship, on a smaller scale, might be suggested for Koutounis and Koutounis Hill, as well as for the two Eleona clusters. It has been proposed that the settlement pattern of the Neolithic period reflects the structure of the family or kin groups that existed at Halasarna in that era. This hypothesis may also be applicable to the smaller settlements of the EBA, but it is difficult to argue the same for the medium and the large settlements. The expansion of short-lived settlements in EB II, the appearance of new small permanent sites, and the contemporary expansion of the largest three settlements strongly suggest a population increase. None of these elements alone would afford a sufficient basis on which to argue for such a scenario, but their combination cannot be explained otherwise. This population increase may have been the result of a long process beginning in the FN, intensified by possible intra-island population movement. It could also be proposed that the decrease of sites on Giali from the FN to the EBA may represent the movement of some people from a marginal area to the Halasarna region, which was far richer in arable land. The exchange links seen in pottery styles and fabrics, the likely intermarriage between communities, and other socioeconomic bonds may have formed the basis for a limited, peaceful migration. It is clear that complex social relations existed on Kos already in the EBA, and that the socioeconomic developments seen in mainland Greece, Crete, the Cyclades, the northern Aegean islands,

197

and Anatolia affected this region as well. The HSP has elucidated a number of problems regarding the development of settlements in the EBA. Most importantly, it has demonstrated that there was not a single or uniform development in the settlement pattern, i.e., the increase of settlements during the EB I and/or II phase. The expanded colonization of the landscape may have coexisted with other kinds of developments, such as the expansion in the size of earlier settlements. The first may be observed more easily through counting the number of archaeological sites found through extensive and/or intensive surface surveys. The latter needs a more meticulous study of the surface finds—when the preservation of the site allows such research— especially when continuity from the FN to the EBA is attested. It is surprising to see how Nerantzia and Koutlousi, just 300 m apart, expanded in size. Their continuity from FN I and their parallel development through time may have been achieved through cooperation, close ties, and possibly intermarriage rather than conflict. It has been proposed here that together they functioned as a single regional center, with each site retaining a character of its own. The evidence from the Halasarna region shows that settlement expansion can happen in many different ways: colonization of the landscape with small, short-lived sites, simple expansion of the settlement in space, and/or the development of satellite sites close to, but separated from, the main settlement. Therefore there were at least three parallel settlement development trajectories at Halasarna, with local variations in their expression. The continuity of sites from the Neolithic to the EBA is an important characteristic of the Koan settlement pattern. There are 14 definite and more than six probable multiperiod prehistoric sites across the island, many more than have been found in the rest of the Aegean. A parallel pattern may emerge at Kythera, but the FN/EB I dating of the archaeological finds from this island is not entirely satisfactory. Lemnos has three sites with continuity from the FN to the EBA, and a similar settlement pattern to that of Kos could be proposed. At the same time a certain degree of FN–EBA settlement continuity has been noted on Kasos, Simi, Nisyros, Kalymnos, and, most importantly, Giali. There seems to have been a regional phenomenon of settlement continuity in

198

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

the southeastern part of the Aegean, with Kos at its center. The number of sites that appeared in this period across the Aegean and their spatial density allows us to see certain analogies in the development of settlement patterns. First, the placement of settlements on inland hills close to valleys, as an alternative to locations on or near the coast, occurred extensively on Kos and also on the Lasithi inland plateau of Crete, in southwestern Chios, and with some sites on Lemnos and Lesbos. Second, some settlements were set in close proximity to each other at distances of 500–700 m on Lesbos, the

Olympos area on Chios, in southeastern Syros, and on Giali. Sites were even closer, ca. 200–400 m apart, in northern Kea, northwestern Naxos, Amorgos, central and eastern Kos, and the Vrokastro area on Crete. Third, perhaps the rarest mode of size increase in the Aegean islands was the establishment of a satellite site close to the main settlement. Apart from the two examples in the Halasarna region, other EBA instances are found at Poliochni and Dermata on Lemnos, and there are more examples from FN Crete and Kephala, as discussed in the previous chapter.

EBA Discussion The EBA settlements of the Aegean islands comprise a large corpus of data within which many trends can be observed. Overall, there was a dramatic increase in the number of settlements relative to the Neolithic, but locational preferences apparently did not change over time. There are local exceptions, however, some of which may be a reflection of limited study, the bias of research toward a single period, or real change. The four broad landscape settings that were defined for the FN period appear to be equally valid for the EBA (Table 5), and they still had significant socioeconomic implications. The first category includes the coastal sites, often set on promontories, having access to both good agricultural land and the sea. The second category consists of sites located on inland hills close to plains, either close to the coast or further inland. The third category encompasses sites within a plain, surrounded by fertile land. The fourth category includes sites in marginal locations in infertile regions. In general small islands and islets, caves, and mountainous areas are the most frequent environments where these sites are found in the Aegean islands. Although there was continuity in the locations preferred for settlements in the Neolithic and EBA, very few sites were occupied in both phases. Most of the EBA settlements were new, and continuity from the FN period was limited to a small number of sites. On islands such as Kythera, Crete, Kasos, Simi, Nisyros, Giali, Kos, Kalymnos, and Lemnos, however, site continuity is more noticeable. Only a

few of these long-occupied sites, such as Myrina and Poliochni on Lemnos, have been sufficiently studied to provide useful insights on their development. Another EBA tendency was the colonization of the landscape, evident in the increase of sites of different types throughout most of the islands. Exceptions may be found in the cases of Andros, Karpathos, Rhodes, and Giali, but the lack of indepth research on the first three islands may have biased their interpretation. Meanwhile, there appears to have been a decrease in the use of caves in the Aegean islands in the EBA, as also seen on mainland Greece. Nonetheless, on Tilos, Kos, and Kalymnos the use of caves continued, even if it did not increase, unlike the case of Rhodes where their use decreased. The fact that these three islands are close to each other argues in favor of a regional trend. At the same time a slightly greater number of small islands and islets appear to have had permanent or seasonal habitations in the EBA in comparison to the Neolithic (Table 4). More frequent and varied use of these locations for resource exploitation and as necessary stops in sea travel may be attested. In the Dodecanese, however, there presently appears to have been a decrease in the use of small islands and islets in the EBA. There are also islands whose settlement setting orientation changed considerably from the Neolithic to the EBA. The most significant case is that of Crete, where the tendency to abandon mountainous areas in favor of coastal ones has been noted. It is particularly interesting to point out that in EB III,

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

when Cretan cultural influence is well attested at many sites on Kythera, there was a similar change in the settlement locational preference. When more data become available from Antikythera it may be possible to see whether the same phenomenon took place there or not. Even though the evidence from Rhodes is not clear, a shift from a coastal orientation to a more inland one is attested between the FN and the EBA. This change is the opposite of that seen on Crete and is probably attributable to socioeconomic factors. Perhaps there was a more systematic clearing of the island’s hinterland, and good arable land away from the coast became available to local communities for exploitation. Many of the new EBA sites were short-lived. They appeared variably in the EB I and/or EB II periods on different islands. The settlement patterns appear to have been denser than before, with some sites separated by distances of a few hundred meters on Lesbos, Chios, Kea, Syros, Naxos, Amorgos, and Kos. In the EB II period some of the settlements expanded and became regional or insular centers, as appears to have been the case at Poliochni, Thermi, Palamari, Kastri, Grotta, Skarkos, and possibly Akrotiri. This settlement hierarchy is also marked by social differentiation within these sites, underlining the fact that the emergent EB settlement patterns were an integral part of the socioeconomic changes in this era. Additionally, metal working became more prominent than before and was widespread throughout the Aegean. Similar techniques for making metals and metal products, along with the shapes of tools, argue for a close interaction and common traditions across the Aegean. Settlement hierarchy is more visible than ever before in almost all areas and islands where substantial evidence of settlement patterns is available. In mainland Greece and Crete three- and four-tier settlement hierarchies may be observed in the EBA. In mainland Greece a closely integrated system of ranked settlements is evident.219 The same can be seen in some of the better studied islands, such as Kythera, Lesbos, Melos, Syros, Naxos, Kos, and possibly Ios and Thera, where at least a two-tier distinction is seen. This generalization may be applicable to most islands, but the evidence is not adequate to evaluate most of these cases. The HSP has demonstrated through intensive survey that a

199

regional four-tier hierarchy settlement pattern was present, and this represents an alternative settlement pattern to those found in other island surveys such as those in northern Kea, northeastern Naxos, and Melos. Concerns about security remained a very important issue for EBA communities in choosing the settlement location. Fortification, which was limited in the Neolithic, became much more common in the Aegean islands, mainland Greece, and western Anatolia at this time. In the Aegean islands fortifications are found at Aegina, Thasos, Lemnos, Lesbos, Samos, Skyros, Syros, Delos, Naxos, Amorgos, and Kos, while on Crete they were rare. The only complex buildings, i.e., corridor houses, that have been found in an insular context occured at Kolonna. The fact that Aegina is very close to Attica, Corinthia, and the Argolid may partly explain the presence of such structures on this island. The settlement system on mainland Greece, where there have been several well-documented excavations, reveals several innovations that were underway in the EBA relating to social hierarchy and proto-urban development. Complex buildings, fortifications, imported artifacts, seals, and sealings are the most prominent of these innovations. The contemporaneous intensification of vine and olive cultivation in southern Greece and Crete may have been an important factor in this socioeconomic development,220 and to some extent the same can be argued for the practice of metal working throughout the Aegean.221 Apart from the increased number of settlements, several very large sites appeared at this time, creating a hierarchical settlement pattern on a regional level. All of these elements, with the exception of the complex buildings, are also found in various combinations in the Aegean islands and Crete. In the Cyclades the symbolic representation of longboats strongly suggests that this mode of transportation was an important element of social interaction and community status. Social differentiation among individuals can be seen in rich burials and burial artifacts, as well as in the local site hierarchy, manifested in the elaboration of certain buildings and the use of seals and sealings. It is apparent that social interactions were an important concern for several EB communities, as illustrated by the circulation of goods and ideas.

200

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Whitelaw has demonstrated that there were at least two different trajectories of socioeconomic development in EM Crete, one in which sites depended on exchange networks and another in which communities were more concerned with the exploitation of the land.222 This hypothesis may be applied to the wider Aegean, and both strategies are evident on some islands such as Chios, where half the sites were set in coastal and half in inland locations (Table 5). This does not mean a priori that all coastal or near-coastal sites focused on exchange as their main economic strategy. Each site needs to be thoroughly studied on its own and within its spatial and temporal context. Changes in settlement locations from the Neolithic to the EBA are difficult to assess. On

Kea, Paros, and Rhodes the focus shifted from coastal and near-coastal locations to more inland ones. On Lemnos, Kasos, Nisyros, Giali, Kos, Kalymnos, and possibly Kythera the landscape orientation, whether coastal or inland, did not change from the Neolithic to the EBA. Island communities whose settlements were concentrated in nearcoastal and inland areas may have been more concerned with land cultivation than with exchange. This preference is attested on small, medium, and large islands, all of them situated in the southern Aegean. It is difficult to determine whether this pattern represents a significant regional characteristic or a research bias, a point that can be better assessed by future studies.

Chapter 12 Endnotes 1. Davis 2004, 33. 2. Halstead 1996, 21; Whitelaw 2000, 151. 3. Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985, table 6, fig. 14; Wright et al. 1990, 609; Davis et al. 1996–2005; Mee and Taylor 1997, 42; Mee 1999, 68; Mee and Cavanagh 2000, 103; 2005, 5; Wright 2004, 121–123, fig. 9.10; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 2007, 131, 171; Pullen 2008, 22. 4. Mee 2001, table 1.2. 5. Harrison 1992, 243–244; Mee and Taylor 1997, 42; Pullen 2008, 22–23. 6. Pullen 1985, 355–358; 2003, 34; 2008, 27; Harrison 1992, 247–253; Mee 1999, 70; 2001, 10–11; Wright 2004, 122; Mee and Cavanagh 2005, 5. 7. Mee 2001, 10, fig. 1.7; Mee and Cavanagh 2005, 5. 8. Mee and Taylor 1997, 42, 50; Mee 1999, 70. 9. Cavanagh 2009, 63. 10. Whitelaw 2000, 138. 11. Wiencke 1989, 499; Pullen 2003, 34. 12. Konsola 1986, 13. 13. Gallis 1992, tables 5–7, 9, 11. 14. Gallis 1992, 232, table 8; Andreou, Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 1996, 559. 15. Grammenos 1997, 281–282. 16. Konsola 1986; Hägg and Konsola 1986, 98–100. 17. Pullen 1985, 280–282; 2003, table 2; Rutter 1993, 768; 2001, 151; Mee 2001, 10–11; Mee and Cavanagh 2005, 5. 18. Pullen 1985, 235–236, 253; 2008, 31–32; Aravantinos 1986, 60–61, figs. 53–54; Rutter 1993, 761. 19. Konsola 1986, 13; Whitelaw 2000, 144.

20. Hägg and Konsola, eds., 1986, 95–98; Konsola 1986, 12; Rutter 1993, 761–763, fig. 3; Pullen 2008, 30–35; Sotirakopoulou 2008b, 545. 21. Halstead, ed., 2000, 116–117. 22. Wiencke 1989, 499–500; Cavanagh 1999, 38, 52; Mee 1999, 70; Johnson 2004, 41–44, 49–50. 23. Tzachili 2008, 12–15. 24. Wright et al. 1990, 609; Mee 1999, 71; Wright 2004, 114–126. 25. Mee 1999, 71; Pullen 2008, 36. 26. Forsén 1992; Rutter 1993, 763–766. 27. van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990, 379, 389, 392. 28. Mee 1999, 71; Whitelaw 2000, 144, 154; Bintliff 2002, 418–431. 29. Watrous et al. 1993, 223–224; Watrous 1994, 701; Driessen 2001, 56, tables 4.1, 4.2; Hayden 2003a, 39. 30. Driessen 2001, tables 4.1, 4.2. 31. Driessen 2001, 57. 32. Hayden 2003a, 39. 33. Hayden 2003a, 40. 34. Watrous 1994, 705. 35. Hayden 2003a, 40–41. 36. Watrous 1982, 9, 11, map 5. 37. Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999, 227. 38. Watrous 1994, 701; Hayden 2003a, 42. 39. Watrous 1994, 704. 40. Driessen 2001, 60–61. 41. Watrous 2001, 221.

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 42. Watrous et al. 1993, 224. 43. Watrous 1994, 713. 44. Watrous 1994, 714–715; 2001, 219; Schoep 2004, 283–286. 45. Watrous 1994, 705. 46. Watrous 1994, 721–722. 47. Watrous et al. 1993, 224; Watrous 1994, 717–718; 2001, 223. 48. Whitelaw 2004, 246–247. 49. Whitelaw 2004, 236–237. 50. Whitelaw 2004, 241–242, 246. 51. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962. 52. Joukowsky 1986. 53. Çilingiroğlou et al. 2004, 13–19. 54. Greaves and Helwing 2001, 505. 55. Greaves and Helwing 2001, 505. 56. Erkanal 1999, 238; 2008, 180. 57. Pecorella 1977, 1984; Berti 1993, 189–190. 58. Warner 1994, 188. 59. Lloyd and Mellaart 1962, cf. maps 1 and 6. 60. Yakar 1985, 138–149. 61. Kâmil 1982, 52. 62. Çevik 2007, 132, fig. 132. 63. Çevik 2007, 135–136. 64. Blegen et al. 1950, 38. 65. French 1969, 75. 66. Lambrianides and Spencer 2008, 341. 67. Yakar 1985, 152–153; Erkanal 1999, 237; 2008, 183– 184, fig. 10; Tuncel 2008, 583–584. 68. Erkanal 1999, 238–239; 2008, 180–181, 183. 69. Erkanal 1999, 240; Greaves and Helwing 2001, 504–505. 70. Erkanal 2008, 182–183, fig. 8; Şahoğlu 2008, 488–490. 71. Tuncel 2008, 584. 72. Thompson 2007, 92, table 2. 73. Vermeule 1964; Mee 1978, 123. 74. Yakar 1985, 110; Joukowsky 1986, 446. 75. Şahoğlu 2005, 340. 76. Efe 2007, 49, 60–61, fig. 17a. 77. Efe 2007, 55. 78. Walter and Felten 1981, 14–22, plan 5; Pullen 1985, 217–219, 223–224; Felten 1986, 22–23. 79. Kyrou 1990, 59–60. 80. Kyrou 1990, 237–241. 81. Kyrou 1990, 68–72; Papathanassopoulos et al. 1990; Papathanassopoulos, Vichos, and Lolos 1991a, 1991b, 1993. 82. Papathanassopoulos et al. 1990, charts 1, 2; Papathanassopoulos, Vichos, and Lolos 1991a, fig. 3; 1991b, 11–16; Agouridis 1993.

201

83. Kyrou 1990, 75–76. 84. Broodbank 1999b, 209, 211, fig. 13; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2003; 2007, 260, figs. 8, 9b. 85. Broodbank 1999b, 211. 86. Cf. Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260, figs. 9a, 9b. 87. Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 260–261. 88. Coldstream and Huxley 1972, 275–277; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 264–265. 89. Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, 262, figs. 8, 9c. 90. Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007, fig. 9c. 91. Bevan and Conolly 2008. 92. Malamidou and Papadopoulos 1993, 566; Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2008, 431–434. 93. Davis 1992, 722. 94. Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2008, 427. 95. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1987, 390–391, figs. 1, 2; Davis 1992, 722–723; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 83. 96. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1989, 511. 97. Davis 1992, 723. 98. Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 86–87. 99. Tiné 1997c, 20. 100. Tiné 1997b. 101. Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 459–460. 102. Archontidou-Argyri 1997, fig. 1; Boulotis 1997, fig. 1; Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 459–462, fig. 5; Dova 2008, 141–144, fig. 1. 103. Dova 2008, 145. 104. Bernabò-Brea 1964–1976, II; Boulotis 1997, 245. 105. Archontidou-Argyri 1997, 226; Dova 2008, 145. 106. Lamb 1936. 107. Kouka 1997, 478, 490, fig. 13. 108. Kouka 1997, 490. 109. Spencer 1995, fig. 3; Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 451–456, fig. 1; Lambrianides and Spencer 1997a, 619, fig. 2; 1997b, 86–104, table 1; 2008, 335–338, fig. 3. 110. Lambrianides and Spencer 1997b, 79; 2008, 338. 111. Lambrianides and Spencer 1997b, table 1, fig. 2; 2008, fig. 3. 112. Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 456–457. 113. Gerontakou and Avgerinou 1997, 456–457. 114. Hood 1981–1982, 2–9, fig. 1; Beaumont and Archontidou-Argyri 1999, 278; Merousis 2002, 55–57, 64–65, fig. 46. 115. Davis 1992, 727; Merousis 2002, 57, 84. 116. Davis 1992, 743. 117. Katsaros 2006, 28–32, 40. 118. Davis 1992, 712–713; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 79. 119. Parlama 1984, 83–97, 115–117, chart 2, fig. 1.

202

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

120. Parlama 1984, 88, 94; 1999, 46, 48; 2007, 29; Theochari and Parlama 1986, 51–52; 1997, 344, 348. 121. Parlama 2007, 36, fig. 18:1–5. 122. Theochari and Parlama 1997, 348–353, fig. 1; Parlama 1999, 47–49, fig. 1; 2007, 38. 123. Theochari and Parlama 1997, fig. 2. 124. Theochari and Parlama 1997, 354–355; Parlama 1999, 50. 125. Sampson 2008a, 185, 201. 126. Televantou 2006, 191; Kouka 2008, 273. 127. Whitelaw 2004, 236; Broodbank 2008, 52. 128. Barber 1987, 44; Broodbank 2000a, 150–151; 2008, 54. 129. Barber 1987, 53; Broodbank 2008, 54. 130. Broodbank 2000a, 178–179; 2008, 55–56. 131. Broodbank 2000a, 256–257. 132. Broodbank 2000a, 321. 133. Koutsoukou 1993, 102, fig. 1. 134. Televantou 2006, 191; Kouka 2008, 273. 135. Wilson 1999; Broodbank 2000a, 218. 136. Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 226, fig. 9.3. 137. Cherry 1982a, fig. 2.3; Whitelaw 2000, figs. 10.8, 10.9. 138. Cherry 1982a, fig. 2.3; Whitelaw 2000, figs. 10.8, 10.9. 139. Renfrew 1982, 37. 140. Renfrew 1982, 37. 141. Broodbank 2000a, 330–331. 142. Hekman 1994, 65, fig. 8. 143. Hekman 1994, 65, 71, fig. 8, table 3. 144. Broodbank 2000a, 213–216. 145. Broodbank 2000a, 97–99. 146. Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 88. 147. Tsountas 1899, 115–121, fig. 32. 148. Hekman 1994, figs. 8, 9. 149. Sampson 2002, 172–175, table 17, fig. 156. 150. Overbeck 1989, 1; Karantzali 1996, 29–31; Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, fig. 1. 151. Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, 42. 152. Karantzali 1996, 19–27. 153. Zachos 1999, 153. 154. Érard-Cerceau et al. 1993, 87–89. 155. Érard-Cerceau et al. 1993, fig. 1. 156. Broodbank 2000a, 220. 157. Marangou 1984, 99–100, fig. 1; 2002, 10–13, fig. 17; Yiannouli 2002, 2–3. 158. Renfrew 2006, 248; Whitelaw 2006, 10, 20. 159. French and Whitelaw 1999, 2006. 160. Marangou 2006, 81–86. 161. Marangou 2006, 86–87. 162. Angelopoulou 2006. 163. Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 88. 164. Sotirakopoulou 1999, fig. 1.

165. Davis 1992, 728–729; Karantzali 1996, 37; Kayafa, Stos-Gale, and Gale 2000, 46; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 88. 166. Bassiakos and Philaniotou 2007, 24–31, 36, 50–51, fig. 2.1. 167. MacGillivray 1980, 4–8, fig. 1; Broodbank 2000a, 177. 168. Marthari 1997, 363; Broodbank 2000a, 220–221. 169. Marthari 1997, 375–376. 170. Karantzali 1996, 27–29, 31–32, 42–43; Broodbank 2000a, 150–151; Davis, Tzonou-Herbst, and Wolpert 2001, 91; Katsarou and Schilardi 2004, fig. 1. 171. Broodbank 2000a, 223–225; 2000b, 324. 172. Broodbank 2000b, 328–331, 336. 173. Whitelaw 2004, 240–241. 174. Broodbank 2000a, 279. 175. Angelopoulou 2008, 159. 176. Renfrew 1982, 37; Whitelaw 2000, 140. 177. Melas 1985, 69. 178. Melas 1985, 42–43, 76–77. 179. Sampson 1987, 107–108. 180. Melas 1985, 45–46, 79. 181. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 70; Melas 1985, 48–50, 81–83. 182. Sakellarakis 2004, 339, 341–343. 183. Melas 1985, 156. 184. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 137–138, 140–144, 146–155. 185. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 142. 186. Sampson 1987, table 27. 187. Melas 1988, 299–302. 188. Marketou 1997, 396, 400–403. 189. Sampson 1987, 106–107; Melas 1988, 302–305. 190. Sampson 1987, 113–115; Melas 1988, 304–307. 191. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 63; Sampson 1987, 105–106; Melas 1988, 294–299, fig. 1; Farmakidou 2003, 292–293, 297, figs. 1, 2, 4. 192. Sampson 1987, 106. 193. Melas 1988, 295, fig. 1. 194. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 68; Bachmayer et al. 1976, 140; Melas 1988, 293. 195. Melas 1988, 288–292. 196. Sampson 1988b, 21–55, 61–64. 197. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 165. 198. Maiuri 1928, 107–117; Burton Brown 1947; Furness 1956, 188–193; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 174; Koukoulis 1982, 252–267. 199. Benzi 1997. 200. Sampson 1987, 109–111; Dreliosi 1994, 798. 201. Sampson 1987, 113. 202. Sampson 2006, 242. 203. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 75.

EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 204. Sampson 2006, 243. 205. Dreliosi 1994, 799. 206. Levi 1925–1926; Jacopich 1928; Furness 1956, 193; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55–63; Morricone 1972–1973, 261–270; Kantzia 1984; Sampson 1987, 109; 1988b, 229–230; 2001; Marketou 1990a, 40; 1990b, 101–102; 1997, 407; 2004, 17–19, fig. 1; Davis 1992, 746; La Rosa 2001; Georgiadis 2003, 22; 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1. 207. Marketou 2004, 20–21. 208. Tzachili 2008, 11. 209. Georgiadis 2008a, 229–230, fig. 1. 210. Kantzia 1984; Marketou 1990a, 40; 2004, 23–24; Davis 1992, 727. 211. Marketou 1990a, 40–41; 1990b, 101–102; 1997, 407; 2004, 25–26, fig. 6.

203

212. Georgiadis 2008a, 230. 213. Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 55–63; Marketou 1997, 407; La Rosa 2001, 53. 214. Cavanagh and Mee 2005, 298. 215. Caskey 1954, 27; 1955, 45; 1956, 167–168; Pullen 1985, 255. 216. Watrous 2001, 221–223. 217. Pullen 1985, 201, 204–206, figs. 54–56. 218. Parlama 2007, 36. 219. Cavanagh 2009, 64. 220. Johnson 2004, 41–44, 49–50. 221. Tzachili 2008, 32. 222. Whitelaw 2004.

13

Diachronic Developments in the Halasarna Region in Their Broader Aegean Context As more evidence becomes available, it is clear that hunter-gatherer groups exploited insular environments. The Paleolithic finds from the Ionian islands, the Northern Sporades, Melos, Gavdos, and Crete, along with the Melian obsidian found on the Greek mainland, attest to the use of the Aegean islands in this early period. The evidence for insular occupation, whatever character it may have had, in the Mesolithic period is even more extensive, coming from the Cave of the Cyclops on Youra, Ikaria, Maroulas and other sites on Kythnos, and Crete. Early Neolithic and MN sites have also been found occasionally in the Aegean islands. The contrast between the large number of settlements seen in Thessaly and the far fewer number in southern mainland Greece apparently extended to some areas of the Aegean basin. Thus, we can partly explain the difference of occupation patterns between the Northern Sporades and the southern Aegean islands. From the limited data available it seems that some of the landscape settings for later Neolithic and EBA settlements had already been chosen in the EN and MN periods. The continuity of sites from the MN to the LN period is seen at cave sites such as the Cave

of the Cyclops, Hagio Gala, Kalythies, and possibly Aspri Petra. It is also evident to a lesser extent at open sites such as Hagios Petros, Koutlousi, and possibly Tou Papa to Choma. A steady increase in the number of settlements in the Aegean islands began in the LN and accelerated in the FN, a trend also seen in Thessaly, southern mainland Greece, and Crete. Proximity to water, good arable land, and the coast were the main characteristics of settlement location in the islands, a combination that was perhaps not so common in mainland coastal regions. The sea was of central importance for these communities, serving as a rich resource and as a means of communication and interaction through which both ideas and goods were exchanged. In addition to coastal settlements, cave sites were used in some numbers, as was also the case in southern mainland Greece. The occupation of such marginal locations in the Aegean islands continued from Mesolithic times into the Neolithic, unlike the situation on the Greek mainland. Small islands and islets were also exploited for the first time in the LN and FN periods and thereafter on a permanent, semipermanent, or seasonal basis

206

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

(Table 4). The FN expansion of settlements in the Aegean islands may have been associated, as in the case of southern Greece and Crete, with the introduction of the plow and the secondary products revolution. The less fertile small plains on the islands could be exploited more easily with the plow, while the exploitation of animals in the FN is attested by the seasonal use of caves in the Archangelos area on Rhodes. Settlement sizes were small, rarely exceeding 0.7 ha, as was also the case in southern mainland Greece and Crete. Three important insights on Neolithic settlement development in the Aegean islands have emerged from the work of the HSP. The first is that beginning in the LN/FN period there was an alternative to the choice of coastal locations for settlement on some islands: the placement of sites on inland hills at the edges of fertile plains, as seen also on Kasos, Nisyros, in western Anatolia, and in some areas of Crete. The second is that a three-tier settlement hierarchy existed in the Halasarna region, as noted in some other contemporary surveyed areas such as Kea. The third insight is that in some cases distinct contemporary settlements existed in very close proximity to each other. This was more common in the Halasarna area than in other regions surveyed on the southern Greek mainland, Crete, or the islands of the Cyclades. The majority of LN/FN sites were located on hills that provided some degree of security, which seems to have been an important concern at this time. The use of fortifications is attested in LN and FN Thessaly and other mainland regions and perhaps on contemporary island sites such as Saliagos and Emporio, although these two insular examples are not well defined. Final Neolithic fortifications also appeared in inland Attica, at Strophilas on Andros, and probably at a few inland sites on Crete as well. Perhaps the preference for inland locations was an additional measure of security. Along with goods, it would seem that maritime communication and interaction also brought danger from the sea. The proximity of contemporary Neolithic sites at Halasarna may be indicative of local cooperation, with fears about security directed toward such threats from the sea rather than from other local communities. Final Neolithic settlement characteristics and locational preferences persisted to some extent in the EBA. There were also new developments,

however, such as a significant increase in the number of sites and the rise of settlement hierarchies, more clearly attested than before in most regions, including western Anatolia. The use of caves decreased on the southern Greek mainland, Crete, and most Aegean islands. Proto-urban elements such as fortifications, administrative centers, and the use of sealings are attested at several southern mainland sites. On Crete and in the Cyclades variations of these characteristics are attested, although administrative centers are absent. An important increase in the number of of coastal and nearcoastal sites occurred on Crete, while mountainous inland sites decreased in frequency. The same broad trends were underway in the Aegean islands, but most of the EB I sites tended to be new sites, with rare instances of continuity from the FN period, especially in the Cyclades. Most of EC I settlements were rather small in size, but more substantial sites appeared in EC II. The symbolic use of the longboat image may be evidence for the importance of sea travel, long-distance interactions, exchange, and possibly piracy. This image, along with the sealings recovered in some insular contexts, may attest to a different type of social hierarchy than that which developed on the Greek mainland. The Cycladic communities apparently remained largely egalitarian, but in the EB II some social stratification may be visible in graves, the use of sealings, and the possible presence of storerooms. The intensification of olive and vine cultivation has been noted in mainland Greece and Crete, and this agricultural practice may have extended into the Aegean islands. Meanwhile, a two-tier settlement hierarchy seems to have emerged in the Cyclades, and the preference for coastal sites or sites near the coast continued. The alternative trajectory of settlement pattern development already noted in the FN continued into the EBA, evinced in a preference in the Halasarna area for inland locations close to good agricultural land. The HSP has shown that continuity from the FN to the EBA was significant in this region. There was also an increase in the number of sites and their size in the EBA, while a four-tier settlement hierarchy developed at the same time. Security remained an important factor for the choice of EBA locations in the Aegean islands. Fortifications became more common in EB southern Greece, with examples in the Argolid,

DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENTS IN THE HALASARNA REGION

Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia. They were rare on Crete but were present at Myrtos. They were also common in western Anatolia from EB I onward, appearing at Troy and three sites in the Izmir area—Liman Tepe, Kale Tepe, and Bakla Tepe. In the Aegean islands fortifications were constructed in EB I at Markiani and continued into later phases, while in EB II fortifications appeared at Skala Sotiros, Poliochni, Thermi, Palamari, Kolonna, Kastri, Mt. Kynthos, Panormos, and Heraion. They were also constructed in EB III at Serrayia on Kos. The EB III signs of decline, destruction, and abandonment of sites reflect a phenomenon affecting most parts of the Aegean basin and surrounding areas. Although there were also destructions in eastern Crete, the rest of the island seemed to escape such disturbances, and hence the palatial system developed earlier on Crete than anywhere else in the Aegean.1 Whitelaw’s model of two different trajectories of complexity, one based on exchange and one on agriculture, may be applied to the whole Aegean.2 Even so, this model is not sufficient by itself to explain the sociopolitical development of Cretan MBA palatial society, which was unique within the Aegean region. Throughout the LN/FN and EBA, insular Aegean families, small kin groups, or clans expanded and colonized the landscape in different ways, with settlements becoming widely dispersed across the landscape. These communities tried to exploit all available resources, leading in some cases to competition for their control, especially in the EBA. Cooperation and conflict within this framework might be expected, and there is evidence for both. The existence of dense settlement patterns with contemporary sites close to each other argues for a peaceful coexistence. The use of longboats during the EBA also suggests intercommunity cooperation for using these large vessels, since in most cases more than one community was required to construct and “sail” them. While the exchange of goods and the interaction of ideas and people would have been an important benefit of sea travel, there might have been another, more problematic aspect of these voyages, namely piracy and warfare. The selection of a secure location on naturally fortified hilltops may have been one solution to this problem. In many cases it appears that it was not protection from immediate

207

neighbors that was sought; the danger came instead from the sea, as is especially evident from the fortifications that were erected from the Neolithic period onward. Ultimately, whether insular communities based their livelihood on participation in exchange networks or the exploitation of local agricultural resources, most of them, like those of southern mainland Greece, were affected by the EB III destructions and abandonments. Nevertheless, this is the least known EBA phase, and more research is needed. The cultural developments that took place in southern mainland Greece, Crete, the Aegean islands, and western Anatolia were accompanied by various degrees of interaction among these regions, which were connected to some extent by geography. Although the same socioeconomic changes affected the entire Aegean, the local or regional responses were different. Broodbank refers to the Cyclades as “small worlds.”3 It would seem that the entire Aegean Sea contained a number of interconnected small worlds, in which common elements and local idiosyncrasies coexisted. This broad analysis of the settlements patterns in the Aegean islands from the Paleolithic to the EBA is clearly based upon data that are uneven in coverage of space and time. Still, a number of significant diachronic problems may be identified for future research. The first issue is the definition of the methods of exploitation and management of the limited local resources of each island and perhaps the surrounding islets. The second is the reconstruction of the nature and extent of the maritime networks and interactions that connected different islands and settlements, as well as understanding the ways in which those interactions affected island communities. The third problem is the definition of the trajectories of socioeconomic development experienced by different settlements. The fourth is the explanation of site locational preferences and the relationship between those choices and the previous issues. For a better understanding of these questions, more detailed studies of specific sites and islands are necessary. Here I have attempted to synthesize the available evidence from the Aegean islands and surrounding areas in order to comprehend, as best as is presently possible, the social, economic, and cultural developments that influenced the settlement patterns of the early prehistoric period.

208

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Chapter 13 Endnotes 1. Manning 2008, 109–110. 2. Whitelaw 2004.

3. Broodbank 2000a, 175–176.

References

Abbreviations follow the conventions of the American Journal of Archaeology 111.1 (2007), pp. 14–34.

Acheilara, L. 1997. “Μύρινα οι ‘μνημιακές’ εγκαταστάσεις του οικοπέδου Εθτ. Καζώλη,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 298–310. Agouridis, C. 1993. “Οι μυλόλιθοι από το πρωτοελλαδικό φορτίο του Δοκού,” Ενάλια 5 (1/2), pp. 20–25. Alcock, S.E. 1991. “Urban Survey and the Polis of Phlius,” Hesperia 60, pp. 421–463. Alevra, G., S. Kalopisi, N. Kourou, A. Lemou, and M. Panagiotidi. 1985. “Ανασκαφή στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα) της Κω,” ArchEph 124, pp. 1–18. Aloupi, E. 2002. “Pottery Analysis from the Late Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos (Cyclades); Provenance, Technological, and Functional Considerations,” in Sampson 2002, pp. 279–297. Alram-Stern, E. 1996. Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 2. Forschungsbericht 1975–1993 1: Das Neolithikum in Griechenland, mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 16), Vienna.

Andreikos, G.A. 1998. Μάνη (Απήδημα): Παλαιολιθικά ευρήματα, Athens. Andreou, S., M. Fotiadis, and K. Kotsakis. 1996. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece,” AJA 100, pp. 537–597. Angelopoulou, A. 2003. “Η ‘ομάδα Καστριού’ και το Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου,” in Vlachopoulos and Birtacha, eds., 2003, pp. 159–190. ———. 2006. “The Lead Seal and the Clay Sealings,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 219–222. ———. 2008. “The ‘Kastri Group’: Evidence from Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) Naxos, Dhaskalio Keros and Akrotiri Thera,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 149–164. Apostolopoulou-Kakavoyanni, O. 2001. “The Mesogaia in Antiquity, the Mesogaia in Prehistoric Times, the Neolithic Age (6000–3000 B.C.),” in Mesogaia: History and Culture of Mesogeia in Attica, G. Aikaterinidis, ed., Athens, pp. 18–27.

210

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Aravantinos, V. 1986. “The EH II Fortified Building at Thebes: Some Notes on Its Architecture,” in Hägg and Konsola, eds., 1986, pp. 57–63.

Belmont, J.S., and C. Renfrew. 1964. “Two Prehistoric Sites on Mykonos,” AJA 68, pp. 395–400.

Archontidou-Argyri, A. 1997. “Λήμνος: Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού, έρευνα και προβληματισμός,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 223–229.

Benzi, M. 1997. “The Late Early Bronze Age Finds from Vathy Cave (Kalymnos) and Their Links with the Northeast Aegean,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 383–394.

Asimenos, K. 1988. “Παράρτημα V: Ανάλυση δείγματος από το εσωτερικό πήλινου αγγείου από το Γυαλί της Νισύρου,” in Sampson 1988b, pp. 253–254.

———. 2008. “A Forgotten Island: Kalymnos in the Late Neolithic Period,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 85–108.

Aslanis, I. 1998. “Η πρώτη εμφάνιση οχυρώσεων σε προϊστορικούς οικισμούς του Αιγαιακού χώρου,” in Κέα-Κύθνος: Ιστορία και αρχαιολογία, L.G. Mendoni and A.I. Mazarakis Ainian, eds., Athens, pp. 109–115.

Bernabò-Brea, L. 1964–1976. Poliochni I–II: Città preistorica nell’ isola di Lemnos (Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e della missione italiane in Oriente 1–2), Rome.

Atkinson, T.D., R.C. Bosanquet, C.C. Edgar, A.J. Evans, D.G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith, and F.B. Welch. 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 4), London.

Berti, F. 1993. “Iasos di Caria,” in Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme (Scavi archeologici italiani in Turchia), G.P. Carratelli and F. Berti, eds., Rome, pp. 189–248. Betancourt, P.P. 1985. The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton. ———. 2007. “The Final Neolithic to Early Minoan III Metallurgy Site at Chrysokamino, Crete,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 57–67.

Bachmayer, F., N. Symeonidis, R. Seemann, H. Zapfe, and Ch. Doumas. 1976. “Die Ausgrabungen in der Zwergelefantehöhle ‘Charkadio’ auf der Insel Tilos (Dodekanes, Griechenland) in der Jahren 1974 und 1975,” Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 80, pp. 113–144.

———. 2008. “The Copper Smelting Workshop at Chrysokamino: Reconstructing the Smelting Process,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 105–111.

Bailey, G.N., E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perlès, and K. Zachos, eds. 1999. The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas (BSA Studies 3), London.

Betancourt, P.P., and C. Davaras. 2003. Pseira VII: The Pseira Cemetery. Part 2: Excavation of the Tombs (Prehistory Monographs 6), Philadelphia.

Barber, R.L.N. 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age, London.

Bevan, A., and J. Conolly. 2008. Antikythera Survey Project, http://www.tuarc.trentu.ca/~aspweb/en/intro.shtml.

Barber, R.L.N., and O. Hadjianastasiou. 1989. “Mikre Vigla: A Bronze Age Settlement on Naxos,” BSA 84, pp. 63–162.

Bintliff, J.L. 1977. Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (BAR-IS 28), Oxford.

Barber, R.L.N., and J.A. MacGillivray. 1980. “The Early Cycladic Period: Matters of Definition and Terminology,” AJA 84, pp. 141–157.

———. 2000. “Beyond Dots on the Map: Future Directions for Surface Artefact Survey in Greece,” in The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe, J. Bintliff, M. Kuna, and N. Vencloná, eds., Sheffield, pp. 3–20.

Bassiakos, Y., V. Kilikoglou, and A. Sampson. 2005. “Yali Island: Geological and Analytical Evidence for a New Source of Workable Obsidian,” International Association of Obsidian Studies Bulletin 33, p. 18.

———. 2002. “Time, Process and Catastrophism in the Study of Mediterranean Alluvial History: A Review,” WorldArch 33, pp. 417–435.

Bassiakos, Y., and O. Philaniotou. 2007. “Early Copper Production on Kythnos: Archaeological Evidence and Analytical Approaches to the Reconstruction of Metallurgical Process,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 19–56. Bean, G.E., and J.M. Cook. 1957. “The Carian Coast III,” BSA 52, pp. 58–146. Beaumont, L., and A. Archontidou-Argyri. 1999. “New Work at Kato Phana, Chios: The Kato Phana Archaeological Project,” BSA 94, pp. 268–287.

Bintliff, J., E. Farinetti, K. Sarri, and R. Sebastiani. 2006. “Landscape and Early Farming Settlement Dynamics in Central Greece,” Geoarchaeology 21, pp. 665–674. Bintliff, J., P. Howard, and A. Snodgrass. 1999. “The Hidden Landscapes of Prehistoric Greece,” JMA 12, pp. 139–168. ———. 2007. Testing the Hinterland: The Work of the Boeotia Survey (1989–1991) in the Southern Approaches to the City of Thespiai, Cambridge.

REFERENCES

Bintliff, J., and A. Snodgrass. 1985. “The Cambridge/ Bradford Boeotian Expedition: The First Four Years,” JFA 12, pp. 123–161. Birtacha, K. 2006. “The Pottery from Markiani Phase III,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 130–138. ———. 2007a. “The Grey Marble and Limestone Vessels,” in Renfrew et al., eds., 2007, pp. 338–342. ———. 2007b. “Miscellaneous Objects,” in Renfrew et al., eds., 2007, p. 365.

211

———. 2008. “The Early Bronze Age in the Cyclades,” in Shelmerdine, ed., 2008, pp. 47–76. Broodbank, C., and V. Kiriatzi. 2003. Kythera Island Project, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/kip/prehistceramics.php. ———. 2007. “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Landscape in the Prepalatial Aegean,” AJA 111, pp. 241–274. Broodbank, C., and T.F. Strasser. 1991. “Migrant Farmers and the Neolithic Colonization of Crete,” Antiquity 65, pp. 233–245.

Blegen, C.W., J.L. Caskey, M. Rawson, and J. Sperling. 1950. Troy I: General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements, Princeton.

Brouskari, E. 1987. “Περιοχή Βουρίνας,” ArchDelt 42 (B', Chronika) [1992], p. 650.

Blegen, C.W., J.L. Caskey, and M. Rawson. 1951. Troy II: The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Settlements, Princeton.

Buchholz, H.-G., and E. Althaus. 1982. Nisyros, Giali, Kos, Mainz am Rhein.

Blitzer, H. 1995. “Minoan Implements and Industries,” in Kommos I: The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town. Part 1: The Kommos Region, Ecology, and Minoan Industries, J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Princeton, pp. 403–535.

Burton Brown, T. 1947. “Prehistoric Remains on Calymnus,” JHS 67, p. 128.

Boulotis, C. 1997. “Κουκονήσι Λήμνου: Τέσσερα χρόνια ανασκαφικής έρευνας. Θέσεις και υποθέσεις,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 230–272.

Cadogan, G., E. Hatzaki, and A. Vasilakis, eds. 2004. Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion Organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evan’s Excavations at Knossos (BSA Studies 12), London.

Branigan, K. 1974. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, Oxford.

Carington Smith, J. 1977. “Appendix 2: Cloth and Matt Impressions,” in Coleman 1977, Princeton, pp. 114–127.

———. 1999. “Late Neolithic Colonization of the Uplands of Eastern Crete,” in Halstead, ed., 1999, pp. 57–65.

Caskey, J.L. 1954. “Excavations at Lerna, 1952–1953,” Hesperia 23, pp. 3–30.

Brodie, N.J., J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew, eds. 2008. Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Cambridge.

———. 1955. “Excavations at Lerna, 1954,” Hesperia 24, pp. 25–49. ———. 1956. “Excavations at Lerna, 1955,” Hesperia 25, pp. 147–173.

Broodbank, C. 1992. “The Neolithic Labyrinth: Social Change at Knossos before the Bronze Age,” JMA 5, pp. 39–75.

———. 1972. “Investigations in Keos, Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery,” Hesperia 41, pp. 357–401.

———. 1999a. “Colonization and Configuration in the Insular Neolithic of the Aegean,” in Halstead, ed.,1999, pp. 15–41.

Caskey, J.L., and E.G. Caskey. 1960. “The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis: Supplementary Excavations, 1958,” Hesperia 29, pp. 126–167.

———. 1999b. “Kythera Survey: Preliminary Report on the 1988 Season,” BSA 94, pp. 191–214.

Catapotis, M., and Y. Bassiakos. 2007. “Copper Smelting at the Early Minoan Site of Chrysokamino on Crete,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 68–83.

———. 2000a. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge. ———. 2000b. “Perspectives on an Early Bronze Age Island Centre: An Analysis of Pottery from DaskaleioKavos (Keros) in the Cyclades,” OJA 19, pp. 323–342. ———. 2006. “The Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activity,” JMA 19, pp. 199–230. ———. 2007. “The Pottery,” in Renfrew et al., eds., 2007, pp. 115–237.

Cavanagh, W.G. 1999. “Revenons à nos moutons: Surface Survey and the Peloponnese in the Late and Final Neolithic,” in Le Péloponnèse: Archéologie et histoire, J. Renard, ed., Rennes, pp. 31–66. ———. 2004. “WYSIWYG: Settlement and Territoriality in Southern Greece during the Early and Middle Neolithic Period,” JMA 17, pp. 165–189. ———. 2009. “Territory in Prehistoric Laconia,” in Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-modern.

212

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Proceedings of the Conference Held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, (BSA Studies 16),W.G. Cavanagh, C. Gallou, and M. Georgiadis, eds., London, pp. 55–65. Cavanagh, W., and C. Mee. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125), Göteborg. ———. 2005. “Artefact Collection and Analysis,” in The Laconia Rural Sites Project (BSA Suppl. 36), W. Cavanagh, C. Mee, and P. James, eds., London, pp. 290–303.

Prehistory,” in Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (UCLAMon 25), A.B. Knapp and T. Stech, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 12–29. ———. 1990. “The First Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands,” JMA 3, pp. 145–221. Cherry, J.F., J. Davis, and E. Mantzourani. 1991. Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement to Modern Times, Los Angeles. Cherry, J.F., and R. Torrence. 1982. “The Earliest Prehistory of Melos,” in Renfrew and Wagstaff, eds., 1982, pp. 24–34.

Çevik, Ö. 2007. “The Emergence of Different Social Systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Urbanisation versus Centralisation,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 131–140.

———. 1984. “The Typology of Chipped Stone Assemblages in the Prehistoric Cyclades,” in MacGillivray and Barber, eds., 1984, pp. 12–25.

Charisis, C.B., P. Durand, M. Axiotis, and T.B. Charisis. 2000. “Ίχνη Παλαιολιθικής εγκατάστασης στη Λέσβο,” Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνες 76, pp. 83–87.

Christmann, E. 1996. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien II: Die frühe Bronzezeit, Bonn.

Chatziconstantinou, A. Forthcoming. “Η γεωλογία της Κω και ειδικότερα της ευρύτερης περιοχής της Καρδάμαινας,” in Επιφανειακή έρευνα στην Αλάσαρνα της Κω, G. Kokkorou-Alevra and K. Kopanias, eds., Athens.

Çilingiroğlu, A., Z. Derin, A. Eşref, H. Sağlamtimur, and I. Kayan. 2004. Ulucak Höyük: Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 15), Louvain.

Chatziconstantinou, A., and E. Poupaki. 2002. “The Extraction of Travertine in Antiquity on the Island of Cos, Dodecanese, Greece,” in Αρχαιολογία και περιβάλλον στα Δωδεκάνησα, έρευνα και πολιτιστικός τουρισμός, Rhodes, pp. 25–32. ———. 2009. “The Question of Marble Quarrying on the Island of Kos during Antiquity,” in SOMA 2007. Proceedings of the XI Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Istanbul Technical University, 24–29 April 2007 (BAR-IS 1900), Ç.Ö. Aygün, ed., Oxford, pp. 61–67. Chatzivasiliou, V.S. 1990. Ιστορία της Νήσου Κω: Αρχαία, μεσαιωνική, νεότερη, Kos. Cherry, J.F. 1979. “Four Problems in Cycladic Prehistory,” in Davis and Cherry, eds., 1979, pp. 22–47. ———. 1981. “Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean islands,” PPS 47, pp. 41–68.

Coldstream, J.N., and G.L. Huxley, 1972. Kythera: Excavations and Studies, London. Coleman, J.E. 1977. Keos I: Kephala. A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery, Princeton. Conophagos, C. 1977. “Appendix 1: Examination of Evidence for Metallurgy,” in Coleman 1977, pp. 113–114. Cosmopoulos, M.B. 1991. The Early Bronze 2 in the Aegean (SIMA 98), Jonsered. Coy, J. 1977. “Appendix 4: Animal Remains,” in Coleman 1977, pp. 129–133. Cullen, T., ed. 2001. Aegean Prehistory: A Review (AJA Suppl. 1), Boston. Cultraro, M. 1997. “Nuovi dati sul periodo Verde di Poliochni,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 98–121.

———. 1982a. “A Preliminary Definition of Site Distribution on Melos,” in Renfrew and Wagstaff, eds., 1982, pp. 10–23.

Cunningham, T., and J. Driessen. 2004. “Site by Site: Combining Survey and Excavation Data to Chart Patterns of Socio-political Change in Bronze Age Crete,” in Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry, eds., Oxford, pp. 101–113.

———. 1982b. “Appendix A: Register of Archaeological Sites on Melos,” in Renfrew and Wagstaff, eds., 1982, pp. 291–309.

Davaras, C., and P.P. Betancourt. 2004. The Hagia Photia Cemetery I: The Tomb Groups and Architecture (Prehistory Monographs 14), Philadelphia.

———. 1985. “Islands Out of the Stream: Isolation and Interaction in Early East Mediterranean Insular

Davis, J.L. 1992. “Review of Aegean Prehistory I: The Islands of the Aegean,” AJA 96, pp. 699–756.

REFERENCES

———. 2004. “Are the Landscapes of Greek Prehistory Hidden? A Comparative Approach,” in Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry, eds., Oxford, pp. 22–35. Davis, J.L., S.E., Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. Lolos, C.W. Shelmerdine, and E. Zangger. 1996–2005. The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, http://classics.uc.edu/prap/. Davis, J.L., I. Tzonou-Herbst, and A.D. Wolpert. 2001. “Addendum, 1992–1999,” in Cullen, ed., 2001, pp. 77–94. Davis, J.L., and J.F. Cherry, eds. 1979. Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (UCLAMon 14), Los Angeles. Day, P.M., and R.C.P. Doonan, eds. 2007. Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean, Sheffield. Demoule, J.-P., and C. Perlès. 1993. “The Greek Neolithic: A New Review,” Journal of World Prehistory 7, pp. 355–416. Dermitzakis, M.D., K. Kyriakopoulos, and C. Ntrinia. 2001. “Παλαιογεωγραφική εξέλιξη και γεωλογικά συμβάντα των νοτίων Σποράδων με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στη νήσο Κω,” in Kokkorou-Alevra, Lemou, and Simantoni-Bournia, eds., 2001, pp. 25–36. Devetzi, A. 2008. “Akrotiri, Thera: Stone Vessels and Implements of the Early Bronze Age. A Preliminary Report,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 135–147. Doonan, R.C.P., P.M. Day, and N. DimopoulouRethemiotaki. 2007. “Lame Excuses for Emerging Complexity in Early Bronze Age Crete: The Metallurgical Finds from Poros Katsambas and Their Context,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 98–122. Doumas, Ch. 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades (SIMA 48), Göteborg. ———. 1984. Κυκλαδική τέχνη: Αρχαία γλυπτική και κεραμεική από τη Συλλογή Ν.Π. Γουλανδρή, Athens. ———. 2000. Early Cycladic Culture: The N.P. Goulandris Collection, Athens. ———. 2002. Silent Witnesses: Early Cycladic Art of the Third Millennium B.C., New York. Doumas, Ch.G., and A. Angelopoulou. 1997. “Οι βασικοί κεραμικοί τύποι της Πολιόχνης και η διάδοση τους στο Αιγαίο κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 543–555. Doumas, Ch.G., and V. La Rosa, eds. 1997. Η Πολιόχνη και η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο, Athens

213

Dousougli, A. 1998. Άρια Αργολίδος: Χειροποίητη κεραμική της Νεότερης Νεολιθικής και της Χαλκολιθικής Περιόδου (Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 66), Athens. ———. 1999. “Palaeolithic Leukas,” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 288–292. Dova, A. 1997. “Μύρινα Λήμνου: Οι αρχαιότερες φάσεις του προϊστορικού οικισμού,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 282–297. ———. 2003. “Οι φάσεις εξέλιξης του Προϊστορικού οικισμού στη Μύρινα Λήμνου,” in Vlachopoulos and Birtacha, eds., 2003, pp. 101–125. ———. 2008. “Prehistoric Topography of Lemnos: The Early Bronze Age,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 141–158. Dreliosi, A. 1994. “Λέρος-Δρομώνας Φαρμακονήδι,” ArchDelt 49 (Chronika), pp. 798–799. Driessen, J. 2001. “History and Hierarchy: Preliminary Observations on the Settlement Pattern of Minoan Crete,” in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan, ed., London, pp. 51–71. Düring, B.S. 2008. “The Early Holocene Occupation of North-Central Anatolia between 10,000 and 6,000 B.C. cal: Investigating an Archaeological Terra Incognita,” AnatSt 58, pp. 15–46. Efe, T. 2007. “The Theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’ between Cilicia and Troy: The Early Bronze Age III Period in Inland Western Anatolia,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 47–64. Efe, T., and A. Ilasli. 1997. “Pottery Links between the Troad and Inland Northwestern Anatolia during the Trojan Second Settlement,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 596–609. Efstathiou-Manolakou, I. 2009. “Archaeological Investigations in the Caves of Laconia,” in Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-modern. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, (BSA Studies 16), W.G. Cavanagh, C. Gallou, and M. Georgiadis, eds., London, pp. 5–20. Efstratiou, N. 1985. Agios Petros: A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades: Aegean Relationships during the Neolithic of the 5th Millennium (BAR-IS 241), Oxford. Efstratiou, N., A. Karetsou, E.S. Banou, and D. Margomenou. 2004. “The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos: New Light on an Old Picture,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 39–49.

214

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Ekschmitt, W. 1986. Kunst und Kultur der Kykladen: Neolithikum und Brozenzeit, Mainz am Rhein.

Fitton, J.L., ed. 1984. Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulandris, London.

Érard-Cerceau, I., V. Fotou, O. Psychoyos, and R. Treuil. 1993. “Prospection archéologique à Naxos (région nord-ouest),” in Recherches dans les Cyclades: Resultats des travaux de la RCP 583 (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen 23), R. Dalongeville and G. Rougemont, eds., Lyons, pp. 59–96.

Fletcher, A. 2007. “The Prehistoric Ceramic Assemblage from Horum Höyük,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 191–202.

Erdoğu, B. 2003. “Visualizing Neolithic Landscape: The Early Settled Communities in Western Anatolia and Eastern Aegean Islands,” EJA 6, pp. 7–23.

Forsén, J. 1992. The Twilight of the Early Helladics: A Study of the Disturbances in East-Central and Southern Greece towards the End of the Early Bronze Age (SIMA-PB 116), Jonsered.

Erkanal, H. 1999. “Early Bronze Age Fortification Systems in Izmir Region,” in MELETEMATA: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20), P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 237–242. ———. 2008. “Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 179–190. Erkanal, H., H. Hauptmann, V. Şahoğlu, and R. Tuncel, eds. 2008. Proceedings of the International Symposium The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age: October 13th–19th 1997, Urla-Izmir (Turkey), Ankara. Eskitzioglou, P. 2006. “The Pottery of Markiani Phase IV,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 139–157.

Fletcher, A., and A. Greaves, eds. 2007. Transanatolia (AnatSt 57), Oxford.

Fossey, J.M. 1969. “The Prehistoric Settlement by Lake Vouliagmeni, Perachora,” BSA 64, pp. 53–69. French, C.A.I., and T. Whitelaw. 1999. “Soil Erosion, Agricultural Terracing and Site Formation Processes at Markiani, Amorgos, Greece: The Micromorphological Perspective,” Geoarchaeology 14, pp. 151–189. ———. 2006. “Appendix: The Study of Soil Erosion and Agricultural Terracing at Markiani Using Micromorphological Techniques,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 22–24. French, D.H. 1961. “Late Chalcolithic Pottery from North-west Turkey and the Aegean,” AnatSt 11, pp. 99–141. ———. 1965. “Excavations at Can Hasan: Fourth Preliminary Report 1964,” AnatSt 15, pp. 87–94.

Eslick, C. 1992. Elmali-Karataş I: The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. Bağbaşi and Other Sites, Bryn Mawr.

———. 1967. “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia, I: The Iznik Area,” AnatSt 17, pp. 49–100.

Evans, J.D. 1964. “Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos, 1957–60: Part I,” BSA 59, pp. 132–240.

———. 1969. “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia, II: The Balikesir and Akhisar/Manisa Areas,” AnatSt 19, pp. 41–98.

Evans, J.D., and C. Renfrew. 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos (BSA Suppl. 3), Oxford.

———. 1997. “Early Bronze Age Pottery in Western Anatolia: A Summary 1970–1995,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 570–595.

———. 1984. “The Earlier Bronze Age at Phylakopi,” in MacGillivray and Barber, eds., 1984, pp. 63–69. Faklaris, P.V. 1990. Αρχαία Κυνουρία: Ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα και περιβάλλον (Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 43), Athens. Farmakidou, E. 2003. “Η προϊστορική περίοδος στη Σύμη,” in Vlachopoulos and Birtacha, eds., 2003, pp. 292–299. Felsch, R.C.S. 1988. Samos II: Das Kastro Tigani. Die Spätneolithische und Chalkolithische Siedlung, Bonn. Felten, F. 1986. “Early Urban History and Architecture of Ancient Aigina,” in Hägg and Konsola, eds., 1986, pp. 21–28. Fitton, J.L. 1999. Cycladic Art, 2nd ed., London.

———. 2005. Canhasan Sites 2: Canhasan I. The Pottery (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 32), London. ———. 2008. “Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Southwest Anatolia,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 197–202. Furness, A. 1956. “Some Early Pottery of Samos, Kalimnos and Chios,” PPS 22, pp. 173–212. Galanidou, N., and C. Perlès. 2003. “An Introduction to the Greek Mesolithic,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 27–32. Galanidou, N., and C. Perlès, eds. 2003. The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives (BSA Studies 10), London.

REFERENCES

Gallis, K.J. 1992. Άτλας προϊστορικών οικισμών της ανατολικής Θεσσαλικής πεδιάδας, Larisa. Gavalas, G. 2006. “The Spindle-whorls and Related Objects,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 199–209. Georgiadis, M. 2003. The South-eastern Aegean during the Mycenaean Period: Islands, Landscape, Death and Ancestors (BAR-IS 1196), Oxford. ———. 2005–2006. “A Preliminary Report on the Prehistoric Evidence from the Halasarna Survey Project, Kos,” Aegean Archaeology 8, pp. 1–13. ———. 2008a. “Kos in the Bronze Age: The Settlement Pattern and Its Significance,” in Dioskouroi: Studies Presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-Year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology (BAR-IS 1889), C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis, and G.M. Muskett, eds., Oxford, pp. 228–236. ———. 2008b. “The Obsidian in the Aegean beyond Melos: An Outlook from Yali,” OJA 28, pp. 101–117. ———. 2010. “The Neolithic Pottery from the German Archaeoliogical Instutite Collection,” AM 125, pp. 1–30. ———. Forthcoming. “The Prehistoric Finds,” in Επιφανειακή έρευνα στην Αλάσαρνα της Κον, G. Kokkorou-Alevra and K. Kopanias, eds., Athens.

215

Grammenos, D.B. 1997. Νεολιθική Μακεδονία, Athens. Greaves, A.M. 2002. Miletos: A History, London. Greaves, A.M., and B. Helwing. 2001. “Archaeology in Turkey: The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, 1997–1999,” AJA 105, pp. 463–511. Hadjianastasiou, O. 1988. “A Late Neolithic Settlement at Grotta, Naxos,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory, E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, eds., Bristol, pp. 11–20. Hägg, R., and D. Konsola. 1986. “Conclusions and Prospects,” in Hägg and Konsola, eds., 1986, pp. 95–101. Hägg, R., and D. Konsola, eds. 1986. Early Helladic Architecture and Urbanization (SIMA 86), Göteborg. Haggis, D.C. 1996. “Archaeological Survey at Kavousi, East Crete: Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 65, pp. 373–432. Haggis, D.C., T. Carter, M.S. Mook, and L.M. Snyder. 2007. “Excavations at Azoria, 2003–2004, Part 2: The Final Neolithic, Late Prepalatial, and Early Iron Age Occupation,” Hesperia 76, pp. 665–716. Halstead, P. 1994. “The North-South Divide: Regional Paths to Complexity in Prehistoric Greece,” in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8), C. Mathers and S. Stoddart, eds., Sheffield, pp. 195–219.

Gerontakou, E., and P. Avgerinou. 1997. “Παρατηρήσεις για την οικιστική δομή της Λέσβου και της Λήμνου στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού σε σχέση με τη γεωμορφολογία,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 450–466.

———. 1996. “Pastoralism or Animal Husbandry? Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandry,” WorldArch 28, pp. 20–42.

Getz-Gentle, P. 1996. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age, University Park, PA.

Halstead, P., ed. 1999. Neolithic Society in Greece, Sheffield.

———. 2001. Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture, Madison.

———, ed. 2000. “Land Use in Postglacial Greece: Cultural Causes and Environmental Effects,” in Halstead and Frederick, eds., 2000, pp. 110–128.

Getz-Preziosi, P. 1987a. Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections, Seattle. ———. 1987b. Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tradition in the Third Millennium B.C., Ann Arbor.

Halstead, P., and G. Jones. 1987. “Παράρτημα 1: Bioarchaeological Remains from Kalythies Cave, Rhodes,” in Sampson 1987, pp. 135–152.

Gimbutas, M.A. 1989. The Language of the Goddess, London.

Halstead, P., and C. Frederick, eds. 2000. Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece, Sheffield.

Goldman, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, MA.

Harrison, S.G. 1992. Settlement Patterns in Early Bronze Age Greece: An Approach to the Study of a Prehistoric Society, Ph.D. diss., University of Nottingham.

Gopengiesser, H. 1987. “Siphnos. Kap Agios Sostis: Keramische prähistorische Zeugnisse aus dem Gruben- und Hüttenrevier II,” AM 102, pp. 1–54. Gowlett, J.A.J. 1999. “The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: Transition Problems and Hominid Species. Greece in Broader Perspective,” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 43–58.

Hatzipouliou-Kalliri, E. 1983. “An Early Helladic II Tomb by Lake Vouliagmeni, Perachora,” BSA 78, pp. 369–375. Hauptmann, H. 1981. Das späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum, Bonn.

216

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Hayden, B.J. 2003a. “The Final Neolithic–Early Minoan I/IIA Settlement History of the Vrokastro Area, Mirabello, Eastern Crete,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3, pp. 31–44.

Johnson, M. 1996a. “The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: The Neolithic Period,” in The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990 (SkrAth 4°, 44), B. Wells, ed., Stockholm, pp. 37–73.

———. 2003b. “The Final Neolithic–Early Minoan I/IIA Settlement in the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete,” AJA 107, pp. 363–412.

———. 1996b. “Water, Animals and Agricultural Technology: A Study of Settlement Patterns and Economic Change in Neolithic Southern Greece,” OJA 15, pp. 267–295.

———. 2005. Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete III: The Vrokastro Regional Survey Project. Sites and Pottery (University Museum Monograph 123), Philadelphia. Heermance, T.W., and G.D. Lord. 1897. “Pre-Mycenaean Graves in Corinth,” AJA 1, pp. 313–332. Hekman, J.J. 1994. “Chalandriani on Syros: An Early Bronze Age Cemetery in the Cyclades,” ArchEph 133, pp. 47–74. Higgins, M.D., and R. Higgins. 1996. A Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean, London. Holmberg, E.J. 1944. The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia (SkrRom 11), Göteborg. Honea, K. 1975. “Prehistoric Remains on the Island of Kythnos,” AJA 79, pp. 277–279. Hood, S. 1981–1982. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala I–II (BSA Suppl. 15–16), London. Hope Simpson, R. 1965. A Gazetteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites (BICS Suppl. 16), London. Hope Simpson, R., and O.T.P.K. Dickinson. 1979. A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age. I: The Mainland and Islands (SIMA 52), Göteborg.

———. 2004. Early Farming in the Land of Springs: Settlement Patterns and Agriculture in Neolithic Greece, Ph.D. diss., University of Göteborg. ———. 2006–2007. “Early Farming in the Land of the Springs: Settlement Patterns and Agriculture in Neolithic Greece,” OpAth 31–32, pp. 131–170. Joukowsky, M.S. 1986. Prehistoric Aphrodisias: An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies. I: Excavations and Studies, Providence. Kaczanowska, M., and J.K. Kozlowski. 2006. “Παλαιολιθικές παραδόσεις, Μεσολιθικές προσαρμογές και Νεολιθικές καινοτομίες στο Αιγαίο μέσα από το πρίσμα της λιθοτεχνίας,” in Sampson 2006, pp. 67–87. ———. 2008. “Chipped Stone Artifacts,” in Sampson 2008a, pp. 169–178. Kakavogianni, O., K. Douni, and F. Nezeri. 2008. “Silver Metallurgical Finds Dating from the End of the Final Neolithic Period until the Middle Bronze Age in the Area of Mesogeia,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 45–57.

Hope Simpson, R., and J.F. Lazenby. 1962. “Notes from the Dodecanese,” BSA 57, pp. 154–175.

Kalt, A., R. Altherr, and T. Ludwig. 1998. “Contact Metamorphism in Politic Rocks on the Island of Kos (Greece, Eastern Aegean Sea): A Test for the Nacordierite Thermometer,” Journal of Petrology 39, pp. 663–688.

———. 1970. “Notes from the Dodecanese II,” BSA 65, pp. 47–77.

Kâmil, T. 1982. Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia (BAR-IS 145), Oxford.

———. 1973. “Notes from the Dodecanese III,” BSA 68, pp. 127–179.

Kantzia, C. 1984. “Κως,” ArchDelt 39 (B', Chronika) [1989], pp. 329–331.

Horejs, B. 2009. “Metalworkers at Çukuriçi Höyük? An Early Bronze Age Mould and a ‘Near Eastern Weight’ from Western Anatolia,” in Metals and Societies: Studies in Honour of Barbara S. Ottaway, T.L. Kienlin and B. Roberts, eds., Bonn, pp. 358–368.

Kaptan, E. 2008. “Metallurgical Residues from Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Liman Tepe,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 243–250.

Ifantidis, F. 2006. Τα κοσμήματα του Νεολιθικού οικισμού Δισπηλιού Καστοριάς: Παραγωγή και χρήση μίας άισθητικής εργαλειοθήκης, Thessaloniki.

Karali, L. 1981. “Céramique grossière,” in La grotte préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique), N. Lambert, ed., Paris, pp. 349–371. ———. 1999. Shells in Aegean Prehistory (BAR-IS 761), Oxford.

Immerwahr, S.A. 1971. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (Agora 13), Princeton.

———. 2002. “Ftelia on Myconos: The Molluscan Material,” in Sampson 2002, pp. 201–220.

Jacopich, G. 1928. “Coo, grotta di Aspri Petra,” ClRh 1, pp. 99–100.

———. 2003. “Molluscs in the Prehistoric Dodecanese,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3, pp. 63–72.

REFERENCES

Karali-Giannakopoulou, L. 2006. “The Molluscs,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 242–244. Karantzali, E. 1996. Le bronze ancien dans les Cyclades et en Crète (BAR-IS 631), Oxford. ———. 2006. “The Pottery of Markiani Phases I and II,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 101–130. Kardulias, P.N. 1992. “The Ecology of Bronze Age Flaked Stone Tool Production in Southern Greece: Evidence from Aghios Stefanos and the Southern Argolid,” AJA 96, pp. 421–442. Kardulias, P.N., and C. Runnels. 1995. “The Lithic Artifacts, Flaked Stone and Other Nonflaked Lithics,” in Artifact and Assemblage I, C.N. Runnels, D.J. Pullen, and S. Langdon, eds., Stanford, pp. 74–139. Katsaros, T.T. 2006. Ικαριακά Σύμμεικτα, Athens. Katsarou, S., A. Sampson, and E. Dimou. 2002. “Obsidian as Temper in the Neolithic Pottery from Yiali, Greece,” in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics V (BAR-IS 1011), V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, and Y. Maniatis, eds., Oxford, pp. 111–120. Katsarou, S., and D.U. Schilardi. 2004. “Emerging Neolithic and Early Cycladic Settlements in Paros, Koukounaries and Sklavouna,” BSA 99, pp. 23–48.

217

Kokkorou-Alevra, G., and K. Kopanias, eds. Forthcoming. Επιφανειακή έρευνα στην Αλάσαρνα της Κω, Athens. Kokkorou-Alevra, G., A.A. Lemou, and E. SimantoniBournia, eds. 2001. Ιστορία, τέχνη και αρχαιότητες της Κω (Αρχαιογνωσία 1), Athens. Konecny, A.L., R.T. Marchese, M.J. Boyd, and V. Aravantinos. 2008. “Plataiai in Boiotia: A Preliminary Report on Geophysical and Field Surveys Conducted in 2002–2005,” Hesperia 77, pp. 43–71. Konsola, D. 1986. “Stages of Urban Transformation in the Early Helladic Period,” in Hägg and Konsola, eds., 1986, pp. 9–19. Kopaka, K., and C. Mantzanas. 2009. “Palaeolithic Industries from the Island of Gavdos, Near Neighbour to Crete in Greece,” Antiquity 83, p. 321. Kostoula, M. 2006. “Πετρί Νεμέας: Τα ανασκαφικά δεδομένα,” in Α' Αρχαιολογική Σύνοδος Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, Athens, pp. 271–280. Kouka, O. 1997. “Οργάνωση και χρήση του χώρου στη Θερμή Λέσβου κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 467–497.

Katasarou-Tzeveleki, S. 2006. “Διακοσμημένα σκεύη της Μέσης Νεολιθικής στο σπήλαιο του Κύκλωπα,” in Sampson 2006, pp. 126–136.

———. 2008. “Diaspora, Presence or Interaction? The Cyclades and the Greek Mainland from the Final Neolithic to Early Bronze II,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 271–279.

Katsarou-Tzeveleki, S., and A. Sampson. 2006. “Η πρώτη κατοίκησης της Κύπρου και η επιρροή της στη συζήτηση για τη νεολιθικοποίηση του Αιγαίου,” in Sampson 2006, pp. 88–114.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, C. 1987. “Οικισμός της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού στη Σκάλα Σωτήρος Θάσου,” Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 1, pp. 389–406.

Katsarou-Tzeveleki, S., and D.U. Schilardi. 2006. “Η Νεολιθική κατοίκηση στις Κουκουναριές Πάρου,” in Sampson 2006, pp. 194–198.

———. 1989. “Ανασκαφή Σκάλας Σωτήρος 1989,” Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 3, pp. 507–520.

Kavvadias, Y.V. 1984. Παλαιολιθική Κεφαλωνιά: Ο πολιτισμός του Φισκάρδου, Athens. Kayafa, M., S. Stos-Gale, and N. Gale. 2000. “The Circulation of Copper in the Early Bronze Age in Mainland Greece: The Lead Isotope Evidence from Lerna, Lithares and Tsoungiza,” in Metals Make the World Go Round: The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997, C.F.E. Pare, ed., Oxford, pp. 39–55.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, C., and G. Weisgerber. 1996. “Παλαιολιθικό ορυχείο ώχρας στη Θάσο,” Αρχαιολογία και τέχνες 60, pp. 82–89. Koukoulis, G.N. 1982. Η Κάλυμνα της Ιστορίας, Athens. Koumouzelis, M. 1980. The Early and Middle Helladic Periods in Elis, Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University. Kourtessi-Philippakis, G. 1999. “The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Ionian Islands: New Finds,” in Bailey et al., eds., 1999, pp. 282–287.

Kelepertsis, A.E., and S.S. Reeves. 1987–1988. “The Geochemistry of the Volcan Rocks of Kos Island, Aegean Sea, Greece,” Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques 33, pp. 443–462.

Koutsoukou, A. 1993. “Αρχαιολογική επιφανειακή έρευνα στην βορειοδυτική Άνδρο,” Ανδριακά χρονικά 21, pp. 99–110.

Keller, D. 1982. “Final Neolithic Pottery from Plakari, Karystos,” in Studies in South Attica I (Miscellanea Graeca 5), P. Spitaels, ed., Gent, pp. 47–67.

Krathopoulou, A. 2000. “Holocene Alluvial History of Northern Pieria, Macedonia, Greece,” in Halstead and Frederick, eds., 2000, pp. 15–27.

218

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kyparrisi-Apostolika, N. 2001. Τα Προϊστορικά κοσμήματα της Θεσσαλίας (Δημοσίευμα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 76), Athens. Kyrou, A. 1990. Στο σταυροδρόμι του Αργολικού I, Athens. Labriola, L. 2008. “First Impressions: A Preliminary Account of Mat-impressed Pottery in the Prehistoric Aegean,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 309–322. Lamb, W. 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos, Cambridge. Lambeck, K. 1996. “Sea-level Change and Shore-line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Time,” Antiquity 70, pp. 588–611. Lambert, N. 1981. “La céramique néolithique,” in La grotte préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique), N. Lambert, ed., Paris, pp. 275–347. Lambrianides, K., and N. Spencer. 1997a. “Some Reflections upon the Origins and Development of Early Bronze Age Settlement in Lesbos and Some New Evidence from Western Anatolia,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 618–633. ———. 1997b. “Unpublished Material from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the British School at Athens and Its Contribution to a Better Understanding of the Early Bronze Age Settlement Pattern on Lesbos,” BSA 92, pp. 73–107. ———. 2008. “The Early Bronze Age Sites of Lesbos and the Madra Çay Delta: New Light on a Discrete Regional Centre of Prehistoric Settlement and Society in the Northeast Aegean,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 333–354. La Rosa, V. 2001. “Οι Μινωίτες στα Σεράγια ή επιθυμία για περισσότερη γνώση,” in KokkorouAlevra, Lemou, and Simantoni-Bournia, eds., 2001, pp. 49–58. Lazarovici, C.-M. 2003. “Pre-writing Signs on NeoEneolithic Altars,” in Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe (BAR-IS 1139), L. Nikolova, ed., Oxford, pp. 85–96. Leontaris, S.N. 1970. “‘Η γεωμορφολογική ἀνάπτυξις καί ἐξέλιξις τῆς νήσου Κῶ,” Annales géologiques des pays helléniques 22, pp. 40–61. Levi, D. 1925–1926. “La grotta di Aspripetra a Coo,” ASAtene 8–9, pp. 235–312. Liaros, N. 2003. “Κορακοβούνι Υμηττού, η προϊστορική κατοίκηση,” in Vlachopoulos and Birtacha, eds., 2003, pp. 231–246. Lloyd, S., and J. Mellaart. 1962. Beycesultan I: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels, London.

MacGillivray, J.A. 1979. Early Cycladic Pottery from Mt. Kynthos in Delos, Edinburgh. ———1980. “Mount Kynthos in Delos: The Early Cycladic Settlement,” BCH 104, pp. 3–45. ———. 1984. “The Relative Chronology of Early Cycladic III,” in MacGillivray and Barber, eds., 1984, pp. 70–77. ———. 2008. “The Early Helladic Pottery,” in Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia (BSA Suppl. 44), W.D. Taylour and R. Janko, eds., London, pp. 159–176. MacGillivray, J.A., and R.L.N. Barber, eds. 1984. The Prehistoric Cyclades, Edinburgh. Maiuri, A. 1928. “Esplorazione di grotte con avanzi preistorici nell‘ isola di Calimno,” ClRh 1, pp. 104–117. Malamidou, D., and S. Papadopoulos. 1993. “Ανασκαφική έρευνα στον προϊστορικό οικισμό Λιμεναρίων Θάσου,” Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 3, pp. 559–572. Mangani E. 1997. “I materiali da Troia al Museo Pigorini,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 610–617. Manning, S.W. 2008. “Protopalatial Crete: The Formation of the Palaces,” in Shelmerdine, ed., 2008, pp. 105–120. Manteli, K. 1996. “Crete,” in Papathanassopoulos, ed., 1996, pp. 132–134. Maran, J. 1998. Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3 Jartausend v. Chr.: Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer- und frühen Bronzezeit, Bonn. Marangou, L. 1984. “Evidence for the Early Cycladic Period on Amorgos,” in Fitton, ed., 1984, pp. 99–103. ———. 2002. Αμοργός Ι: Η Μινώα, η πόλις, ο λιμήν και η μείζων περιφέρεια (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας 228), Athens. ———. 2006. “The Architecture,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 81–93. Marangou, L., ed. 1990. Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the 3rd millennium B.C., Athens. Marangou, L., C. Renfrew, C. Doumas, and G. Gavalas, eds., 2006. Markiani Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement (BSA Suppl. 40), London. Mari, A. 2001. Η Νεολιθική Εποχή στο Σαρωνικό: Μαρτυρίες για τη χρήση του σπηλαίου με βάση την

REFERENCES

κεραμεική της Νεώτερης και Τελικής Νεολιθικής, Thessaloniki. Marinos, G., and N. Symeonidis. 1977. “Νησιωτικοί πληθυσμοί νάνων θηλαστικών εις το αρχιπέλαγος του Αιγαίου κατά το Τεταρτογενές,” Annales géologiques des pays helléniques 28, pp. 352–367. Marketou, T. 1990a. “Asomatos and Seraglio, EBA Production and Interconnections,” Hydra: Working Papers in Middle Bronze Age Studies 7, pp. 40–48. ———. 1990b. “Santorini Tephra from Rhodes and Kos: Some Chronological Remarks Based on the Stratigraphy,” in Thera and the Aegean World III, D.A. Hardy and A.C. Renfrew, eds., London, pp. 100–113. ———. 1997. “Ασώματος Ρόδου: Τα μεγαρόσχημα κτήρια και οι σχέσεις τους με το βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 395–413. ———. 1998. “Excavations at Trianda (Ialysos) on Rhodes: New Evidence for the Late Bronze Age I Period,” RendLinc 9, pp. 39–82. ———. 2004. “Η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού στην Κω,” in Χάρις Χαίρε: Μέλετες στη μνήμη της Χάρης Κάντζια, A. Giannikouri, I. Zervondaki, I. Kollias, and I. Papachristodoulou, eds., Athens, pp. 17–37. Marthari, M. 1997. “Από τον Σκάρκο στην Πολιόχνη, παρατηρήσεις για την κοινωνικο-οικονομική ανάπτυξη των οικισμών της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού στις Κυκλάδες και τα νησιά του βορειοανατολικού Αιγαίου,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 362–382. Marthari, M., T. Marketou, and R.E. Jones. 1990. “LB I Ceramic Connections between Thera and Kos,” in Thera and the Aegean World I, D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis, and P.M. Warren, eds., London, pp. 171–184. Masseti, M. 2003. “Holocene Endemic and Non Endemic Mammals of the Aegean Islands,” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (BSA Studies 9), E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti, eds., London, pp. 53–63. ———. 2008. “The Most Ancient Explorations in the Mediterranean,” Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 59, pp. 1–18. Matthews, R. 2007. “An Arena for Cultural Contact: Paphlagonia (North-central Turkey) through Prehistory,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 25–34. Mavridis, F. 2003. “Early Island Archaeology and the Extinction of Endemic Fauna in the Eastern Mediterranean: Problems of Interpretation and

219

Methodology,” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances (BSA Studies 9), E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble and P. Elefanti, eds., London, pp. 65–74. ———. 2006. Ένα αρχιπέλαγος πολιτισμών: Η Νεολιθική περίοδος στα νησιά του Αιγαίου. Αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα, θεωρία, ερμηνεία, Ph.D. diss., University of Athens. McGeehan-Liritzis, V. 1983. “The Relationships between Metalwork, Copper Sources and the Evidence for Settlement in the Greek LN and EBA,” OJA 2, pp. 147–180. ———. 1996. The Role and Development of Metallurgy in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Greece (SIMA-PB 122), Jonsered. Mee, C. 1978. “Aegean Trade and Settlements in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C.,” AnatSt 28, pp. 121–156. ———. 1999. “Regional Survey Projects and the Prehistory of the Peloponnese,” in Le Péloponnèse: Archéologie et histoire, J. Renard, ed., Rennes, pp. 67–79. ———. 2001. “Nucleation and Dispersal in Neolithic and Early Helladic Laconia,” in Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age, K. Branigan, ed., Sheffield, pp. 1–14. Mee, C., and W. Cavanagh. 2000. “The Hidden Landscape of Prehistoric Greece: A View from Laconia and Methana,” JMA 13, pp. 102–107. ———. 2005. “Land Tenure and Rural Residence in Laconia,” in The Laconia Rural Sites Project (BSA Suppl. 36), W. Cavanagh, C. Mee, and P. James, eds., London, pp. 5–14. Mee, C., and P. James. 2000. “Soils and Site Function: The Laconian Rural Site Project,” in Halstead and Frederick, eds., 2000, pp. 162–175. Mee, C., and G. Taylor. 1997. “Prehistoric Methana,” in A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, C. Mee and H. Forbes, eds., Liverpool, pp. 42–56. Melas, E.M. 1985. The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (SIMA 68), Göteborg. ———. 1988. “Exploration in the Dodecanese: New Prehistoric and Mycenaean Finds,” BSA 83, pp. 283–311. Mellaart, J. 1963. “Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain,” AnatSt 13, pp. 199–236. Meriç, R. 1982. Metropolis in Ionien: Ergebnisse einer Survey-Unternehmung in den Jahren 1972–1975 (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 142), Königstein.

220

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Merousis, N. 2002. Χίος: Φυσικό περιβάλλον και κατοίκηση από τη Νεολιθική Εποχή μέχρι το τέλος της Αρχαιότητας, Chios. Mexi, M. 2002. “Detailed Petrographic Analysis,” in Sampson 2002, pp. 299–308. Milojčić, V. 1961. Die prähistorische Siedlung unter dem Heraion: Grabung 1953 und 1955 (Samos I), Bonn. Moody, J., O. Rackham, and G. Rapp Jr. 1996. “Environmental Archaeology of Prehistoric Northwestern Crete,” JFA 23, pp. 273–297. Morricone, L. 1965–1966. “Eleona e Langada, sepolcreti della tarda età del bronzo a Coo,” ASAtene 43–44, pp. 5–311.

———. 1959. Aghios Kosmas: An EBA Settlement and Cemetery in Attica, Princeton. Ninou, I. 2008. “Τα τριβεία του Δισπηλιού: Τυπολογία, προέλευση, ερωτήματα,” Ανάσκαμμα 1, pp. 67–78. Nowicki, K. 1999. “Final Neolithic Refugees or Early Bronze Age Newcomers? The Problem of Defensible Sites in Crete in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.,” in MELETAMATA: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Aegeum 20), P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Liège, pp. 575–581. ———. 2002. “The End of the Neolithic in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 6, pp. 7–72.

———. 1972–1973. “Coo, scavi e scoperte nel ‘Serraglio’ e in località minori (1935–1943),” ASAtene 50–51, pp. 139–396.

Overbeck, J.C. 1989. The Bronze Age Pottery from the Kastro at Paros (SIMA-PB 78), Jonsered.

Mortensen, P. 2008. “Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Artefacts from Loutro on the South Coast of Crete,” Antiquity 82, p. 317.

Özdoğan, M. 2007. “Amidst Mesopotamia-centric and Euro-centric Approaches: The Changing Role of the Anatolian Peninsula between the East and the West,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 17–24.

Moundrea-Agrafioti, A. 1997. “Η λιθοτεχνία της Πολιόχνης και η θέση της ως προς τις εργαλειοτεχνίες του αποκρουσμένου λίθου της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 168–194.

Pachigianni-Kaloudi, F. 2006. “Ανασκαφή ΠΕ οικισμού στο Πετρί Νεμέας: Μια νέα θέση,” in Α' Αρχαιολογική Σύνοδος Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, Athens, pp. 263–270.

———. 2003. “Mesolithic Fish Hooks from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 131–141.

Pantelidou-Gofa, M. 1995. Η Νεολιθική Νέα Μάκρη: Η κεραμεική (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας 153), Athens.

———. 2007. “I: Λίθινα εργαλεία,” in Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Δυτική οικία. Τράπεζες-λίθινα-μετάλλιναποικίλα (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας 246), C.G. Doumas, ed., Athens, pp. 73–112.

———. 2000. Neolithic Attica, Athens.

Mountjoy, P.A. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery I–II, Rahden, Westfalia. Mpeloyianni, M.P. 2004. “Η καλαθοπλεκτική και τα προϊόντα της στην προϊστορική Ελλάδα,” in Althellenische Technologie und Technik, A. Kyriatsoulis, ed., Weilheim, pp. 429–454. Müller, K. [1938] 1976. Die Urfirniskeramik (Tiryns IV), repr., Mainz am Rhein. Mylona, D. 2003. “The Exploitation of Fish Resources in the Mesolithic Sporades: Fish Remains from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 181–188. Mylonas, G.E. 1959. Aghios Kosmas: An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica, Princeton. ———. [1928] 1975. Ἡ Νεολιθική Ἐποχή ἐν Ἑλλάδι (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας 24), repr., Athens.

Papachristodoulou, I. 1979. “Κως (υπαιθρος),” ArchDelt 34 (B', Chronika) [1984], pp. 457–459. Papadatos, Y. 2008. “The Neolithic–Early Bronze Age Transition in Crete: New Evidence from the Settlement at Petras Kephala, Siteia,” in Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8), V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins, eds., Oxford, pp. 258–272. Papadopoulos, S., and D. Malamidou. 2008. “Limenaria: A Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement at Thasos,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 427–445. Papathanassopoulos, G. 1971. “Σπήλαια Διροῡ: Αἱ ἀνασκαφαί τοῡ 1970–1971,” ΑΑΑ 4, pp. 12–26. Papathanassopoulos, G., Y. Vichos, E. Chatzidaki, and Y. Lolos. 1990. “Δοκός: Aνασκαφική περίοδος 1990,” Ενάλια 2 (3/4), pp. 6–29. Papathanassopoulos, G., Y. Vichos, and Y. Lolos. 1991a. “Δοκός: Aνασκαφική περίοδος 1991,” Ενάλια 3 (1/2), pp. 26–28. ———. 1991b. “Δοκός: Aνασκαφική περίοδος 1991, υποβρύχια έρευνα,” Ενάλια 3 (3/4), pp. 4–29.

REFERENCES

———. 1993. “Δοκός: Aνασκαφική περίοδος 1992,” Ενάλια 5 (1/2), pp. 6–19. Papathanassopoulos, G.A., ed. 1996. Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens. Papazoglou, L. 1981. “Μυκηναϊκός θαλαμωτός τάφος στό Κάστελλο τῆς Κῶ,” AAA 14, pp. 62–75. Parlama, L. 1984. Η Σκύρος στην Εποχή του Χαλκού, Athens. ———. 1999. “Σκύρος: Cycladum et Sporadum extima,” in Φως κυκλαδικόν: Τιμητικός τόμος στη μνήμη του Νίκου Ζαφειρόπουλου, N.C. Stampolidis, ed., Athens, pp. 44–53. ———. 2007. “Παλαμάρι Σκύρου: Παρατηρήσεις στην εξέλιξη του οικισμού κατά την 3η π.Χ. χιλιετία και προβλήματα αστικοποίησης,” in Αμύμονα Έργα (Αρχαιογνωσία 5), E. SimantoniBournia, A.A. Laimou, L.G. Mendoni, and N. Kourou, eds., Athens, pp. 25–48. Parzinger, H. 1989. “Zur frühesten Besiedlung Milets,” IstMitt 39, pp. 415–431.

221

and Anthropology, Uppsala University, 11–13 May, 2000 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 28), K. Höghammar, ed., Uppsala, pp. 165–179. Powell, J. 2003. “The Fish Bone Assemblage from the Cave of Cyclope, Youra: Evidence for Continuity and Change,” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 173–179. Pryce, T.O., Y. Bassiakos, M. Catapotis, and R.C. Doonan. 2007. “‘De Caerimoniae’: Technological Choices in Copper-smelting Furnace Design at Early Bronze Age Chrysokamino, Crete,” Archaeometry 49, pp. 543–557. Pullen, D.J. 1985. Social Organization in Early Bronze Age Greece: A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. ———. 1995. “The Pottery of the Neolithic, Early Helladic I, and Early Helladic II Periods,” in Artifact and Assemblage: Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece I, C.N Runnels, D.J. Pullen, and S. Langdon, eds., Stanford, pp. 6–42. ———. 2000. “The Prehistoric Remains of the Acropolis at Halieis,” Hesperia 69, pp. 133–187.

Paspalas, S.A., and T.E. Gregory. 2009. “Προκαταρκτικά συμπεράσματα της επιφανειακής έρευνας της Αυστραλιανής αποστολής στα Κύθηρα, 1999–2003,” in Από τα Μεσόγεια στον Αργοσαρωνικό, V. Vasilopoulou and S. Katasarou-Tzeveleki, eds., Athens, pp. 549–560.

———. 2003. “Site Size, Territory, and Hierarchy: Measuring Levels of Integration and Social Change in Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean Societies,” in METRON: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 24), K.P. Foster and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège, pp. 29–36.

Patton, M. 1996. Islands in Time: Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory, London.

———. 2008. “The Early Bronze Age in Greece,” in Shelmerdine, ed., 2008, pp. 19–46.

Pecorella, P.E. 1977. “La necropolis di Iasos nel quadro delle culture dell’Anatolia occidentale,” SMEA 18, pp. 65–72.

Rahmstorf, L. 2003. “The Identification of Early Helladic Weights and Their Wider Implications,” in METRON: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24), K.P. Foster and R. Laffineur, eds., Liège, pp. 293–299.

———. 1984. La cultura preistorica di Iasos in Caria, Rome. Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge. Phelps, W.W. 2004. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece (BAR-IS 1259), Oxford. Poulianos, N.A. 2008. “A Mesolithic Cranial Vault and Other Human Remains,” in Sampson 2008a, pp. 195–197.

Rambach, J. 2000. Kykladen: Die frühe Bronzezeit, Bonn. Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C., London. ———. 1982. “Bronze Age Melos,” in Renfrew and Wagstaff, eds., 1982, pp. 35–44.

Poupaki, I.A. 2001. “Πελεκητά, το λατομείο του αρχαίου δήμου των Ισθμιωτών στην Κω,” in Kokkorou-Alevra, Lemou, and Symantoni-Bournia, eds., 2001, pp. 59–76.

———. 1991. The Cycladic Spirit: Masterpieces from the Nicholas P. Goulandris Collection, London.

———. 2004. “Quarries of the Hellenistic Age on the Island of Kos and Possible Uses of the Stones Extracted,” in The Hellenistic Polis in Kos: State, Economy and Culture. Proceedings of an International Seminar Organized by the Department of Archaeology

Renfrew, C., C. Doumas, L. Marangou, and G. Gavalas, eds. 2007. Keros, Dhaskalio Kavos: The Investigations of 1987–88, Cambridge.

———. 2006. “Markiani in Perspective,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 247–256.

222

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Renfrew, C., and R.K. Evans. 2007. “The Early Bronze Age Pottery,” in Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974–77 (BSA Suppl. 42), C. Renfrew, N. Brodie, C. Morris, and C. Scarre, eds., London, pp. 129–180.

Sakellarakis, Y. 2004. “Ελληνοκάμαρα Κάσου,” in Χαρις Χαίρε: Μέλετες στη μνήμη της Χάρης Κάντζια, A. Giannikouri, I. Zervondaki, I. Kollias, and I. Papachristodoulou, eds., Athens, pp. 333–347.

Renfrew, C., and M. Wagstaff, eds. 1982. An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos, Cambridge.

Sampson, A. 1981. “ Ἔνας οἰκισμός τοῡ πρώιμου Σέσκλου στήν Ξυνιάδα Φθιώτιδας,” AAA 14, pp. 104–134.

Renfrew, J.M. 2006. “The Leaf, Mat and Cloth Impressions,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 195–199.

———. 1983. “Το ΝΑ. Αιγαίο στα Νεολιθικά χρόνια,” ArchEph 122, pp. 5–13.

———. 2007. “The Leaf, Mat and Cloth Impressions from Daskalio Kavos, Keros,” in Renfrew et al., eds., 2007, pp. 374–376.

———. 1984a. “The Neolithic of the Dodecanese and Aegean Neolithic Culture,” BSA 79, pp. 239–249.

Rougement, C., and G. Rougement, eds. 1983. Les Cyclades: Matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique, Paris. Runnels, C. 1981. A Diachronic Study and Economic Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid, Greece, Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. ———. 1985. “The Bronze-Age Flaked-Stone Industries from Lerna: A Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 54, pp. 357–391. ———. 1988. “Early Bronze-Age Stone Mortars from the Southern Argolid,” Hesperia 57, pp. 257–272. ———. 1995. “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the Advent of Neolithic,” AJA 99, pp. 699–728. ———. 2001. “Addendum: 1995–1999,” in Cullen, ed., 2001, pp. 255–258. Runnels, C., and P.M. Murray. 2001. Greece Before History, Stanford. Rutter, J.B. 1979. Ceramic Change in the Aegean Early Bronze Age: The Kastri Group, Lefkandi I, and Lerna IV. A Theory Concerning the Origin of Early Helladic III Ceramics (UCLAPap 5), Los Angeles. ———. 1993. “Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland,” AJA 97, pp. 745–797. ———. 1995. Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid III: The Pottery of Lerna IV, Princeton. ———. 2001. “Addendum: 1993–1999,” in Cullen, ed., 2001, pp. 148–155. Şahoğlu, V. 2005. “The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir Region during the Early Bronze Age,” OJA 24, pp. 339–361. ———. 2008. “Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe: New Evidence for the Relations between the Izmir Region, the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland during the Late Fourth and Third Millennia B.C.,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 483–501.

———. 1984b. “Ο οψιανός της Νισύρου και η διάδοση του στο Αιγαίο,” Ανθρωπολογικά 5, pp. 63–74. ———. 1985a. Μάνικα I: Μια Πρωτοελλαδική πόλη στη Χαλκίδα, Chalkis. ———. 1985b. “Η Νεολιθική στο Χώρο του Αιγαίου,” AAA 18, pp. 255–268. ———. 1987. Η Νεολιθική περίοδος στα Δωδεκάνησα, Athens. ———. 1988a. Μάνικα II: Ο Πρωτοελλαδικός οικισμός και το νεκροταφείο, Athens. ———. 1988b. Η Νεολιθική κατοίκηση στο Γυαλί της Νισύρου, Athens. ———. 1993a. Καλογερόβρυση: Ένας οικισμός της Πρώιμης και Μέσης Χαλκοκρατίας στα Φύλλα της Ευβοίας, Athens. ———. 1993b. “Manika and Mainland Greece in Early Helladic III: Ceramic Evidence for Relations with the Aegean and Anatolia,” in Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1939–1989. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens, December 2–3, 1989, C.W. Zerner, P. Zerner, and J. Winder, eds., Amsterdam, pp. 159–164. ———. 1993c. Σκοτεινή Θαρρουνιών: Το σπήλαιο, ο οικισμός και το νεκροταφείο, Athens. ———. 1996. “Νέα στοιχεία για τη Μεσολιθική περίοδο στον ελληνικό χώρο,” Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνες 61, pp. 46–51. ———. 1997. Το Σπήλαιο των Λιμνών στα Καστριά Καλαβρύτων: Μία προϊστορική θέση στην ορεινή Πελοπόννησο (Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών σπουδών 7), Athens. ———. 1998. “The Neolithic and Mesolithic Occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra, Alonnessos, Greece,” BSA 93, pp. 1–22.

REFERENCES

———. 2001. “Η Κως και η νησίδα Γυαλί στη Νεολιθική περίοδο,” in Kokkorou-Alevra, Lemou, and Simantoni-Bournia, eds., pp. 37–48. ———. 2002. The Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos, Rhodes. ———. 2004. “Η σπηλαιοκατοίκηση και το περιβάλλον στα Δωδεκάνησα,” in Χάρις Χαίρε: Μέλετες στη μνήμη της Χάρης Κάντζια, A. Giannikouri, I. Zervondaki, I. Kollias, and I. Papachristodoulou, eds., Athens, pp. 309–317.

223

———. 1998. “Of Tiny Hippos, Large Cows and Early Colonists in Cyprus,” JMA 11, pp. 232–241. Skerlou, E. 1993. “Ηρακλής,” ArchDelt 48 (B', Chronika) [1998], p. 553. ———. 1996. “Περίχωρα της πόλης Κω,” ArchDelt 51 (B', Chronika) [2001], pp. 689–692. ———. 1997. “Κως: Δυτικός τομέας της πόλης,” ArchDelt 52 (B', Chronika) [2003], pp. 1110–1111.

———. 2006. Προϊστορία του Αιγαίου: Παλαιολιθική-Μεσολιθική-Νεολιθική, Athens.

Sotirakopoulou, P.I. 1997. “Κυκλάδες και βόρειο Αιγαίο: Οι σχέσεις τους κατά το δεύτερο ήμισυ της 3ης χιλιετίας π.Χ.,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 522–542.

———. 2008a. The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. I: Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution (Prehistory Monographs 21), Philadelphia.

———. 1999. Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Η Νεολιθική και η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού επί τη βάσει της κεραμεικής (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας 191), Athens.

———. 2008b. “The Mesolithic Settlement and Cemetery of Maroulas on Kythnos,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 13–17.

———. 2005. The Keros Hoard: Myth or Reality? Athens.

Sampson, A., J.K. Kozlowski, and M. Kaczanowska. 2003. “Mesolithic Chipped Stone Industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the Island of Youra (Northern Sporades),” in Galanidou and Perlès, eds., 2003, pp. 123–130.

———. 2008a. “Akrotiri, Thera: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Phases in Light of Recent Excavations at the Site,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, 121–134. ———. 2008b. “The Cyclades, the East Aegean Islands and Western Asia Minor: Their Relations in the Aegean Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 533–557.

Sarpaki, A. 1987. “Παράρτημα 2: Παλαιοεθνοβοτανολογικές παρατηρήσεις από το σπήλαιο Άγιος Γεώργιος στις Καλυθιές Ρόδου,” in Sampson 1987, 153–155.

Spencer, N. 1995. A Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites in Lesbos (BAR-IS 623), Oxford.

Scarre, C. 2006. “Stone Vessels and Implements,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 174–199.

Sperling, J.W. 1976. “Kum Tepe in the Troad: Trial Excavations, 1934,” Hesperia 45, pp. 305–364.

Schliemann, H. [1881] 1976. Ilios: The City and Country of the Trojans, repr., New York.

Spitaels, P. 1982. “Final Neolithic Pottery from Thorikos,” in Studies in South Attica I (Miscellanea Graeca 5), P. Spitaels, ed., Gent, pp. 9–44.

Schoep, I. 2004. “The Socio-economic Context of Seal Use and Administration at Knossos,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 283–293. Shackleton, N.J. 1968. “Appendix IX: The Mollusca, the Crustacean, the Echinodermata,” in Evans and Renfrew, eds., 1968, pp. 122–138. Shelmerdine, C.W. 2008. “Background, Sources and Methods,” in Shelmerdine, ed., 2008, pp. 1–18. Shelmerdine, C.W., ed. 2008. The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge. Sherratt, S. 2000. A Catalogue of Cycladica in the Ashmolean Museum: The Captive Spirit, Oxford. Simmons, A.H. 1991. “Humans, Island Colonization and Pleistocene Extinctions in the Mediterranean: The View from Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus,” Antiquity 65, pp. 857–869.

Stathopoulou, O., Y. Theocharatos, and Y. Katavoutas. 2002. “Χαρακτηριστικά του υετού στη νησιωτική περιοχή του νοτίου Αιγαίου,” in 6º Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο Μετεωρολογίας, Κλιματολογίας και Φυσικής της Ατμόσφαιρας, V.D. Katsoulis, ed., Ioannina, pp. 439–446. Steadman, S.R., J.C. Ross, G. McMahon, and R.L. Gorny. 2008. “Excavations on the North-central Plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Occupation at Çadir Höyük,” AnatSt 58, 47–86. Steel, L. 2004. Cyprus before History: From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the Bronze Age, London. Strasser T.F., E. Panagopoulou, C.N. Runnels, P.M. Murray, N. Thompson, P. Karkanas, F.W. McCoy, and K.W. Wegmann. 2010. “Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from the Plakias Region

224

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete,” Hesperia 79, pp. 145–190. Sutton, R.F., J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani. 1991. “Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 69–128. Takaoğlu, T. 2006. “The Late Neolithic in the Eastern Aegean: Excavations at Gülpinar in the Troad,” Hesperia 75, pp. 289–315. Tekin, H. 2007. “New Discoveries Concerning the Relationship between the Upper Tigris Region and Syro-Cilicia in the Late Neolithic,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 161–169. Televantou, C.A. 2006. “Ο οικισμός του Στρόφιλα στην Άνδρο,” in Sampson 2006, Athens, pp. 185–194. ———. 2008. “Strofilas: A Neolithic Settlement on Andros,” in Brodie et al., eds., 2008, pp. 43–54. Theocharis, D.R. 1959. “Ἐκ τῆς Προϊστορίας τῆς Εὐβοίας καί τῆς Σκύρου,” Ἀρχειον Εὐβοϊκῶν Μελετῶν 6, pp. 279–328. ———. 1962. “Ἀπό τή Νεολιθική Θεσσαλία: I,” Θεσσαλικά 4, pp. 63–83. ———. 1967. Ἡ αὐγή τῆς Θεσσαλικῆς προϊστορίας: Ἀρχή καί πρώιμη ἐξέλιξη τῆς Νεολιθικῆς, Volos. ———. 1973. Neolithic Greece, Athens. ———. 1993. Νεολιθικός πολιτισμός: Σύντομη επισκόπηση της Νεολιθικής στον Ελλαδικό χώρο, 3rd ed., Athens. Theochari, M.D., and L. Parlama. 1986. “Palamari, an Early Bronze Age Settlement at Skyros,” in Hägg and Konsola, eds., 1986, pp. 51–55. ———. 1997. “Παλαμάρι Σκύρου: Η οχυρωμένη πόλη της Πρώιμης Χαλκορατίας,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 344–361. Thimme, J., ed. 1977. Art and Culture of the Cyclades, Karlsruhe. Thompson, D. 2007. “At the Crossroads: Prehistoric Settlement in the Maeander Valley,” in Fletcher and Greaves, eds., 2007, pp. 87–99.

Tomkins, P. 2007. “Neolithic: Strata IX–VIII, VII–VIB, VIA–V, IV, IIIB, IIIA, IIB, IIA and IC groups,” in Knossos Pottery Handbook: Neolithic and Bronze Age (Minoan) (BSA Studies 14), N. Momigliano, ed., London, pp. 9–48. Tomkins, P., P.M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou. 2004. “Knossos and the Earlier Neolithic Landscape of the Herakleion Basin,” in Cadogan, Hatzaki, and Vasilakis, eds., 2004, pp. 51–59. Torrence, R. 1982. “The Obsidian Quarries and Their Use,” in Renfrew and Wagstaff, eds., 1982, pp. 193–221. ———. 1986. Production and Exchange of Stone Tools: Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean, Cambridge. Traverso, A. 1997. “Nuovi dati su Poliochnia Azzuro,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 58–77. Treuil, R., P. Darcque, J.-C. Poursat, and G. Touchais. 1996. Οι πολιτισμοί του Αιγαίου, O. Polychronopoulou and A. Filippa-Touchais, trans., Athens. Triandafylli, M. 1994. Geological Map of Greece: Western Kos (Kephalos) Sheet. 1:50,000. Institute of Geological and Mineral Exlporation, Athens. ———. 1998. Geological Map of Greece: Eastern Kos Sheet. 1:50,000. Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration, Athens. Tsipopoulou, M. 2007. “Aghia-Photia–Kouphota: A Centre for Metallurgy in the Early Minoan Period,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 135–153. Tsountas, Ch. 1898. “Κυκλαδικά,” ArchEph 1898, pp. 137–212. ———. 1899. “Κυκλαδικά II,” ArchEph 1899, pp. 73–134. ———. [1908] 2000. Αἱ προϊστορικές ἀκροπόλεις Διμηνίου καί Σέσκλου (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἑταιρείας 14), repr., Athens. Tuncel, R. 2008. “The Izmir Region Excavations and Research Project (IRERP) Survey Program: New Prehistoric Settlements in the Izmir Region,” in Erkanal et al., eds., 2008, pp. 581–592.

Tiné, V. 1997a. “Nuovi dati su Poliochni Nero,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 34–57.

Tzachili, I., 2008. “Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age: Recent Developments,” in Tzachili, ed., 2008, pp. 7–33.

———. 1997b. “Poliochni: Problemi di urbanistica e demografia,” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 201–210.

Tzachili, I., ed. 2008. Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age, Athens.

———.1997c. “Poliochni: Risultati e prospettive del nuovo progetto di ricerca (1986–1996),” in Doumas and La Rosa, eds., 1997, pp. 13–23.

Tzavella-Evjen, C. 1984. Λιθαρές (Δημοσίευμα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 32), Athens.

REFERENCES

225

———. 2001. “Neolithic Boiotian Economy: Recording and Exchange System at Chaeroneia,” in Καλλίστευμα: Μελέτες προς τιμήν της Όλγας Τζάχου-Αλεξανδρή, A. Alexandri and I. Leventi, eds., Athens, pp. 35–42.

———. 2007. Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid V: The Neolithic Pottery from Lerna, Princeton.

Vagnetti, L. 1996. “The Final Neolithic: Crete Enters the Wider World,” Cretan Studies 5, pp. 29–39.

Voigtländer, W. 1982. “Funde aus der Insula westlich des Buleuterion in Milet,” IstMitt 32, pp. 30–173.

Vagnetti, L., and P. Belli. 1978. “Characters and Problems of the Final Neolithic in Crete,” SMEA 19, pp. 125–163.

———. 1983. “Frühe Funde vom Killiktepe bei Milet,” IstMitt 33, pp. 5–39.

Vlachopoulos, A., and K. Birtacha, eds. 2003. Αργοναύτης, Athens.

van Andel, T.H. 1989. “Late Quaternary Sea-level Changes and Archaeology,” Antiquity 63, pp. 733–745.

———. 1986. “Umrisse eines vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zentrums an der Karisch-Ionischen Küste,” AA 1986, pp. 613–667.

van Andel, T.H., and C. Runnels. 1987. Beyond the Acropolis: A Rural Greek Past, Stanford.

Voutiropoulos, N. 2002. “The Polychrome Ware from Ftelia,” in Sampson, ed., 2002, pp. 131–139.

———. 1995. “The Earliest Farmers in Europe,” Antiquity 69, pp. 481–500.

Walter, H., and F. Felten. 1981. Alt-Ägina: Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt, Mainz am Rhein.

van Andel, T.H., and J.C. Shackleton. 1982. “Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Coastlines of Greece and the Aegean,” JFA 9, pp. 445–454.

Warner, J.L. 1994. Elmali-Karataş II: An Early Bronze Age Village of Karataş, Bryn Mawr.

van Andel, J.H., E. Zangger, and A. Demitrack. 1990. “Land Use and Soil Erosion in Prehistoric and Historical Greece,” JFA 17, pp. 379–396.

———. 1972. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (BSA Suppl. 7), London.

van der Geer, A., M. Dermitzakis, and J. de Vos. 2005. “Crete before the Cretans: The Reign of Dwarfs,” Pharos 13, pp. 119–130. Vaughan, S.J. 1990. “Petrographic Analysis of the Early Cycladic Wares from Akrotiri, Thera,” in Thera and the Aegean World I, D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis, and P.M. Warren, eds., London, pp. 470–487. ———. 2006. “Macroscopic and Petrographic Studies of Pottery from Markiani on Amorgos,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 99–101. Vaughan, S.J., and D. Williams. 2007. “The Pottery Fabrics,” in Excavations at Phylakopi Melos in 1974–77 (BSA Suppl. 42), C. Renfrew, N. Brodie, C. Morris, and C. Scarre, eds., London, pp. 91–125. Vermeule, E. 1964. “The Early Bronze Age in Caria,” Archaeology 17, pp. 244–249.

Warren, P. 1969. Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge.

Warren, P., and V. Hankey. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol. Watrous, L.V. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton. ———. 1994. “Review of Aegean Prehistory III: Crete from Earliest Prehistory through the Protopalatial Period,” AJA 98, pp. 695–753. ———. 2001. “Addendum: 1994–1999,” in Cullen, ed., 2001, pp. 157–223. Watrous, L.V., and D. Hadzi-Vallianou. 2004. “Initial Growth in Social Complexity (Late Neolithic–Early Minoan I),” in The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete, L.V. Watrous, D. Hadzi-Vallianou, and H. Blitzer, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 221–231.

Vitale, S. 2005. “L’insediamento di ‘Seraglio’ durante il Tondo Bronzo. Riesame dei principali contesti portati alla luce da Luigi Morricone tra il 1935 el il 1946,” ASAtene 83, pp. 71–94.

Watrous, L.V., D. Hadzi-Vallianou, K. Pope, N. Mourtzas, J. Shay, C.T. Shay, J. Bennet, D. Tsoungarakis, E. Angelomati-Tsoungarakis, C. Vallianos, and H. Blitzer. 1993. “A Survey of the Western Mesara Plain in Crete: Preliminary Report of the 1984, 1986, and 1987 Field Seasons,” Hesperia 62, pp. 191–248.

Vitelli, K.D. 1999. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery II: The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5 (Franchthi 10), Bloomington, IN.

Webb, J., and D. Frankel. 2004. “Intensive Site Survey: Implications for Estimating Settlement Size, Population and Duration in Prehistoric Bronze Age

226

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Cyprus,” in Archaeological Field Survey in Cyprus: Past History, Future Potentials (BSA Studies 11), M. Iakovou, ed., London, pp. 125–137.

Wilson, D.E. 1999. Keos IX: Ayia Irini. Periods I–III: The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements, Mainz am Rhein.

Weinberg, S.S. 1947. “Aegean Chronology: Neolithic Period and Early Bronze Age,” AJA 51, pp. 165–182.

Wilson, D.E., and M. Eliot. 1984. “Ayia Irini, Period III: The Last Phase of Occupation at the EBA Settlement,” in MacGillivray and Barber, eds., 1984, pp. 78–87.

Weisshaar, H.J., I. Weber-Hiden, A. von der Driesch, J. Boessneck, A. Reiger, and W. Böser. 1990. Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte. 11: Die Keramik Von Talioti, Mainz. Whitelaw, T.M. 1991. “Investigations at the Neolithic Sites of Kephala and Paoura,” in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 199–216. ———. 2000. “Settlement Instability and Landscape Degradation in the Southern Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C.,” in Halstead and Frederick, eds., 2000, pp. 135–161. ———. 2004. “Alternative Pathways to Complexity in the Southern Aegean,” in The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited, J.C. Barrett and P. Halstead, eds., Oxford, pp. 232–256.

Wright, J.C. 2004. “Comparative Settlement Patterns during the Bronze Age in the Northeastern Peloponnesos, Greece,” in Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry, eds., Oxford, pp. 114–131. Wright, J.C., J.F. Cherry, E. Mantzourani, S.B. Sutton, and R.F. Sutton Jr. 1990. “The Nemea Valley Project: A Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 59, pp. 579–659. Yakar, J. 1985. The Late Prehistory of Anatolia: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (BAR-IS 268), Oxford. Yiannouli, E. 2002. “Kat’Akrotiri on Amorgos: Surface Pottery from an Early Cycladic Acropolis,” BSA 97, pp. 1–47.

———. 2006. “The Surface Survey of 1987,” in Marangou et al., eds., 2006, pp. 9–22.

Yiouni, P. 2001. “Surface Treatment of Neolithic Vessels from Macedonia and Thrace,” BSA 96, pp. 1–25.

Whitley, J., M. Prent, and S. Thorne. 1999. “Praisos IV: A Preliminary Report on the 1993 and 1994 Survey Seasons,” BSA 94, pp. 215–264.

Zachos, K. 1987. “Νάξος- Σπήλαιο ‘Ζα,’” ArchDelt 42 (B', Chronika) [1992], pp. 694–700.

Whittaker, R.J. 1998. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation, Oxford.

———. 1999. “Zas Cave on Naxos and the Role of Caves in the Aegean Late Neolithic,” in Halstead, ed., 1999, pp. 153–163.

Wiencke, M.H. 1989. “Change in Early Helladic II,” AJA 93, pp. 495–509. ———. 2000. Lerna IV: The Architecture, Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III, Princeton. Williams-Thorpe, O. 1988. “Provenancing and Archaeology of Roman Millstones from the Mediterranean Area,” JAS 15, pp. 253–305. Williams-Thorpe, O., and R.S. Thorpe. 1993. “Geochemistry and Trade of Eastern Mediterranean Millstones from the Neolithic to Roman Periods,” JAS 20, pp. 263–320.

———. 2007. “The Neolithic Background: A Reassessment,” in Day and Doonan, eds., 2007, pp. 168–206. ———. 2008. Ayios Dhimitrios: A Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnese. The Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods (BAR-IS 1770), Oxford. Zervos, C. 1957. L’art des Cyclades du début à la fin de l’Age du Bronze, 2500–1100 avant notre ère, Paris. Zimmermann, J.-L. 1993. Poèmes de marbre: Sculptures cycladiques du Musée Barbier-Mueller, Paris.

Index

Acarnania, 40 Aceramic, 158 Achilleion, 31 Aegean, 1–2, 10–12, 28–31, 35–37, 41–42, 45–47, 57, 60–61, 63–64, 85–87, 90, 92, 95, 97–98, 103–104, 107–108, 111, 115, 117, 121, 153–160, 164–165, 168–169, 173–175, 181–182, 185–187, 193–194, 197–200, 205, 207 Aegean islands, 11, 39, 46, 50, 54, 115, 153–159, 161– 162, 165–166, 171–175, 181, 185, 188, 191, 197–199, 205–207 Aegeocentric, 154 Aphandou-Parthenonas, 22 agora, 23, 28–29, 42, 44, 50, 55, 57, 59, 62 Agrelidi Kangelo, 24 Agrilia, 38, 47, 59 Aegina, 2, 36, 40, 50, 110, 166, 185, 199 Aigiali bay, 189 Ailas, 64 Aitolia, 60 Akhisar, 26, 30 Akrotiraki, 43, 53, 167 Akrotiri (Thera), 12, 24–25, 27–30, 35–40, 43–50, 53– 54, 56–62, 64, 105, 107, 111, 117, 165–166, 190, 199 Akrotiri (Naxos), 61 Akrotiri-Aetokremnos, 156–157

Akrotirion Sklavos, 167 Akyeniköy, 165 Alacaligöl, 164 Alepotrypa, 28, 36, 44, 46, 48, 50, 55, 62–63, 116 Alimnia, 12, 22–23, 25–26, 28, 30, 36–39, 41–42, 45–46, 48, 50–52, 56–60, 62, 87, 91–92, 98, 103–104, 106, 110, 168–170, 192–193 alluvial, 3, 19, 121, 184 alluviation, 19–20, 169, 194 Almakça, 159 Alonnisos, 155, 157, 165, 187 Alram-Stern, E., 154 Amaniou, 8 Amarynthos, 182 Ammoudi Skinias, 163–164 Amorgos, 10, 47–48, 64, 91, 156, 165, 189–192, 198–199 Amorgos Group, 45, 48, 88 Amoua, 170 Amoudiarides, 191 amphora, 48, 88 amygdalopetra, 4 Anagros, 50, 169–170 Anatolia/Anatolian, 7, 10–11, 24, 26, 29–31, 35, 37, 48, 52, 55, 86–91, 95–96, 99–100, 118, 120, 155–156, 158–159, 164–165, 174, 184–185, 194, 197 Anatoli Pandotinou Koriphi, 163,

228

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Anatoli Schistra, 163 ancient Halasarna-Tholos, 5, 19, 23, 96–99, 120, 171– 172, 195–196 andesite, 3–4, 9, 103–104, 106, 108–111, 174 Andros, 50, 165, 167, 175, 188, 198, 206 Ano Kouphonisi, 48, 190 Antikythera, 154–155, 165–166, 185–186, 199 Antimachia, 3, 8, 10, 18, 100, 194 Antimachia plateau, 1, 17–19, 172 Antiparos, 45, 48, 54, 156, 165, 190 Antiparos cave, 50, 165–166 Antiparos obsidian, 101 Apeiranthos, 64 Aphrodisias, 22–23, 29, 37, 42–43, 46, 50, 52–55, 58, 92, 104, 106–108, 115, 164, 184 Aplomata cemetery, 189 Arapkave Höyük, 165 Araptepe, 159, 164 Arcadia, 40 Archaic, 6, 19 Archangelos, 23, 169–170, 172–173, 187, 206 architrave, 9 Archontiki, 166, 187 Argive plain, 182 Argolid, 27, 40, 44, 50, 156, 172, 175, 182, 199, 207 Argos (Argolid), 36, 39, 41, 44 Argos (Saria), 191 Argo-Saronic Gulf, 165–166, 174, 185 Aria, 44 Arkovouni hill, 183 arrowhead, 98–99, 165 Asea, 41, 50, 55, 57, 62, 182 Asea survey, 162 Asphendiou, 7, 10 Askitario, 115, 182 Asklepieion, 3, 7 Askloupi, 5, 7–8, 12, 27–28, 44, 48, 50, 54, 58, 60, 171, 194 askos, 61 Askris Potamos, 162 Asomatos, 12, 37, 192–193 Aspri Petra, 5, 9, 12, 28, 44, 50, 52–53, 55, 61, 91, 101, 105, 109, 159–160, 171, 173–174, 194, 205 Assessos, 165 Astakos, 60 Astypalaia, 23–25, 27–28, 50, 64, 156, 169–170, 192–194 Atkinson, T., 153 Atsipades Korakias, 50 Attica, 10, 23, 31, 40, 52–53, 116, 162, 175, 182, 191, 199, 206–207 Attica-Kephala, 31, 55, 87, 91 Aulaki, 4

Avdeli, 48 Azoria, 24, 163

Bağbaşi, 36, 39, 55–60, 164 Bahçetepe, 53 Bakla Tepe, 115, 164, 184, 207 Balikesir, 26 Balkan, 11, 108, 111, 117 Barbaros, 164 basalt, 104 base, 51, 58–60 basketry, 51 Bassiakos, Y., 116 Bean, G., and J. Cook, 5 Berbati-Limnes, 161–162, 171–172, 181–182 Beșiktepe, 23, 50 Beycesultan, 11, 23, 26, 29, 36, 39–41, 43, 45, 50, 53–56, 62–63, 86, 92, 164, 184 Bintliff, J., 158, 160 black burnished ware, 26 black-glazed, 7 Black Sea, 155 blade, 6–7, 95, 97–99, 171 Boeotia, 53, 161–162, 171–172, 175, 181–182, 207 Bokasia, 6 bowl, 6, 24–25, 28, 30, 35–42, 44, 46, 52–53, 57–58, 60, 62, 64, 85–89, 92, 192, 194 Bozdağ, 23 Boztepe, 164 bronze, 98 Bronze Age (BA), 10, 153, 188 bronze weapons, 7 Broodbank, C., 154, 166, 207 Buchholz, H.-G., and E. Althaus, 100, 154 Bulgaria, 157–158, 160 Buralia, 164 burial, 7–8, 29, 154, 158, 169, 184, 192, 194 burin, 98 Byzantine, 6–10

Çadir Höyük, 30–31, 115 cake-like ware, 25 Canhasan, 41, 61, 85, 91 Cape Tigani, 4 Cape Vani, 167 Cavanagh, W., 168 Cave of Nestor, 6, Cave of the Cyclops, 28, 36, 39–40, 42, 46–48, 57, 63, 106, 108, 110, 116, 157, 159–160, 165–166, 173–174, 187, 20, cemetery, 5, 7–8, 38, 61, 167, 188

INDEX

Central Anatolia, 28, 96, 154, 159 Central Greece, 160–162, 173, 182 Central Kos, 30, 117 Chaironeia, 108 Chalakies, 60, 166 Chalandriani, 43, 48, 53, 116, 188–189 Chalki, 3, 22, 24–26, 43, 60, 110, 169–170, 192–193 Chalcolithic, 11 Chamaizi, 184 chamber tomb, 6–7 Charkadio cave, 103–104, 169, 192 Chatzivasiliou, V., 117 cheese pot, 6–7, 12, 28–30, 50–52, 59, 86–87, 92, 116, 168, 171 Cherry, J., 154, 157–158, 160 chert, 9, 22, 95–100, 103, 157 Chios, 39, 48, 61, 86–87, 91–92, 154, 161, 165–166, 173–174, 187, 194, 198–200 chipped stones, 2, 9, 19, 95–101, 109, 119–120, 157, 165, 167, 172, 174, 195, 197 Christiana, 190 Choiromandres cave, 48, 50, 58, 168, 170, 193 chronology/chronological, 2, 7–8, 11–12, 35, 38, 40– 41, 43, 47–48, 85–86, 109, 116, 157, 159, 169, 185 Chrysapha, 162, 182 Chrysocheroi, 23 Chrysokamino, 116–117 Chryssopoulos, F., 24, 44 Cilicia, 185 Classical, 1, 6–7, 9, 104 Classical period, 4 colonization, 155–158, 163–164, 169, 186, 188, 190, 197–198 conglomerate, 3, 9, copper, 4, 7–8, 110, 117, 194 core, 96, 99 Corinth, 35–36, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 62 Corinthia, 40, 199 corridor house, 182, 184–185, 199 cortex, 7, 96, 99–101 Çoşkuntepe, 159 Cosmopoulos, M., 29, 106 Crete/Cretan, 10–11, 22–24, 28–31, 35–36, 38, 40–43, 46–48, 50–55, 57–64, 86–92, 105, 111, 116–118, 155–156, 158–159, 162–164, 167–168, 170–175, 181–184, 186, 188, 190–191, 193–194, 197–200, 205–207 crusted ware, 11 cup, 23, 42–43, 53, 62, 88–89, 92 Cyclades/Cycladic, 3, 10, 12, 26–27, 29–30, 35–50, 52– 64, 86–92, 98, 105, 110–111, 115–118, 120, 153–156, 158, 160–161, 164–170, 173–174, 182, 185, 187–194, 197, 199, 206–207

229

Cycladia, 155–156 Cycladocentric, 154 Cyclopean wall, 8 Cyprus, 4, 156–157, 163

dacite, 3 Damatria, 168, 170 Daskaleio islet (Psara), 166, 187 Daskaleio-Kavos, 22, 24, 27, 29–30, 35, 37–38, 40, 43, 46–49, 52–53, 55, 58–59, 61–62, 64, 105, 108, 190 Daskalio cave, 11–12, 23–24, 28, 37–44, 46, 48, 50, 52– 53, 56, 58, 62, 64, 91, 168, 170, 173, 193 Davis, J., 154 Debla, 36 Delos, 156, 190, 199 demos, 2 demos of the Halasarnites, 1 Demoule, J.-P., and C. Perlès, 158 depas, 53, 89 Dermata, 166, 186, 198 Dermatos, 163 Dermatos Kastrokephala, 50, 163 Despotiko, 61, 190 Dhali, 169 Dikili Tash, 159 Dimini, 108, 116 diorite, 3 dipper, 41–42, 86 Dodecanese/Dodecanesian, 1, 5, 10–12, 22–24, 27, 29–31, 36–64, 85–92, 95, 98–99, 105–106, 109–111, 116–118, 120, 154–155, 159–161, 168, 170–174, 181, 185, 191, 193–194, 198 Dokathismata, 48 Dokos, 54, 166, 185 Doumas, Ch., 42, 48 Drakotrypa cave, 186 duck vase, 6 dwarf elephant, 156 dwarf deer, 156

Early Christian, 1, 5, 8, 19–20, 96 Eastern Aegean, 1, 23, 26–27, 29, 31, 38, 40–43, 46–47, 49, 52–53, 55, 62, 89–92, 155 Eastern Aegean islands, 10–11, 27, 86, 89 Early Bronze Age (EBA), 1–2, 4–12, 17, 19–31, 35–50, 52–62, 64, 85–92, 96–101, 103–111, 115–121, 153, 166, 168–170, 172, 181–188, 190–200, 205–207 Early Chalcolithic (ECh), 23, 30, 61, 159–160 Early Cycladic (EC), 10, 12, 22, 24, 27–29, 35–40, 43, 45–50, 52, 54, 56–62, 64, 87–88, 105, 107–108, 111, 115–117, 153, 188–191, 206

230

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Early Helladic (EH), 10, 35–49, 52–57, 59, 61–64, 105, 116, 181–182, 185 Early Minoan (EM), 10, 28, 36, 40, 42–43, 46–48, 52– 55, 59, 61, 63, 105–107, 115–116, 163–164, 183–184, 186, 196, 200 Early Neolithic (EN), 11, 24, 28, 30–31, 35, 39–40, 42, 46, 61, 63, 90, 105–107, 116, 157–162, 164, 166, 171, 173–174, 205 Eastern Mediterranean, 158 Efe, T., 185 Efstratiou, N., 158 Egypt, 4 Ekato, 108 Elaionas, 4 Eleona, 8, 17, 19, 23, 97–99, 172, 196–197 Eleona and Langada, 5–6, 8 Elis, 57 Ellenes, 46, 48 Ellinokamara, 191 Elmali, 92, 159, 164, 184 Emborios, 191 Emporio, 23–26, 28–31, 36–64, 88–89, 91, 104, 107– 108, 115, 165–166, 175, 187, 206 Epipalaeolithic, 157 Epirus, 10, 160 Erdoğu, B., 30, 40 Etosi, 162 Euboea, 26, 38, 50, 56, 86, 168, 207 Euripidis cave, 64, 165–166 Eurotas valley, 182 Eustatic, 155 Eutresis, 29, 37–38, 40, 42–44, 48–49, 52, 54–56, 62– 63, 182 Evans, J., 158 Evros delta, 159 excavation, 1, 5–6, 11–12, 19, 50, 95–96, 120, 153–154, 157–159, 168, 184, 187, 192–194, 199

feldspar, 24 fieldwalking, 2, 5–6, 10–11, 195 figurine, 9, 153, 190 Final Neolithic (FN), 6–9, 11–12, 17, 22–31, 35–42, 44– 52, 54–64, 86–87, 90–92, 95, 103, 108, 111, 116–117, 119–120, 158–175, 181, 183–189, 191–199, 205–207 flake, 7, 9, 95–99, 101 Flamouria, 168 flysch, 3 fortification, 8, 162, 164–165, 167, 175, 182, 184–187, 189–191, 195, 199, 206–207 four-tier hierarchy, 196, 199, 206 Franchthi, 39, 44, 57, 60, 62, 116, 156–158 Franchthi cave–Aria, 162

Ftelia, 12, 22, 25, 30, 35–40, 42, 44–48, 50–52, 56–60, 62–64, 86, 91, 105–106, 108, 110, 116, 165, 168–169 furnace, 115–117 Furness, A., 27

Gavdos, 156, 174, 205 Gavrio, 188 Gavurtepe, 36 geomorphological, 3, geology, 2–3, 9, 100–101,103, 161, 117 Gerani cave, 158 Gerna, 165 Gerontakou, E., and P. Avgerinou, 187 Giali, 2–9, 12, 22–27, 30, 36–43, 45–46, 48, 50–52, 55–60, 62–63, 87, 91–92, 95–101, 103–111, 117, 120, 155, 157–158, 168–170, 172, 174, 192–193, 197–198, 200 Gianniou Plati, 50 Giannitsa, 108 Giorgaras, 7 Girmeler cave, 23, 30–31, 164 glacial, 155 Glaredo, 187 Glaronisi, 167 Glykoschidia, 165 Gökpinar West, 164 Gonia, 35–36 Gortyn, 50 Gournia, 54 Graledo, 165 Gramiza, 155 granite, 4, 8–10, 103–105, 108–111 grave, 7, 30, 110, 157–158, 206 Greater Karpathos, 155 Greater Paros, 165 Greece/Greek, 5, 10, 35, 95, 108, 154, 157–158 greenstone, 7–8, 103–104, 108 grinder, 7, 9, 103–104, 106–111 grindstone, 6–8, 10, 104–105, 109–111 grog, 25 Grotta, 24, 36, 39–40, 44–45, 48, 50, 58, 60, 91, 165– 166, 169, 199 Grotta-Aplomata, 189 Grotta-Pelos, 48, 61, 188 ground stone, 2, 103, 109, 119–120, 174 Gülpinar, 40, 42, 50, 164 Gyapili, 6

Hacilar, 159, 164 Hagia Eireni (Crete), 46

INDEX

Hagia Eireni (Kea), 24, 26–27, 29–30, 35–47, 49–50, 52– 55, 59–61, 63–64, 105–106, 108, 116, 167, 188 Hagia Eireni (Kos), 4 Hagia Kyriaki, 42 Hagia Marina, 167 Hagia Paraskevi, 8 Hagia Photia, 59, 61, 115, 117, 183–184 Hagia Sophia cave, 165 Hagia Varvara cave, 168, 170, 193 Hagia Varvara church, 9, 100–101 Hagia Varvara East hill, 6, 54, 101 Hagio Gala, 24, 31, 37, 39, 63, 165–166, 173–174, 205 Hagio Gala Lower cave, 23, 36, 39, 41–42, 55, 57, 61–63, 159–160 Hagio Gala Upper cave, 23, 28, 30, 36–39, 41–42, 45–48, 50, 55, 57–58, 61–63 Hagioi Anargyroi, 43, 46, 48, 64 Hagioi Theodoroi islet, 169 Hagiopharango, 183 Hagios Antonios (Giali), 2–4, 103–104, 110–111, 169 Hagios Antonios promontory (Thasos), 186 Hagios Bartholomaios, 166 Hagios Dimitrios, 23, 28, 40–41, 43, 46–47, 49, 52, 56– 57, 60–61, 64, 116 Hagios Ermolaos, 166 Hagios Georgios, 7, 194 Hagios Ioannis, 4, 8–9, 22, 194 Hagios Isidoros, 193 Hagios Kosmas, 55, 62, 104, 107 Hagios Onouphrios, 61 Hagios Petros, 11, 31, 61, 159, 165–166, 174, 187, 205 Hagios Phokas, 5–6, 10, 22, 59, 194 Hagios Phokas hill, 6, 100, 111, 171 Hagios Sostis, 157, 167 Hagios Stephanos north hill (Kos), 6, 8 Hagios Stephanos (Laconia), 52, 56 Hagios Stephanos (Naxos), 45 Hagios Theologos, 9, 24, 40, 116–117, 171 Hagios Vasilios (Crete), 183 Hagios Vasilios chapel (Kos), 8 Hakemi Use, 30 Halai, 116 Halasarna, 1–3, 8, 12, 17–20, 22–31, 36–64, 85–93, 95– 96, 98–100, 103–111, 115–117, 120–121, 153, 159, 171–174, 181, 194–198, 205–206 Halasarna Survey Project (HSP), 1, 17, 20–21, 35, 61– 62, 95–96, 98, 101, 103–104, 106, 119, 153, 171, 194– 195, 197, 199, 206 Halepa, 183 Halicarnassos, 3, 185 Halieis, 42, 44, 59 Halstead, P., 168 Hamidiye, 159

231

handle, 6–9, 40–43, 45–46, 52–59, 64, 86–89, 92, 101 Hayden, B., 163–164 Hellenic arc, 2 Hellenistic, 1, 4–5, 7–10, 19–20, 96 hematite, 165 Heraion, 6, 28, 36–38, 40–43, 46–47, 49–50, 53–57, 62, 64, 87, 89, 116, 187, 207 hippos, 156 historic, 17–20, 120, 154, 161 Hoca Çeşme, 159 Holocene, 156–157 homo erectus, 157 homo sapiens, 157 Honea, 157 Hood, S., 159 Hope Simpson, R., and J. Lazenby, 5, 25, 170, 192 hornblend, 24 Horum Höyük, 30 hot springs, 3 hunter-gatherer, 155–156, 160, 205 Hydra, 166, 185

Iasos, 12, 28, 37, 45, 48, 52–55, 60, 91–92, 165, 184 Ieropotamos, 163 Imbros, 156, 159, 186 Ikaria, 155, 157–160, 165–166, 174, 187, 205 Ionian islands, 10, 205 Ionian Sea, 155 Ios, 22, 24, 190, 199 Iraklis, 6 iron, 4, 7, 117 islet, 3–5, 104, 155, 166, 187–188, 190, 192–193, 205 Italian, 5 Izmir, 154, 159, 164, 184, 207 Izmir Region Excavations and Research Project, 154, 184

jar, 6, 24, 26, 28, 37, 42–43, 46–49, 52–62, 64, 86–89, 91–92, 195–196 Johnson, M., 173 jug, 45, 53–56, 58, 62, 64, 87–88, 92

Kalamafki Kypia, 50 Kalavarda Aniforo, 192 Kale Tepe, 184, 207 Kallikatsou, 58–59 Kalloni gulf, 165–166, 187 Kalogries, 45 Kaloyerovrysi, 41, 43–44, 56, 59, 63, 104–105

232

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Kalymnos, 3, 23–24, 29, 50, 55, 58, 64, 156, 170–171, 173–174, 192–193, 197–198, 200 Kalythies cave, 11–12, 23, 26–27, 30, 36–39, 41–42, 46–48, 50–52, 55–62, 85, 92, 103–108, 111, 116–117, 159, 168–170, 173–174, 205 Kamela, 4 Kamenitsa, 62 Kamenitsa cave–Sphakovouni, 162 Kampos, 29 Kampos Group/phase, 43, 48, 59, 61, 87 Kanaki, 60 Kanli-Kastelli, 54, 59, 61 Kannia, 159 Kantili, 106 Kandeloussa, 169, 193 Kapoutzedes, 60 Karabayir, 164 Karaburun, 50, 59, 164 Karanovo, 159 Karataş, 45, 49, 53, 62, 104, 106 Kardamaina, 1, 5, 8 Karpathos, 22–24, 28, 53–54, 103–104, 110, 156, 168, 170, 172, 191–193, 198 Karyotes, 166 Kasos, 27, 156, 168–170, 172, 191, 193, 197–198, 200, 206 Kastellas Xirokampias, 163 Kastelli, 4 Kastello/Kastelles, 6, 22, 194 Kastellorizo, 193 Kastri (Andros), 167 Kastri (Kythera), 186 Kastri (Samothrace), 165 Kastri (Syros), 64, 115, 188–190, 199, 207 Kastri (Thasos), 159 Kastri Group/Phase, 12, 45, 89, 185, 189 Kastri-Lefkandi I, 36, 43 Kastria, 62 Kastri Theologou, 166 Kastro (Imbros), 186 Kastro (Paros), 189 Kastro (Tilos), 23 Kastro Palaiopyli, 4, 8, 22, 27–28, 110, 171 Kastro tou Hagiou Ioannou, 23, 28, 50, 170 Kastro Vayi, 28, 50, 192 Katalimata, 35 Katapola, 189 Katavia–Hagios Minas 25 Katavros, 23 Kato Akrotiri, 22, 24, 27, 29, 36, 38, 40, 43–45, 47–48, 50, 54 Kato Kouphonisi, 54, 62, 190 Kato Phana, 154 Kato Vounara, 168, 191

Kato-yi, 191 Katsoprinas, 48 Kavaklikahve, 159 Kavousi, 163–164, 168 Kavousi survey, 163–164, 172 Kea, 10, 154, 167, 170–172, 174, 188, 190–191, 198– 200, 206 Kephala (Kea), 22–24, 28, 30, 35–40, 42, 44–45, 48, 50, 53, 55–58, 60, 62–64, 91, 106, 108, 116–117, 167, 198 Kephala (Skiathos), 187 Kephalos, 3–5, 8–10, 24, 95–97, 99–101, 104, 110, 117, 194 Keli, 45 Kephallenia, 155–156 Kerame, 157, 159–160, 174 Kerames Tseroni, 163 Kerami, 106, 108 Kerkyra, 156–157 Keros, 24, 190 Keros-Syros, 10, 88, 188 Khokhlakoi, 23 Kiapha Thiti, 162 Kitsos cave, 28, 30, 50, 116 Kiliktepe, 92, 159, 165 kiln, 6, 25 Kimolos, 110 Kionia, 62 Kizilbel, 40, 42, 50, 58 Kleidos, 46–47, 54, 62 Klenia, 35–36, 39, 44, 47–48, 50, 57, 60, 62 Knidos, 185 Knossos, 31, 36, 40–41, 43, 46, 50, 60, 62, 64, 105, 107, 158–160, 183–184 Koilada, 156 koine, 30 Kokkino Froudi, 163–164 Kokkinonero, 4 Kokkorou-Alevra, Y., 1 Kokkorou-Alevra, Y., and K. Kopanias, 154 Kolimbia Theotokos, 22–23 Kolona (Kythnos), 165 Kolonna (Aegina), 24, 36–38, 40, 43, 46, 53–55, 166, 185, 199, 207 Kommos, 105, 107, 183 Kömüradasi, 22–24, 31, 36–37, 50, 55 Konsola, D., 182 Konya, 31 Korakovouni, 50 Koressia, 167 Korfi t’Aroniou, 108 Koropi, 115 Kos/Koan, 1–6, 9–11, 20, 22–25, 27–29, 37, 39, 44, 48, 50, 52, 54–55, 60, 63–64, 89–92, 95, 99–101,

INDEX

Kos/Koan, cont. 103–104, 108–110, 116–118, 120–121, 153–154, 159–160, 170–171, 173–174, 181, 194, 197–200, 207 Kostaras, 194 Kouka, O., 187 Koukos (Kos), 19, 21–23, 25, 27–29, 37, 50, 89, 97–101, 103–104, 109–110, 120, 171–172, 192, 195–196 Koukos (Lemnos), 186 Koukoumia (-Yennadi), 36, 47, 50, 106, 169–170 Koukounaries, 50, 60, 110, 165–166, 189 Koumelo cave, 12, 26–29, 36–38, 45–50, 55–59, 62, 87, 92, 103–104, 106–107, 111, 117 Kouphiero, 62 Kouphonisia, 37–38, 40, 45, 48, 50, 59, 61 Kouphovouno, 62 Kourouklos, 23, 28 Kourtir, 166, 187 Koutlousi, 17–18, 21–23, 25–29, 38–40, 42–44, 46, 48– 51, 53–54, 60–62, 85–86, 88, 93, 97–98, 104–111, 115–117, 119–120, 159, 171–172, 174, 195–197, 205 Koutlousi Lower hill, 18, 21, 23, 26, 38, 119, 195–196 Koutlousi Upper hill, 18, 21, 26, 97–99, 103, 109–111, 116, 119, 172, 195–196 Koutounis, 18, 21–23, 26–29, 38, 41, 60, 92–93, 98, 120, 171–172, 195–197 Koutounis Hill, 18, 21, 26–29, 50, 60, 86, 92–93, 97–99, 120, 171–172, 195–197 Koutri Meligous, 155 Koutsoukou, A., 188 Kouvas hill, 4 Kozani, 160 Kremos Tis Kipou, 170 Krios, 25, 45, 169 Kritsana, 60 Krommyon, 2 Küllüoba, 53, 55 Kum Tepe, 23, 26, 36, 38, 40, 45, 50, 60, 164 Kynouria, 155 Kypia, 163 Kyra Panagia, 155, 157, 159–160, 174 Kythera, 64, 154, 156, 165–166, 173, 185–186, 191, 197–200 Kythnos, 116, 155, 157–158, 165, 168, 174, 190, 205 K.06.83, 99 K.08.48–9, 19 K.08.88, 19, 99 K.09.10, 18 K.09.51, 19 K.09.68–9, 19, 99, 120 K.09.76, 19 K.09.89, 18, 99, 120, 172 K.10.34–5, 18, 23, 103, 196 K.11.04–6, 17, 196 K.14.03, 19, 99, 120

233

K.14.98, 19 K.15.51, 19, 103, 109, 120 K.16.42–51, 19, 99 K.16.76, 19 K.17.15, 19, 120, 172 K.20.14–5, 19, 99 K.21.54, 19, 23, 120 K.22.43, 19, 23 K.24.90, 19 K.25.22, 19, 99 K.29.06, 19, 195 K.29.29, 19 K.29.58, 19, 120, 195 K.29.87, 19, 120, 195 K.30.71, 19

Laconia, 40, 95, 161–162, 164, 167, 173, 181–182 Laconia Project, 162 lacustrine, 3 Laftira, 36, 106, 169 Laftonero, 9, 24 Lagoudi, 8 Lainas cave, 106 Lake Vouliagmeni (Perachora), 43, 54, 116 Lakkoudes, 45 Lakos, 53 Lamb, W., 186 Lamnoni, 164 Lasithi, 163–164, 183, 198 Late Aegean Neolithic (LAN), 11–12, 50 Late Bronze Age (LBA), 1, 5–6, 8, 10, 12, 23, 25, 53, 105, 191 Late Chalcolithic (LCh), 11, 22–24, 26, 28–31, 36, 39, 42, 45–46, 50, 52, 55–58, 60, 92, 164–165, 184 Late Helladic (LH), 6–8, 10, 105 Late Minoan (LM), 10, 105, 107, 191 Late Neolithic (LN), 4–5, 11–12, 17, 22–31, 35–42, 44–52, 55–64, 85–87, 90–92, 95, 103–104, 106–108, 110–111, 116, 119, 120, 158–171, 173–175, 181, 184–185, 187, 189, 191–192, 195, 205–207 Late Roman, 9, 19 lava, 3, 100 lead, 4, 117 leaded silver, 4 Lebena, 43, 53 Lefkandi I, 38, 43, 89, 185 Lefkas, 60, 155 Leftoporos, 29, 56, 92, 103–104, 111, 168, 191 Leivadi, 48, 61 Lemnos, 87, 91, 166, 174, 186, 197–200 Lera cave, 158 Lerna, 22, 36–38, 40–43, 45, 48–50, 52–54, 56, 58–63, 89, 108, 115, 182, 184, 186, 196

234

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Leros, 12, 41, 50, 110–111, 168, 170, 172, 193 Lesbos, 60, 156, 165–166, 184, 186–187, 194, 198–199 Levallois technique, 155 Liaros, N., 52 Libya, 156 Liman Tepe, 115, 164, 184, 207 Limani Papakonstanti, 106, 169–170 Limenaria, 116, 159, 186 Limenaria Tsines, 165 Limenas acropolis, 166 limestone, 3–4, 6, 8, 103–106, 110–111 Limnes cave, 37, 42, 63, 104, 106, 162 Linopotis Piyi, 8, 28 Lithares, 36–40, 43–49, 53, 55–56, 59, 61–64, 106–108 Livari Katharades, 50, 163 Lloyd, S., and J. Mellaart, 30, longboat, 188–189, 206–207 Loutra, 157 Loutro, 156 Lower Palaeolithic, 155–157 lug, 8, 45, 52, 57–58, 62, 85–86

Macedonia, 10, 57, 60, 116, 159–162, 175, 182 Madra Çay Delta Project, 154, 184 Maeander valley, 159, 184 Maeander Valley Project/Survey, 154, 165 Magasa Vigli, 164 magnetite, 4 mainland Greece/Greek mainland, 4, 10–11, 26–27, 29– 31, 36–37, 39–40, 42–43, 45–50, 53–57, 59–63, 86– 89, 91–92, 98, 115, 121, 154–165, 167, 171, 173–175, 181, 184, 188, 190–191, 193–194, 197–199, 205–207 Makara, 60 Makronissos, 190 Malia, 36, 40, 61, 183–184 Mallorca, 4 Malona, 24, 27 Maltepe, 164 Mandraki (Karpathos), 191 Mandraki (Nisyros), 169 Manika, 35–44, 47–48, 52–56, 59, 62, 104–108, 111, 115, 182 Manoulis’ Metochi, 163 Maran, J., 154 Marathokephalo, 61 marble, 3–4, 7, 9, 24, 103, 106–107, 110–111, 153, 194 Maries cave, 166 marine, 3 Markiani, 22, 26–30, 35, 37–39, 43–44, 46–49, 52–53, 56, 58–59, 64, 104–107, 110, 116, 189–191, 207 marls, 3 Marmara (Kos), 4, 9, 103–104, 110 Marmara (Propontis), 159

Marmouritsa, 50 Maroulas, 157–158, 205 Mastichari, 8, 194 mat impression, 29–30 Mavrispilia, 50, 165 Medieval, 8, 121 Megalo Nisi Galanis, 60 Megarid, 2 Melas, E., 23, 45, 191–192 Melos/melian, 2, 4, 6–9, 24–25, 45, 59–60, 64, 95–101, 110, 120, 153–158, 167–172, 174, 185, 188, 190–191, 199, 205 Mesara, 159, 163–164, 171, 183 Mesara plain survey, 164 Mesaria, 5, 7, 10, 12, 22, 99, 110, 171, 194 Mesochori-Kaminakia, 104 Mesolithic, 110, 157–160, 166, 173–174, 205 Mesovouno, 4 metal, 4, 118, 185 metalworking/metallurgical, 109, 117, 119, 175, 182, 185 Methana, 2, 110, 161, 181–182 Metropolis survey, 154 mica, 23–25, 30, 90, 93, 120, 174, 195 Middle Bronze Age (MBA), 5–6, 8, 10, 12, 25, 53–54, 98, 121, 187, 192, 207 Middle Cycladic, 116 Middle Chalcolithic (MCh), 61, 164 Middle Helladic (MH), 59, 105, 182 Middle Minoan (MM), 43, 62, 105, 184, 191 Middle Neolithic (MN), 9, 11–12, 28, 30–31, 35, 39, 42, 46, 57, 61, 64, 85–86, 91, 108, 110, 116, 120, 158– 162, 164–165, 171–174, 205 Middle Palaeolithic, 155–157 Mikre Vigla, 24, 43, 47–49, 63–64 Mikro Kokkinokastro, 187 Mikro Vouni, 166, 186 Mikroyali, 167 Miletos, 22–24, 31, 50, 52, 54–55, 92, 165, 184 Milies, 9, 101 Miloi, 24, 26 mineral, 2, 4, 117, 158 Minoa, 165, 191 Minoan, 186, 191 Minoanizing, 5, 186 Misonisi, 7–8, 22, 24, 29 Mochlos, 184, 190 Modern, 6, 9, 19 Molos, 38 monzonite, 3–4, 104 Morali, 159 mortar, 105, 109 Mortensen, P., 156 mold, 115, 117 Mt. Dikaios, 1–4, 6–8, 17, 103–104, 109, 117

INDEX

Mt. Kynthos, 24, 36–38, 40, 42–44, 46–47, 49, 52–53, 59, 62–64, 108, 190, 207 Mt. Latra, 4, 100 Mt. Zini, 4, 9, 100, 104 Mourmouritsa, 165 Moutsouna, 48 Müskebi, 12, 43, 45, 54, 91–92, 185 Mycenaean, 5–9, 171, 192, 194 Mykonos, 12, 160, 165, 168–169, 174, 189 Mylonas, G., 11 Myrina, 40–42, 49–52, 166, 186, 198 Myrtos, 42, 52–53, 60, 104–108, 116, 184, 207 Myti Kommeni, 185

Naousa (Kythnos), 157 Naoussa (Paros), 45 Naxos, 22, 24, 37–38, 45–46, 48, 62, 154, 156, 165–166, 168–169, 188–190, 198–199 Neanderthal, 155, 157 Nea Makri, 23, 28, 31, 61, 63 Near East, 108 Nemea, 115, 181 Nemea Valley Project, 160–161 Nemrut Höyük, 159 Neogene, 3 Neolithic, 1–2, 5, 8–12, 17, 19–20, 22–25, 28, 36, 45, 62, 85–86, 90–92, 95–100, 104–111, 116–117, 120, 153–154, 157–162, 165–174, 182, 187, 189, 191– 195, 197–200, 205, 207 Nerantzia, 17–18, 21, 23–29, 38, 43, 46, 48–50, 53–54, 56, 86–87, 93, 97–99, 101, 103–106, 108–111, 119– 120, 171–172, 196–197 Nerantzia Lower site, 119 Nerokourou, 50, 57 Nessonis, 105 Nestor’s cave–Voidokoilia, 162 Niphi, 157, 165 Nisyros, 2–4, 22–25, 45, 54, 91, 100, 103–104, 110–111, 120, 169–170, 172, 174, 192–193, 197–198, 200, 206 nodule, 95–96, 99–101 Nopigeia, 63 northeastern Aegean, 36–50, 52–64, 88, 108, 115, 118, 160, 194 Northern Greece, 11, 116, 158, 160–162 northwest of Aspri Petra, 22 Nova Zagora, 160 Nowicki, K., 6, 100, 163–164 Nuriye, 159

oatmeal ware, 25, 27 obsidian, 3–4, 6–9, 24–25, 95–101, 120, 154–158, 165, 167–169, 171, 174, 185, 205

235

obsidian ware, 24–25, 47, 49 Olimpoi-Petranos, 187 Olimpoi-Tripanos, 187 Olivine, 103 Olympos (Chios), 198 Omvriaki, 57 orange ware, 27, 93 Ottoman empire, 5 oxidization, 26

Pacheia, 2, 4, 111, 169, 174 palaeogeography, 155 Palaeolithic, 154–157, 160, 174, 205, 207 Palaikastro Petsophas, 50–51 Palaiochora Nerovolakoi, 50–51 Palaiokarandas, 162 Palaiokastro (Mykonos), 189 Palamari, 35, 37–38, 41–43, 53, 56, 166, 187, 196, 199, 207 Palati, 37–38 Palatia, 191 Paliochora, 2, 163 Paliopyrgos, 116 Pan-Aegean, 164 Panagia, 45, 107 Panagia Paplinon, 163 Panagia Paplinou Rousso Charakes, 50, 164 Panagia Tsoukalaria, 7, 22, 194 Panormitis, 24–25, 106, 168–170, 192 Panormos, 22, 24, 29, 36–38, 40, 43–44, 46–49, 52–53, 57, 64, 186, 189, 191, 195, 207 Paoura, 40, 50, 62, 64, 167 Paradimi, 159 Parlama, L., 154 Paroikia, 24, 43, 53, 64, 167, 189 Paros, 22, 24, 45, 48, 107, 156, 165–166, 189–191, 200 Partheni, 12, 23, 28–30, 37–39, 41–42, 46, 48, 50–52, 55–56, 58–59, 62–63, 87, 92, 103–104, 107, 168, 170, 172, 193 Partira, 57 Patmos, 193 pattern burnished, 11 Patton, M., 154 pedestal bowl, 44–45, 85 Pefkia, 25, 60 Pelekita, 4 Peloponnese, 56, 60, 155–156, 160–162, 164, 173, 182, 185–186 Pelos, 45, 48 Pelos Group/Phase, 45, 87 Perachora, 105, 182 perlite, 3–4, 103 petrographic analysis, 23–25

236

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Petras Kephala, 30, 50, 54 Petras/Photia, 183 Petri, 115 Peukakia-Magoula, 36, 38, 40–41, 43, 46, 50, 52–57, 63, 107 Peukoi, 56 Phaneromeni, 170 Phaistos, 50, 60, 183 Pharmakonissi, 193 Phavas, 167 Phelps, W., 11 Phiontas, 45 Phocis, 53 Phournou Koriphi, 184 Phthiotis, 57 pitchstone, 24 pithos/pithoid, 24, 28, 49, 55–57, 62–64, 86–89, 92, 195–196 pithos burial, 7 Phlius survey, 160 Phylakopi, 22, 24, 28–29, 35–38, 40, 42–43, 46–50, 52–55, 57, 63–64, 89, 108, 153, 188, 191 Phylakopi I, 10 Plakalona, 50 Plakari, 28, 50 Plakera, 60 Plakia-Preveli, 156–157 Plakias, 155 plateau, 3, 7–9, 157, 163–164, 168, 196, 198 Platyvola, 43, 61 Pleistocene, 3, 155–157 Poli, 27, 50, 168, 191 Poliochni, 36–43, 45–47, 49–50, 52–60, 62–63, 88–89, 91, 105–107, 115, 166, 186, 198–199, 207 Pontamos, 43, 106 Poros, 2, 110 Poros Katsambas, 115, 117 Post-Byzantine, 8, 10 Pothia, 170, 192–193 pottery, 2, 50 pounder, 8, 107 Pouria, 58 Praisos, 173, 183 Praisos survey, 163 prasinopetra, 4 Prasonisi, 36, 48, 50 prehistoric, 2, 5–10, 17–19, 21–22, 110, 154, 158, 166– 168, 171, 192, 194–195, 207 pre-Neolithic, 153, 155–156 Prepalatial, 184 Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (PPNB), 158 Prodromos, 31 Prophetes Elias (Kos), 4, 8 Propetes Elias (Lesbos), 60

Propontis, 155 protoscript, 108 proto-urbanism, 182, 187, 199, 206 Psalidi, 6 Psara, 166, 187 psaropetra, 4 Psathoura, 110, 155, 187 Pseira, 38, 55 Pserimos, 174 public building, 1, 4, 96 pumice, 4, 103 Pyli, 4, 10, 104 Pylos, 181 Pyrgi, 4 Pyrgos (Crete), 54, 59 Pyrgos (Paros), 61, 64 Pyrgos Vravrona, 28 Pyrgoussa, 2, 4, 50, 169, 174 pyroxene, 3 pyxis, 45, 59, 61, 87, 92

quarry, 4, 97 quartz, 3, 22, 24–25, 30, 90, 93, 95–96, 98–99, 101, 120, 157, 174, 195 Quaternary, 3

Rachmani, 60 Raphina, 116, 182 Renfrew, C., 11, 153 Rethi, 167 Rethymnon, 163–164 retouche, 6 Rheneia, 165–166 Rhodes, 22, 24–25, 27, 30, 37, 87, 91, 108, 110–111, 120, 155–157, 159, 168–170, 172–174, 187, 192–194, 198–200 rhyolite, 3–4, 99–100 rhyolite domes, 4 Roman, 4–10, 19, 96, 104, 107 rough and burnished ware, 28 Rundbau, 182

Şahoğlu, V., 185 Salamis, 64, 165–166 Saliagos, 11, 24, 26–28, 36, 39, 44–46, 48, 55–60, 62–64, 91, 106, 108, 110, 116, 165, 169, 174–175, 206 Saliagos culture, 165 Samari, 64 Samos, 36, 41, 48, 55, 86–88, 91–92, 120, 160, 165–166, 174, 187, 194, 199 Samothrace, 166, 186

INDEX

Sampson, A., 5, 8, 11, 44, 50, 52, 120, 154, 160, 169–170, 192 San Gabriel, 10 sandstone, 7, 103–104, 108, 110–111 Sarakenos cave, 44, 50, 62 Saria, 27, 168, 170, 191, 193 Saronic Gulf, 2, 50, 110, 157, 185 sauceboat, 43, 88, 91–92, 194 schist, 3, 103, 111 Schoinokephalo, 163 Schoinousa, 190 scoop, 42, 44, 86 scored ware, 24, 28 scraper, 9, 97–99, 101 security, 159, 164, 190, 206 Sellia Kephala, 50 Seriphos, 155–156 Serrayia, 6, 12, 37, 53, 121, 194, 207 Servia, 60 Seskli, 25, 169, 174, 193 Sesklo, 42, 44, 56, 60, 104–105, 108 settlement, 1, 5–6, 8, 161, 163–167, 169–175, 181–183, 185–191, 195–200, 205–206 settlement pattern, 1, 154–155, 164, 166–168, 170–174, 181, 183, 186–188, 190–194, 197, 199 Sphakia, 156 Sphakovouni, 62 sideropetra, 4 Siana, 27 Siana–Hagios Phokas, 25 sickle, 98–99 Sikinos, 159–161, 174 Sidari, 157 Sideri, 116 Simi, 22–25, 110, 168–170, 174, 192–193, 197–198 Siphnos, 167, 190 Sitagroi, 60, 159 Siteia, 163 Skala Sotiros, 186, 207 Skarkos, 108, 190, 199 Skiathos, 187 Skoteini cave, 35–36, 39–40, 42, 44–46, 50, 56–58, 62– 64, 108, 168 Skyros, 38, 58, 89, 91, 154–157, 159–160, 166, 174, 187, 196, 199 smaller Koumelo cave, 106 Southern Aegean, 38, 165 Southern Argolid (survey), 56, 59, 104, 162, 181–182, 185 Southern Greece, 26, 42, 46, 108, 160–162, 173–175, 181–182, 199, 206–207 Spedos, 54 Spetses, 185 Spetsopoula, 185

237

Sphoungaras, 47 Spondylus gaederopus Linné, 116 Sporades, 11, 31, 37–38, 40–43, 57, 63, 110–111, 155– 157, 159–161, 165, 174, 187, 205 Stapodia, 168 statue, 4 Stavros, 48 stelai, 4 Stelida, 156 Stephanos, 37–38 Stis Grias to Pidima, 166 straw, 23, 29–31, 90, 93, 174, 195 Strephi, 57 Strophilas, 108, 167, 175, 188, 206 Strongyli, 4, 169, 193 survey, 1–2, 10, 12, 19–20, 58, 153–154, 160–161, 166– 167, 181–184, 186, 188–189, 197, 199, 206 Sykamia, 50, 167 Syria, 30, 185 Syrna, 169 Syros, 27, 167, 188, 190, 199

Talioti, 49 Tanagra, 162, 172 tankard, 6, 49, 53 Tavla, 8, 12, 194 Teichioussa, 165 Tenedos, 40, 186 Tekke, 164 Tell Afis, 30 Tepeköy, 159 Thasos, 116, 156, 159, 161, 165–166, 186, 199 Thebes, 182 Theocharis, D., 11 Theologos Kastri, 186 Thera, 6, 91, 110, 165–166, 190, 199 Thermi, 6, 24, 26, 42–43, 45–47, 49, 53–56, 58, 60, 62–63, 88–89, 91, 104, 107–108, 115, 166, 186–187, 199, 207 Thespiai, 162, 172 Thespiai Magoula, 162 Thessaly/Thessalian, 11, 31, 40, 42, 53, 60, 63, 105, 116, 155, 159–162, 166, 175, 182, 205–206 Thessalian paradox, 160 tholos tomb, 6–7, 194 Thompson, D., 10 Thorikos, 28, 50, 60 Thrace, 10, 60, 116, 159–160 three-tier settlement hierarchy, 172, 174, 182–183, 186, 195, 199, 206 Tigani, 11–12, 23, 26–30, 36–39, 41–42, 45, 47–48, 50– 51, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62–64, 86–87, 108, 165–166 Tilos, 3, 23, 156, 169, 174, 192–193, 198

238

KOS IN THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

Tiné, V., 186 Tiryns, 37, 40, 42–43, 49, 52, 182 tomb, 8, 12, 54, 96, 188 Tomb of Protesilaos, 53 topography, 161, 164, 166, 171, 174 Torbali, 36 Torrence, R., 157 Tou Fridiou Tanefama, 168 Tou Italou I Spilia cave, 169 Tou Papa to Choma, 31, 159–160, 165, 174, 187, 205 Trachilas, 163 trachyte, 103 Tragonisi, 168 Trakhia, 24–26, 36 travertine, 4 Trikeri, 185 Tripes, 170 tripod vessel, 53, 59–60 Troad, 92, 164, 184 Troulli, 6, 23, 27, 29, 171 Troy, 6, 10, 23, 25, 29, 36–38, 42–50, 52–56, 58, 60, 62– 63, 88–89, 92, 104, 107–108, 115–116, 184, 194, 207 Tsangaris, 18–19, 21–22, 27–29, 38, 86, 92–93, 97–99, 103–107, 109–111, 120, 171–172, 195–196 Tsilimpiri, 7–8, 22, 27–28, 50, 171, 194 Tsountas, Ch., 153 tuff, 3–4, 9 two-tier hierarchy, 164, 167, 172, 174, 183, 194, 199, 206 Tzavaris, 48, 59 Tzavella-Evjen, C. 108

Ulucak Höyük, 23–24, 30, 104, 107, 159, 164, 184 University of Athens, 1, 96 Upper Palaeolithic, 155–157, 160 Urfirnis, 29, 37–38, 43–44, 88, 90, 92–93 Urla, 154

Vagia, 182 Vainia Stavromenos, 50, 64 Vasiliki, 196 Vassa, 182 Vathy (Kalymnos), 11, 50, 170–171, 192–193 Vathy (Siphnos), 45 Vathy Elliniko, 23, 29 Velopoula, 185 Vigles, 9 volcanic, 3, 8, 100, 103–104, 108, 110, 174

Voukoliades, 163 Vouni, 165 Vouno (Karpathos), 104, 168, 170, 191 Vouno (Kos), 8, 22, 24, 64, 171, 194 Vourinna, 4, 7 Voutianoi, 162 Vraskas Lakoudi, 164 Vriokastro, 166–167 Vrisi, 170 Vrokastro, 164, 168, 183, 198 Vrokastro survey, 163–164, 172

Watrous, L.V., 183 Webb, J., and D. Frankel, 163 Western Aegean, 53, 161 western Anatolia, 10, 23–24, 29–30, 36–50, 52–58, 60–63, 87, 90, 92, 115, 118, 154–155, 159–161, 164, 168, 172–173, 181, 184, 190, 199, 206–207 western Kos, 96, 104 Whitelaw, T., 167, 184, 207 wood, 23, 30, 108 World War II, 5

Xanthos, 164 Xerokampos Amatou, 50

Yaka Çiftiği, 164 yellow mottled ware, 27 Yenmiş Höyük, 159 Yortan, 22, 24, 45, 53–54, 62, 184 Youra, 155, 157–160, 174, 205 Ypsili, 166

Zagani, 50, 162, 182 Zakros Kalyvomouri, 164 Zakynthos, 156 Zarraftis, 5, 10 Zas cave, 36, 40, 60, 107–108, 165–166, 168, 173, 188–189 Zia, 4, 7–8 Ziros, 183 Zotikou, 25, 169 Zoumbaria, 45, 48 Zuma Kaziki, 28 Zygouries, 196

Tables

TABLE 1

Time Period

Dates B.C.

Middle Palaeolithic

150,000 to 30,000

Southern Greece

Crete

Cyclades

Northern Aegean Islands

Dodecanese

Western Anatolia

Youra Koutri Meligous?

Loutro

Melos

Skyros Gramiza Kyra-Panagia Youra

Upper Palaeolithic

30,000 to 9000/8500

Franchthi

Gavdos

Stelida?

Skyros Gramiza Kyra-Panagia

Mesolithic

9000/8500 to 6500

Franchthi

Preveli

Maroula

The Cave of the Cyclops, Youra

Loutra

Alonissos

Hagios Sostis

Skyros?

Naousa

Kerame Niphi The Cave of the Cyclops

Early Neolithic

6500 to 5900

Franchthi

Knossos IX–VIII

Nea Makri

Gerani cave

Ulucak Höyük

Papa to Choma Sikinos?

Lera cave

Kerame

Hacilar IX–III

Imbros

Canhasan 7–4

Hagio Gala Lower and Upper I cave The Cave of the Cyclops

Middle Neolithic

5900 to 5300

Franchthi

Hagios Petros

Lerna I

Knossos VII–VIB

Papa to Choma

Kalythies cave

Nea Makri

Kannia?

Kastri

Aspri Petra cave?

Ulucak Höyük Hacilar II–I Canhasan 3–2B

Limenaria Hagio Gala Lower and Upper I cave Late Neolithic I

5300 to 4900

Franchthi Nea Makri

Knossos VIA–V

Saliagos

Hagio Gala

Ftelia

Upper II cave

Saliagos Late Neolithic II

4900 to 4500

Franchthi Nea Makri

Knossos IV

Ftelia, Grotta Zas cave I Koukounaries?

Final Neolithic I

Final Neolithic II

4500 to 3600

3600 to 3200/ 3100

Attica-Kephala Lerna II

Knossos III

Attica-Kephala Lerna II

Knossos II–IC Phaistos

Canhasan 2A

Kalythies cave II

Gülpinar

Daskalio cave I

Canhasan 2A

Hagio Gala Upper II cave Emporio X–IX Tigani I–II Hagios Petros

Kephala

Emporio VIII

Zas cave IIa

Tigani III

Koukounaries

Myrina pre-Black

Zas cave IIb

Kalythies cave I

Emporio VII–VI

Hagia Eirene I

Tigani IV

Paoura

Myrina Black

Strophilas

Poliochni Black

Kalythies cave III Koumelo cave I Giali? Daskalio cave II

Canhasan 1 Kum Tepe Ia Besiktepe Aphrodisias 1–2 Beycesultan 1–2

Koumelo cave II

Canhasan 1

Daskalio cave III

Kum Tepe Ib

Giali

Miletos I

Aspri Petra cave Aphrodisias 3–4? Alimnia, Partheni Beycesultan 3–4

Table 1. The pre-Neolithic and Neolithic chronology of the Aegean (? is used for debated and uncertain dates).

TABLES 2 AND 3 Time Period

Dates B.C.

Southern Greece

Crete

Cyclades

Pelos

Phaistos Eutresis

Hagia Triada

Markiani III

Eutresis

Poros

Lithares

Phaistos

Hagios Kosmas

Hagia Triada

Lerna III

Vasiliki

Grotta-Aplomata

Phournou Koriphi

Emporio V–IV Myrina Blue Poliochni Blue Thermi I–IV

Kampos Markiani II Keros-Syros

Knossos 2700 to 2400

Grotta-Aplomata Phylakopi A1

Partira Hagia Photia

EB II early

Troy Ia–b Kum Tepe Ic Liman Tepe I Miletos II Iasos Çukuriçi Höyük III

Markiani I

Poros 3100 to 2700

Western Anatolia

Grotta-Pelos

Knossos

EB I

Eastern Aegean Dodecanese Islands

Phylakopi A2 Daskaleio-Kavos Skarkos Hagia Eirene II

Emporio III–II

Troy Ic–IIf Liman Tepe II Miletos II Iasos Çukuriçi Höyük IV Müskebi

Myrina Green Poliochni Green Thermi IVB–V Heraion Palamari I

Kastri

EB II late

Markiani IV

Lefkandi I

2400 to 2200

Lefkandi Lerna III

Knossos

Hagia Eirene III

Phournou Koriphi

Kastri Panormos

Emporio I Poliochni Red Heraion Palamari II

Daskalio cave

Troy IIg–III Miletos II

Mt. Kynthos A Knossos EB III

2200 to 2000

Lerna IV

Malia

Phylakopi I

Poros

Phylakopi I (B)

Archanes

Mt. Kynthos B

Poliochni Yellow Daskalio cave Heraion Asomatos Palamari III Serrayia

Troy IV

Chamalevri

Table 2. The Early Bronze Age chronology of the Aegean (in the Cyclades column the names of the regional phases are noted in italics).

Sites

No. of Open Sherds

Thin (0.3– Quartz Rock 1.0 cm)

Straw

Gold Mica

Gold and Obsidian Silver Mica

Same Color Both Sides

Burnished

Both Sides Burnished

Scored

Slip

Nerantzia

139

62.6

51.7

76.8

78.2

24

11

7.2

11.5

56.6

23

22

3.5

9.4

Koutlousi Upper

2,433

61.6

68.4

75.5

95.6

66

2

1.2

2.1

51

17

22.5

4

1.3

Koutlousi Lower

131

21.5

39.7

84

89

48.5

4.5

28.5

8

5

4.5

Koutounis Hill

42

54.8

52.6

75

86

30

42.5

19

12.5

Koutounis

64

70.3

65

70

59

43

30.6

64

34

14

17

Tsangaris

72

68

66

53

37.5

29

2.9

43

72

27

18

22.2

Koukos

28

60

65

90

86

25

21.5

43

40

9

2.2

5

3.3

Table 3. Characteristics of the pottery assemblages from the seven main sites. All values shown are percentages except for those in the first column.

TABLES 4 AND 5

Island Regions

LN/FN

EBA

Locational Preference

Thasos

Ypsili

Syros (EC I)

Trikeri Argo-Saronic, Kythera, and Antikythera

Ypsili Dokos Antikythera

Spetsopoula

Coastal

Velopoula

Chios (half)

Dokos Koronida

Lemnos* Lesbos

Antikythera Youra

Hagios Petros

Hagios Petros

Mikro Kokkiniokastro

Skyros* Syros* (EC II) Mykonos Naxos Melos*

Makronissos Despotiko Rheneia Cyclades

Tragonisisi Stapodia

Leros Patmos

Korakonisi

Northern Aegean

Islands

Coastal/Near the Coast

Ano Kouphonisi

Kythera* (EM III) Saria Chalki

Kato Kouphonisi

Simi

Schoinousa

Tilos

Christiana

Nisyros

Keros

Giali

Delos

Astypalaia Saria

Kalymnos*

Alimnia Hagioi Theodoroi

Dodecanese

Kea

Kastellorizo Saria

Near the Coast/Inland

Paros*

smaller islet east of Hagioi Theodoroi

Alimnia

Kasos

Hagios Antonios

Seskli

Amorgos

Seskli

Giali

Giali

Kandeloussa

Kantiloussa

Strongyli

Kos

Pacheia

Pharmakonissi

Chios (half)

Strongyli Syrna

Table 4. Small islands and islets (areas less than 25 km²) used in the LN/FN and EBA.

Kythera* (EB I–II) Inland

Rhodes*

Table 5. EBA site location preferences in the Aegean islands. Specific periods for particular preferences are shown in parentheses; islands with wellrepresented EB III phases are marked with *.

Maps

MAP 1

Thasos Samothrace

Imvros Lemnos Tenedos

Hagios Efstratios Youra

Kyra Panagia Skiathos

Alonissos

Lesbos

Skyros

Skopelos

Psara

Chios

Andros Samos Kea

Aigina

Ikaria

Tinos Mykonos

Syros

Patmos

Kythnos Spetses

Hydra

Paros

Seriphos

Naxos Leros

Antiparos Amorgos

Siphnos Sikinos

Melos

Ios

Kalymnos Astypalaia

Simi

Nisyros Tilos

Pholegandros Thera

Kos Giali

Anaphi

Seskli

Alimnia Kythera

Chalki

Saria

Rhodes

Antikythera

Karpathos

N

Kasos

Crete 0

Gavdos

Map 1. The Aegean islands.

100 km

MAP 2

10 14

1211

19 13

20

6 75

9 8

4

3 2 1

21

17

15

18 16 22

37 24

23

25 27 26

29 30 28

N 31 34 35

32 36 33

0

5

10 km

Map 2. Prehistoric sites on Kos (contours at 200 m intervals) and the Halasarna Survey Project (HSP) area. Key to sites shown on Maps 2, 8, and 9: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Hagios Phokas Hagios Phokas Hill Kastello Troulli Iraklis Kos town Gyapili Panagia Tsoukalaria Askloupi Giorgaras Asklepieion Tsilimpiri Vourinna Mesaria Misonisi Hagios Georgios Hagios Ioannis Kastro Palaiopyli Linopotis Piyi

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Hagia Paraskevi Vouno Antimachia Tavla Eleona Tholos (ancient Halasarna) north of Hagios Stephanos Laftonero northeast of Hagia Varvara north of Hagia Varvara Milies Vigles Aspri Petra cave northwest of Aspri Petra cave north of Hagios Theologos Hagios Theologos north of Hagios Ioannis Marmara promontory

MAP 3

30

32 31

28

27 26 22

24

29 25 18

21

20

23 17 16

19 15

14 13 12 10 11 9

8

6

7

N

5

4

3

2 1

0

1

2 km

Map 3. Neolithic and EBA sites at Halasarna. Key to sites shown on Maps 3 and 5–7: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

K.29.89 K.30.71 K.29.58 K.29.29 K.29.06 Koukos Tholos (ancient Halasarna) (K.26.73, 74) K.25.22 K.21.54 K.22.43 Tsangaris K.20.15 K.14.98 K.16.76 K.15.51 K.16.42–51

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Koutounis K.17.15 K.14.03 K.08.88, K.14.07 Koutounis Hill K.09.76 K.09.89–99 K.09.68, 69 Koutousi Lower Hill (K.10.61) Koutlousi Upper Hill (K.09.49, 50) K.09.51 K.08.48, 49 Nerantzia lower site (K.10.33, 34) Nerantzia (K.10.11, K.09.10) K.11.06 Eleona

MAPS 4 AND 5

K.09.10 K.10.11

K.10.34

K.09.50

N

K.10.61

K.09.49

0

100 m

Map 4. Sites located at Nerantzia and Koutlousi hills.

32

30

29

26 25 24 21 20

23 17

19

16

15

12 11

8

N 6

7

0

1

Map 5. Occurence of chipped stone at Halasarna sites. For key of sites, see Map 3.

2 km

MAP 6

30

26 24 21

18

23

19

17

11

N

6

0

Map 6. Neolithic Halasarna. For key of sites, see Map 3.

1

2 km

MAP 7

30

29

26 25 21 17

15

11 9

N 6 5

7

3 0

1

Map 7. EBA Halasarna. For key of sites, see Map 3.

1

2 km

MAPS 8 AND 9

14 12

4

9

2

18

21

N

32 34 0

5

10 km

Map 8. Neolithic sites on Kos (contours at 200 m intervals). For key of sites, see Map 2.

6

14 12 19

3 4

9 8

21

2 1

15

18 16

23

29

N

27 26

30 28 31 34

32 0

5

Map 9. EBA sites on Kos (countours at 200 m intervals). For key of sites, see Map 2.

10 km

Figures

FIGURE 1

Kt.9

Kt.29

Kk.2

Kt.10

Kt.32

N.4

Kt.11

Kt.20

Kk.1

Kt.35

Kt.22

Kt.27

Kt.33

Kt.36

Ktn.2

Kt.28

Kt.34

Ktn.3

T.2

Figure 1. Deep and medium bowls with straight walls and straight or slightly flaring rims (Kt.9–Kt.11, Kt.20); shallow bowl with straight walls and straight rim (Kt.22); shallow bowls with flaring walls and simple round rims (Kt.27–Kt.29, Kt.32); bowl with straight body and high shoulder ending on an incurving pointed rim (Kk.1); bowls with straight walls and flaring rims that thicken considerably (Kt.33, Kt.34); bowl with straight walls and thickened round everted rim (Kk.2); bowl with straight or slightly curving walls and upturned pointed rim (N.4); bowls with curved walls and incurving rim (Kt.35, Kt.36, Ktn.2, Ktn.3, T.2). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 2

Kt.37

N.8

Kt.39

N.6

Kt.42

N.7

Kk.5

Kk.4

Kt.43

Kt.47

Kt.45

T.3

Ktn.4

Kt.44

O.1

Kt.51

Kt.50

Kt.49

Kt.46

Kt.52

T.5

Kt.53

Figure 2. Bowls with curved walls and upturned straight rims (Kt.37, Kt.39, N.6); bowls with straight walls and upturned rims (N.7, Kk.4); bowls with slightly curved walls and incurving internally thickened rims (T.3, Ktn.4, N.8); bowls with straight walls and straight thickened rims (Kt.42, Kk.5); bowl with slightly curving walls and beaded lip (Kt.43); bowls with curving body and slightly flaring, externally thickened,
-type rim (O.1, Kt.44); wide-mouthed bowls with a slightly S-shaped body curvature (Kt.45–Kt.47); bowls with S-shaped body curvature and flaring rims (Kt.49–Kt.52); bowl with straight walls and T-rim (T.5); bowl with rolled rim (Kt.53). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 3

Kt.54

Kt.57

Kt.55

T.6

Kt.56

Ktn.5

Kt.58

Figure 3. Bowl with S-shaped body and horizontal handles (Kt.54); bowls with high-swung vertical loop handles (Kt.55–Kt.57); bowl with one or two handles and curved body (T.6); carinated bowl with a vertical lug (Ktn.5). Dipper (Kt.58). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 4

Kt.59

Kt.Lh.3

N.9

Kt.60

Kt.61

Kt.62

N.11

Kt.63

T.7

Figure 4. Scoop (Kt.59); one-handled cups with incurving rims and vertical handle below rim (Kt.Lh.3, N.9); onehandled cup (Kt.60); one-handled cup with upraised rim (Kt.61); one- or two-handled cup with straight body and flaring rim (N.11); sauceboats (Kt.62, Kt.63); basin (T.7). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 5

Kk.6

Kk.7

Kt.65

Kt.67

Kt.66 Kt.68

Kt.70

Kt.71

Figure 5. Basins with straight or slightly curving bodies and thickened rims (Kk.6, Kk.7); deep pedestal bowls (Kt.65, Kt.66); pedestal bowl (Kt.67); cylindrical pyxis (Kt.68); rims from broad-mouthed jugs (Kt.70, Kt.71). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 6

Kt.72

Kt.74

Kt.73

Kt.76

Kt.77

Kt.78

Kt.79 Kt.82

Kt.75

Kt.84

Kt.89

Kt.91

Kt.94

Figure 6. Deep open jars (Kt.72–Kt.75); jar with curved body, no neck, and incurving thickened rim (Kt.76); jars with spreading necks and simple rims (Kt.77–Kt.79, Kt.82, Kt.84); jars with spreading necks and flaring rims (Kt.89, Kt.91); jar with spreading neck and flaring rim, internally thickened (Kt.94). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 7

Kt.95

Kt.97

N.17

Kt.98

Kt.99

Kt.100

T.8

N.18

Kt.102

Kk.10

Kt.106

Kt.103

N.19

Kt.104

Kt.105

Kt.107

Figure 7. Jars with cylindrical necks and straight or slightly flaring rims (Kt.95, Kt.97, N.17, Kt.98, N.18); jars with cylindrical necks and flaring rims (Kt.99, Kt.100); jar with almost cylindrical neck and flaring, thickened rim (T.8); jars with incurving necks and rims (Kt.102, Kk.10); collared-neck jar with flaring neck and rim (Kt.103); collared-neck jar with flaring neck and everted rim (N.19); collared-neck jar with round, everted rim (Kt.104); globular jars with collared necks (Kt.105, Kt.106); amphora (Kt.107). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 8

Kt.108

Kt.Lh.5

Kt.Lh.6

Kt.Lh.7

Kt.109

Kt.Lh.8

Kt.Lh.9

N.20

N.21

Kk.11

Kt.116

Ktn.7

Kt.122

Kt.123

Kt.111

Kt.124

Figure 8. Pithoid jars without necks and with everted, projecting rims (Kt.108, Kt.Lh.5, Kt.Lh.6); pithoid jars without necks and with everted, round rims (Kt.109, Kt.Lh.7, Kt.Lh.8); pithoid jar without neck and with straight, flat rim (Kt.Lh.9); pithoid jar with spreading neck and simple, almost rectangular, rim (N.20); pithoid jar with short, cylindrical neck and everted, round rim (N.21); cheese pot rim (Kk.11); unperforated cheese pot rims (Ktn.7, Kt.116); body of cheese pot (Kt.111); cheese pot rims (Kt.122, Kt.123); cheese pot rim (Kt.124). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 9

Kt.118

Kt.125

Kt.126

Kt.128

Kt.127

Kt.130

Figure 9. Cheese pot rims (Kt.118, Kt.125–Kt.128, Kt.130, Kt.131). Scale 1:2.

Kt.131

FIGURE 10

Kt.132 Kt.135

N.23

Kt.136

Kt.137

N.22

Kt.138

Kt.140

Kt.139

N.24

Kk.16

O.2

Ktn.h.1

Figure 10. Cheese pot rims (Kt.132, Kt.135, N.22); cheese pot bases (N.23, Kt.136–Kt.138); horizontal handles (Kt.139, Kt. 140, N.24, O.2, Kk.16); horizontal raised or loop handles (Ktn.h.1). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 11

O.3

Kk.17

N.25

N.27 Kt.142

N.28

Kt.144

Kt.143

Kt.145

Figure 11. Horizontal raised or loop handle (Kk.17); vertical cylindrical handle from cup or small bowl (O.3); vertical cylindrical handles (N.25, Kt.142); jug handles (N.27, N.28, Kt.143–Kt.145). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 12

Kt.147

T.10

N.31

Kt.151

N.32

N.34

T.11

Figure 12. Jar or jug handles (T.10, Kt.147); strap-tubular vertical handle (N.31); kidney-shaped vertical handle (N.32); ribbed vertical (push-through) handle (Kt.151); vertical jar handles (N.34, T.11). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 13

Kt.152

N.36

Kt.153

Kt.156

Figure 13. Vertical jar handles (Kt.152, Kt.153); vertical rectangular handle from jar or jug (N.36); vertical ribbon loop handle from jar (Kt.156). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 14

N.37

Kt.157

Figure 14. Vertical strap pithos handles (N.37, Kt.157). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 15

N.38

Kt.158

Kt.159

N.40

Figure 15. Vertical circular pithos handle (N.38); oval vertical pithos handles (Kt.158, Kt.159); horizontal pithos handle (N.40). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 16

Kt.160

Kt.162

Kt.163

Kt.164

Ktn.h.2

Kt.165

Kt.167

Kt.166

Kt.168

Kt.169

Kt.170

O.8

Kt.171

Figure 16. Vertical lug (Kt.160); horizontal horn-shaped lug (Kt.162); horizontal lug with small horn (Kt.163); rectangularly shaped vertical lug (Kt.164); tab or horn handles (Ktn.h.2, Kt.165, Kt.166); flat bases with angular edges and straight walls (Kt.167, Kt.168); flat bases with round edges and curved walls (Kt.169, Kt.170, O.8); flat base with thin incurving wall (Kt.171). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 17

Kt.173

N.41

Ktn.12

Kt.179

Kt.175

Kt.178

Kt.177

Kt.180

N.42

Kt.176

T.12

Kt.181

Figure 17. Flat splayed base with round edge (Kt.173); flat differentiated base (N.41); sunken base (Kt.175); tripod feet (Kt.176, N.42); raised base from crusted ware bowl (Ktn.12); pattern-burnished ware body fragment from closed vessel (Kt.177); incised ware (Kt.178–Kt.180); rim from spherical pyxis (T.12); rim from pithoid vase with vertical triangular relief band (Kt.181). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 18

Kt.185

Kt.187

Kt.Lh.10

N.44 N.43

Kt.C.8

N.C.3

Kt.C.7

Kt.C.6

Ktn.13

Kk.C.12

N.C.4

T.C.1

Kt.C.10

Kk.C.20

Kk.C.3

Kt.C.11

Kk.C.21

Figure 18. Body of bowl with slightly oval button with sunken top (Kt.185); pithos rim with shallow thumb impressions (Kt.187); slashed jar handle (Kt.Lh.10); vertical handles from closed vessels with holes (N.43, N.44); vertical handle from jar with shallow vertical ridge (Ktn.13). Melian obsidian blades (Kt.C.6, Kt.C.7, Kk.C.3); Giali medial obsidian blade (Kt.C.8); Giali obsidian bladelets (Kk.C.12, T.C.1); Giali one-edged obsidian blade (Kt.C.10, Kt.C.11); Giali obsidian scrapers (N.C.3, N.C.4, Kk.C.20, Kk.C.21). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 19

N.St.1

Figure 19. Grindstone Type 1 (N.St.1). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 20

N.St.2

T.St.1

T.St.2

Kt.St.1

Figure 20. Grindstones: Type 1 (N.St.2), Type 2 (T.St.1, T.St.2), and Type 3 (Kt.St.1). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 21

Kt.St.2

N.St.5

Figure 21. Mortars: Type 1 (Kt.St.2), Type 2 (N.St.5), and Type 3 (Kt.St.3). Scale 1:2.

Kt.St.3

FIGURE 22

Kt.St. 7

Kt.St.4

O.St.1

Kt.St.12

Kt.St.11

T.St.4

Kt.St.13

Kt.St.14

Figure 22. Grinders: Type 1 (Kt.St.4, Kt.St.7, T.St.4), Type 2 (Kt.St.11, O.St.1), Type 3 (Kt.St.12), Type 4 (Kt.St.13), and Type 5 (Kt.St.14). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 23

N.St.9 Kt.St.16

T.St.5

N.St.11

T.St.6

Figure 23. Grinders: Type 5 (Kt.St.16), Type 6 (N.St.9), Type 7 (T.St.5), Type 8 (N.St.11); pounder Type 1 (T.St.6). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 24

Kt.St.18

Kt.St.19

T.St.7

O.St.2

Figure 24. Pounder Type 2 (Kt.St. 18, Kt.St.19); hammers (T.St.7, O.St.2). Scale 1:2.

FIGURE 25

Kt.St.22

Kt.SF.1

Kt.SF.2

Kt.SF.4

Figure 25. Plaquette (Kt.St.22); open clay mold (Kt.SF.1); clay furnace (Kt.SF.2); terracotta ring (Kt.SF.4). Scale 1:2.

Plates

PLATE 1

Plate 1A. The hill southwest of Hagios Phokas, view from south.

Plate 1B. Kastello or Kastelles hill, view from southwest.

Plate 1C. View of the hill east of Panagia Tsoukalaria, view from northeast.

PLATE 2

Plate 2A. Mesaria, view to west.

Plate 2B. The metal source near Hagios Georgios chapel on the eastern side of the stream, view from north.

Plate 2C. The copper veins close to the chapel of Hagios Georgios.

PLATE 3

Plate 3A. Hagios Ioannis hill, view from north.

Plate 3B. Hill north of Hagios Stephanos, view from south.

Plate 3C. Laftonero hill, view from south.

PLATE 4

Plate 4A. Hill east of Hagia Varvara.

Plate 4B. Hill northeast of Hagia Varvara (in the middle left), view from southwest.

Plate 4C. Milies hill, view from east.

PLATE 5

Plate 5A. Vigles hill, view from the southeast.

Plate 5B. Site northwest of Aspri Petra cave, view from south.

Plate 5C. Hagios Theologos northern hill, view from south.

PLATE 6

Plate 6A. Hagios Theologos southern hill, view from east.

Plate 6B. Hill north of Hagios Ioannis, view from northeast.

Plate 6C. The rock shelters on the eastern side of the Marmara pennisula, view from east.

PLATE 7

Plate 7A. Eleona hill slopes at the center, view from west.

Plate 7B. Site K11.06 in the upper left part of the plain, view from Eleona (northeast).

PLATE 8

Plate 8A. Nerantzia Hill and the Mt. Dikaios range, view from Koutlousi (southwest).

Plate 8B. Koutlousi Upper Hill (right) and Koutlousi Lower Hill (left), view from Nerantzia (northeast).

Plate 8C. Koutlousi Lower Hill, view from Koutlousi Upper Hill (north).

PLATE 9

Plate 9A. Site K.09.89 and the Halasarna plain, view from Koutounis Upper Hill (east).

Plate 9B. Koutounis Hill (the higher flat hill to the right), view from south.

Plate 9C. Koutounis (the site is on the lower slopes of the hill at the center), view from Koutounis Hill (north).

PLATE 10

Plate 10A. Tsangaris hill, view from northeast.

Plate 10B. Ancient Halasarna and the Tholos hill, view from south.

Plate 10C. Koukos hill, view from south.

PLATE 11

Kt.86 T.1

Kt.Lh.1 Ktn.1

unnumbered Kt.116

Plate 11. Straw marks on the internal side of Kt.86; sherds with black slip and burnishing (T.1, Ktn.1); post-firing hole on bowl rim (Kt.Lh.1); scored ware cheese pot rim with horizontal striation lines (Kt.116); rough and burnished ware (unnumbered). Scale is 1:1.

PLATE 12

T.7 (1:2)

unnumbered

N.32

N.1

Kt.75 (1:4)

Kt.137

Kt.130

N.22 (1:2)

Plate 12. Red-slipped and burnished ware (N.32); Red-glazed ware (Urfirnis) bowl rim (T.7); body sherd with thick white slip (unnumbered); bowl rim with milky, whitish slip (N.1); straw-impresed base from cheese pot (Kt.137); open jar with mottled surface (Kt.75; nubbly ware); cheese pot rims (Kt.130, N.22). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.

PLATE 13

Kt.141 (1:2)

O.6

Kt.161

T.12

Ktn.11 (1:2) Kt.177

Kt.44

N.43

N. 44

Plate 13. Push-through, horizontal, strap handle from jar (Kt.141); vertical strap handle with upraised edges (O.6); rectangularly shaped vertical lug (Kt.161); body from bowl with red crusted decoration (Ktn.11); body from closed vessel with patterned decoration (Kt.177); rim from spherical pyxis with incised decoration (T.12); bowl rim with external thumb impressions (Kt.44); vertical jar handles with unperforated and perforated holes (N.43 and N.44, respectively). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.

PLATE 14

Kt.C.2

O.C.9

Kt.C.4

unnumbered

Kt.C.7

Kk.C.19

N.C.4

Kk.C.29

Plate 14. Chipped stone tool material: quartz core (Kt.C.2); chert scraper (Kk.C.19); Melian obsidian blade (Kt.C.7); Giali obsidian core (Kt.C.4); Anatolian or Giali core (O.C.9); Kephalos obsidian flake (unnumbered) and scraper (N.C.4); Giali obsidian arrowhead (Kk.C.29). Scale is 1:1.

PLATE 15

Plate 15A. Geological strata at the hill northeast of Hagia Varvara church.

Plate 15B. Geological stratum with obsidian nodules and scale.

Plate 15C. Detail of the geological stratum showing an obsidian nodule.

PLATE 16

Variety 1

Variety 2

Kk.St.1 (1:3)

Variety 3

Kt.St.5 (1:2)

Kt.St.2 (1:2)

Kt.St.14 (1:3)

Kt.St.15 (1:2)

Plate 16. Kephalos obsidian varieties 1, 2, and 3. Andesite grindstone (Kk.St.1). Sandstone mortar (Kt.St.2). Grinders: marble (Kt.St.5) and andesite (Kt.St.14, Kt.St.15). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.

PLATE 17

N.St.1 (1:3)

Kt.St.1 (1:2)

Kt.St.21 (1:2)

T.St.3

Plate 17. Grindstones: volcanic rock (Kt.St.1) and granite (N.St.1). Greenstone axe (Kt.St.21). Limestone grindstone left in situ (T.St.3).

PLATE 18

Kt.St.20 (1:2)

Kt.SF.1

Kt.SF.2 (1:2)

Kt.SF.3

Plate 18. Hemispherical token or weight with incised signs (Kt.St.20); part of clay mold (Kt.SF.1); parts of clay furnace with pre-firing holes (Kt.SF.2, Kt.SF.3). Scale is 1:1 unless otherwise indicated.