The Rural History of Ancient Greek City-States: The Oropos Survey Project 9781841712826, 9781407323824

Table of contents :
01.pdf
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
NOTE ON GREEK SPELLING AND INTONATION
ABBREVIATIONS
I
INTRODUCTION
I. LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT
The area
Regional Geomorphology (Lawrence Stene)
Geomorphologic History of the Oropia (Lawrence Stene)
II. HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF OROPOS
III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH AT OROPOS
IV. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Theoretical framework
Methodological framework
Field and data recovery methods
V. FINDSPOTS AND FINDS
General information on the findspots
From the Neolithic to the Archaic period
The Lithic finds (James Newhard)
The Material
Theoretical Considerations
Blank Typology
Blades
Crested Blades
Débris
Flakes
Retouched/Utilized Pieces
Blades or Flakes with Lateral Retouch
Notched Pieces
Denticulates
Truncated Pieces
Burins
Pièces Esquillées
Perçoirs/Becs
Conclusions
Chronology
Intra-regional Interaction
The Classical and Hellenistic periods
The Roman period
Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Pottery (Nike Sakka)
VI. THE RURAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT OROPIA
Stratification and hierarchy in the Bronze Age
The Gap
Classical land use and agricultural intensification
The Hellenistic period and the effects of instability
Habitation and land use in the Roman period
VII. CONCLUSION
Summary of results
EPILOGUE
CATALOGUE OF FINDSPOTS
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF FINDSPOTS
NOTES
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
NOTE ON GREEK SPELLING AND INTONATION
ABBREVIATIONS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
I. LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT
II. HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF OROPOS
III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH AT OROPOS
IV. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
V. FINDSPOTS AND FINDS
VI. THE RURAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT OROPIA
VII. CONCLUSION
EPILOGUE
CATALOGUE OF FINDSPOTS
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF FINDSPOTS
NOTES
REFERENCES
INDEX

Citation preview

BAR S1001 2001

The Rural History of Ancient Greek City-States

COSMOPOULOS

The Oropos Survey Project

THE RURAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT GREEK CITY-STATES

Michael B. Cosmopoulos

BAR International Series 1001 B A R

2001

The Rural History of Ancient Greek City-States The Oropos Survey Project

Michael B. Cosmopoulos with contributions by

James Newhard Nike Sakka Lawrence Stene

BAR International Series 1001 2001

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1001 The Rural History of Ancient Greek City-States © M B Cosmopoulos and the Publisher 2001 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712826 paperback ISBN 9781407323824 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712826 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2001. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

For my parents œ sti d' ¹ mn prÕ j gone‹j fil…a tšknoij kaˆ ¢nqrèpoij prÕ j qeoÚj, æj prÕ j ¢gaqÕ n kaˆ Øperšcon: eâ g¦r pepo»kasi t¦ mšgista: toà g¦r enai kaˆ trafÁnai aÙtoˆ a‡tioi, kaˆ genomšnoij toà paideuqÁnai: Ÿ cei d kaˆ tÕ ¹dÝ kaˆ tÕ cr»simon ¹ toiaÚth fil…a m©llon tîn Ñ qne…wn, Ö swi kaˆ koinÒ teroj Ð b…oj aÙto‹j ™stin Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1162a.1

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures List of Tables Note on Greek Spelling and intonation Abbreviations Preface Introduction I. Landscape and Environment The Area Regional Geomorphology (Lawrence Stene) Geomorphologic History of the Oropia (Lawrence Stene) II. Historical Outline of Oropos III. Previous Research at Oropos IV. Theoretical and Methodological Framework Theoretical Framework Methodological Framework Field and Data Recovery Methods V. Findspots and Finds General information on the Findspots From the Neolithic to the Archaic Period The Lithic Finds (James Newhard) The Classical and Hellenistic Periods The Roman Period Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Pottery (Nike Sakka) VI. The Rural History of Ancient Oropia Stratification and Hierarchy in the Bronze Age The Gap Classical Land Use and Agricultural Intensification The Hellenistic Period and the Effects of Instability Habitation and Land Use in the Roman Period VII. Conclusion Epilogue Catalogue of Findspots Chronological Table of Findspots Notes References Index vii

ix xi xi xii 1 4 6 6 9 11 14 17 19 19 22 26 38 38 38 42 57 61 64 71 71 73 74 76 78 80 82 84 123 126 140 162

viii

LIST OF FIGURES 1: View of the Vlastos plain ca.1970 (left) and 2000 (right). ..............................................................1 2: Lofos Taktikou (89/13) ca. 1970 (left) and 2000 (right). .................................................................2 3: View of the burned forest following the fire at Kalamos, July 2000................................................2 4: Map of Greece showing the location of the Oropia. See also fig. 6. ...............................................5 5: View of Skala Oropou/Nea Palatia from Loumperdi .......................................................................6 6: Main topographic features of northeast Attica (adopted from Amphiareion, p 7). ........................8 7: View of recently active high-angle fault scarp in highlands overlooking Ayioi Apostoloi .............9 8: View of extensive alluvial fans flanking the South Euboian Gulf coastline in the Oropia. ...........10 9: Loumperdi (91/20) from the east ....................................................................................................11 10: View downstream of valley leading to Skala Oropos....................................................................12 11: Topographic map of the area indicating the main hills .................................................................13 12: The Amphiareion: the Temple to Amphiaraos (left) and the theater (right) .................................14 13: Graphic representation of variants of dispersion and nucleation...................................................21 14: Fieldwalking ..................................................................................................................................27 15: Site information recording .............................................................................................................31 16: The findspots and the grid .............................................................................................................32 17: Distribution map of Bronze Age findspots ....................................................................................33 18: Distribution map of Classical findspots.........................................................................................34 19: Distribution map of Hellenistic findspots......................................................................................35 20: Distribution map of Early and Middle Roman findspots...............................................................36 21: Distribution map of Late Roman findspots....................................................................................37 22: Chronological distribution of sites.................................................................................................38 23: View of 90/11 from southeast........................................................................................................39 24: Lofos Gliati (findspot 89/5) looking towards the south.................................................................39 25: Lofos Taktikou (89/13) from the west (left) and view from the top towards the east (right)........40 26: Panoramic view of 90/2 from the southeast...................................................................................40 27: Sections of Bronze Age pottery.....................................................................................................41 28: Lithics 1-18 (by P. Kalogerakou) .................................................................................................45 29: Lithics 19-36 (by P. Kalogerakou) ................................................................................................46 30: Lithics 37-50 (by P. Kalogerakou) ................................................................................................47 31: Lithics 51-65 (by P. Kalogerakou) ................................................................................................48 32:Lithics 66-86 (by P. Kalogerakou) .................................................................................................49 33: Lithics 87-108 (by P. Kalogerakou) ..............................................................................................50 34: Thickness and Width Averages for Sites in Table VIII.................................................................54 35: Panoramic view of the valley to the south of Ayios Nikolaos from the southeast. .....................57 36: Continuity in Classical findspots (findspots with uncertain dating are not included) ...................58 37: Corner blocks (left) and fragment of a Doric column (right) at Avlotopi .....................................59 38: Continuity in Hellenistic findspots (findspots with uncertain dating are not included) ................59 39: The area of the submerged harbor remains at Kamaraki from southwest .....................................60 40: Continuity of Roman findspots (findspots with uncertain dating are not included)......................61 41: General view of the plateau at Alepovouni (93/6).........................................................................62 42: 89/1 from the South (photo taken in June 1989) ...........................................................................62 43: Views of the wall at 90/5 from the south (top) ..............................................................................63 44: Distribution map of identifiable Classical and Hellenistic shapes ................................................65 45: Distribution map of identifiable Roman shapes and of beehives ..................................................66 ix

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ 46: Sections of Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman pottery: kantharoi, cups, skyphoi, and plates.......68 47: Sections of Hellenistic and Roman pottery: Amphorae.................................................................69 48: Sections of miscellaneous pottery shapes and small finds ............................................................70 49: View of the plain of Oropos from Loumperdi looking west .........................................................76 50: General view of findspot 89/2 (top); flat stones in the same findspot (bottom)............................85 51: View of 89/3 from the south .........................................................................................................86 52: Loomweight from 89/7 ..................................................................................................................87 53: General plan (left) and three dimensional drawing of Lofos Taktikou (89/13)............................89 54: Kamaraki, topographic plan of the major area ............................................................................91 55: Kamaraki, the top surface of wall 1..............................................................................................92 56: Kyparissi (90/1) from the west .....................................................................................................92 57: Pottery (left) and akrokeramon (right) from 90/1..........................................................................93 58: General plan of 90/2 (drawn by P. Kalogerakou)..........................................................................94 59: Stone tools and clay loom weight from 90/2 .................................................................................94 60: Pottery from 90/3 ...........................................................................................................................96 61: Late Roman Sherds from 90/5 .......................................................................................................97 62: Details from the south (left) and the west (right)...........................................................................97 63: Section and plan of the wall at 90/5...............................................................................................98 64: Pottery from 90/15 .......................................................................................................................101 65: Pottery from 91/2 .........................................................................................................................102 66: Pottery from 91/3 .........................................................................................................................103 67: Pottery from 91/4 .........................................................................................................................104 68: Pottery from 91/9 .........................................................................................................................105 69: Kiln support from 91/9 ................................................................................................................106 70: Pottery from 91/10 .......................................................................................................................107 71: Pottery from 91/13 .......................................................................................................................108 72: Pottery from 91/14 .......................................................................................................................108 73: Pottery from 91/15 .......................................................................................................................108 74: Mold-made cup with decoration of petals from 91/16 ................................................................109 75: Pottery from 91/17 .......................................................................................................................109 76: Unguentarium from 91/18 ...........................................................................................................110 77: Topographic plan of the summit of 91/20 (Loumperdi). ...........................................................111 78: Pottery from 91/20 .......................................................................................................................112 79: Plan of 91/21................................................................................................................................112 80: Pottery from 93/6 .........................................................................................................................115 81: Pottery from 93/7 .........................................................................................................................116 82: General topographic plan of 94/1 ................................................................................................117 83: Pottery from 94/1 .........................................................................................................................117 84: General topographic plan of 94/2 ................................................................................................118 85: The olive crusher at 94/2 .............................................................................................................119 86: Pottery from 94/2 .........................................................................................................................120 87: Tiles from 94/2.............................................................................................................................121 88: Pottery from 95/2 .........................................................................................................................122

x

LIST OF TABLES

I: Classification and attributes of site function ................................................................................24 II: Site datasheet sample ....................................................................................................................28 III: Pottery database sheet ...................................................................................................................29 IV: Miscellaneous finds datasheet.......................................................................................................30 V: Distribution of blank types............................................................................................................43 VI: Breakdown of tool types ...............................................................................................................51 VII: Exploratory Statistics for Bronze Age Prismatic Blades. .............................................................53 VIII: Distributions of Blanks ................................................................................................................55 IX: Distributions of Blanks found at 90/2 and 90/4 ............................................................................55 X: Utilized Material ...........................................................................................................................55 XI: Observed Frequencies, Expected Frequencies, and Chi Square analyses of blanks.....................56 XII: Barley/wheat production (in kg.) in IG II2 1672...........................................................................74 XIII: Successive periods of independence and occupation of Oropos ................................................81 XIV: Chronological table of findspots (* certain, *? possible, ? uncertain).......................................123

NOTE ON GREEK SPELLING AND INTONATION In general, I have avoided using the latinized versions of personal and place names: thus I spell Oropos and not Oropus, Amphiaraos and not Amphiaraus. The standard form of commonly used Greek words has been, however, maintained: e.g. Athens instead of Athina. For toponyms written in Greek the monotonic system of writing has been used, while references to books and articles written in Greek follow the intonation system used by the publisher.

xi

ABBREVIATIONS

Journals and Series AA AAA AD AE AEM AM AJA AmAnt Ann Inst. BAR BICS BCH BSA CAH CA ClJ ClRev CQ EMC/CV ”Ergon GRBS IG JdI JAS JFA JHS JHS-AR JMA JRA JRS OJA OpAth PAE PPS PZ REG RE SEG SIMA SMEA ZPE

Archäologischer Anzeiger Arcaiologik£ An£lekta ex Aqhnèn ArcaiologikÒ Delt…o ’Arcaiologik¾ ’Efhmerˆ j ’Arce‹on EÙboϊkîn Meletîn Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athenische Abteilung) American Journal of Archaeology American Antiquity Annales Institutorum British Archaeological Reports Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin de Corréspondence Hellènique Annual of the British School at Athens Cambridge Ancient History Current Anthropology Classical Journal Classical Review Classical Quarterly Échos du Monde Classique-Classical Views TÕ ”Ergon tÁj ™n 'Aq»naij 'ArcaiologikÁj `Etaire…aj Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Inscriptiones Graecae Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Hellenic Studies-Archaeological Reports Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Oxford Journal of Archaeology Opuscula Atheniensia Praktik¦ tÁj ™n ’Aq»naij ’ArcaiologikÁj `Etaire…aj Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Prähistorische Zeitschrift Revue des Études Grecques Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Studii Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

xii

ABBREVIATIONS _______________________________________________________________________________

Frequently used sources Agora IV

R. H. Howland, Greek Lamps and Their Survivals. Athenian Agora IV. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1958; rep. 1966.

Agora V

H. S. Robinson, Pottery of the Roman Period. Athenian Agora V. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1959.

Agora XII

B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the Sixth, Fifth, and Fourth centuries B.C. Athenian Agora XII. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1970.

Agora XIII

S. A. Immerwahr, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Athenian Agora XIII. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1972.

Agora XXII

S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. Athenian Agora XXII. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1982.

Agora XXVII

R. F. Townsend, The East Side of the Agora: The Remains beneath the Stoa of Attalos. Athenian Agora XXVII. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1995.

Agora XXIX

S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic pottery: Athenian and imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Materials. Athenian Agora XXIX. American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, 1997.

Amphiareion

B. Petr£koj, `O ’WrwpÕj kaˆ tÕ `IerÕn toà ’Amfiar£ou. Biblioq»kh tÁj ™n ’Aq»naij ’ArcaiologikÁj `Etaire…aj 63. Athens, 1968.

Archaeological Survey

D. Keller and D. Rupp (eds.), Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area. BAR-International Series 155. Oxford, 1983.

Argolid

M. H. Jameson, C. N. Runnels, and T. H. van Andel, A Greek Countryside. The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to Present Day. Stanford University Press. Stanford, 1994.

Béotie Antique

La Béotie Antique, Colloque International du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Lyon-St.Étienne 16-20 mai 1983. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Paris, 1985.

Boiotia

J. M. Fossey, Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia. Publishers. Chicago, 1988.

Corinth IV

O. Broneer, Corinth: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Volume IV, Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge, Mass., 1930

Greece

Naval Intelligence Division, 1944-1945: Greece. Geographical Handbook Series, vols. I-III. London.

Kenchreai IV

B. Adamsheck, Kenchreai: Eastern Port of Corinth IV: The Pottery. E.J. Brill. Leiden, 1979.

xiii

Ares

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Keos

J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani, Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History. Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles, 1991.

Laconia

W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey I-II. British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume no. 27. London, 1996.

Melos

A.C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity. The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1982.

Oropos

B. Petr£koj, Oƒ ’Epigrafj toà ’Wrwpoà. Biblioq»kh tÁj ™n ’Aq»naij ’ArcaiologikÁj `Etaire…aj 170. Athens, 1997.

Other Abbreviations BA EH MH LH DA AR CL H R avg. c. d g kg km m cm mm masl n. OSP S/T

Bronze Age Early Helladic Middle Helladic Late Helladic Dark Age Archaic Classical Hellenistic Roman average century/centuries diameter grams kilograms kilometers meters centimeters millimeters meters above sea level number Oropos Survey Project Storage/Transport

xiv

PREFACE

Since my childhood I have felt a special connection to Oropos and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos, mostly because of the many summers I spent in my family’s country home at Kalamos. My early romantic fascination with the sanctuary and its antiquities turned into a serious interest during my undergraduate years at the Department of Archaeology of the University of Athens and eventually matured into a desire for a systematic archaeological exploration of the area during my graduate years at Washington University in St. Louis. It was at that time that the plan for a surface survey ripened, as a way of exploring a previously unexplored area and satisfying my own curiosity about the lives of the ancient inhabitants of the area. The Oropos Survey Project finally materialized in 1988, a year before I finished my doctorate, and found its permanent institutional base in 1989, when I joined the Department of Classics of the University of Manitoba. When the OSP started, the rural area of Oropos had not been well explored and, with the exception of the city of Oropos and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos, its history had been largely unknown. Another motivation for exploring rural Oropos was my concern for the impact that modern building activity and the development of tourism have been having on the cultural and environmental resources of the region. The area that was virtually empty when I was a child has become now a popular summer resort, with hundreds of new houses, countless new neighborhoods, super markets, stores, tavernas, and even a water park with waterslides (Figure 1), not to mention new roads (Figure 2) and public works. Human actions are also often responsible for the catastrophic fires, which every few years annihilate the beautiful pine forests of the area (Figure 3). All this activity not only changes the character of the landscape, but also threatens seriously any cultural remains that may lie undiscovered in the area.1

Figure 1: View of the Vlastos plain ca.1970 (left) and 2000 (right). The circle shows the same olive tree; the arrow shows the water park

During six seasons of fieldwalking (1989-1991, 1993-1995) the OSP-£ki (“little OSP”, as we humorously called it) covered a considerable part of the Oropia, the territory of the ancient town of Oropos. Although initially it was designed as a small personal project, over the course of the years it grew, matured, and changed along with its director. In the beginning our goal was to discover and record new archaeological sites; by the end, it had shifted to reconstructing and attempting to explain the development of settlement pattern and the mechanisms that affected the rural history of the area. In our modernized, mechanized, and globalized world, not only the character of the landscape, but also the character of the people who live in it constantly changes. In order to preserve the record of the landscape and the testimonies of the locals, I incorporated into the project basic ethnographic

1

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2: Lofos Taktikou (89/13) ca. 1970 (left) and 2000 (right). The arrow shows the modern road that has cut into the north slope of the hill

and environmental studies. The environmental studies were conducted by Professor Lawrence Stene of the Department of Geography, the University of Manitoba, who is now preparing the publication of his work.2 The ethnographic study, now in press, was conducted by Kent Fowler with the assistance of Carla Veenhuizen, at the time my students at the Department of Classics of the University of Manitoba. 3

Figure 3: View of the burned forest following the fire at Kalamos, July 2000

It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to the friends and colleagues who, in so many ways, contributed to the success of the OSP. First and foremost I am indebted to the team leaders: Drs. Pege Kalogerakou, Nike Sakka, Katerina Moustakatou, Alexandra Kalogirou, Sotiria Ntantou, and Marie-Gabrielle Parisaki led the teams in the field without ever losing their zeal, enthusiasm and, most importantly, humor. Chris Mundigler’s talents as architect, topographer, photographer, artifact illustrator, computer expert, paramedic, and professional driver greatly facilitated many research and practical aspects of the project. The friendship and dedication of these colleagues were an invaluable factor to the success of the project and created a warm atmosphere that made the pressures of fieldwork more bearable for our students and volunteers. 2

PREFACE ______________________________________________________________________________ Many thanks are due to my colleagues, who accepted to publish material from the OSP and conducted the specialized studies. Nike Sakka, who was a team leader every year since 1990, devoted a great deal of painstaking work in examining, studying, and publishing the post-Bronze Age pottery. Pege Kalogerakou not only offered invaluable help and expertise with fieldwork, but also conducted a preliminary study of lithic artifacts4 and executed the drawings of the obsidian finds included in this volume. James Newhard undertook the final study of the lithic finds at a later stage and produced the detailed report included in this volume. As mentioned above, Lawrence Stene conducted the geological, geomorphological, and geophysical studies and Kent Fowler and Carla Veenhuizen the ethnographic studies. Most site and artifact drawings were made by Bretta Gerecke, Karen Howard, and Chris Mundigler; Chris Mundigler also produced and encanced electronically the maps and site plans included in the book. Many thanks are due to the Hellenic Army Geographic Service for providing us with topographic and geomorphological maps and aerial photographs and to the Institute of Geological and Metallurgical Research (InstitoÚto Gewlogikèn kai Metallourgikèn Ereunèn) for generously allowing us access to unpublished reports about the geology of the area. Since its inception, the project has had the full support and cooperation of Dr. Vassileios Petrakos, Secretary General of the Athens Archaeological Society. Both Dr. Petrakos, in his former capacity as Ephor of Antiquities for the II Ephoreia of Antiquities, and the current Ephor, Dr. A. Steinhauer, provided us with the necessary permits for the fieldwork. The Epimeletria in charge of Oropos, Mrs. Penelope Agallopoulou, was always helpful in practical matters relating to the project. I am much indebted to the friends and colleagues, who read parts of this manuscript and offered valuable comments and suggestions. I especially would like to thank Professor John Cherry, who spent a great deal of time and energy in reading a final draft of the manuscript and offering invaluable advice; as well as Dr. Vassileios Petrakos and Professors Susan Alcock, Michael Jameson, Mark Lawall, Merle Langdon, Duane Roller, and Curtis Runnel; the archaeologist Ms. Eirene Karra provided advice on the later pottery. Needless to say, I remain entirely responsible for any errors or inadequacies of the book. Funding for the project was provided by the University of Manitoba, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, and Mellon Bank, whose support I would like to gratefully acknowledge. I am especially grateful to Professor Rory Egan, Head of the Department of Classics, and Professor William Kops, Director of the Summer Session of the Continuing Education Division, University of Manitoba, who were instrumental in alleviating many of the practical problems relating to taking students overseas and ensuring the success of the project. My wife, Dr. Deborah Ruscillo Cosmopoulos, revisited the findspots with me in summers 1998, 1999, and 2000 and offered much assistance with site photography and the control of the catalogue of findspots; more than that, she has provided a great deal of enthusiasm and positive outlook in the difficult times when it seemed that this book would never finish. To my parents, Vassileios and Efterpi Cosmopoulos, I dedicate this book: through the years they have been a constant source of love, inspiration, support, and patience with the long process of fieldwork, always happy to see our home in Kalamos being converted to hotel, office, and storage room for materials and equipment, according to the needs of the project. Last but not least, a heartfelt thanks is due to all the students and volunteers who, summer after summer, worked hard under the blazing Attic sun without losing their enthusiasm, dedication and, especially, humor. I do hope that their afternoon swims between fieldwork and classes in the blue waters of the Euboian Gulf somewhat made up for all their hard work.

3

INTRODUCTION

Rural landscapes constitute valuable records of our past, as they preserve the traces of thousands of years of human activity. In the present book I set out to study the rural landscape of the territory of the ancient city-state of Oropos, in order to reach a better understanding of the various processes that shaped its history. The need for archaeological investigations of ancient Greek rural life has become imperative, largely because of the lack of relevant information in the ancient sources: with the exception of Hesiod and Xenophon, extensive treatments of rural life do not exist in the ancient Greek literature, as usually farmers were considered second-class citizens by the sophisticated inhabitants of the cities.5 Such attitudes towards peasantry, although inherent in the perceptional framework of urban communities through time and certainly not restricted to ancient Greece,6 were totally unfair where the ancient Greek polis was concerned. Not only was the largest segment of the population composed of farmers,7 who formed also the basis of the army, but urban economy relied heavily on the agricultural production of the countryside. In a way, the countryside was the backbone of the city-state, as each polis was an inseparable union between town and countryside.8 Given the silence of the ancient sources, it is the archaeologists who are invited to fill the gaps. Until recently, archaeological research in the Mediterranean had focused almost exclusively on urban sites and had done very little to increase our knowledge about life in the countryside.9 The recent recognition by archaeologists of the importance of the countryside to ancient society has led to a rearrangement of the priorities of both historical and archaeological research, a trend initiated in the 1960s with the pioneering surveys of Etruria organized by J.B. Ward-Perkins, then Director of the British School at Rome. In Greece, the new direction in archaeological fieldwork was introduced in the 1970s with the Minnesota Messenia Expedition and was followed by numerous intensive, extensive, and topographical surveys, which have contributed large amounts of new information to our knowledge of settlement pattern on the Mainland and in the islands,10 and changed our perspective of the structure of ancient Greek and Roman societies. Within this framework, the OSP aimed at adding one more small piece to our knowledge of ancient settlement pattern by investigating a part of the previously unexplored territory of the ancient city-state of Oropos. The Oropia (Figure 4, Figure 6) was, after all, one of the least well explored regions of Greece. The main theme of our work was the investigation of the effects that the political history of ancient Oropos had on the lives of the people who resided or worked in the countryside, especially in the spheres of economy, social organization, religion, and ideology. Beyond this general issue, we also set out to study a set of specific questions pertaining both to the prehistoric and the historical periods.11 For the Bronze Age, the basic questions concerned the date of the first habitation in the area, the degree of urbanization in the EH period, the extent of MH habitation, and the degree of Mycenaean penetration in the area. Before the OSP, our knowledge of the historical periods was restricted to the town of Oropos and, after the end of the fifth century, the sanctuary of Amphiaraos, and we knew next to nothing about the structure of rural life through the various periods of Oropian history, about which specific questions needed to be addressed. Such questions included the degree of political separation between city and countryside, the status of the farmers (free or serf), the modes of exploitation of the countryside by the urban and/or religious élites, the variability in subsistence strategies over time, the degree of communication with the outside world, the mechanisms that affected nature, size, and structure of land-holdings, the effect that a religious sanctuary, such as that of Amphiaraos, had on land use and rural habitation, and the role of ideological factors to the development of the sanctuary.

4

INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________________

Figure 4: Map of Greece showing the location of the Oropia. See also Figure 6.

The complexity of the issues involved and the precarious nature of much of the evidence provided by surface surveys makes it unlikely that all of these questions can be answered. What we have tried, however, to do is to reconstruct in as much detail as possible the rural history of the Oropia and to place it within the larger context of the general rural history of other parts of Greece.

5

I. LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT The area Oropos is located in the northeastern corner of the nomos of Attica, approximately 50 km to the north of Athens, from which it can be reached via the National Highway (Kapandriti or Skala Oropou exits). The ancient city has been identified with modern Skala Oropou/Nea Palatia12 (Figure 5); its territory, known as the Oropia, extended from Delesi in the west to modern Ayioi Apostoloi in the east and Mt. Mpeletsi in the south (Figure 6)13 and comprised the sanctuary of the hero Amphiaraos.14

Figure 5: View of Skala Oropou/Nea Palatia from Loumperdi

Geographically, the Oropia is a continuation of Boiotia, from which it is easily accessible through the plain of Oropos (Figure 49).15 Communication with Attica is blocked by the mountain ranges of Parnes and Mavronoro. In antiquity three main roads led from Athens to Oropos (Figure 6).16 The first road led from Rhamnous over the northeast end of the Mavronoro range to Kalamos and then to Oropos; this was the road followed by Pausanias (1.33.2). The second road led from Athens to Aphidna via a pass between Mt. Mpeletsi and Mt. Mavronoro. The third took the traveler from the plain of Athens north through the Klidhi pass and then descended to Oropos by following the foothills to the west of Mt. Mpeletsi; this was the main route used for grain coming from Euboia to Athens.17 The OSP investigated a roughly rectangular area along the south coast of the South Euboian Gulf, extending from the Amphiareion-Vlastos line in the east to Skala Oropou in the west; the area is approximately 22 sq km or roughly one fifth of the territory of ancient Oropos (Figure 6). 6

LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT __________________________________________________________________________ The southeast edge of this area is occupied by the long and narrow plain of Vlastos (approximately 8 ha.). To the south, east, and west the plain is surrounded by rows of hills at elevations ranging from 52 m (Lofos Taktikou) to 112 m (Lofos Gliati) and inland plateaus which stretch to the interior as far as Amphiareion. The hills continue westwards along the coast for a distance of 2.5 km and end at Dhrago, where the large plain of Oropos begins. This plain extends to the northwest beyond Skala Oropou and enters the southern part of Boiotia; to the south it is bordered by hills stretching in a south-southwest direction. The coastline does not present any significant indentations, except for the promontory of Pharos, which projects sharply into the sea and then recesses into the bay of Skala Oropou. The vegetation of Oropos is typically Mediterranean. The coastal and inland hills are covered by extensive thickets of Aleppo pine trees (Pinus halepensis), usually with scrub undergrowth. Thickets of wild olive trees (Olea Europaea) are not uncommon in the area. Most of the open terrain (both wild land and abandoned farmland) is covered with maquis and phrygana; in the inland hills one finds thyme (Coridothymus capitatus Reichb.), oregano (Origanum vulgare), prickly oaks (Quercus coccifera L.), and in more arid areas thorny burnets (Sarcopoterium spinosum) and lentiscs (Pistacia lentiscus). In the inland areas one also finds thorny burnets, asphodels, thymelaeas (Thymelea), and shrubs (Salicorna fruticosa), while in the surrounding hills one finds thorny burnets with jujuba (Ziziphus), thorns (“Christ’s thorn”, Paliurus), sunflowers, (Helianthus annuus), lentiscs, cypress trees, and numerous thistles. Large trees (terebinths, fig trees, and citrus trees) grow in the more humid parts. In the valleys one finds occasional laurel trees. Reeds are very common in the coastal area, hence the name Kalamos (K£lamoj) for the eastern part of the region. Palaeoenvironmental studies have not been conducted, but palynological analyses in neighboring regions18 have shown that the major changes in the vegetation of central Greece since the Bronze Age have been shrinkage of forests and a shift from trees to minor plants.19 In fact we have testimonial evidence that confirms that in antiquity the region was heavily forested.20 The climate of the area is temperate Mediterranean, with warm, dry summers and humid, mild winters. The data from the meteorological stations in the vicinity indicate that average monthly temperatures range from 27.3oC in August to 9 oC in January, with an annual average temperature of 17.9oC.21 In the beginning of the Late Bronze Age the temperatures might have been slightly (± 1 o C) warmer.22 Annual rainfall accumulates to 432.3 mm, with 86.1 days of rain,23 most of which occurs in the winter months. Snow is a rarity, especially in the coastal parts of the region,24 and frost occurs in higher elevations from November to March.25 The Oropia is well watered, as in addition to the river Asopos, there are torrents that bring water during the winter and a few water sources carry water all year round. The climate of the area is not likely to have undergone any dramatic changes since antiquity,26 but the sea level seems to have been at least 2-3 m lower in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.27 Modern land uses include cultivation of barley, vines, fig trees, olive trees, and vegetables in the plateaus and plains and, to a lesser extent, pasturing of sheep and goat flocks on the slopes of some inland hills. Other modern economic activities are tapping of the pine trees for resin and bee keeping. Most of the area is divided into individually owned plots, in average ranging in size from 0.1 to 0.5 ha. In the winter the population is small, since most of the locals live in the villages of Kalamos, Ayioi Apostoloi, and Skala Oropou. Farmers from these villages have also a parochial dwelling on their fields, where they live during the harvest period. In the summers the beautiful pebble beaches and the clean waters of the Gulf attract crowds of tourists and summer residents and the population increases considerably. Skala Oropou becomes more crowded, as it is connected to Eretria with ferry-boats and much of the traffic to and from Euboia passes through the town.

7

M t. M peletsi

Ayioi Apostoloi

K apandriti

M t. M avronoro

K alamos

Vlastos

Rhamnous

5 km

Figure 6: Main topographic features of northeast Attica (adopted from Amphiareion, p 7). The area surveyed by the OSP is indicated by the thick line

Klidhi pass



Dhrago

Amphiareion

Skala Oropou



Pharos

S outh E uboian G ulf

M t. Parnes

Delesi

Delesi

Eretria

Euboia

0

LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT _______________________________________________________________________________

Regional Geomorphology (Lawrence Stene)28 The geological and geomorphological survey included in the OSP was conducted with the help of small (three to five persons) teams of students. Its purpose was to examine the regional morphology and geomorphological history of the region of the Oropia, in order to provide a better understanding of the evolution of the regional environment and the processes that affected archaeological deposition. Because of pressing immediate commitments of the present writer, the final report and the full integration with the archaeological data will be published separately; this is only a preliminary report, aiming to provide an overview of the results. Geologically the area consists of three units. The oldest unit is of Palaeozoic-Mesozoic age, can be subdivided into three sub-units of metamorphosed carbonates and crystalline schists.29 The second unit consists of thick limestones, marls, fine grained psammites, and conglo-merates and forms part of the Tertiary (Neogene) basin of Malakasa/Oropos.30 The third unit is composed of alluvial depositions, calcareous sandstones, and limestones of Quaternary deposition.31 The soils of the hills surrounding the plains of Vlastos and Oropos are red-brown; in the hills between the Oropos and Vlastos plains and in the inland plateaus yellowish-white; and in the plains yellow-red. The region lies within one of the world’s most tectonically active regimes. Its physiography consists of both horsts (uplifted blocks of metamorphic and sedimentary rocks) and grabens (downfaulted blocks), created by normal faulting in a tensile regime of the back-arc region of the Hellenic Trench. The study area is dominated by two major topographic features: a) the west/northwesteast/southeast to northwest-southeast trending tectonic graben comprising the relatively shallow (500 m above sea level. A major fault, the Oropos fault lies inland parallel to the South Euboian Gulf and effectively separates the two physiographic zones.

Figure 7: View of recently active high-angle fault scarp in highlands overlooking Ayioi Apostoloi, as seen in the distance. The South Euboian Gulf and the island of Euboia are seen in the far background.

Tectonic activity responsible for the present structural features began in late Meiocene time (ca. 6 million ago). Vertical displacement along the Oropos fault has been determined to be 0.5 km with the current South Euboian Gulf having dropped to elevations ca. 0.25 km below current sea level. Continued downward movement in historic times is seen in the 1 to 2 m submergence of the 9

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Roman harbor at Kamaraki (89/14).32 Seismic surveying has revealed post-late Meiocene sediment accumulations, ca. 0.15 km thick within the South Euboian Gulf. This sediment thickness appears reasonable given the deeply dissected fluvial terrain in the hill lands south of the coastline and similar terrain on the Gulf facing slopes of the Island of Euboia. Both of these areas have contributed large quantities of sediment to the South Euboian Gulf since post-Pleiocene time. The basement geology of the region is comprised of carbonate bedrock of Upper to Middle Triassic age unconformably overlying Paleozoic metamorphosed carbonates, schists, and gneisses. Exposures of contorted, steeply dipping schists can be seen at sea level, approximately 2 km south of Ayioi Apostoloi. Grey colored limestones are exposed in three settings: at the headwalls of numerous normal faults which parallel the coastline, at the head of major valleys leading down from uplands to the South Euboian Gulf, and at eroded coastal headlands (Figure 7). Movement on numerous high-angle faults that parallel the South Euboian coastline has created a succession of fault scarps, some fresh and some highly eroded, often forming isolated hills. Recognition of such highangle fault sets has considerably simplified the structural and stratigraphical interpretation of the region. Covering much of the limestone bedrock of the highlands are lacustrine and terrestrial deposits of Upper Meiocene to Pleiocene (Neogene) age. These thick deposits consist of bedded, unconsolidated or poorly consolidated gravels, sands, marls, and clays and are exposed along some of the deeply entrenched valleys leading to the South Euboian Gulf. The beds dip at shallow angles (7 to 12°) to the north, having been affected by post-depositional tectonic activity. High-angle faulting has been observed in some exposures.

Figure 8: View of extensive alluvial fans flanking the South Euboian Gulf coastline in the Oropia.

The Neogene deposits of the Oropos region have a maximum thickness of 160 m.33 Thicker sequences are seen further inland in the uplands area, whereas towards the coast post-Neogene erosion has resulted in thinner sequences. Along many of the steeply sloping hills within the region the Neogene sequences have been entirely stripped away to expose the underlying basement carbonate rock (e.g. site 89/13). Pleistocene and Holocene deposits are restricted to the lower valley bottoms and to the extensive alluvial fans of the Skala Oropou region (Figure 8). Exposures of alluvial fan material are provided by entrenchment of the present ephemeral stream within the middle portion of the alluvial fan east of the town of Skala Oropou. At least three alluvial units can be seen within the 3 meter exposed alluvial fan channel walls. The upper alluvial unit is comprised of < 1 meter of mostly grey-brown, fine-grained (silty) alluvium which contains discontinuous lenses of pebble gravels. This unit overlies ca. 2 m of massive, yellowish brown, 10

LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT _______________________________________________________________________________ stone-free, loam textured alluvium. The upper part of this unit contains considerable coatings of calcium carbonate. The basal unit consists of a clay-rich, red colored, stone-free alluvium. Within the middle of this unit is a calcium carbonate enriched zone, which in places is well cemented. Preliminary examination suggests that the calcium carbonate enriched zones represent soil horizons (caliches?). It is most certain that the lower red colored unit represents an early paleosol, but what is uncertain is when it developed. The soil units represent periods of surface stability or non-deposition of alluvial materials and their interpretation would do much to unravel the past environmental conditions of the region. What is certain is that late Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial fan deposition has not proceeded uninterrupted until present times.

Figure 9: Loumperdi (91/20) from the east

Geomorphologic History of the Oropia (Lawrence Stene) The major focus in this study was to examine the geomorphology of the archaeological sites found in the survey area, but some consideration was also given to the Late Pleistocene-Holocene geomorphologic evolution of the region. Observations gained from traversing river valleys and observing and describing sediment exposures form the basis of the following interpretations. These interpretations are preliminary but do bear some relevance to the archaeological investigations of the region, as they represent episodes of erosion and alluviation which possibly dictate the survival or burial, respectively, of potential archaeological sites. Evidence of baselevel control is readily apparent in the Oropos region. Around the Skala Oropou area numerous convex-summitted hills of elevation 80 masl appear. As the hills are capped with unconsolidated or poorly consolidated Neogene sediments, it is unlikely that their elevation has been controlled by lithologic resistance. One outcrop, 15 m below the rounded 80 masl summit of Loumperdi (Figure 9) exposes some poorly consolidated conglomerate but it is doubtful whether this material was capable of determining a planation level. These summits seem to represent the remains of a Pleistocene planation surface, over which accompanying streams had achieved a limiting 11

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ baselevel. It is evidence that the region was once much lower and that tectonic uplift has caused stream incision and abandonment of the 80 m surface. High level accordant summits are not the only evidence of previous erosion surfaces within the Oropos region. Examination of stream valleys showed the presence of terraces, features which are abundantly clear within the larger valleys leading to the coast. Figure 10 shows a view looking toward the coast along the valley leading to Skala Oropou: the view is of a narrow, flat-floored valley with terraced hillslopes. A well-developed terrace at 40 to 44 masl is seen on the left (west) bank. Further downvalley on the right (east) bank is a lesser defined terrace remnant, at the same height as the west one, but masked by colluvium derived from the hill slope above. Across the valley a similar high terrace tread is present.

Figure 10: View downstream of valley leading to Skala Oropos showing numerous lettered 40 to 44 masl terrace treads. The island of Euboia is faintly visible in the background.

The age of most of these terraces is not known with certainty, but they seem to be early to middle Holocene. Exposures through the terrace treads exhibit loosely consolidated buff-brown colored alluvium. At one site the thin ( 50 cm. The exposed gravels were poorly sorted, subrounded to subangular, with numerous clasts having white calcium carbonate coatings. As with most of these terrace treads, colluvial material has masked the horizontal terrace surface, an indication that considerable time has passed since the terraces were abandoned.

12

Alepovouni

Lagovouni

.

αε

αδ

αβ ω αα ϕ υ

1 km

χ

ψ

σ

τ ρ π ο

µ λ

ν

ι

κ

η ζ ε θ

β1

δ

(Kotroni)

Dhrago

Figure 11: Topographic map of the area indicating the main hills

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

Oropos Survey Project

0

.

.

Loumperdi

.

α

.

Gliatis

Amphiareion

β

.

LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENT _______________________________________________________________________________

Taktikos

II. HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF OROPOS

This chapter provides only a brief outline of the history of the ancient town of Oropos and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos, on the basis of written testimonia, epigraphical evidence and archaeological excavations. Its purpose is not to provide an exhaustive history of Oropos, but to highlight the major historical developments of the town and the sanctuary, create a framework against which changes in settlement pattern can be placed,34 and underline those events that can prove useful for the integration of the archaeological data from our survey. The political history of Oropos is summarized in Table XIII. Our knowledge about prehistoric habitation in the region is based on the archaeological data discussed in chapter V. The first notable traces of habitation date to the third millennium35 and are located in the area of Vlastos and in the valley to the west of Amphiareion. At the end of the third and the first half of the second millennium, the area is abandoned with the exception of the settlement at Sohoria, whereas in the second half of the second millennium three settlements appear, at Lofos Taktikou, Sohoria, and Skala Oropou. The political history of Oropos during the Dark Age is not known, but it is possible that it was under Eretrian occupation or even that it was founded by Eretria.36 The area to the west of Skala Oropou is mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue under the name of Graia, and several sources identify Graia either with Oropos or with part of the Oropia.37 Although sporadic Archaic finds are known from the region, they offer minimal information about the political history of Oropos in the seventh and the sixth centuries BC.38 The earliest event in the history of Oropos mentioned by the ancient sources is the Athenian attack against the Boiotians in 506 BC and the subsequent Athenian occupation.39 During the Persian wars, Oropos was still under the control of Athens and used by the Athenian troops as a naval base.40 For the longest part of the fifth century Oropos remained under Athenian occupation, used as a military and naval base.41 A network of forts commanding the Oropia could have been part of the military mechanisms that the Athenians used to control the area.42 The Athenians also exercised tight economic control over Oropos,43 whereas their cultural influence is seen in the sculptural products of the local workshops44 and the exquisite works of art imported from Athens.45 In the last quarter of the fifth century Athenians owned property near Delphinion, the sacred harbor of Oropos.46 The sanctuary of the hero Amphiaraos was founded by Athens in the last quarter of the fifth century.47 In the winter of 411 the Boiotians took over Oropos, which for the remaining years of the Peloponnesian war served as a base for the Peloponnesian fleet.48 In the chaos that followed the end of the war, Oropos was used as a base for robbers.49

Figure 12: The Amphiareion: the Temple to Amphiaraos (left) and the theater (right)

14

HISTORY OF OROPOS _________________________________________________________________________ A significant event in the history of the city was its integration by Thebes into the Boiotian koinon in 395.50 Boiotian control of Oropos lasted until Antalkidas’ peace (387/6), when the city regained its independence. This period of independence was very short, as at the time of the formation of the Second Athenian Alliance (378/7), Oropos was brought back under the Athenian sphere of influence. A few years later, in 367/6 the city was briefly occupied by Eretria51 and then by Thebes,52 under whose occupation it remained until the battle at Haeroneia (338). As a result of the battle, Oropos experienced a short period of independence, but in 335 Alexander turned the city over to the Athenians,53 who divided the territory of Oropos in five sectors, distributed among the Athenian tribes.54 Hyperides’ speech in defense of Euxenippos55 recounts the legal issues that arose when the plots given to the tribes Akamantis and Hippothoontis turned out to be the property of the sanctuary of Amphiareion, which petitioned the cancellation of the decision.56 Shortly after, in 329/328, Oropos dedicated First Fruits to the sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis.57 The Athenian occupation of Oropos ended in 322, after Antipater’s victory at Krannon.58 Oropos remained independent59 until 312, when it was occupied by Kassandros and then by Ptolemaios, the general of Antigonos the One-Eyed, who attached it as an independent member to the Boiotian koinon.60 In 304 Oropos was once more ceded to Athens by Demetrios Poliorketes,61 but a few years later, in 295/294 it was declared independent.62 In the same year, the Oropians decided to repair the walls of the city, destroyed probably by the Athenians, but the finances of the city were poor and the Oropians decided to seek donors.63 In 287 Oropos became an independent member of the Boiotian koinon.64 The close relations between Oropos and the koinon continued for the longest part of the third century, when Oropos was an active participant in the festivals and celebrations of the koinon.65 During this long period of peace, the walls of the city seem to have been left unattended, but once again the city did not have the means to repair them and had to resort to loans.66 In the end of the third century, Oropos entered into alliances with the Phokeans and the Achaeans67 and enjoyed friendly relations with several cities and states, both within and beyond the Greek Mainland, including Pergamon, Egypt (especially with Ptolemy IV Philopator),68 and Elateia.69 Despite the prolonged period of peace and the international connections, which Oropos and the other cities of Boiotia enjoyed during the second half of the third century, this was a period of financial recession. The situation was so grave, that in the early years of the second century the city experienced difficulties in procuring food for its population.70 The decree honoring individuals for procuring grain to the city at low cost is a clear indication of the crisis.71 The difficult times continued also in the middle years of the second century. In 156 Oropos became the target of a raid by the Athenians, caused by a famine and serious financial problems in Athens.72 After a successful petition to the Roman Senate, Oropos was awarded 500 talanta for damages, but the Athenians appealed and the amount of damages was reduced.73 Despite the reduction, the Athenians occupied Oropos and banished prominent citizens.74 Oropos took the matter to a specially convened assembly of the Achaean Federation in Argos, which decided to intervene on its behalf. The Athenian occupation ended with the withdrawal of the Athenians and the return of the exiled Oropian citizens.75 Following the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC, the Boiotian koinon and the other confederacies were dissolved and Oropos was declared “independent”. This independence continued in the first century, safeguarded by the good relations that the sanctuary of Amphiaraos would come to establish with Rome after Sulla. In 86 BC, following the Mithridatic war, Sulla transferred to the sanctuary the income from the city, the harbors, and the countryside and the sanctuary reciprocated by bestowing numerous honors upon him and his wife.76 The Amphiareion continued to enjoy close relations with Rome, as indicated by the large number of Roman officials who were honored with inscriptions. Thanks to Sulla’s donation the games were revived77 and celebrated as ’Amfiar©a kaˆ `Rwma‹a and attracted visitors and competitors from all over the Greek and Roman world.78 15

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Starting in the Late Hellenistic period, the Roman presence in Oropos became more pronounced, as negotiatores settled down in the city and Italians were crowned in the games.79 By the middle of the first century, Oropos had reverted back to the Athenians, but the date and circumstances of the Athenian occupation evade us.80 In 49 BC Julius Caesar removed Oropos from the Athenians and declared it independent, as a punishment for Athens’ support of Pompey.81 Oropos stayed independent for only seven years, as in 42 BC the Athenians, this time siding with Mark Anthony against Octavian, reoccupied it.82 After the battle at Aktion, in 31 BC, Octavian punished Athens by restoring Oropos’ independence.83 Our information about the period of the Empire is very limited. The picture of Greece preserved in the literary sources is one of a desolate and impoverished countryside -- although Alcock convincingly argues that in reality the picture may not have been as bleak as the sources paint it.84 It is possible that the games continued into the first century AD.85 An inscription dating to the middle of the second century AD refers to properties owned by Athenians in the area of Oropos, 86 whereas at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century there is mention of ’Amfi£reia organized by Athenian ephebes.87 In the third century, Oropos had an Athenian governor and the priest of Amphiaraos was also from Athens.88 The evidence for the last chapters of the history of the sanctuary is scanty: the last signs of activity are provided by coins of the Roman emperors: Aurelian (271-275 AD), Probus (276 AD), Numerianus (283-284 AD), and Constantine II (337-340 AD) found in the excavations of the sanctuary.89 The chronological evidence for the last phases of the sanctuary would suggest that the fate of Amphiareion was sealed by the expansion of Christianity: given the lack of any evidence for use of the site after the fourth century AD, it is reasonable to assume that Theodosios ended the cult in 392 AD.

16

III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH AT OROPOS

The first scholarly interest in the area of Oropos originates with the early travelers of the seventeenth century.90 Jacob Spon and George Wheler were the first travelers to visit Boiotia in order to record ancient sites91 and identified the ancient city of Oropos with the inland village of Oropos on the basis of the name. Mention of a trip to Oropos in 1780 is also found in the journals of LouisFrançois-Sebastian Fauvel (1753-1838), without, however, any mention of ancient sites or modern topography.92 The first detailed topographic descriptions of the area were given by Edward Dodwell (1767-1832) and Sir William Gell (1777-1836), who traveled in north Attica and southeast Boiotia in the summer of 1805 and published itineraries of specific routes with information on ancient ruins.93 The most thorough description of the area was, however, given by William Martin Leake (17771860) who visited Oropos in 1806.94 Leake described in detail his descent to Amphiareion from the village of Kalamos and the route he followed from the sanctuary to the modern town of Skala Oropou (which he calls `/Agioi ’ApÒ stoloi), where he noted the remains of an ancient wall in the sea95 and a fragment of a Doric column. On Loumperdi, he observed remains of a building, which he explained as a watchtower, and a grave stele.96 Although he identified the ancient city of Oropos with the inland village that carries the name, he did point out the discrepancy with the ancient sources, which clearly mention that ancient Oropos was on the coast.97 After Leake, the most extensive description of Boiotia (including Oropos) was written by Heinrich Nicolaus Ulrichs (18071843), who left a detailed description of the topography of Boiotia, based on several trips he made between 1837 and 1842. His book, published after his death,98 contains the most thorough discussion of the ancient topography of the Oropia, including the sanctuary of Amphiaraos. Of lesser archaeological value are the accounts of several travelers who passed through the area of Oropos in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1814, John Spencer Stanhope (17871873) and Charles Robert Cockerell (1788-1863) crossed the area of Oropos, but their writings do not publish detailed accounts of their trip.99 Similarly, the accounts of François-Charles-LaurentHugues Pouqueville (1779-1838), who traveled in southeast Boiotia sometime before 1816, 100 of an unknown German traveler who went through the area in 1824,101 of Christopher Wordsworth (18071885), who traveled in 1832,102 of Ludwig Ross (1806-1959), who traveled in 1834,103 as well as several other travelers in the 1830’s, 1840’s, and 1850’s104 contain little more than a brief mention to Oropos and almost no reference to the antiquities of the area. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the interest in Oropos and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos took another dimension, as it became the focus of systematic archaeological research. The most serious issue was the identification of the location of the sanctuary of Amphiaraos: despite Leake’s identification, attempts by Finlay to place the sanctuary in a location called Phg£di 'Ar£ph, approximately 15 minutes to the east of Oropos105 and by Hanriot to place the sanctuary near the village Markopoulo106 were unsuccessful, until the publication of inscriptions from the sanctuary by Rankaves and Pittakes107 and detailed studies by Preller108 and Girard109 settled the matter. The Athens Archaeological Society started excavations in the sanctuary in 1884 under Spyridon Fintikles and Vassileios Leonardos, with the cooperation of Wilhelm Dörpfeld. These excavations lasted until 1929 and brought to light the temple, the altar, the theater, the stoa, the baths and some buildings in the right bank of the river.110 Since 1929, work on the sanctuary has consisted mostly of study of inscriptions, by Alexandros Philadelpheus, Markellos Mitsos, and Vassileios Petrakos.111 In 1967 Petrakos published his monograph on the sanctuary, which remains the most comprehensive and detailed study on Oropos and the Amphiareion;112 more recently, in his capacity of director of the II Ephoreia of Antiquities, took an active interest in the antiquities of Oropos by publishing numerous inscriptions and artifacts from the sanctuary.113 Salvage excavations in the town of Skala Oropou and Nea Palatia by the II 17

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Ephoreia of Antiquities have brought to light two extensive cemeteries, house remains, and a multitude of important finds dating from the fifth century to the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period.114 Historical and topographic studies have also been conducted, especially by John Fossey.115 The most recent work is a new excavation in Skala Oropou by the Athens Archaeological Society, under the direction of Alexandros Mazarakis-Ainian, which brought to light extensive Protogeometric and Geometric remains, including important metallurgical and cult installations.116

18

IV. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

In recent years archaeologists have come to realize that rural landscapes are not static elements, but “social products, the consequence of a collective human transformation of the physical environment”,117 whose dynamic character makes them “palimpsests of human activity”.118 The “New Wave”, as John Cherry has called it, of archaeological survey in Greece has taken significant strides towards a better understanding of the mechanisms through which sociopolitical, economic, demographic, cultural, and even ideological changes are recorded in the rural landscape.119 Despite some inherent shortcomings,120 survey has become a well-established technique of archaeological exploration, interactive with and complementary to excavation.121 Furthermore, it has managed to dissolve pre-existing misconceptions about ancient society, deriving from biased information in the literary sources.122 In general, it is now recognized that survey can provide a diachronic view of past cultures by identifying not just settlement patterns, but also the processes that have affected these patterns.

Theoretical framework As mentioned in the Introduction, the main theme of the OSP is the impact of the political circumstances of the city of Oropos on the economy, society, and religion of its rural population. Before we proceed, it is useful to define the basic notions relating to this theme. The political status of a community can be defined in terms of two parameters. The first is the degree of complexity of its organizational structure -- in other words, its developmental stage in the process of state formation.123 This process has been explained either in terms of evolution in three stages, from tribes to chiefdoms and eventually to states;124 or as a coefficient of evolution and the dynamic relationships of a community, such as integration (bureaucracy, redistribution of goods) or conflict (predominance of one group over the others).125 The second parameter is the degree of autonomy or subordination of the community to another polity. In cases where a smaller polity is threatened by a more powerful one (a local or regional power or a larger state or empire), it develops active (e.g. intensification of production) or passive (e.g. political alliances) strategies in order to preserve its autonomy or at least reduce the internal impact of its subordination.126 The present study is based on the assumption that the two political factors mentioned above (complexity of organizational structure and autonomy or subordination of a polity) exercise a deep impact on the lives of rural populations in the spheres of economy, society, religion, and ideology. The perceptional and interpretational framework we employed in our analysis is loosely molded by two schools of thought. The first is the annales concept of a three-layered concept of time, as defined by Braudel: short-term events (“événements”), medium-term trends (“conjonctures”), and long-term processes.127 Although by nature survey cannot contribute to a better knowledge of shortterm events, the recovery of material remains spanning longer periods of time can allow the identification of the medium- and long-term impact of the political factors mentioned above on the economy, society, and ideology of rural populations. The second school of thought is world-systems, especially center-periphery theory.128 Economic, social, or political units develop not in isolation, but in interaction to other regional, national, and/or international units and their history is affected by complex factors that often extend beyond their borders. Each unit can, therefore, be seen both as a network of smaller nodes (which interact with each other either freely or by coercion) and as a single node of a larger system. The application of the center-periphery (or core-periphery) model allows us to look at the periphery in its own light -- as opposed to the standard view of the periphery as a dependence of the center -- and to address factors that a “centro-centric” perspective would not normally encompass, such as acculturation, subordination or resistance to external powers, economic adaptations, etc. On the other hand, center-periphery theory, strictly applied, does not allow the study 19

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ of individual parts of a system, so in this project I opted for a more flexible approach, that would allow us to focus on the characteristics of the unit under investigation as a node within a larger system, and at the same time explore the dynamics that affected its internal developments. In the ancient Oropia, “center” and “periphery” are defined as follows: where the internal structure of the city-state of Oropos is concerned, the center is defined as the town of Oropos and after the fifth century BC the sanctuary of Amphiaraos; the periphery is defined as the rural area that lay within the territory of the city. As far as the external connections of the Oropia are concerned, as centers are defined the larger powers that dominated the area (from Athens and Thebes to Rome and the Byzantion) and as periphery the entire Oropia (city-sanctuary-countryside). In the field, this theoretical framework translates to the recovery of such data that would allow the study of the impact of the two political factors mentioned above (complexity of organizational structure and autonomy or subordination of a polity) on the spheres of economic, social, and religious organization of center and periphery at the levels of medium-term trends (“conjonctures”) and longterm processes. More specifically, we wanted to examine the following parameters that relate to the economy, society, and religion of ancient Oropia: (i) Economy. Agriculture has been central to the economies of pre-industrial societies after domestication. The organization of agricultural production depends on a variety of factors, ranging from environmental constraints (climate, availability of arable lands, pasture fields, water, etc.) to available technologies (ploughs, animals, fertilizers, etc.), but is also largely regulated by existing systems of labor management and land ownership. These systems prescribe the modes of production, which can be either production-for-subsistence; or what Renfrew has called production-beyondsubsistence,129 which aims at the satisfaction of non-survival needs, such as ritual and exchange, support of a non-farmer population or specialists, and maintenance of an internal or external administrative structure.130 The two modes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Depending on the mode of production, different exploitation strategies are employed: intensification (maximization of production through increased labor and/or exploitation of marginal lands), extensification (large-scale selective exploitation of natural resources), and specialization (concentration on the production of specific crops). Assuming that environmental conditions remain, in general, stable, such strategies would be reflected in different patterns in the archaeological record of the rural landscape: it is generally accepted that intensification is marked by increased human presence in the countryside, especially in non-optimal areas, and extensification by sporadic signs of human presence mostly around primary centers; specialization can be detected mainly through botanical analyses from excavated samples, hence it is not traceable by archaeological surveys.131 On the other hand, a decrease of human presence in the countryside does not necessarily reflect a decline in agricultural production, as political and social factors may affect the size and distribution of rural sites: because of their specific requirements and targets, different political conditions lead to different modes of production through different strategies. An occupying power, for example, is expected to intensify the exploitation of the natural resources of an area through intensification or specialization in order to acquire higher yields, whereas wealthy land owners are more likely to resort to extensification of production in order to reduce labor costs. Other economic activities are also traceable in the archaeological record. Craft production can take several forms (industrial or household and the stages in-between)132 and depends on the social structure of the community (e.g. existence of specialists, demand for luxury items, etc.), the control of raw materials and access to their resources by a local or foreign government or the existing élite, and the availability of these materials to specialists and/or non-specialists,133 as well as the existence of organized distribution and steady clientele.134 The impact of political factors on trade is detectable in the content, magnitude, spatial distribution, chronological distribution, directionality, facilities, and organization of trade networks in which the community participates.135 (ii) Society. Social organization can be examined at three levels, corresponding to the three main social units: individual, group, and settlement.136 These units are characterized by the notion of 20

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________________________________________________________________ inequality or heterogeneity,137 which often results in hierarchy and stratification. 138 The position of the individual within a community or a group is defined by its social persona, i.e. the social identity or identities which reflect a set of rights and duties based on such criteria as wealth, profession, political or religious beliefs, and gender.139 As the definition of the social persona of the individual is studied in the archaeological record through the analysis of burials and mortuary customs, the archaeological survey of rural landscapes can offer minimal information on the issue, especially where poor or less visible individuals are concerned.140 Nevertheless, data deriving from surveys can be correlated with information from literary or epigraphical sources to suggest the social personae of individuals residing or working in the countryside and their position in the agricultural production and the division and exploitation of natural resources (free or serf, aristocrats or farmers).141 Similarly, survey cannot contribute much to the definition of groups (élites, corporate groups, etc.), as these are studied in burials and settlement architecture,142 although it can pinpoint to long-term changes in the stability or instability of certain groups involved with the organization of agricultural production. The definition of the settlement relies on a variety of factors that could be discerned in the archaeological record of the countryside, namely the size, function, continuity, and hierarchy of sites,143 as well as the manner in which they are arranged in the physical space. Especially this factor is very important in terms of survey data, as the dynamics between center and periphery can be identified and explained through the spatial arrangement and physical characteristics of sites. At the level of single sites, these dynamics can be studied through the analysis of such characteristics as site size, continuity, and function.144 At the regional level, they can be examined through the investigation of the spatial and chronological relations among sites and the study of the processes of nucleation and dispersion. Runnels and van Andel define nucleation as “a pattern of a few, concentrated, and relatively widely spaced sites, irrespective of site size”, and dispersion as “a greater number of more evenly spaced sites”.145 Although these two terms are used commonly in the archaeological literature, a closer examination of the particular circumstances under which they may appear allows the distinction of two types of nucleation and two types of dispersion:

Dispersion

Nucleation

Figure 13: Graphic representation of variants of dispersion and nucleation

a) In the case of a newly inhabited area, dispersion takes the form of a number of small settlements arranged in such a way that they would exploit extensively the regional agricultural resources (Figure 13a). b) A second type of dispersion is seen in cases of “budding-off” of a primary settlement. This type of dispersion would apply to cases where population of a dominant center spreads to rural areas, either as a result of population increases or as a result of pressure for increased agricultural production (Figure 13b). 21

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ c) This type of nucleation applies to cases where the first inhabitants settle down in one primary center that exploits the agricultural resources of its immediate area (Figure 13c). d) The second type of nucleation would apply to cases where the rural population aggregates in an urban center as a result of financial recession or changes in social structures (Figure 13d). (iii) Religion and ideology. Political factors can have a serious impact on the ideology and religious beliefs and practices of a rural population and, conversely, ideology and religion can become the means by which political objectives are realized. Ancient Greek sanctuaries played a major role not only in the formation of the polis, but also in the demarcation and consolidation of political boundaries.146 Introduction of new cults and eradication or exploitation of existing religious structures are common mechanisms aiming at the control of rural populations by local élites or external dominating powers.

Methodological framework Intensive survey was selected as the most appropriate method for studying these processes for several reasons.147 First, the area had been the object of extensive/topographic work, but not of systematic and close coverage.148 Second, our aim was to achieve the fullest coverage possible, in order to locate even the smallest concentrations of artifacts. A third reason was that intensive survey allows the identification of sites with a very small number of finds,149 as well as the identification of “off-site” artifacts.150 From the start we believed firmly that even the smallest or at first sight unimpressing artifacts should not be ignored or considered “unimportant”,151 as they do represent some kind of human activity, no matter how trivial.152 On the other hand, we felt that an apparatus was needed for distinguishing between those cultural remains that provide significant data for interpretation and those that, because of their nature, size, number, or patterns of deposition, do not. The difficulties involved with defining and categorizing such data are apparent in the lack of a uniform description terminology, which includes such terms as “non-sites”, “scatters”, “limited activity sites”, etc.153 In the OSP we opted for a distinction between “findspots” and “sites”: a findspot is defined as any location with a number of artifacts, no matter how small. This category is an umbrella category that includes any concentration of artifacts, including what other projects call “background noise”, “off-sites”, etc. a site is defined as a findspot, which produces sufficient data to allow the study of human adaptations to the social, political, religious, or economic conditions of a period. The distinction between findspots and sites was determined on the basis of the quantity and quality of the surface finds: findspots with a considerably higher frequency and density of artifacts in comparison to their neighboring findspots or immediate environment154 and/or with architectural finds and/or with diagnostic finds were “upgraded” to sites.155 In such cases, the factors that could have altered the original distribution of artifacts had also to be considered, especially natural processes that could have caused or altered the composition and surface distribution of finds.156 Such factors as soil erosion, weathering, and history of cultivation were assessed (but not quantified), by looking at the state of preservation of the artifacts themselves (for example degree of wear) as well as the natural environment (e.g. angle of slope, etc.).157 Non-site findspots are difficult to interpret: in Boiotia they have been considered domestic rubbish mixed with manure and spread over the landscape for fertilizing,158 while in the Argolid and on Keos they are explained as expressions of deliberate human activities of limited scope.159 Although one should not lose sight of the fact that both sites and findspots are only surface finds and do not necessarily represent the size, character, and function of subsurface cultural remains,160 we are still left with a body of material that gives at least some indications of these remains and can allow some inferences as to the activities they represent.161 In general, survey is more effective when it considers its target region as one dynamic and “open system”, defined contextually.162 Such an approach requires that a region be covered: (a) as one whole and (b) in its entirety.163 Although in the beginning of the survey I had, somewhat 22

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________________________________________________________________ idealistically, hoped to achieve a complete study of the regional system that supported the ancient city of Oropos by investigating its entire territory,164 in the course of the project it became apparent that financial and time restraints would make this impossible. Consequently, I decided to concentrate on a smaller area, which I considered more likely to have been affected directly by the historical developments in the sanctuary and the city and thus to have been representative of developments in the rest of the Oropia.165 This area is the section of ancient Oropia between the ancient city of Oropos and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos.166 Another limitation was the obligatory exclusion from the survey area of urban or sub-urban areas. The modern town of Skala Oropou/Nea Palatia currently forms a conglomerate of paved roads, apartment buildings, houses, and shops, that cannot be investigated by survey, although pockets of unbuilt areas have been identified and excavated by the II Ephoreia of Antiquities. Similarly, several parcels of land in the major region have been overbuilt and, as a result, are now lost for archaeological investigations. The severity of the damage inflicted upon archaeological sites by intensive construction is one factor that has to be considered in calculating the original number of ancient findspots in the area. In the last twenty-five years, the coastal area between Skala Oropou and Ayioi Apostoloi has developed into a trendy resort. As a result, numerous new neighborhoods have appeared, with large and small houses, asphalt roads, and landscape development. Some of these houses occupy locations that could be considered prime candidates for ancient sites (such as hilltops with extensive views and access to coastal plains). An attempt to estimate the extent of the heavily built areas that we could not investigate was made on the basis of aerial photographs provided by the Hellenic Army Geographical Service (taken in 1991). The total surface occupied by these neighborhoods in 1991 was approximately two square kilometers or 9.1 percent of the survey area, which means that the findspots destroyed by modern construction activity could be five or six.167 of course, such statistics should be viewed with caution, given the fact that findspot density varies considerably from one sector of the survey area to the other. Other factors that could have led to findspot destruction are natural and geomorphic phenomena,168 such as alluvial depositions and rise in sea level. The geological survey conducted by the OSP and recent studies on the processes of alluvial depositions indicate that these are of late Pleistocene-early/middle Holocene date and would not, therefore, have affected Bronze Age and later habitation.169 The majority of our findspots lie in young alluvium substrates, a fact that indicates minimal site loss due to alluvial depositions. This is further supported by the finding of EH sherds at the foot of the Taktikos hill (89/13), at the level of the alluvial plain of Vlastos: these sherds serve as terminus ante quem for the alluvial deposition at that location, which must have taken place before the third millennium BC. One should not, of course, exclude the possibility of some Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites having disappeared under the alluvium.170 The rise in sea level has also been observed, especially in the Roman walls at Kamaraki, which are now approximately 2 m under the surface of the sea.171 This would support the general theory that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1-2 m per millennium, in which case one could also postulate some loss of findspots at coastal locations. A non-systematic search for submerged coastal sites, undertaken in 1988 and 1989, did not yield any such sites (with the exception of 89/14) and loss of findspots because of sea level rise, if any, must have been negligible. Date and function It has long been established that not all surface clusters of artifacts can be interpreted as remains of settlements and that a number of subtle distinctions must be made when considering findspot function. Two very important considerations are that the function of multi-period sites may well have changed from one period to another and that some sites could have been used only seasonally.172 It follows that precise dating is of paramount importance to the detailed reconstruction of the history of each findspot. By necessity, though, dating is based on the datable ceramic or inscriptional evidence. In our survey the evidence is chiefly ceramic and consists of only a handful 23

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ of closely datable—mostly fine ware—sherds, the remainder either being non-datable (such as coarse or plain) sherds, or belonging to categories that span more than one periods (e.g. black glazed);173 other types of artifacts, such as chipped stone and architectural pieces were less frequent and therefore used less for dating purposes. The potential pitfalls of our inability to provide an accurate chronology for the findspots are obvious; the dating of several of our findspots can be claimed to be valid only in terms of the range of datable pottery represented among the surface finds and the various temporal components of these findspots can be determined only in general lines.174 Moreover, drawing conclusions about the contemporaneity or not of the findspots of an area on the basis of fine pottery is based on a series of assumptions (the most important of which being that all findspots had equal access to fine wares) that could have a negative impact on the overall chronological distribution of findspots.175 And yet, in our case fine wares were the only means of providing a date for a findspot, as established local sequences of coarse and plain pottery from the area -- especially from the Hellenistic and Roman periods -- are lacking and comparanda have to be based on the material from sites further away (Eretria, Athenian Agora, etc.) and the sporadic material from the salvage excavations at Skala Oropou. Therefore, the dates provided for the findspots are subject to confirmation by further research at those findspots. The basic criteria for establishing the character and function of a site are its physical characteristics and natural resources; its size, measured in terms of the surface distribution of artifacts; the existence of architectural elements; the character and quantity of the finds; and van Andel and Runnel’s “dose of common sense”.176 The specific criteria we established at the onset of the project are shown in Table I. On the basis of these criteria, we followed a general classification into habitation and special function sites. In practice, it turned out the vast majority of the findspots are small habitation sites, classified as farmsteads,177 and that certain types of functions (villages, cult places, industrial sites) are minimally represented or not represented at all. Function:

Location/natural resources

Size

Architecture

Pottery

Other Stone

LargeMedium

Extensive; possible fortification walls

Large quantity and wide Large range of types quantity and wide (serving, range of storage, types consumption, miscellanea)

Tiles, bricks, possibly metal artifacts

Proximity to arable land and/or pasture fields

Small

Limited, if any

Fine domestic and coarse

Limited quantity and types

Tiles and bricks

Cult place (shrine, sanctuary)

Summits, caves, open areas

Small

Limited, if any

Ritual vases

Figurines

Figurines

Burial place (grave, tomb, cemetery)

Any location

Small

Possibly

Burial vases

Figurines

Figurines

Possibly

Discarded broken sherds, wasters

Moulds, tools

Tools

Combination of arable lands, pasture fields, trade routes, strategic location

Farmstead -incl. auxil. structures (storage facilities, animal folds, cisterns, etc.)

Habitation Village-hamlet

Industrial site (ceramic or metallurgical kilns, etc.)

Open area

Small

Table I: Classification and attributes of site function (for size classifications see below, p. 25)

Determining the precise character and function of a site, especially in the case of sites discovered by surface surveys, is a notoriously difficult task.178 Not only does the (usually) 24

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________________________________________________________________ fragmentary character of the surface material impede the unbiased analysis of the data, but most sites were used in more than one period and as a result, the material from each period is mixed with earlier or later material. Furthermore, in multi-period sites, certain periods tend to be seriously underrepresented: a typical example is the sparse prehistoric material in large Classical or Hellenistic sites. Long exposure of prehistoric artifacts to weather and wear and the repeated use and reuse of the site in later periods may bias our perception of the function of the site.179 Recent theoretical and methodological work has gone a long way towards establishing detailed criteria and definitions and in attempting to correct some of the biases in our perception of the material record. Central to this discussion is the definition of a “farmstead”, as the vast majority of sites discovered in archaeological surveys conform to what we would traditionally consider a rural farmer’s dwelling. The character of farmsteads changes from period to period and from one area to the other: they can range from a structure occupied throughout a year by the farmer and his family who are also the owners of the land, to seasonal sites used only at the time of the harvest, or even to a structure occupied by slaves. In the Oropia, we took the presence of certain types of artifacts (such as fine dinnerware, loomweights, and tiles180) to indicate a permanent site, occupied all year-round by the owner of the farm. In cases where such type-artifacts were not present, other considerations came into play in trying to establish the permanent or temporary character of a site: for example, a clearly advantageous location with accessibility to a wide range of natural resources, extensive and open views of the Euboian Gulf, and proximity to natural routes would indicate a careful and well-thought site selection, presumably of a longer-lasting nature. Size An important parameter in assessing the importance and characteristics of a findspot is its size. Despite the difficulties involved in estimating findspot size from the surface finds (mostly the natural and human processes that affect the surface distribution of finds and the complexity of surface distribution of artifacts from individual periods in multi-period sites), estimates of findspot size were attempted on the basis of the surface area covered by the finds (see below). For practical purposes, we classified habitation findspots into three categories: small (< 0.1 ha.), medium (0.1-1 ha.), and large (>1 ha.). Another aspect of size concerns the size of the properties around farm installations. No attempt was made to calculate property sizes around the findspots by drawing Thiessen polygons, because the dating of several findspots is uncertain; even when two adjacent findspots can be dated to the same century, there is no way of ensuring that they were absolutely contemporary and that there was no no-man’s land in-between.181 Continuity Continuity and discontinuity of site use can identify the degree of stability or disruption in rural life over the course of several periods.182 This can be done through the analysis of two sets of evidence: the percentage of sites that continue to be occupied from one period to another and the percentage of sites that are used for the first time in each period. Although the lack of a precise chronology of sites warrants caution in using such data, the examination of the characteristics of sites (such as function and size) can allow us to trace general trends in land use and exploitation and attempt to interpret them under the light of the social, political, economic, or cultural history of the region. Needless to say, the examination of the continuity factor relies on our ability to date surface finds with a high degree of precision. Hierarchy Differences in the physical characteristics of findspots and the derived inferences about variation in their functions suggest the existence of hierarchy. An implicit preliminary hierarchical distinction has already been made with the distinction between “findspots” and “sites”,183 depending on the quantity and functional range of finds. Although this distinction was made purely to facilitate 25

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ the methodological classification of the finds, it does suggest a division into a higher- and lowerorder centers. As higher-order centers are classified those sites that contain “all the functions found in lower-order”184 findspots (chiefly subsistence-oriented), as well as a range of more complex economic (trade and/or industry) and/or sociopolitical (administration) functions. Population It is generally accepted that size and number of findspots could serve as indications of population levels and demographic trends, as long as it is remembered that: (a) the number of findspots does not correspond directly to the size of population and that, therefore, fluctuations in the number of findspots do not reflect necessarily fluctuations in population;185 (b) the surface size of findspots does not necessarily reflect the actual size of the buildings that may be buried in a particular location;186 and (c) estimates of the number of inhabitants of each findspot have to consider also the function of that particular findspot. Population estimates by other surveys have been based on several assumptions, including that a farmstead would have been inhabited by a nuclear family of five members, thus the number of farmsteads multiplied by this number would give an estimate of the population of the area.187 There are, however, several parameters that make such calculations unreliable, from the uncertainty about the classification of sites as “farmsteads” to the number of people inhabiting in each “farmstead” (nuclear family, hired help, slaves, extended family?). Furthermore, the lack of precise dating for these findspots makes it impossible for us to establish their contemporaneity and, consequently, the total size of the population at any given point in time: estimating the population which may have lived in the countryside within a range of six to nine generations (a time period of two to three hundred years) does not provide any solid base for understanding the size of population. For example, an estimate of 1000 people in the “Hellenistic” period does not say anything about the fluctuations of habitation within a span of 300 years. Other efforts to establish demographic trends have been made by examining the quantity of pottery found at various findspots. This approach assumes, however, that the rate of pottery supply remains constant from one period to the other, and that it is the same for all the sites within the target area.188 I remain very skeptical towards attempts to overcome these assumptions by quantifying surface finds, because of the large number of factors that affect surface distribution; given the amount of speculation involved, I refrained from attempting any population estimates for the Oropia.

Field and data recovery methods The survey area was defined in 1988 by a topographic study using 1:5000 topographic maps and aerial photographs provided by the Hellenic Army Geographic Service. One of our primary concerns was to acquaint ourselves with the region and to establish a grid that would cover the entire territory of ancient Oropos. Starting from Amphiareion, we laid out a grid of squares 500 x 500 m, which both covered the entire survey area and allowed for future expansion (Figure 16). During six seasons of fieldwalking,189 we covered a total area of 22 sq km. The general plan called for work at three stages: a) field walking and detection of concentrations of artifacts on the surface of the ground; b) detailed analysis and study of these concentrations and their natural environment; c) synthesis of data, definition of diachronic development of settlement pattern, and explanation. In practice, despite our efforts to be consistent, we quickly found out that practical issues required a certain degree of flexibility. For example, the number of team members had to be adjusted depending on the overall number of participants, which varied from year to year.190 As our permit did not allow collection of artifacts for later study (except for lithics and other “spceial” finds), decisions had to be made during fieldwalking, as to the immediate study and recording of sites and finds.191 Studying a site when it was discovered slowed down our work considerably; in order to cope with the delay and at the same time maintain the close coverage of the area,192 we had to increase the person-hours spent in the field. Each team comprised six to eight students and was 26

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________________________________________________________________ led by a professional archaeologist. The nature of the project (field school and credit course for the University of Manitoba) facilitated the recognition of artifacts in the field, as all students and volunteers had to attend seminars on Greek archaeology in Winnipeg and lectures on Greek artifacts and pottery in the museums of Greece (especially the Athens National Museum and the archaeological museum of Eretria) before and during the project. This gave them the ability to identify and date the most characteristic pottery wares from the main periods of Greek history. At the same time, field days were interspersed with days of classes and seminars on Greek civilization and as a result, the progress of the survey was slower than what one might have expected. The teams walked in a straight line (Figure 14), usually in an east-west direction and their members were equally spaced at intervals of 15 m from each other. This interval was empirically decided to be sufficient for full coverage of the walking area,193 as the surveyors were responsible for a circular area with a radius of 7.5 m around them.194 Although occasionally this distance had to

Figure 14: Fieldwalking

be decreased because of low visibility, or increased because of rugged terrain, in general the teams had no difficulty maintaining it. In general, this proved to be an effective distance, as we were able to recover very small findspots. Factors that may have distorted data recovery by affecting visibility (such as weather, crops, spring growth, conditions of field, etc.) were recorded, but not quantified.195 At the end of the square the walkers turned around, shifted laterally, and walked back the opposite direction. When a surface concentration of artifacts was identified it was assigned a number, consisting of the year of its discovery and a number in increasing order, e.g. 89/5 (the same numbering system was used for both sites and findspots, as at the time of discovery the difference was not always apparent). Then, it was plotted on the topographic map and as much information as possible about its location, topography, physical environment, and natural resources was recorded (Table II). The edge of the findspot was marked by a mental line encompassing the area with a constant (high or 27

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ low) frequency in relation to its surrounding area. This was established in an empirical manner: the general rule we followed was that this line was placed at the point where a significant decrease in the frequency of surface finds could be observed.196 The size of the findspot was calculated by multiplying the length of the two longest vertical axes of this area (hence the deceivingly precise to the meter measurements of some findspots). In cases of large findspots with complex topographical features, members of the team paced the distances among these features and generated a topographic map after the number of paces was converted to meters. Then the possible center was defined as the area with the highest number of artifacts. This was done as follows: first we determined the area with

SITE # SQUARE LOCATION ALTITUDE SLOPE VIEW GEOMORPHOLOGY SOIL WATER VEGETATION PRESENT USE SURFACE DIMENSIONS: N-S DIMENSIONS: EAST-WEST NEAREST CONT. SITE DESCRIPTION OF SITE BUILDING ACTIVITY/DANGER DISTURBANCE EROSION LOGBOOK SITE PLAN PHOTO ROLL PHOTO # DATE OF VISIT REMARKS Table II: Site datasheet sample

the highest density of artifacts by dividing the findspot into numbered sectors and covering each sector in detail. Once the area with the highest number of artifacts was determined through general consensus of the surveyors, we laid out a row of 4 x 4 m squares in a north-south direction or whichever way the topography allowed. The artifacts in each square were counted and the area with the highest number of finds was determined; right at that spot, we laid out a vertical (east-west) row of squares, forming a cross with the first one. The possible center of the findspot was defined by a circle, whose center lay at the point where the two rows met and whose radius was equal to the number of squares containing the densest distribution of finds. Despite the fact that surface distribution of artifacts does not necessarily reflect the distribution of subsurface cultural remains, we still thought that locating the possible center of the site in relation to its perimeter would give us a good idea of the surface density of artifacts. At the same time, an overall count with concurrent 28

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________________________________________________________________ POTTERY PERIOD DENSITY (per 100 sq m) Plain

Painted/Coated

Grooved

Other

Bases

Rims

Handles

Body fragments

Rooftiles/bricks

PRESERVATION DRAWINGS PHOTO ROLL PHOTO NOS. Table III: Pottery database sheet

dating of finds from the findspots was conducted. Mechanical clickers197 were not used, as they only provide a general count of finds, without consideration of the chronological distribution or functional character of the finds. The size of the findspot was calculated by multiplying the length of two main lines, one running north-south and a second line running in an east-west direction (the lines extended for as long as the artifact density kept above one artifact per sq m). Although in theory this gave us some idea of the approximate size of the findspot, in reality findspots are not rectangular.198 As it is generally accepted that the extent of the surface distribution of artifacts does not reflect accurately the size of the buried site, we decided that using more elaborate (and resource-consuming) techniques of estimating site size would be counter-productive; in the end, we made a conscious decision of trying to estimate only approximate size variation. 199 Once the physical characteristics of the findspot were noted, we turned to the recording and examination of the surface artifacts. The finds were recorded in datasheets (Table III, Table IV), the 29

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ diagnostic artifacts were described in detail, drawn, and photographed. Although this kind of onthe-spot analysis allowed us the luxury of having an immediate and detailed picture of the functional and chronological variation in the artifactual assemblage of the site, it did slow down the progress of our work and had to be balanced by occasional increases in the person-hours spent in the field. We revisited the most interesting findspots at the end of each season and also in the years after the end of the project, to check possible changes in the surface distribution of artifacts. Although in the LITHICS

Plain

Dent.

Backed

Pointed Irreg Round Retouch Tab. Con Other

Blades Flakes Cores DRAWINGS PHOTO ROLL PHOTO NOS. LOOMWGTS Conical

Pear-shaped Discshaped

Other

Date Parallels DRAWINGS PHOTO ROLL PHOTO NOS.

OTHER STONE Type Date Parallels DRAWINGS PHOTO ROLL PHOTO NOS. OTHER Type Date Parallels DRAWINGS PHOTO ROLL PHOTO NOS.

Table IV: Miscellaneous finds datasheet

first two years of the survey the technical and financial means for computerizing data were lacking, after 1991 this became possible and the data were entered into a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet. After the completion of the project, in 1995, the photographs and drawings were scanned. The practice of studying in detail only diagnostic finds, which we followed during fieldwork, unavoidably led to biases in the assessment of the representation of periods with low visibility, especially in large multiperiod sites. Some of these biases were corrected through a detailed reexamination of the findspots 30

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 15: Site information recording

years after the original visits, undertaken with a more educated knowledge of the theoretical and methodological problems involved with identifying low-visibility periods. The main bias of the original study of the findspots was the under-representation of prehistoric material among the surface scatters of later sites, mostly of the late Classical and Hellenistic periods.200 During the more recent re-examination of those findspots, with the specific view of searching for prehistoric sherds, almost always we managed to identify a few sherds that can be classified as “Bronze Age” but cannot be dated with more precision.

31

K

I

Q

H

Z

E

D

G

1

3

4

5

6

0

1 km

7

8

9

10

11

Figure 16: The findspots and the grid

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

Oropos Survey Project

2

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

0

1 km

Neo

BA

MH

LH

Figure 17: Distribution map of Bronze Age findspots

EH

Oropos Survey Project Bronze Age Sites

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

0

1 km

5th Century B.C.

Figure 18: Distribution map of Classical findspots

4th Century B.C.

Oropos Survey Project Classical Sites

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

0

1 km

3rd-2nd Century B.C.

Figure 19: Distribution map of Hellenistic findspots

1st Century B.C.

Oropos Survey Project Hellenistic Sites

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

0

Figure 20: Distribution map of Early and Middle Roman findspots

3rd-4th Century A.D.

Oropos Survey Project Early and Middle Roman Sites

1st-2nd Century A.D.

1 km

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

0

1 km

Figure 21: Distribution map of Late Roman findspots

5th-7th Century A.D.

Oropos Survey Project Late Roman Sites

Drawn by Chris Mundigler

V. FINDSPOTS AND FINDS

General information on the findspots During six seasons of fieldwork, the OSP identified and recorded 58 new findspots, (Figure 16) in an area of 22 sq km, yielding an average density of 2.6 findspots per sq km. The majority of these findspots (48 out of 58) were occupied in more than one periods (Table XIV). The discussion follows the generally accepted division into periods, but an effort is made to reconstruct the evolution of human presence in the area in closer chronological terms, in order to arrive to some meaningful conclusions about the historical developments in the rural Oropia.201

13

Bronze Age Neolithic 1 5

EH MH 1 LH

2

5th c.

14

3

4th c.

23 16

3rd-2nd c BC 1st c. BC 1st-2nd c. AD 3rd-4th c. AD 5th-7th c. AD

4

4

1 9

1 14

2 21 Certain

5 Possible

Figure 22: Chronological distribution of sites

From the Neolithic to the Archaic period In total, we identified 20 findspots with prehistoric material, the majority of which are located in the area of Vlastos and around Skala Oropou (Figure 17). As a rule, prehistoric findspots are smaller than 1 ha., with the exception of 91/17, 93/3, 93/6, and 94/1, which have also extensive later components. Although no patterning in the spatial distribution of prehistoric and later material was discernible at those findspots, it seems likely that the Bronze Age component was limited, especially given the generally small size of Bronze Age findspots in both our survey area and other parts of Greece.202 The earliest traces of habitation in the area date to the Neolithic. A sherd found on the north slope of hill l (findspot 90/11, Figure 23) belongs to a well-known type of the Early Neolithic: it is a body fragment with a lug with vertical perforation from a bowl, with smeared brown surface (Figure 27a, 90/11). Other traces of Stone Age activity were not found in the area, except for a flint core, an 38

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________ obsidian core, and a celt discovered at the beginning of the century by Leonardos on the right bank of the river of the sanctuary of Amphiaraos.203

Figure 23: View of 90/11 from the southeast (the arrow indicates the spot where the Neolithic sherd was found)

It is in the third millennium that the first certain signs of habitation appear, with five EH findspots. Lofos Gliati (89/5, Figure 24) dates to the late EH I/early EH II and the other four findspots to the advanced EH II (see below). These findspots are located in the area of Vlastos (89/5, 89/13, 90/2) and on the hills around the valley of Avlotopi valley (89/2, 90/9).204 They are all small (0.2 to 1 ha.),205 with intersite distances ranging from 200-1000 m. All the EH findspots are located near fertile lands with light soils and in the proximity of pasture lands. Lofos Taktikou (89/13) has the most advantageous location, as it is situated on the coast and in proximity to the fertile plain of Vlastos.

Figure 24: Lofos Gliati (findspot 89/5) looking towards the south

39

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ The EH pottery consists primarily of coarse sherds, few fine red-slipped and polished EH I/early EH II sherds, and even fewer EH II Urfirnis sherds. The shapes represented are pithoi with orange or reddish-orange fabric and grey cores, decorated with rope- or finger-decoration (Figure 27g from 89/13; c from 90/2); basins with horizontal tubular handles, brown fabric and a dull red slip, occasionally with polished surfaces (Figure 27h, 89/13); bowls with straight or inturned lipless rims and flat bases, red or orange fabric, and slipped and polished surfaces (Figure 27d from 89/13; e from 90/2); bowls with rolled rims, brown fabric, and polished surfaces (Figure 27b, 90/2); and sauceboats with straight rims, fine orange or red fabric, and urfirnis surfaces. As mentioned, the earliest sherds were found at Lofos Gliati (89/5) and belong to the red-slipped and polished varieties of late EH I/early EH II. Typically EH II Urfirnis wares and sauceboat fragments have been found only at Lofos Taktikou (89/13; Figure 25).206 All EH pottery is handmade. Besides pottery, the finds from these findspots include a number of stone tools (mostly conical and cylindrical pounders and rubbers, Figure 59:1,3), a fragment of a quern from Lofos Taktikou, one discoid clay spindle whorl (from 90/2, Figure 48q, Figure 59:2), obsidian blades and flakes and one obsidian core207 (Figure 33), also from Lofos Taktikou. Lithic scatters without pottery have not been found. The absence of elements of the Kastri/Lefkandi culture and of EH III material indicates that the area ceases to be inhabited at the end of EH II.208 In the MH period, the Oropia seems also depopulated, as the only known findspot is the large (3.3 ha.) MH/LH site discovered by Petrakos at Sohoria (91/21),209 a fertile alluvial plain with loam grey-brown soils, immediately to the southeast of Skala Oropou.210 The pottery from Sohoria consists of MH matt-painted and Grey-Minyan sherds,

Figure 25: Lofos Taktikou (89/13) from the west (left). View from the top of Lofos Taktikou towards the east (right)

Figure 26: Panoramic view of 90/2 from the southeast

40

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 27: Sections of Bronze Age pottery

mostly necks from jars (Figure 27i), kantharoi with angular profiles (Figure 27l,m), ring-stemmed goblets, and goblets with rounded bowls211 that date to the Mature Minyan and Late phases, suggesting that the site was inhabited sometime towards the end of the MH period. Late MH/LH I sherds brought to light by the late Artemis Onassoglou and, more recently, by Penelope Agallopoulou in a salvage excavation in Old Oropos (outside the area of our survey) constitute the earliest evidence for habitation in the region during the Late Bronze Age.212 Within our survey area itself, the earliest material dates to LH IIA213 and was found at Sohoria (Figure 27j,h,r,s). It is entirely possible that the absence of LH I material from this site is accidental and that Sohoria may, in fact, have been continuously inhabited in the transition from MH to LH. The extent of habitation in each one of these periods cannot be established, as MH and LH IIA sherds were found mixed with each other. On the other hand, expansion is observable clearly after LH II, as the spatial distribution of LH IIIA1-IIIA2 pottery is wider than that of LH II.214 The LH IIIA2 material represents the last period of occupation of the site as LH IIIB or IIIC material was not found. The other site with evidence for occupation in the Mycenaean period is Lofos Taktikou. After a hiatus in the MH, this site is reoccupied sometime in LH IIIA1 and continues to be inhabited in LH IIIB.215 A 41

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ few Mycenaean vases from the near-by location of Ayioi Anargyroi likely came from graves,216 for which the only possible accompanying settlement could be Lofos Taktikou. The material from these graves dates to LH IIIA1-IIIB,217 which agrees with the pottery from Lofos Taktikou (Figure 27k,o,p,q). Besides these two sites, the only other indications for Mycenaean habitation come from Skala Oropou, where a third Mycenaean settlement seems to have existed,218 and Old Oropos (outside our survey area), where parts of a LH IIIB2 building have been uncovered.219 The range of artifacts from these sites is limited: coarse storage and cooking pottery and few pieces of fine pottery, some with traces of worn black or brown paint. All the finer pieces seem to have been locally manufactured, as indicated by the lack of sherds with well-levigated fabrics and the universal lack of good quality slips. Besides pottery, notable is the absence of any imported objects that would indicate connections with the rest of the Aegean or beyond and of luxury or prestige items that would indicate some kind of social and economic differentiation. Furthermore, our survey did not locate any fortification walls, tholos tombs, chamber tombs, or graves of the Mycenaean period. A geophysical survey was not conducted at Sohoria,220 but we should consider the possibility that the linear features detected by the magnetometer at Lofos Taktikou could belong to walls dating to the Mycenaean period. Despite intensive efforts to locate Proto-Geometric, Geometric, and Archaic remains, our survey did not discover any signs of habitation from the twelveth to the end of the sixth century BC and it would seem that that part of the countryside of the Oropia was abandoned. The picture of an abandoned countryside contrasts markedly with the situation at Skala Oropou/Nea Palatia. Here, excavations undertaken for the II Ephoreia of Antiquities by the late Aliki Dhragona and, more recently, for the Athens Archaeological Society by Alexandros Mazarakis-Ainian have brought to light impressive remains of the Geometric period. These include apsidal, rectangular, and circular buildings with metallurgical installations, possible cult places and even defense walls.221 The character of the finds is far from impoverished and indicates that Oropos was not isolated, but maintained contacts with other parts of the Aegean and even Egypt or Asia.222

The Lithic finds (James Newhard) The Material223 The assemblage consists of 126 pieces of obsidian, identified as coming from Melos on the basis of visual characteristics common to Melian obsidian.224 Non-obsidian chipped stone tools have not been found, although some pieces of siliceous slate and chert, products of natural flaking processes were found mixed up in the assemblage. All lithics were examined under both artificial and natural light. Length, width, and thickness were measured to the nearest 0.1mm using standard laboratory calipers, and the weight was taken to the nearest 0.01g using a portable balance scale which was calibrated daily. Measurements were taken using the bulb of percussion and the direction of its radiating bands as the length axis, and using the widest part of the piece 90° from the length as the width axis. Thickness was measured at the thickest part of the piece after the bulb of percussion or, in its absence, the thickest section of the piece. All edges were inspected for retouch or utilization using a 20x hand lens. The data were entered into a Microsoft Access database and statistically manipulated using SAS StatView. Theoretical Considerations Chipped stone tool production is dependent upon many variables. Such variables include those affecting raw material acquisition, tool production, and tool maintenance. The variables can reflect differing social expectations and practices, technical constraints of the raw material, and the overall 42

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________ “cost” of the tool in terms of both acquisition and investment in production methods. While the variables are numerous, a close analysis of the assemblage can illuminate the strategies behind the particular production and use of chipped stone in a given site or region.225 This analysis of the underlying strategies of the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chipped stone is known as studying the chain of operations (or in French, chaînes opératoires) in the development of the artifact assemblage.226 Blank Typology Throughout the Aegean Bronze Age, obsidian, rhyolite, chert, and other siliceous stones were used to make chipped-stone tools. Numerous techno-typological studies have shown that by the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age the peoples of the Aegean had begun employing a standardized method for producing prismatic blades by using pressure flaking.227 The scholars who have worked in the Aegean have all constructed similar typologies, with slight variations responding to methodological considerations particular to their body of material. The OSP material is organized according to a system based on the one used by the Argolid Exploration Project.228 This system avoids the merging of all non-cortical flakes into one group, when in actuality several different stages of the reduction sequence may have been represented. The system is similar to the one used for the Bronze Age material at Lerna and Ayios Stephanos, facilitating comparison with material from those sites. The flaked-stone material was divided into nine categories: blades, crested blades, débris, indeterminate, primary flakes, prismatic blades, secondary decortication flakes, secondary flakes, and tertiary flakes. A breakdown of the assemblage according to these categories is found in Table V. Blank Blade Crested blade Débris Indeterminate Primary flake Prismatic blade Secondary decortication flake Secondary flake Tertiary flake Total

N % 1 0.8 1 0.8 2 1.6 2 1.6 7 5.6 35 27.8 24 19 19 15 35 27.8 126 100

Table V: Distribution of blank types

Blades Any piece of chipped stone, which has an original length twice the size of the width, should be termed a blade.229 From the OSP, one blade fits this broad category, while thirty-five could be termed “prismatic” blades. These blades contain parallel or near-parallel margins with a polygonal (usually triangular or trapezoidal) cross section. The single non-prismatic blade (17, found on site 90/2) shows distinct curvature in cross section and non-parallel sides. According to work done by Robin Torrence and John Cherry, such a blade has more in common with assemblages dating to the Neolithic period.230 89/13: 128 90/2: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 72

90/4: 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90 90/7: 103 43

91/14: none Other: 120, 121, 122

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Crested Blades These are blades that have an artificially produced arris, made by the removal of flakes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. These blades were produced in the initial stages of blade production, the artificial arris being used to remove the initial blade. Only one example of a crested blade was noted in the OSP material (1, from 90/2). This piece was also retouched and utilized. Débris The category “débris” refers to a type of material, which is usually angular or irregular in shape and does not show the marks typical of flaked stone. Such pieces are typical by-products of any stage in the reduction sequence. 89/13: none 90/2: 66

90/4: 96 90/7: none

91/14: none Other: none

Flakes The flakes of the OSP have been divided into five subcategories, dependent upon their length and amount of cortex present. Primary flakes are those pieces, which have greater than 50 percent of their dorsal surface covered with cortex, while secondary decortication flakes contain less than 50 percent. Pieces which contain no cortex have been divided into three categories: secondary flakes, tertiary flakes, and trimming flakes. Size is the defining variable. Secondary flakes are those longer than 1.75 cm, tertiary flakes are between 1.75 cm and 0.50 cm, and trimming flakes are less than 0.50cm. No trimming flakes were found by the OSP. Primary Flakes

89/13: none 90/2: 20, 44, 45, 46, 50, 61 Secondary Decortication Flakes 89/13: 124 90/2: 21, 22, 25, 32, 38, 42, 43, 48, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 67, 70, 71, 73, 74

90/4: none 90/7: none

91/14: none Other: 110

90/4: 95 90/7: 108

91/14: Other: 111

90/4: none 90/7: none

91/14: none Other: 112, 113, 114, 115

90/4: 85, 87, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 90/7: 104, 105, 106, 107

91/14: 109

Secondary Flakes

89/13: 123, 126, 127 90/2: 26, 28, 47, 49, 52, 55, 56 Tertiary Flakes

89/13: 125 90/2: 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 57, 62, 64, 65, 68

44

Other: 116, 117

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 28: Lithics 1-18 (by Pege Kalogerakou)

45

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 29: Lithics 19-36 (by Pege Kalogerakou)

46

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 30: Lithics 37-50 (by Pege Kalogerakou)

47

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 31: Lithics 51-65 (by Pege Kalogerakou)

48

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 32:Lithics 66-86 (by Pege Kalogerakou)

49

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 33: Lithics 87-108 (by Pege Kalogerakou)

50

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________ Retouched/Utilized Pieces Before discussing retouch, a word must be said about the nature of obsidian in relation to the environmental conditions that the artifacts were exposed to over the centuries. Obsidian is a form of volcanic glass, and by nature is particularly brittle and easily flaked. As a result, various site formation processes (such as weathering, erosion, transportation, and trampling) may leave their mark upon obsidian tools in the form of flaking patterns. Because of the length of time involved, these flake scars can be mistaken for retouch or utilization scars. As a result, rather strict criteria must be met before a piece is designated as either “retouched” or “utilized.” For the purpose of this study, “retouch” is defined as occurring when three or more adjacent flake scars oriented in the same general direction have been found.231 If an artifact has been labeled as “utilized,” a regular series of minute flake scars or signs of crushing were seen along a margin, distinguishable from the more random and haphazard scarring and crushing resulting from a depositional environment. This is not to say that the only artifacts that were used are ones that show some macroscopically visible form of scarring. Experiments by the author in using stone tools to cut or scrape soft objects such as hide, meat, and soft plant fibers have produced microscopic wear patterns without macroscopically visible utilization scars. While the retouched and utilized pieces – the “tools” of the assemblage – were obviously used or intended to be used for a particular function, that function can only be inferred from a typological perspective. Microwear analysis – either the low or high-powered method – was not included in this study because of the uncertainty of its results: although suitable for discerning functional characteristics of chert implements, microwear analysis on obsidian is problematic because of the brittle nature and different surface characteristics of the material. Furthermore, despite the success of Hurcombe’s work in microwear analysis of obsidian,232 a wide variety of processes interferes with the functional analysis of obsidian tools, including trampling, soil movements, patinations, hydration, water action, heat, agricultural practices, excavation, and storage methods.233 Since the OSP material was highly exposed to the elements, it was decided that it would not be a suitable assemblage for microwear analysis. Therefore, any assignment of a particular tool type to a particular function must be seen as a mere suggestion. In assigning retouched tool categories, a method used by Kardulias and Runnels was employed.234 The method is based largely upon a locational description of the retouch, coupled by the use of several terms used widely in lithic analysis. Those terms include notched pieces, burins, denticulates, truncated pieces, geometrics, and pièces esquilleés. All retouched pieces were described in regards to the location, extent, and general morphological characteristics of the particular retouch present, regardless of typological class. Fifty-three pieces have been identified as having been utilized or modified by retouch. Eleven tool types have been identified within the assemblage. A summary is found in Table VI. Several noteworthy features can be seen. Type Blades Flakes Total N% N% N % Utilized pieces 6 23.2 15 60 21 38.3 Lateral retouch 3 11.5 5 20 8 14.6 Notched pieces 4 15.3 0 0 4 7.2 Denticulates 1 3.8 1 4 2 3.6 Truncated Pieces 9 34.7 0 0 9 16.3 Perçoirs/Becs 1 3.8 0 0 1 1.8 Scrapers 0 0 1 4 1 1.8 Burins 2 7.7 3 12 5 9.1 Pièces esquilleés 0 0 0 0 4 7.3 Total 26 100 25 100 55 100 Table VI: Breakdown of tool types

51

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Blades or Flakes with Lateral Retouch Eight pieces fell within this category – four blades and four flakes. One flake (106) contained steep retouch along one margin and can be said to have been “backed.” The functional uses for this type are various and cannot be described presently beyond general-purpose tools for cutting and scraping materials such as wood, bone, shell, hides, meat, and plant. Two of the tools in this category also showed signs of utilization, one of which (21) was along the same margin of retouch. Blades

89/13: none 90/2: 4, 6, 15

90/4: none 90/7: none

91/14: none Other: none

90/4: 100 90/7: 106

91/14: none Other: none

Flakes

89/13: none 90/2: 20, 21, 30

Notched Pieces “Notched pieces” are those that have at least one margin altered by retouch to form a concave section along an already straight margin. Four notched pieces were found, all formed on blades. 89/13: none 90/4: 86 91/14: none 90/2: 1 90/7: 103 Other: 121 Denticulates “Denticulates” are notched pieces that contain a series of notches along at least one margin. Two blanks – one blade and one flake – could be designated as denticulates. often these pieces also contain silica gloss – a shiny mechanical/chemical reaction caused by cutting grasses or grains.235 No silica gloss was found on the OSP pieces, and their actual uses remain unknown. 89/13: none 90/4: 79, 80 91/14: none 90/2: none 90/7: none Other: none Truncated Pieces Truncated pieces are blanks, which have their proximal, or distal ends removed. Because of the tendency of obsidian lithics to break and snap on these ends as a result of non-human factors, truncations have been assigned only if the margin was removed by more than one deliberate blow, which resulted in more than one noticeable flake scar. Seven examples show signs of utilization (12, 13, 34, 78, 83, 89, 93). All nine truncations are on blades. 89/13: none 90/4: 78, 83, 89, 93 91/14: none 90/2: 12, 13, 17, 34, 39 90/7: none Other: none Burins “Burins” are blanks that have at least one flake removed by using the proximal or distal margins (in rare cases one of the lateral margins) as a platform. In the Aegean, the effect of this retouch often results in the narrowing of the width of the blank (possibly useful for hafting purposes) or the creation of a pointed edge to facilitate the tool’s use. Functionally, the latter type most likely acted as incisors or engravers – any function that required a fine, pointed edge. Five burins were found in the OSP. Blades

89/13: none 90/2: none

90/4: 81, 88 90/7: none

91/14: none Other: none

90/4: 92 90/7: none

91/14: none Other: none

Flakes

89/13: none 90/2: 60, 74

52

FINDSPOTS AND FINDS _______________________________________________________________________________ Pièces Esquillées Four pièces esquillées were found by the OSP. These blanks are usually rectangular in shape, with large invasive flake scars found on both ventral and dorsal surfaces. often the scars originate from opposite margins. Runnels suggests that these pieces served as tinder flints,236 since the striking of steel against obsidian and chert pieces produced similar scarring.237 89/13: none 90/4: 102 91/14: none 90/2: 48, 54, 56 90/7: none Other: none Perçoirs/Becs Perçoirs are tools that have a pronounced retouched tip.238 Becs likewise have a pronounced tip, but their projection is formed by two contiguous notches – one inverse and the other direct.239 Debénanth and Dibble termed these as “alternate retouched becs”.240 In the Argolid Exploration Project, perçoirs and becs were found on small flakes.241 In this study, Kardulias and Runnels noted that microwear studies in North America by Yerkes indicated that similarly shaped implements were used to pierce or drill holes in hides and shells.242 They also suggested that the implements were used for incising or piercing similar materials, including ivory, pottery, and wood.243 One example (72, from 90/2) exists from the OSP of this particular tool form. Site n Keos 67 Keos 39 Keos 60 Anavolousa Mavrispilia Saliagos Kephala Kitsos Laconia E48(80) Laconia E77 Laconia B111 Laconia B116 Laconia U489 Southern Argolid Laconia P269 Laconia R287 Aghia Irini Nemea Korakochorio Pyrgos Knossos Royal Road Total Pylakopi Total Phylakopi Obsidian Deposit Southern Argolid Aghios Stephanos Lerna III Lerna IV Lerna V Midea, 1990 Season OSP 1990/2 OSP 1990/4

274 15 47 49 45 35 26 48

902 2058 517 308 120 318 462 189 34 18 12

avg 1.12 1.22 1.25 1.21 1.15 1.29 1.44 1.17 1.01 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.92 1.04 0.96 0.84 0.97 1.11 0.89 0.91 0.83 1.09 0.98 0.86 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.90 0.90 1.01

Width sd

cv

n

0.31 0.23 0.19 0.24 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.19

30.82 26.24 23.60 27.83 30.63 27.90 29.15 22.72

274 15 47 49 45 35 26 48

0.23 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.29 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.34

27.70 28.40 31.60 27.90 31.20 25.00 29.60 28.30 25.14 22.90 34.00

902 2059 517 308 120 318 462 189 34 18 12

Thickness avg sd cv 0.32 0.29 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.11 37.43 0.28 0.08 29.73 0.26 0.09 35.14 0.28 0.09 34.60 0.29 0.19 67.20 0.28 0.08 28.60 0.28 0.09 34.38 0.26 0.08 31.80 0.29 0.30 0.33 0.29 0.22 0.08 36.40 0.34 0.19 55.90 0.31 0.16 51.60 0.26 0.08 30.80 0.26 0.09 34.60 0.26 0.07 26.90 0.27 0.08 29.60 0.29 0.09 31.00 0.28 0.08 29.09 0.26 0.12 46.80 0.32 0.08 26.00

Table VII: Exploratory Statistics for Bronze Age Prismatic Blades.244

53

Period Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age Bronze Age

OROPOS _______________________________________________________________________________ Conclusions Chronology

Robin Torrence addressed the topic of dating lithic assemblages in her work with John Cherry on Bronze Age lithic assemblages in the Cyclades.245 They identified the increased standardization of blade width, coupled with an increase in platform preparation and a general decrease in the dimensions of platforms of prismatic blades as chronological markers. These initial trends were substantiated in works by Carter, Ydo, Newhard, Kardulias, and Runnels.246 As illustrated in Figure 34, the assemblage from the OSP falls within this general pattern for Bronze Age Aegean lithic industries. What little variability lies in the OSP material is insignificant (t = -20.69; p